Is Oralism Child Abuse?
Commentary: Many years ago, I discussed oralism with a Deaf person and she said Oralism is  child abuse. As a product of oralism, I was taken back by her comment. That comment stuck in my head for many years. When I first heard her comment, I disagreed with her strongly, finding her claim completely outrageous. Ever since then, I’ve periodically pondered over this discussion. Nineteen years later I agree with her that oralism may be a form of child abuse for some deaf children as they are deprived of their fundamental rights to full access to a visible language. There are some successful oralists, but there are many more who are not able to master spoken English verbally, aurally, and lipreading.  I would like to hear your thoughts. MZ
Lost during the strong interest in encouraging the deaf child to master verbal and auditory skills is the lack of access the child has to a language, often forever impairing the linguistic competency for life and the inevitable loss of self-esteem due to lack of accessible communication. As humans, we have rights to full access of language, and yet we are repeatedly denied these rights as children by hearing people who lose the sight of importance for full language access. The deprivation of fully accessible communication is forbidden in prisons as an unusual and cruel punishment. Yet yet this is routinely practiced on deaf children by hearing people already aware of a visible language, but refuse to  expose the deaf youngsters sign language due to internal bias against manual communication.Â
Â
Under the definition of ADA, we are accorded full access of language just like our hearing peers.
At what age do the rights of deaf babies and children to a fully accessible language begin?Â
P.S. Let me clarify a little more. I am not referring to those who were able to benefit from oralism by lipreading, speech and using residual hearing. This method obviously works for them. I mean the children who miss a lot of information because oralism doesn’t meet their needs. They are restricted in their ability to communicate as they aren’t permitted to learn another communication method.  At what point does oralism become a form of child abuse? Some of you say abuse is a strong word. Perhaps it is, but others some feel abuse is an accurate description. For those who disagree, what would be the appropriate word? MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
copyright mishkazena (TM) 2007
Commentary: Many years ago, I discussed oralism with a Deaf person and she said Oralism is  child abuse. As a product of oralism, I was taken back by her comment. That comment stuck in my head for many years. When I first heard her comment, I disagreed with her strongly, finding her claim completely outrageous. Ever since then, I’ve periodically pondered over this discussion. Nineteen years later I agree with her that oralism may be a form of child abuse for some deaf children as they are deprived of their fundamental rights to full access to a visible language. There are some successful oralists, but there are many more who are not able to master spoken English verbally, aurally, and lipreading.  I would like to hear your thoughts. MZ
Lost during the strong interest in encouraging the deaf child to master verbal and auditory skills is the lack of access the child has to a language, often forever impairing the linguistic competency for life and the inevitable loss of self-esteem due to lack of accessible communication. As humans, we have rights to full access of language, and yet we are repeatedly denied these rights as children by hearing people who lose the sight of importance for full language access. The deprivation of fully accessible communication is forbidden in prisons as an unusual and cruel punishment. Yet yet this is routinely practiced on deaf children by hearing people already aware of a visible language, but refuse to  expose the deaf youngsters sign language due to internal bias against manual communication.Â
Â
Under the definition of ADA, we are accorded full access of language just like our hearing peers.
At what age do the rights of deaf babies and children to a fully accessible language begin?Â
P.S. Let me clarify a little more. I am not referring to those who were able to benefit from oralism by lipreading, speech and using residual hearing. This method obviously works for them. I mean the children who miss a lot of information because oralism doesn’t meet their needs. They are restricted in their ability to communicate as they aren’t permitted to learn another communication method.  At what point does oralism become a form of child abuse? Some of you say abuse is a strong word. Perhaps it is, but others some feel abuse is an accurate description. For those who disagree, what would be the appropriate word? MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
copyright mishkazena (TM) 2007
April 14th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The critical stage for acquiring language is from age 0-7. So I would say the rights of deaf babies/children to a fully accessible language begins *immediately*.
The parents have the right to go with Oralism, but I would say that if the child isn’t succeeding with it by age 2, find another method.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:59 am
[...] Mishka Zena’s blog [...]
April 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Your question is a good one. I think it should start immediately too. But, often, parents are misguided. Who should have the upper hand in deciding a childs best interests in acquiring full accessible language?
I want to share a true story about environmental oralism abuse. Years ago at a mainstream school where signs are forbidden. My sister and her friend were signing secretly. Teacher saw that and decided to reprimand them both. Took both into a walk in coat closet away from sight of other student (in HOH class) and made them sit on a chair. Teacher then started to use masking tape and taped over their mouth, taped their hands shut, taped their arms and legs to the chair. I found them and was shocked. I was told to immediately go back to the class or it will happen to me! We told our parents who are deaf and they questioned the teacher but the teacher told them we were lying. That teacher ended up teaching at a new mainstream high school years later and many students remembered her mean streak and made her life a living hell. She ended up resigning.
It’s just one form of oralism child abuse. First its the language deprivation, then it’s the physical and mental abuse for signing.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Child abuse? I never thought it as child abuse until now. I know many deaf people not allowed to sign because their parents not permit them. Many told me horror stories how they didn’t understand teachers and families and how isolated they were.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
The term “child abuse” is too strong to be applied to oralism. Too many parents think that what other parents are doing to their children is called child abuse. For example, many years ago, I was very careful not to advertise that we had family bed where my young children slept with my wife and me every day until they were old enough to be on their own beds because too many parents considered family bed as child abuse. Even some parents thought that breastfeeding beyond one year old is considered as child abuse. Circumcising an infant boy who is only 8 days is considered as child abuse by some parents. Where will they stop labeling everything that parents do or don’t as child abuse?
Now, some parents are thinking that refusing to have deaf child cochlear implanted is considered as child abuse.
Let’s leave the term “child abuse” to actual, visual harm done to the body of a child.
I am fully aware that oralism does not work for each deaf child. Rather than labeling it as child abuse, I feel that the best approach is to educate the parents about the shortcomings of oralism.
That’s my thought.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Yes, it is a child abuse if they try to block Deaf children from using American Sign Language.
It is ok for hearing baby to learn American Sign Language but it isn’t ok for Deaf baby to learn American Sign Language.
All the reasons why the children are forbidden to use American Sign Language because it proved that they will pick up so fast with American Sign Language so they are forced to stay on auditory aspect so they can be tried as an almost hearing people.
I had a real horrible experience with not able to communication six years of my life. I was a failure oralist. The wound will never go away but I find a way to use it as positive is to be proactive in Deaf community.
It is ok for people to learn speech but they are allowed to access to ASL.
The children are not allowed to expose to ASL and Deaf history. Can you tell if there is something’s wrong with this picture or I am being a nutcase? :o)
Aidan
April 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Well, before we choose a term like “child abuse”, let us consider what that expression does for us, or for the cause of promoting ASL in infancy.
