griesel@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Curtis W. Griesel) (02/02/90)
Index Number: 6544 I'm not sure if the original poster was serious, but I definately disagree with him so I have to respond. In article <9899@bunker.UUCP> Stephen.White@p1.f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org writes: > > I wonder if deaf people should be trained to talk if they cannot >produce easily understandable sounds. It is very embarrasing to see >them make weird sounds and have other people look at them as if they >were stupid. I personally dont blame them, as if I didnt know better, >I most certainly would come to the same conclusion. This sort of reaction to atypical speech is a problem of the listener, not the speaker. It is a very old-fashioned attitude, left over from them time when it was thought that physical handicaps were signs of mental deficits. As anyone who reads this group knows, physical difficulties are in no way a reflection of the quality of one's mind. I can't believe someone is still encouraging that attitude! Sure, there are others who still view physical handicaps this way, but what we need to do is educate the public, not discourage the disabled from interacting with others! A person should use whatever means of communication is most effective for them. For many people, the most effective means is their voice, even if it is not a typical voice. As has been discussed before, probably the best way to educate the public will be to begin early, in elementary school. The current movement toward integration of all students, regardless of handicap, is a step in the right direction. That way kids will group up around each other, realize that everyone is 'normal', and won't have the same warped attitudes that their parents have. -Curt -- Curtis Griesel griesel@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu Coordinator of Computer Access Microcomputer, Workstation and Network Center; U of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA "Disability is not the problem, peoples' attitude toward the disabled is."
Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (02/02/90)
Index Number: 6567
The ridicule of others is not a reason not to teach a person a useful
skill. Therefore, I don't buy your argument that one should not teach a
deaf person to speak because his voice produces strange sounds. Let's
educate his hearers, instead. The best way to do that is for those of us
who don't believe in ridiculing our fellow humans to subject them to
social sanctions for such behavior!
If a deaf person is being trained to speak, he will undoubtely sound
very strange at first, but if he has a knowledgeable person to teach him,
and he is diligent, he can overcome this, I think. I am just mouthing off
here, because I really don't know.
But my basic premise remains. If we believe that we should NOT teach
deaf people to speak, we can use the SAME argument to claim that we
should not teach ANY handicapped person to do anything that is difficult
for him because he will be ridiculed for trying.
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.orgLaurie.Wilson@p0.f5.n119.z1.fidonet.org (Laurie Wilson) (02/12/90)
Index Number: 6669 > The ridicule of others is not a reason not to teach a > person a useful skill. Therefore, I don't buy your argument > that one should not teach a deaf person to speak because > his voice produces strange sounds. Let's educate his hearers, Pat, We also need to realize that only small percentage of deaf people succeed in speech to a varied degree. However, there are really many of those who can only produce uninteligible sounds. The point is that most of them have already been trained in speech in their early years. No matter how hard they tried, they just couldn't produce good speech enough to make it worthwhile. Really, in my personal opinion, speech is not the most important part of being human, especially when the deaf people already have their own language. They feel that speech is not natural for them because they can't hear it themselves. We all know from the history that it is human nature when some unusual minority groups are being ridiculed for being different from the majority. I called the "ridiculing" attidute as a racism. Look at how the Chinese immigrants who came here in California back in 1800's and how they were harrassed by the majority. And remember there is a saying that a powerful and dominating majority tends to impose their language upon those minorities---in such as education, public, and politics. Sociality is the place where the minorities seek each other in their common language and heritages. When deaf people immigrated here from other country, they already had their own sign language. Laurent Clerc was one such guy. He was a French man and a deaf teacher who brought his French Sign Language. According to the history of the deaf, there was an old American Sign Language prior to 1820's. Eventually, both FSL and ASL combined together into modern ASL. I really believe it is important to give all deaf children a chance at learning speech in school, but not forcing it on them if some of them fail at it. There is another way they can communicate well by learning English as second language. With that they can write and read well. I know from experiences that if we teach only English to them without sign language, they most likely will not do well by falling below the average age reading and writing skills. This has been proven too often. I am amazed that no one is doing anything about before!! Well, I will say one thing for sure...the deaf education really sucks! We should hire more deaf teachers. Laurie -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!119!5.0!Laurie.Wilson Internet: Laurie.Wilson@p0.f5.n119.z1.fidonet.org
Stephen.White@p1.f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org (Stephen White) (02/12/90)
Index Number: 6678 > But my basic premise remains. If we believe that we should NOT teach > deaf people to speak, we can use the SAME argument to claim that we > should not teach ANY handicapped person to do anything that is > difficult for him because he will be ridiculed for trying. My point was that if a deaf person cannot be taught to speak well enough to be understood, why bother? I was also bringing into the question the fact that teachers think that deaf people who cannot learn how to speak are stupid. Other deaf children, who do manage to learn how, tend to mock the ones that cant - copying the teachers in this respect. Steve! -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!681!853.1!Stephen.White Internet: Stephen.White@p1.f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org
Jack.O'keeffe@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (02/12/90)
Index Number: 6686
PG>> If we believe that we should NOT teach deaf people to speak,
PG>> we can use the SAME argument to claim that we should not teach
PG>> ANY handicapped person to do anything that is difficult . . .
