Question for all in the oral camp

F

faire_jour

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
3
Can I just ask,what does it hurt to give a deaf child ASL?
 
Good question, faire jour. But I doubt that you will get many replies, because all the reasons that the oralists come up with have already been disproven. To answer would mean that they would have to make their irrational bias blatantly obvious, and they try to keep it hidden under a thin veil of noble rhetoric.
 
faire_jour said:
Can I just ask,what does it hurt to give a deaf child ASL?
Click to expand...

I don't really want to get into this, either but consider this: It's a big novelty thing now that it's cool to teach HEARING babies ASL but not DEAF babies? makes me laugh....
 
Tousi said:
I don't really want to get into this, either but consider this: It's a big novelty thing now that it's cool to teach HEARING babies ASL but not DEAF babies? makes me laugh....
Click to expand...

And if someone takes the signing route with their deaf babies, they are criticized by the professionals in the medical community especially by the CI doctors.
 
shel90 said:
And if someone takes the signing route with their deaf babies, they are criticized by the professionals in the medical community especially by the CI doctors.
Click to expand...

Could it be that the CI professionals see alternative methods as a threat to their ability to convince parents that CI is necessary for full functioning?
 
jillio said:
Could it be that the CI professionals see alternative methods as a threat to their ability to convince parents that CI is necessary for full functioning?
Click to expand...

I cant speak for them. I have a feeling it is from the old myths of ASL interfering with spoken language development, isolating the deaf children, and so forth and their refusal to really open up their minds from a medical view of deafness.

What baffles me is reading experiences from different parents in other forums or articles about the doctors taking on the position as educational consultants!!! Now, that is very unethical of them as they are not trained in the field of Deaf education.
 
faire_jour said:
Can I just ask,what does it hurt to give a deaf child ASL?
Click to expand...

Fifty years ago my father did not want me to grow up with the limits of my grandparents. People who attended to deaf school and signed, pretty much socialized only with each other, and had a terrible time communicating at all just for necessary daily functioning.

So I was raised oral environment and mainstreamed. My hearing father knew much more ASL than I.

Now technology has improved immensely. It is not necessary to be oral to communicate.

I am not advocating no ASL. I think it very beneficial, and wish I knew much more than I do.

But when the oral camp started, it did make sense.
 
shel90 said:
I cant speak for them. I have a feeling it is from the old myths of ASL interfering with spoken language development, isolating the deaf children, and so forth and their refusal to really open up their minds from a medical view of deafness.

What baffles me is reading experiences from different parents in other forums or articles about the doctors taking on the position as educational consultants!!! Now, that is very unethical of them as they are not trained in the field of Deaf education.
Click to expand...

I personally think that the professionals are educated enough to see the huge holes in this outdated philosophy, but hang onto it as a manipulation technique when dealing with hearing parents.
 
Bottesini said:
Fifty years ago my father did not want me to grow up with the limits of my grandparents. People who attended to deaf school and signed, pretty much socialized only with each other, and had a terrible time communicating at all just for necessary daily functioning.

So I was raised oral environment and mainstreamed. My hearing father knew much more ASL than I.

Now technology has improved immensely. It is not necessary to be oral to communicate.

I am not advocating no ASL. I think it very beneficial, and wish I knew much more than I do.

But when the oral camp started, it did make sense.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with deaf people wanting to socialize with only each other? We are humans after all. I dont understand the view that deaf people must socialize with hearing people to be able to function. We are all humans regardless of our hearing status.

*note..this is not to criticiz you, just criticizing the oralists' view on that issue*
 
Bottesini said:
Fifty years ago my father did not want me to grow up with the limits of my grandparents. People who attended to deaf school and signed, pretty much socialized only with each other, and had a terrible time communicating at all just for necessary daily functioning.

So I was raised oral environment and mainstreamed. My hearing father knew much more ASL than I.

Now technology has improved immensely. It is not necessary to be oral to communicate.

I am not advocating no ASL. I think it very beneficial, and wish I knew much more than I do.

But when the oral camp started, it did make sense.
Click to expand...

It made sense on the surface. All of the variables were not included. Not to discount your experience or your parent's decisions at all, BTW.
 
jillio said:
It made sense on the surface. All of the variables were not included. Not to discount your experience or your parent's decisions at all, BTW.
Click to expand...

I understand you do not discount it. Today kids who get the BIBI program would have it all and have great lives. For a lot of my grandparents generation, it really was pathetic. And jobs were pretty much manual labor, like pressman for the newspaper, since it was loud and hearing did not want it. They also put a big burden on their kids to help them. I don't really require help.

I'm not saying this very well, since it looks like I am trying to support oral. I am not. BIBI is better than either of the old ways.

I will try to shut up now.:eek3:
 
Bottesini said:
I understand you do not discount it. Today kids who get the BIBI program would have it all and have great lives. For a lot of my grandparents generation, it really was pathetic. And jobs were pretty much manual labor, like pressman for the newspaper, since it was loud and hearing did not want it. They also put a big burden on their kids to help them. I don't really require help.