1. It could shock people into considering effects on the child rather than hoping the child will talk. OR:
2. It could cause people to become convinced that ASL deaf people are extremists and not to be respected.
3. If there is a trial period, such as 2 years before ASL is tried, who can tell if continuing the oralism will still work after the child has learned a few easy words?
4. Child abuse has a legal definition and a legal requirement for evidence. Oralism by itself does not fit that legal definition.
We may need a different word or expression that gets across the same message without the legal definition of physical harm.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I would think so. It’s a language abuse. If a Deaf child’s sign or gesture is suppressed, then it’s abusive. Language ostracism is the worst form of racism (ostRACISM). In Holland, for example, both Frisian and Flemish languages are viewed as inferior languages, and the speakers of these languages experience prejudices and discrimination.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
If a parent chooses to deny their deaf child access to a visual language, then they are denying their deaf child the opportunity to acquire a natural language.
That’s child abuse, plain and simple. And we’re not extremists for pointing that out.
Can you imagine what a judge would say if a hearing parent purposely remained silent and never allowed his or her hearing child to aquire a natural spoken language?
If that is so obviously outrageous and psychologically abusive, then why is it OK for hearing parents to supress the acquisition of a natural sign language for their deaf child?
There is no difference. If the parent is making arrangements for their child to grow up as a semi-lingual person, and suppresses the child’s ability and desire to acquire a natural signed language, then that is psychological abuse, i.e., child abuse. Period.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Geez!!! That’s a serious case to discuss about. I believe depriving any child of a language during the first 6 or 7 years of its life may be considered child abuse. If parents practice cued, oralism, ASL, TC, PSE, etc then it would not be considered a child abuse.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
im not sure it constitutes as abuse unless the parent and educators are depriving the children of language with intent. then yes it is psychological abuse.
just my two cents
April 14th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Well, from MY experience in oralism, I’d say yes it was child abuse when I was a child. I still remember vividly 30 years later how the speech therapist would jerk my arm/hand to feel her throat, squeeze my hands hard enough that I could feel my bones in hands pop/crack so she’d ensure that I’d “FEEL” the vibrations on the balloon, her throat, my throat, etc. Many times I’d cough because they’d press my hand hard to my throat as in strangling myself. I also was in speech therapy 2-3 hours daily so I did not get to socialize with children in neighborhood (any wonder why we were MORE isolated??!) I think that’s why I responded to oralism later on as an “enemy”, speech therapists as “monsters to avoid” and so on. So…yes it is emotional abuse, which is also child abuse. Why do folks think child abuse should be restricted to physical abuse? Emotional/verbal/mental abuse leaves MORE scars on the child than physical abuse.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Wow - many good points here, really.
Parents DO have the right of choosing a method of teaching their deaf children - whether we like it or not.
I prefer ASL and want ASL as the first language for ALL children (hearing and deaf).
However, if parents choose oralism - you can’t put gun at their heads.
If they perform physical barriers like slapping hands or any form of punishment for NOT following the oralism method - then that IS child abuse.
I knew one girl who had a loving family who raised her the oralism method and she had a great life. But she threw that away when she learned ASL and married a deaf family.
On the other hand, I knew a girl whose mother would slap her face when she used sign language to talk to me. That IS a child abuse on her behalf. Unless it’s argued that it’s MY opinion of a child abuse.
Sticky, you know?
We NEED to encourage ALL babies to be taught sign language - but that is always left up to parents. Even some hearing parents do not bother to learn signs for their babies and wait until they finally speak.
How do we encourage ALL babies to be taught ASL?
Join the baby signs organization?
April 14th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Thank you, Mishka Zena, as always for bringing up such thought provoking topics for discussion!
Evidence and expereince show us again and again that Oralism, the practice of neglecting or avoiding a natural Sign Language for the sole purpose of making a Deaf child “normal” (whatever it means), damages the child’s linguistic and social competency, self esteem, self and social identity. Not only that, it drives many (of course not all) parents and teachers to be so desperate that they go to extremes of physically harming the child. If people say oralism is not child abuse, they are simply denying. And denial causes serious trouble.
we can come up with partial comparisons to describe generally a Deaf child’s experience with Oralism. I will present this analogy—There is this belief among educators and researchers that LITERACY is the ultimate achievement of education, and it is 100% connected to READING and WRITING that any natural spoken and heard language is frowned upon…so it’d be ideal (with adequate proof) to constantly expose the child to books and paper WITHOUT any natural spoken stimulus, avoiding as much as possible the tendency of the child to utter any sounds or words, keeping their environment devoid of any spoken communication…
This is because the educational establishment believes that DEVOTION TO READING AND WRITING leads to the best LITERACY competence for the child. Oh that must be in the BEST interests of the child to be deprived of their natural communication by speaking and hearing so they can FOCUS on achieving the best literacy skills possible. After all, won’t it be wonderful when the child achieves to be the BEST writer in the world in law, in literature, in philosophy. The child shall be put on a pedestal for the family and school to look up with pride. (all for or their own benefit not the child’s.)
Is this analogy close enough to Oralism?
Ain’t this child abuse? If it isn’t, it is insanity, period.
April 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
“Abuse” is a very strong negative word.
A parent must attempt to communicate with the child any way they can. Whether its oral communication or manual communication.
A monumental challenge in raising any child is communication. And I feel strongly using TOTAL COMMUNICATION is the best method. Depriving a child from communicating is a form of neglect but not abuse.
The use of ASL in HEARING babies before they are able to use their voices to communicate has been very successful
Human
April 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Wow… never thought of that way. I had an oral deaf education, but I never felt it as traumatic as it was for many former oralists. Like Human said in the comment, I strongly believe in COMMUNICATING with my kids, exposing them to all kinds of modes of communication (ASL, speaking, listening, SEE, etc.), to make them well-rounded. One thing that popped into my mind was NEGLECT, not abuse.
I am taking this subject with a grain of salt… it is a bit going too far… accusing the hearing community of abusing deaf community, so to speak. Like iammine mentioned, the parents have the rights to decide what is best for their children… often it is done out of love.
Child abuse? Hmmm… never thought of that way…
April 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
hi yes, I think oralism is Asort of child abuse.because I was one of the child abuse who was forced how to speak with voice. not talked with the hands at all. if caught with hand talked with someone else. I was being put in the dark closet or in a corner with a duncan hat. At the age of 11, I finally was placed in residental school and able to use ASL. I am sure alot of deafies went thru like I did. I love ASL kh
April 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Denial of access to language is the FIRST child abuse, both deaf and hearing alike.
As for oralism, much of it is abuse. There are some states including Utah (it hasn’t been repealed) still allow punishment for using sign language, sneaky or otherwise, using whatever methods necessary.)