SW> My point was that if a deaf person cannot be taught to speak
SW> well enough to be understood, why bother?
But Steve, however will we know what the limits (if any) are unless
we try. That's "why bother?"!
SW> I was also bringing into the question the fact that teachers
SW> think that deaf people who cannot learn how to speak are stupid.
Isn't it true that some teachers have greater success than others?
Possibly the difference is as much in the teacher as the student.
Not all are Annie Sullivans, you know.
SW> Other deaf children, who do manage to learn how, tend to mock
SW> the ones that cant - copying the teachers in this respect.
Unfortunate, but true. The teachers may even encourage this, and
the children having difficulty will stop trying to learn.
Jack.
... :-)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@f89.n129.z1.fidonet.orgChita.Cazares@f114.n202.z1.fidonet.org (Chita Cazares) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6725
How can we tell if a kid "can't learn to speak well enough to be
understood" unless we TRY to teach her?
If it becomes too stressful at some point and the student wants to
stop, we should not demand that they do something so unnatural for
them. But they should certainly be given the opportunity to learn
speech.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!202!114!Chita.Cazares
Internet: Chita.Cazares@f114.n202.z1.fidonet.orgVixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.org (Vixen *) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6738
Hi,
I think you make a good point regarding those teachers who insist
on teaching those deaf who are either unable to learn or cannot for
whatever reason, speak intelligibly.
I would tend to think that any teachers who think of these deaf as
"stupid" , as reflecting a very strong indictment of ignorance
against "themselves" and obviusly, have no business teaching!
Either that, or such teachers are far more concerned with their own
successes and failures then they are over the feelings needs and
realities of those they are supposed to be teaching.
Keepin' the faith! (Even if it is blind!)
, Vixen
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!203!11!Vixen.*
Internet: Vixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.orgVixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.org (Vixen *) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6741
Hi again,
I have been followng this discussion about trying to force those
deaf who cannot speak intelligibly, to keep trying to learn
speech.
I agree with you, allow the deaf person the opportunity to learn
and take a crack at speech, but trying to force it, especially when
it is not likely that the person / child is ever going to speak
intelligibly seems not only wrong to me, but almost cruel and self
serving on the part of the intructor.
Here is a question: We see so many putting so much emphasis on
teaching deaf children speech even when it seems the child speech
will not be intellible that I was wondering about something I once
heard, that is, that often the speech of those who become deaf or
HI later in life sometimes disintergrates?
Keepin' the faith! (Sometimes, silence speaks volumes!)
. Vixen
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!203!11!Vixen.*
Internet: Vixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.orgPat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6749
I have known a deaf person or two in my time. I can manage to understand
each of them, if they have ever put any effort into learning to speak. So
I think perhaps your question about those who cannot learn to speak well
enough to be understood is more of a comment on the people around that
person, than the person himself.
Several months ago, I was at Jonas's house when someone he knew came
over. She was trying to speak to me. I had difficulty understanding her,
but she told me several times, and finally I figured out what she was
trying to say. I am willing to stick with it as many times as is
necessary if the other person is willing to stick with it likewise.
You commented on teachers and students who make fun of those who cannot
speak well. I have a particular THING about a person who would force a
student into an environment containing such people!!!! Teachers who do
this have NO BUSINESS teaching the deaf. I don't think it has ANYTHING to
do with whether or not a particular child can learn to speak well. And
any teacher who would tolerate the STUDENTS doing this likewise has no
business teaching the deaf. If I had a deaf child, I'd homeschool him
before I'd allow that. (I'd homeschool him anyhow, but that's another
issue!) I have already crossed that bridge, because I had to address
myself to how to educate a child who would be made fun of because of
certain mental incapacities. We have done just fine. I kept him away from
people who would denigrate him, and he is learning what he needs to know
to hold a normal job as an adult.
It seems to me that there are really two kinds of deaf students who
learn to talk. The one kind is made up of kids who have some hearing, and
for whom the process is seemingly infinitely easier as a result. The
other kind is the profoundly deaf who need all the concentrated attention
of highly trained speech therapists. If the trained personnel are
available, I would prefer that these kids be taught. They don't have to
USE their knowledge if it is severely limited, in contexts where they
will experience social negativity. But if they lack the skill, they have
no CHOICE but not to use it. Get my point?
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.orgLaurie.Wilson@p0.f5.n119.z1.fidonet.org (Laurie Wilson) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6773 > on teaching deaf children speech even when it seems the > child speech will not be intellible that I was wondering > about something I once heard, that is, that often the speech > of those who become deaf or HI later in life sometimes disintergrates? That is a good question... I am not really sure about this either. However, I'll say that I remembered a friend whose loss of hearing occurred at his age 18 still speak pretty good, even better than most hard of hearing's speech. Yet, there are others whose speech even disintergrates gradually. So, I am not even sure if everyone has the same problem. Maybe someone here who becomes deafened at later life can answer your question better? Laurie -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!119!5.0!Laurie.Wilson Internet: Laurie.Wilson@p0.f5.n119.z1.fidonet.org