I'm not saying this very well, since it looks like I am trying to support oral. I am not. BIBI is better than either of the old ways.

I will try to shut up now.:eek3:
Click to expand...

No, no need to shut up. It would be nice to see someone's view on the oralists from back that time.

We already have so many views on it from the 80s to now but what about back then. I am interested to learn. :)
 
Bottesini said:
I understand you do not discount it. Today kids who get the BIBI program would have it all and have great lives. For a lot of my grandparents generation, it really was pathetic. And jobs were pretty much manual labor, like pressman for the newspaper, since it was loud and hearing did not want it. They also put a big burden on their kids to help them. I don't really require help.

I'm not saying this very well, since it looks like I am trying to support oral. I am not. BIBI is better than either of the old ways.

I will try to shut up now.:eek3:
Click to expand...

Oh, no. I understand where you are coming from. But the deaf schools of your parent's and grandparent's generation were functioning under the oral movement that started with the Milan Congress. The problems seen there can be directly related to the move away from bi-bi education into an oral only environment. I will agree that there were many problems at that time, and some of those problems continue into today. But I see them as the move toward oralism.

And I agree with Shel. Please keep posting your views. I find them enlightening.
 
jillio said:
Oh, no. I understand where you are coming from. But the deaf schools of your parent's and grandparent's generation were functioning under the oral movement that started with the Milan Congress. The problems seen there can be directly related to the move away from bi-bi education into an oral only environment. I will agree that there were many problems at that time, and some of those problems continue into today. But I see them as the move toward oralism.
Click to expand...

The people I knew from my grandparents generation were ASL signers. Not really oral . These are people from the turn of the last century. My dad's best friend was a CODA who was a cop. He was the interpreter if any deaf got arrested. The old people I remember were not oral.

That is what limited them. They could not communicate. It was hard if they even needed help in a store.

Both is good. I don't want to offend anyone. But I am glad I can ask for things I need and am a pretty fluent speechreader.
 
Bottesini said:
The people I knew from my grandparents generation were ASL signers. Not really oral . These are people from the turn of the last century. My dad's best friend was a CODA who was a cop. He was the interpreter if any deaf got arrested. The old people I remember were not oral.

That is what limited them. They could not communicate. It was hard if they even needed help in a store.

Both is good. I don't want to offend anyone. But I am glad I can ask for things I need and am a pretty fluent speechreader.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with the Deaf Schools at the time were that the residents were ASL based in communication, but the instruction was orally based. This is where we began to see the huge gaps in the English skills of the signing Deaf. Most Deaf Schools at the time were very ASL in their informal communication between students, but the teachers were majority hearing and oral, the RA's were oral and hearing, and the adminsitrators were oral and hearing. So the ASL prospered for contact with peers, and the oral instruction limited the ability of the signers to learn English as a second language because instruction did not allow for teaching ESL.

And, you are not offending anyone. Discussions like this are very productive, and we should be able to engage inthem in a reasonable manner as we are doing.
 
jillio said:
One of the problems with the Deaf Schools at the time were that the residents were ASL based in communication, but the instruction was orally based. This is where we began to see the huge gaps in the English skills of the signing Deaf. Most Deaf Schools at the time were very ASL in their informal communication between students, but the teachers were majority hearing and oral, the RA's were oral and hearing, and the adminsitrators were oral and hearing. So the ASL prospered for contact with peers, and the oral instruction limited the ability of the signers to learn English as a second language because instruction did not allow for teaching ESL.

And, you are not offending anyone. Discussions like this are very productive, and we should be able to engage inthem in a reasonable manner as we are doing.
Click to expand...


Oh really? So the deaf people from those Oral Deaf schools couldnt really use pen and paper to communicate with hearing people because of their poor literacy skills?
 
shel90 said:
Oh really? So the deaf people from those Oral Deaf schools couldnt really use pen and paper to communicate with hearing people because of their poor literacy skills?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we both just learned something from Jillio. I really did not know the above history you told. But it really makes the pieces of my grandparents generation puzzle fall into place. That makes perfect sense.
 
shel90 said:
Oh really? So the deaf people from those Oral Deaf schools couldnt really use pen and paper to communicate with hearing people because of their poor literacy skills?
Click to expand...

Exactly. They were not being provided with English skills in the manner in which they could effectively learn and use them, so the literacy rates started to plummet. It was more comfortable, as a result, to limit themselves to interaction with the Deaf community alone.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. They were not being provided with English skills in the manner in which they could effectively learn and use them, so the literacy rates started to plummet. It was more comfortable, as a result, to limit themselves to interaction with the Deaf community alone.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the way I remember the old people. And why I can not criticize my Dad because he wanted more for me.
 
Back
Top