Whatever methods?
1. enforcement of segregation of the offending child from the rest of class
2. blacklisting of child’s name on blackboard
3. over-emphasizing speech at expense of academics
April 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
While I was at home visiting my parents, I recently asked my mom why hearing parents don’t often approach deaf people for advice, she said that many hearing parents have a “dream” where they can see their deaf children communicate effectively.
I think using the word abuse is pretty too strong. Then the hearing parents are to be blamed which we don’t want if we go that far enough to file lawsuits and all that. And then the teachers, I’m not sure why they were harsh, were they taught at schools that they needed to be harsh and strict in order to get the achieved results, it would be interesting if we could look through the past deaf education curriculm for teachers and see what they were taught back in these days and if they were taught to use a ruler to hit students every time they gestured or what or call them “monkeys” or whatever. It would be great if we could interview these old teachers and see where they were coming from, why they used these methods and if they felt that they did a good or poor job. If we could get all that research, evidence, photos, letters, videotape and many more in a book and distribute it through NAD or whatever, it will help educate hearing parents that oralism is not the way to go and that there are better teaching methods to use such as American Sign Language, prove it with scores and other things. THat way we would be fighting a worthwhile battle than dwelling on the past and blaming which does us injustice.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Want to clarify a point for some of you commenters…
Oralism is the philosophy of EDUCATING Deaf children that avoids signing or visual learning in order to achieve speech and auditory skills.
Simply communicating in whichever ways that may be ADEQUATE in a certain situation is great common sense but it is a different thing… it is not education nor a philosophy that a curriuclum is based on.
We need to stop thinking of ASL as a “tool” or a philosophy compared to Oralism. ASL is a LANGUAGE, natural and compentent, just like English, Spanish, Tagalog, etc. And natural form of those languages is spoken/heard, just as the natural form of ASL is signed/seen.
THEN, in school, we have a curriculum that prepares a child according to her/his right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS…that s if we live in America.
We need to realize that hearing parents of hearing children do not have that many choices for language use in education. In America, English is assumed as THE language of education and then things expand from there providing their children with various opportunities for better literacy.
We need to start ASSUMING that ASL is the language of Deaf education, period. We need to push the idea of ASL as an inalienable right of every Deaf child born in USA in addition to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. THEN from there expand that child’s wonderful visual language and world to expose them to higher literacy opportunities…including but not limited to understanding what spoken languages are all about and figuring how to best use them in healthy and appropriate ways as long as mastery in ASL is not compromised. Once it is compromised, the child’s whole life is compromised and the Deaf world continues to be compromised. And that is NOT good, never was, never will.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hmmm… I will throw in a coin. My deaf daughter complains that she is told to turn off her voice in the classrooms just to use ASL 100% of time… she loves using her voice. Being told to turn off her voice is child abuse, huh? We have to be careful on being quick to yell “Child abuse”… we need to take the children’s communication needs into consideration and if some deaf chldren like using their voices, let them.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
great topic
years ago Dr. James Tucker gave a presentation at an NAD conference entitled Communication Abuse - it really lit the room on fire. there was a long line of people to share their stories and opinions.
One man began crying recalling how he could not and still can not adequately and fully communicate with his own family.
There are many such stories - SADLY.
Ella thank u for bringing up Thomas Jefferon’s famed words from the Declaration of Independence
A Deaf person’s life, liberty and happiness have been severely aborted through oralism
In the book Heritage Langauge the authors (Cummins and Dansei)
refer to the onslaught of oralims in schools and the aggressive implantation of babies as a linguistic genocide. Lane has also written this.
It is interesting to note how hearing scholars are quick to state this so clearly. But within the Deaf community we have so many different contradictory stories and points of view.
Deaf people can never be equal until the have linguistic emancipation - this does NOT mean simultaneous commun or total comm (as some would miscall it) or SEE or MCE or Cued Speech - which r tools to communicate spoken ENGLISH. This means ASL which is a real language and the birth right of every Deaf child.
Veditz said
“We possess and jealously guard a language different and apart from any other in common use - a language which nevertheless is precisely what all-wise Mother Nature designed for the people of the eye” (1910)
oy we havent made much progress
i think the 2nd wave of linguistic oppression for Deaf people has been TC / Sim-com (which is still a form of oralism i believe)
perhaps Deaf President Now 1 was about getting a linguistically Deaf president - meaning an ASL one and
DPN 2 continued in this effort after the Board in ‘88 pulled a coup and placed a Sim-com president in the post and tried to do the same in 2006
will we need a DPN 3?
Gallaudet has only had one ASL president which was Edward Miner Gallaudet - who received ASL as a child from his mother
his fluency may be debatable but he was a clear advocate for ASL (although he compromised with the combine method it does not appear that this was the same thing as the sim-com we have today) and he certainly learned the language of ASL during the early years of his life
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
just as the US has denied many groups the full benefit of this beloved principle so to it is true for Deaf people
the only way african-americans, women, gays and lesbians, native-americans, etc have gained any measure of this inalienable right has been from civil disobedience and advocacy
someone said to me recently - the only want we will get federal legislation that all Deaf children in the US be taught in ASL first is through parents suing the doctors and educational systems that told them to raise their children orally
it might just come to that
every deaf school, program, and college that refers to signing as a communication system should be challenged to acknowledge that ASL is a language and should be asked to use an academically sound definition of ASL
the next frontier will be to have ASL classes be part of Deaf children’s curriculum just as English is for hearing children
the struggle for equality continues
Mishka thank u for posting and hosting this discussion
ella thank u for ur wisdom and i am desparately missing ur vlogs
peace
pdurr
April 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
i went to school for the deaf like some of you went. The school allowed signing in classes and dorms which was good. We did had speech therapies. I was always dread of it because of a certain teacher. She would whack me with the wood pointer on my butt when I became frustrated and uncooperative. It really hurt. Is this an act of abuse? Some theraphists discouraged signing while speaking. It was impossible for me to speak without using signs. I signed behind me when I tried to learn speech. I could not think without using hands while speaking. Was it an act of abuse? That is why I resist to speaking. So many of my classmates dont speak. Their harsh speech training method is total failure. How come I still remember those horrors very well? I dont remember dorm horrors much anymore. Strange?
April 14th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hi Deaf Niche,
If one uses their voice and signs, its harder for other deaf people to understand them, this is disadvantage, so this is why they encourage people who sign in ASL to turn off their voices so that others can understand them better. Ive met other deaf people who sign and voice, im fortunate enough that i can lipread very well but for others who are poor lipreaders, its hard for them to understand.
As for oral education, the only benefit i got was the ability to lipread very well but other than that, i feel that it was wasteful of my time, getting pulled out of my classroom (i was in an oral program) for weekly speech and facing awfully mean teachers who were very insistent on having us speak at all times. I had few good and caring teachers, even one man, Mr Stone, who eventually became AGB’s director, now working in Oregon’s oral program. He was very kind and patient teacher. Still i didnt excel in becoming an oralist, i still dont speak very well, all that time being wasted in speech therapy resulted in big NOTHING!!! But i wouldnt go that far to label it as child abuse. Although i would encourage my parents to be involved in class action suit if there is one.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Michele, maybe you are an ‘oral’ success as you lipread very well. I think maybe MZ meant people who are oral failures.
Too many children faced harsh treatment in oral schools. Why was punishment permitted against deaf children who have hard time speaking and lipreading?
April 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi Paige,
I dont consider myself as an oral success - i cannot speak very well, someone went after me when I said that I was an oral failure so in other words, only thing was successful is lipreading.
If children have been hurt physically or emotionally, then they should file class action suit. For me, the public school is not there anymore (the oral program), we dont have any records, it simply closed down, and i dont want to remember my years there. I dont want to see my parents or other hearing parents get blamed as its not their fault, who should we sue then? I am having second thoughts now about this issue. Im not sure or as Miska asked if there is another word we could use in exchange of child abuse, i heard one story about mental institution where patients got involved in class action suit and sued the city for damages as they were physically and emotionally abused but for schools, i dont know what the statute of limitations are.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I do agree that oralism is a form of child abuse, because oralism is a byproduct of audism.
How can it be a byproduct of audism, you ask? It’s simple. Oralism was pushed by people that wanted to destroy a community and to force Deaf people to be like Hearing people. And that’s immoral.
MANY oralists eventually become ASL users later, but no ASL users become an oralist. That should already tell people something.
So, if parents practice audism, or participate in audism, whether if they know it or not, they are participating in teaching the child a negative thing.
It is similar to teaching a child to be racist, or training a child to be racist, or raising them in the KKK.
Parents that advocate oralism with their children should be put behind bars.
Teachers that advocate or participate in it should be put behind bars.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Karen Mayes,
A Deaf person that speaks while signing IS NOT ORALISM. That’s Sim-Com and an entirely different matter.
Oralism is when a child is grown up without their native language and forced to speak and lipread all the way without signing. Oralism also involves deaf adults that still does not or refuses to sign.
But signing and talking is Sim-Com, and a byproduct of audism. A lot of deaf people do that, including myself.
That is just… Out of habit. When I am with ASL Deaf, I don’t use my voice. It comes naturally, but when a Deaf person signs and talks to me, my brain automatically “code switches” to sim-com, and honestly, I don’t like it. But unfortunately, like every Deaf person, I was abused. (By audism)
April 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
harsh treatment=abusive treatment? today if a child received harsh treatment of any kind from somebody, it could labeled as abuse, whether it was one time incident or reptitive acts. Like simply lightly slapping one’s hand once can be labeled an abuse. The word of abuse can be interpreted in many different ways, not necessarilly physcial. Lawyer’s bliss. It used to be no big deal but not today’s.
April 14th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“oralism is a form of child abuse, because oralism is a byproduct of audism.”
That’s the best respones I’ve seen in a long time. Wonderfully put!
Oralism is the process of teaching a Deaf child that he is not like most people because he isn’t speaking as well as they do.
Oralism is teaching the kid that if he doesn’t talk, he is not good enough.
Oralism demands that sign language be banished, even though it is a natural part of the Deaf child and is what he feels most comfortable using.
Oralism forces all of education into a narrow, inadequate channel and the thirsty Deaf child has to be satisfied with a leaky faucet while other children can go swimming.
Oralism is torture, forcing the child to use his weakest sense and the most incomplete means of understanding to learn about the world where others have all the means they can use.
Oralism is educational and social deprivation in the same way a child locked up in a back room is deprived.
You’ve started something, MZ and Erik K and friends. Let’s see what we come up with!
April 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
To Ms. Karen Mayes (identified as “deaf niches”),
Personally, I think it is improper of the students, teachers or both to tell your daughter not to use her voice. They should be a little more flexible in communicating with your daughter. I could not call it child abuse. It is just that some people are more rigid than other people in how people should communicate with each other and we have to learn how to deal with them.
Just my personal opinion.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
April 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Ouch. Respones = response.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I don’t think oralism is child abuse, per se. What should be focused instead as a form of child abuse is the parent’s inability to communicate with their child. We can say oralism works for some, doesn’t work for some..BUT if the parent is unable to communicate with the child, that is child abuse. Even sign language can be considered child abuse, if the parents do not know sign language at all and has no way to communicate with their child.
What should be focused on is the inability of the parents to communicate with the child. Now, with oralism, can all people be understood by the child who happens to have the ability to speak? Not in all cases, no. As for a child who knows ASL, can the child understand all people? No. All those in the school system, classes and parents should have the ability to communicate with the child, so if a child in an oralism program or ASL program should be able to communicate with everyone in the school system and at home or dorms. This access to language will be critical and anything less than that will have to be considered child abuse or at the minimal level, neglience of a child.
Yes, I feel abused and neglected as I am a product of oralism. However, I could communicate barely/well enough with my siblings, parents and close friends but not with anyone at school though.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
MZ,
This is surely a heavy subject to talk about and I am glad we are able to share our perspectives allowing us to analyze the application of abuse to oralism. The commenters made their valid points and I hope not to sound like a broken record as it becomes more challenging for me to provide my view making it unique. Guess that’s what happens when you comment a bit later, ahh.
First of all, we need to identify what kind of “abuse†that may apply to children when growing up in an oral environment.
Abuse is a general term that involves, but not limited to, verbal, physical, emotional, psychological, and neglect.
You know the standard definition of neglect occurs when a child is deprived of something that doesn’t meet his or her needs.
Communication is a need, not a want. If a deaf child struggles to understand or to be understood and is in the need for more effective communication but was denied, that is when abuse comes in the picture.
It may cry abuse for some, or for most, oralists especially when they are not getting the same access to their hearing peers when growing up in such environment. They may not experience spoken English naturally like their hearing peers do so it makes it different for them.
Secondly, using further analysis, we need to look at the amount of hearing level since it plays a role of “comprehension†in spoken English. I have several friends who have no problem about the idea growing up oral in educational setting since they are able to hear enough to understand and speak well enough to be understood however they are either from deaf families or signing families so their emotional and social growth are reinforced. As for my case, it is different. I could not hear as well as they did so the experience was not as positive for me as an oralist. I grew up in an oral educational setting but was reinforced in ASL at home. So does that mean I was fine with that anyway? Heck, no! I still have painful memories interacting with hearing peers and facing instruction with no interpreters while growing up. ASL was left at home everytime I go to school and it was not identified in the classroom. It was like a missing gap in my educational experience. I was deprived, made fun of, bullied and dismissed in that environment creating an emotional abuse experience for me.
Fortunately, I got support at home and opportunities to interact with deaf peers in Jr. NAD. If it weren’t for that, I believe more emotional damage would occur. So I suppose the number of oralists (90% or so) who come from hearing families who did not have the same opportunity as I did may experience more scars.
Finally, please allow me to present all of the iffys to see what is logical on how abuse is applied.
If their families did not make any attempt to sign especially when a deaf child is struggling to communicate, then it becomes a form of abuse.
If a parent constantly belittles, threatens or dismisses a child until the child’s self-esteem and feelings of self-worth are damage, then that’s emotional abuse.
On the other hand, if a deaf child and a parent using an oral method that does not exhibit any communication deprivation and that it is a preferred choice of a deaf child using oralism especially when he or she already knew about the existence of ASL, then it is not considered as an abuse.
If a deaf child grew up in an oral environment that was considered “good enough†but was not informed about ASL, that is abuse.
Today we have more resources made available such as ASL classes and deaf awareness events reaching out hearing population. To me, it is no longer an excuse for hearing parents to shield their deaf child from ASL and Deaf culture especially today. Unfortunately, advanced hearing assistive devices such as C.I. capture their attention using oralism and shying away from ASL. We also should raise the question; is Cochlear Implant a child abuse as well?
For deaf children who are not part of a decision making process (not applicable to deaf adults):
Cochlear Implant (a) = oralism (b)
a + b = abuse
April 15th, 2007 at 12:13 am
It’s not indivual parents abusing Deaf Children. It’s an institutionalized Cultural abuse of Deaf Children perpetuated by generations-long LIES and biases. When Hearing parents are systematically fed LIES that cater to their CULTURAL FEARS, who is to blame?
Instead of CURSING the inequities, Deaf People need to rise up as one and EDUCATE SOCIETY. When they call you RADICALS, you need to point out, “WE ARE YOUR CHILDREN. Twenty, thirty, forty years down the road!!! We have EXPERIENCED what you are deciding your child should do and have experienced the CONSEQUENCES. Should you listen to the ‘EXPERTS’ or to US????”
April 15th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I have nothing to add because
Erick Ketcham and Ella Lentz say it all. All babies, be they hearing or deaf, are visually oriented. Different studies conducted by the NIH show that hearing parents are to learn sign language to reduce frustration in babies
who depend heavily on visual cues. Why deprive deaf children of the same? It is
interesting to note that in Sweden, the government sends
the Department of Human Services to teach sign language to hearing parents
who give birth to a deaf child. They would make it sure that Swedish hearing parents expose sign language
to deaf children. Not here in the USA! Audists control deaf children.
Yes, it is true that I am a former oralist, but I was already exposed to my deaf parents’ sign language prior to entering a private oral school.
Please visit Amy Cohen-Efron’s far-out vlog at
http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/03/17/the-greatest-irony. Concise and succinct!
April 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am
MZ asks if it is an abuse.
Certainly so. How? By neglecting, depriving, or oppressing the child’s right
to his natural language if he
cannot hear.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am
I’ve never seen anuthing more childish than calling oralsim child abuse.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:33 am
This is what I posted on Aidan Mack’s website in early March and I will reprint here since I think it applies to the discussion here. She is a friend of mine who is a hearing parent of deaf and I have her permission to share what she discussed with me.
Here are her words: a parent is told “Your child is deaf but if you work hard enough and send him to our school (oral program) by the time he is in 5th grade, we will teach him to talk and lipread and he can go out in society and do anything he wants. he will be able to order a hamburger at McDonald’s. When a child does not attain this expected result, there are only two reasons that the school can explain for this: 1) There is something else besides deafness “wrong” with the child or 2) the parent did not work hard enough to get the desired result. I lived this crazy scenario. Other parents with deaf children, both younger or older, were all told this basically by the schools. If you look at this idea and break this down you will see that the responsibility for a child’s success is placed solely on the parent and child. you NEVER will see a school say “we blew it for this child. we were wrong. we failed to give him a good education!!!” how does that undermine the whole relationship of the family members? is there any other handicap that so completely removes all the needed assistance from a child, but still thinks that
child should do well? do you take the glasses away from a child but tell him and his family to try harder to see clearly? and dump the guilt on them that if the child can’t see it is their fault for not working theprogram hard enough? what about a child that cannot walk because of illness or accident or birth defect? do you take away the braces, the wheelchair, the walkers? and they say “no we will use physical therapy all day long and if we work hard enough your child will walk.” and if the child does not walk they MUST tell the parent that it is because they and the child have not worked hard enough. and nowhere in this whole program are we saying “well this is a school, so i’m not so much interested in whether my child can hear and talk and see and walk, but i want to know if he is in the top achievers of all kindergarten kids, or did he finish all the goals of 1st graders or is he ready to be accepted at any colleger he chooses? that is not any part of the education of probably 95% of deaf kids in (name of state) in past 50 years. Can you understand how unhealthy most families can become under these circumstances?
My words: I think it is a abuse of family relationships when the school leaves the family in that kind of condition. So indirectly it harms the child. I have always valued family and this is a shame. Like Carl Schroeder said somewhere, Oralism is not family-friendly on ASL Risen’s Blog.
Like with Amy Cohen Efron’s vlog on Baby Signs and AVT, why cause frustration between the deaf baby and the mother when they could be using the time to bond!
Taking that opportunity away from the families to develop a good bond with their child is abusive, I believe.
I had a thought about maybe why not provide support to parents who have Deaf children to help them come to terms with their child being Deaf where they can work through their questions, grieving, shock, whatever feelings they have and move past that so that way they know that they can develop a good and healthy relationship with their child? Focus on nurturing and strengthening the relationship rather than messing it up. This will benefit the child so much more and contribute to a much more healthy self esteem.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Diane Rez,
Exactly! Glad to know there’s someone else other than my wife that thinks the same way.
It is really unfortunate that many Deaf people don’t see it. Either they are tired of fighting, or they just plum don’t see it. :o(
My wife and I had a conversation with a teacher at ISD and we were appalled to find out that even at ISD, an audiologist actually comes in the classroom and tries to get each student to speak.
My wife and I were quite upset about that, as we have a 17 month old son, and we moved specifically to Indy to leave that audist thinking. We thought, wow.. bi-bi education, great! But reality is, there are some brainwashed Deaf people supporting that.
This teacher said to me “but you are taking away your child’s opportunity to speak. You are preventing him from… (blah blah)”
And you know what’s sick? This teacher is ASL Deaf, and so is his wife. And guess what? The teacher is from a Deaf family! Don’t get me wrong, they are excellent people, very nice and all.
It just shows that wow… Our society really has a negative impact on certain Deaf people… Either they take their freedoms for granted, or they just plum don’t see it.
It’s sad.
Regards,
Erick Ketcham
April 15th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Deaf Philosophy,
Your family betrayed you. They forced you to speak their language. They left you out when they had group conversations, I’m sure.
And your parents are the lowest of the low for not learning ASL. They just decided to take the easy way out and put all the responsibility on you, and that is appalling!
Just so you know, my entire family is hearing. My wife and son are both Deaf, thank god.
And how many hearing family members in my family sign? 14 family members.
You know why? I told them if they don’t learn my language, they are not welcome in my life.
I have kicked out 4 family members including both of my parents for speaking to our son when he was a newborn. I told them they are required to sign to him. They ignored that, and the result was I nearly physically threw them out.
My mother ran out of my house crying, and boy, it felt damn good! She was an interpreter, so there is no excuse for her audist behavior in my home, when I made it very clear that it will not be tolerated in my home.
Rest assured, both of my parents sign to my son, and because of what I did, my son will never experience audism from my parents. They know that the next time they do that, they will be disowned permanently.
Erick
April 15th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Child abuse or not, I agree with Barb Digi’s POV. For me, it comes all down to my children’s needs. Bi-Bi method appears to be the best solution for now to the majority of deaf people, which is the reason why ASL is best taught as the native/1st language and English as 2nd language. Bi-Bi does not benefit my son who is mainstreamed, due to his high academic skills and his preferred communication method. But it works for my daughter. It all depends on the children, on the involvement of the teachers, parents, etc… to cite one v/blogger, it takes a village to raise the child.
Erik, there will always be some people who exhibit “audist” attitude, even here in Indianapolis. There are a few things about ISD that I draw a line at, and remember all schools… deaf and hearing… have pros and cons.
Just make it work for your children… that is what I have been doing with my children… making sure their needs are met as much as possible.
Good luck and I know we will meet soon, since my family live here in Indiana (moved from Rochester, NY.)
April 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
As a very young oralist, I have had some struggles with the teachers and nuns about the “similar” words, for instance, hot and hat. They would give me a simple punish if I don’t make my speech accurately. It is a form of abuse. I went through some very difficult times with the teachers and nuns.
I remembered we had a cooking class, the nun asked us to bring a potion to her. No one understood her what she was saying for about 15 minutes. She kept saying one word, no one still understood her. Then, one girl figured out, assumed and picked the right one. Then she brought it to her. The nun gave all of us except the girl a huge punishment. We had a very difficult to understand the nun what she was trying to say. We could not express our feelings to her, it was kind of “communsim.” We had no freedom of express.
White Ghost
April 15th, 2007 at 9:58 am
There are many excellent responses here. I see that some people are confused, thinking I mean oralism is abusive for all deaf people, even though I clarify I am talking about those whose needs aren’t met by oralism. I have nothing against oralism if it meets the needs of a child. Nor do I imply to place the blame on the parents. It is the educational system.
Abuse is an emotional-laden word. Naturally some will feel offended by this topic like I did when I first was told this nineteen years ago. However, what works for one person doesn’t work for another person. Trying different approaches in timely manner to find the best fit for the deaf child is expected. The key is the words timely manner. If the children are immersed too long with an ineffective method, then it becomes an
issue of abuse. From some of the posts here, oralism felt like abuse to these adults who reflected on their experiences.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Karen Mayes,
It’s a small world isn’t it? :o) I’m originally from Syracuse, New York and I attended RSD for one year way back in 1991.
I agree what you had to say, and that’s what we’re doing. (Making it work) Smile.. Thanks again, look forward to “bumping” into you sometime in one of those Deaf events. :o)
Regards,
Erick
P.s. Mishkazena, you’ve got a point. Everyone should do what works for them. Even the KKK has their own given right to be part of the KKK.
It’s just unfortunate we can’t clean up our Deaf community after 10,000 years of civilization and millions years of humanity, and we still have to deal with this crap.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
This discussion is interesting– since I’ve been raised in a completely bilingual environment- I have a deaf family and I’ve always attended deaf schools– I decided to ask my mom what her opinion was, because she was raised orally. She did not learn sign language until she was 16 years old, and believe me, her parents weren’t too happy about it. (kinda ironic that she ended up marrying a deaf man and having three deaf children huh?) She thought for a minute then said, yes- oralism is child abuse. She says that to this day, she cannot communicate with family members and often she is made to feel that it’s HER fault for failing to learn how to speak. If she was raised in an environment where signing was acceptable, she thinks more family members would be inclined to learn to sign. After a good discussion with her, I feel that the SYSTEM which encourages the attitude that deaf children are failures if they don’t learn to speak– that very system is abusive, not individuals themselves. If the system was such that educators and parents were told to use whatever means available to provide the deaf child with full access to language– the picture of deaf education would be much different.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
EXCLUSIVITY
this issue of oralism being exclusive - not allowing ASL to be part of it while ASL has always tolerated speech to be part of some Deaf people’s lives. The Deaf of olden days (many of whom were semi-mutes) said speech has a time and place for Deaf people and that is amongst the hearing.
Instead we see that sim-com is the rule of the day in almost every educational facility across the US - from low to high (elementary to college)
ASL advocacy has never banned spoken language from the life of a Deaf person; however, oralism has constantly banned ASL from the life, education, and family of a Deaf person
this exclusivity of oralism and sim-com within educational systems has been long and enduring - it is written about at length and in-depth in baynton’s Forbidden Signs
VOICE-OFF ISSUE
for the post about a school telling a Deaf student to turn off her voice - this is not banning speech from the child’s life. I assume the reason for saying ASL only here is because the program is an ASL school. just as if a child goes to a french speakig school or a hebrew speaking school - that is the language of instruction and thus students r required to use that language. outside of the classroom and in their homes they may choose to voice all they want
with oralism - ASL was banned from the classroom, from the dorm as much as possible, and from the HOMES - parents were specifically told not to let their children sign and r still be told this - “it will be a crutch”
whereas with ASL programs - the parents r not told never to let their child take articulation classes outside of school, they r not told to never use their voice with their children nor to forbid their children from using their voice
If the parent does not want an ASL school for her/his child then they have plenty other programs to choose from that will allow, encourage, and/or require the use of voicing
ABSOLUTISTS - kettle black?
hence my confusion when I King Jordan and JK Feranades during the DPN 2 protest kept saying the protestors were not inclusive of diverse d/Deaf people - when it really has been historically that even our beloved Gallaudet U. has not been inclusive of ASL - ASL is not the official language of instruction on campus. not even ONE course in ASL is a core requirement for graduation. Signing people (d/Deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing) are free to exclude others on campus by using spoken English only and the presence of Deaf people, gally has never had an ASL Deaf president
re: the whole topic of communication abuse - i would not charge the parents - i think they r largely innocent and desparate to do what they are told is the “best” for their child.
————
VEDITZ and ADVOCACY
When veditz was president of NAD - he was fundraising for several important purposes - he wrote:
“Given such a fund, the N.A.D. can become the militant organizaton it should be. It can then send regular delegates to conventions of physicians and surgeons, of laryngologists and aurists, of educators from the public schools, and above all, of the Speech Association and the Teachers’ Association. It can take measures to educate the public, possible in no other way.”
(Proceedings of the Ninth Convention of the National Association and the Third World’s Congress of the Deaf, Aug 6 to 13, 1910)
I thought that was brilliant then and brilliant now
this is how we lobby for Deaf rights and ASL - via advocacy within the “powers that be” that really influence the lives of every Deaf child in the U.S. - not be preaching to the choir as we have long been doing
I dont know why the N.A.D. has not pursued such actions since
Do WE NEED A NAADP???
i dont know if an equivilent to the NAACP (National Assoc fr the Advancement of Colored People) is needed
sorry for the long post
peace
p
April 15th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I second Tara Holcomb’s comments. The system is not taking responsibility for what happens to the parent and child, leaving them to try and figure it out on their own.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I always felt that it is a form of child abuse because it really denies the young children from understanding much while growing up. They force the deaf/hard of hearing children to depend on lipreading (speechreading) when the children do not have any language foundation to base on while trying to lipread. It is very tiring, frustrating, and put a lot of fears into young deaf and hard of hearing children when they can not understand, and adults get impatient after trying to repeat verbally again and again, they tend to show some anger because they get tired of repeating too often. The children can sense it quickly, so they try to bluff their way around to act like they understand to avoid the adults’ impatience or anger. Oralism upbringing was very negative to my self-esteem. I had no self-esteem. Many hearing people (hearing parents and professionals) will do anything to stay with oralism.
It affected me deeply because I was “taught” that I was NOT okay, because I am not hearing….I have to work so hard to think like hearing people, dress like them, behave like them, and talk articulately like them, in spite of being profoundly deaf since birth. They never say that I am not “normal.” Just that they teach me that sign language is BAD, not good for me at all, and I will LOSE speech if I learn sign language. They praised me greatly for speaking (although no one could understand me outside of my deaf classroom), and I was better than those who use sign language and I received positive praises for talking, and looked down on other peers who struggled with speech. I received years of speech training and speech reading. Many sounds are not visible so I had to catch few words on lips and work so hard at guesswork to make sense what the person is saying, and respond “correctly” to them so they know that I am on right track, but most of time I “goofed” and I get funny look from hearing people. It sure shatters my self-esteem, and makes me want to hide from them forever. I managed to master “survival skills.” They do not help me with talking much. Only ask, “where is bathroom?” Just basic sentences. Is that considered being successful? To me, it’s failure and a lot of waste time which could be focused on education.
The comments by others have many good points. I am very disappointed for missing out so much during my growing years. I had so much misunderstandings which took me a long time to clear things up. It caused me to be delayed in social skills with people. It took me a while to catch up with education when I entered into Gallaudet Univesity. I do not care how it works for some people, but I have seen firsthand how majority of my class mates did not success beyond the high school education.
Someone told me once that it is similar to being in closet. I agree with that because I was not a part of family whenever they talked. I was an “outsider” at home, at school, and elsewhere. That feeling of being outsider is very hard to overcome even though I adopted ASL and deaf culture. These feelings of being displaced persist with me. I have good family, just that they did not understand the importance of having good communication.
The saddest tragedy is that I can not go “home” to my oralism roots. Once they know that I use sign language, they ban me forever from ever visiting their oral program. These oral children are closed off from other deaf people who use sign language.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:04 am
**Peeling a skin of the onion”" — I am not speaking for the others but for myself. I look at oralism as a form of abuse from my experiences growing up from 18 months old to 6 years old. I remember seeing my dear Hearing mom trying her best but be supportive of us (me and my Deaf brother) in providing LITERACY (reading) in spite of our “failed” attempts at oralism. I think the SYSTEM indeed failed us so she explored another avenue — sign language! From there, we blossomed and still blossom! Awww….I guess she was more or less an advocate for us throughout our school years!
Again, from an experiental standpoint, I see oralism as a verbal, emotional and psychological form of abuse. Just putting my two cents.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
As far as I am concerned,..Oralism, for the totally Deaf child with nerve deafness, is serious child abuse. A little less than thirty years ago,..I worked in a mental institution for the retarded in Ohio. My clients were profoundly deaf children,..the majority of whom had not worked out in Oral programs,..which were taught in Ohio schools and according to Ohio laws at that time. The reasoning behind putting these children in institutions for the retarded, at that time,..was “if a child cannot benefit from an Oral program as taught in a public classroom,..then,..he MUST..be.(actually was)..retarded!!” the idea that some deaf children,..because they are so very visually oriented,..will never truly benefit from an Oral education just never entered into these “educators” minds. The deaf “population” was LARGEST “populations” at the instituion for the mentally retarded that I worked for here in Ohio. I was never allowed to access records to find out just how many of these kids were oral program “drop-outs!” I do know that the feeling among the workers,..assigned to take care of this large “population,”..well over 100 kids,..was that if any deaf child was seen using sign language,..it was a visible sign of his or her “retardation.”
*****The fact that some deaf children will never learn to lip read well or speak well or benefit from an “Oral” education just never seemed to enter any of the minds of the people,..who were putting these kids away and denying them access to learning any sort of a language at all.****
Sorry,..I am getting angry and must stop writing this. I am thinking about all of the human lives that I’ve seen go to waste..in the name of “Oral” education!!!!!!
….Stanelle
April 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
As far as my credentials go,..I was educated as a language teacher in a HEARING college. I have three bachelors degrees,..one in French,..one in English and one in the Biological sciences. I also have a BA in Education. I helped start one of the first group homes in Ohio for so called “MR” deaf.
And a brilliant Deaf Blind lady,..who had been put in a mental institution for 19 years just because she was Deaf and blind,..came to live with me until I got married. The Deaf blind lady came to live with me for a night and stayed for five years. I do know what I am talking about!!
April 16th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Sorry. This concept..(Idead)… has me talking today!
******”National Association for The Advancement Of Deaf People!”******
I love it!! I love it!!
April 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I attended the WV School of the Deaf (WVSD) in 1969 to 1984. This school was known for the Combined System - signing and speaking.
Back to the early 70s, I was in the fourth grade at that time. My regular language arts teacher was ill. The school brought in the substitute hearing teacher, “retired”.
I was educated in SimCom-Total Communication most of the time. I mainly used ASL all the time. Teachers usually had no difficulty of understanding me.
I simply asked the substitute teacher for going to the restroom. That substitute teacher insisted that I had to speak orally like “May I go to the bathroom?” The substitute teacher was aware of my non-speaking ability. I had been waived from speech therapy classes and other related audiological trainings because of my deaf mother’s urges.
I just babble-mouth “May I go to the bathroom” and attemped to walk down to the restroom. The substitute teacher refused to accept my dismissal of speech importance. She insisted that I had to speak perfectly, but I couldn’t speak intelligently. I was not allowed to go to the bathroom til I speak “May I go to the bathroom” perfectly.
The scenario with the substitute teacher became the visible battleground in the entire classroom which hold the classmates hostages to the substitute teacher’s audist demands. It took about appx. 40 minutes for the substitute teacher to give up on me. I eventually won the battle.
I already made the gesture like “could hold much further” and pointed out to my groin area. The substitute teacher surely robbed our precious educational time with importance of language arts course, not wasted entire time on primate-like speech training.
Yes, that was seen as true child abuse. No questions about it!
The regular language arts teacher eventually found out about this incident and told me how much she was really sorry about Mrs. Scanlon’s unethical conducts on me.
Other deaf classmates always envy me for not taking any audiological trainings.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
April 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
[...] Is Oralism Child Abuse? Original article (by Mishka Zena) and, in no particular order: “Is Oralism A Child [...]
April 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I just got information from Wikipedia. Please read below.
“Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect and physical abuse are at risk of developing severe psychiatric problems. [5] [6] These children are likely to develop reactive attachment disorder. [7] [8] These children may be described as experiencing trauma-attachment problems. The trauma experienced is the result of abuse or neglect, inflicted by a primary caregiver, which disrupts the normal development of secure attachment. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment. [7] [9] [10] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, [11] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms. [12] [13]
[edit] Causes of child abuse
Parental choices and other unforeseen circumstances that place families under extraordinary stress ― for instance, poverty, divorce, sickness, disability, lack of parental skills is often associated to child maltreatment. Many of these factors may contribute to family stress that can result in child abuse or neglect. Understanding the root causes of abuse can help better determine the best methods of prevention and treatment.”
(End of Wikipedia)
I am not going to put parents in that debate. It is not fair for them. Most of them are victims, too.
Audist professionals who deny Deaf children’s right to learn languages naturally are child abusers and criminals. No question asked.
We must focus on audists who are making money out of our own blood. We must bring them to the justice. If it sounds too harsh, what about victims who have been suffering for the rest of their life.
That is why I called “Crime Against Deaf” in my recent video clip.
Deafchip
April 20th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Mishka, to answer your question: Is Oralism child Abuse? YES!
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
what a heck for Oralism Child Abuse. I don’t think so. I want to tell you whatever a parent choose their deaf child accessing a oral language as they just learned or practice as same as ASL language where a deaf child stand their education on a nation but it was not judgement. That is why parent know the deaf culture where they could collect some information of deaf education for their sake deaf child. there is a reason for education but it not political issue “Abuse” period.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The real crime occurs when parents are not properly educated. As a teacher/ administrator at a school for students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing it infuriates me that parents do not get a proper education as to all options that are available to them. I think parents are greatly influenced by the first person who they talk to. Unfortunately, many times, parents first information about education is coming from implant teams. Many medical personnel are misinforming parents about educational issues. That is the real crime. It then takes YEARS of a child being in the wrong educational setting before the child gets moved to an educational setting that works for them. We need to all understand that there is not 1 right way!! The research is telling us that no single method is right, wrong or making a significant impact on the progress of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students overall. Our students are still graduating college with a 4th grade average reading level. I believe this could be significanly changed if we’d all stop teaching a method and start teaching children!
Schools need to let go of 1 single philosophy and embrace a continuum of service and meet the needs of an individual child. Isn’t it after all called , “an individualized educational plan”. I’ve seen students with profound loss do well in an “English” environment. I’ve seen students with milder hearing losses benefit greatly from a more conceptually accurate environment. The point is again to stop teaching methodology based on personal belief. We must let go of personal bias and truly embrace what is best for the child.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Yes, there is a wide spectrum available for the deaf child. A method will work for one, but not for another one.
For some oralism suits their needs as they are able to benefit from residual hearing and lipreading. However there are constant challenges in the classrooms, but it is doable.
For others, oralism means a deprivation of language and communication as they cannot understand spoken English fully, especially if their residual hearing is nonexistent or too severely damaged to process speech. For these students, oralism becomes abuse.
Only these deaf people can tell us if what they experience is abuse or not. Only they know what works best for themselves and will naturally pick the communication method that fits their communication needs the most.
Many times this simple concept is lost to the hearing people who don’t fully comprehend how much these children miss out.
That is the real tragedy.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:27 am
When I was little, a deaf oral student at Montgomery County Public Schools, I had a private tutor which my mother would drive me to after school(cannot remember how often but it was probably too many for me). I would not cooperate with my tutor who was a speech pathologist who stayed home with her baby, so she slapped my face! I was shocked and felt degraded. I remember standing outside waiting for my mother to get me. I never told my mother, how can I? This was an experience I had not forgotten. I am extremely biased against speech pathologists because of my experience. Was this a child abuse? Being slapped by a speech pathologist because I would not cooperate by trying to follow her instructions how to speak? eh? What is wrong with this picture?
December 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
[...] child to be educated. And since some quarters of the Deaf blogosphere subscribe to the notion that oralism is child abuse, more rescuing is needed because deaf children have a deficit (hearing loss) that needs to be [...]
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
I myself was an oralism, but I never thought if I was abused because of that but there is no cause and effect. None caused and effected me as a child. I do not believe there is any one who is real child abuse because of oralism or you mean strict displine of learning to talk? Being abused or displined you talked about?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 am
No, I wasn’t referring to the physical punishment or the arduous ordeal in mastering the fine arts of oralism.
I was referring to those who didn’t do well with oralism, however they were forced to utilize it, much to their detriment as they experienced severe communication and information access. I know few deaf people who were raised orally and they ended up deeply scarred, with minimal social skills and extremely isolated. Psychologically they were a mess. It’s very tragic to see them end this way. Looking back, I realized their oral skills weren’t sufficient to carry them through the hearing educational system and function well in the hearing world
You probably excelled in oralism. People who excelled in oralism tend to do well, but they weren’t common, especially among the profoundly deaf people.