Steve Barber on Gallaudet

Editor: Those who spend much time online looking at hearing loss topics know Steve Barber. He always has a reasoned and well-articulated position on the important topics of the day. Here are his thoughts on the recent situation at Gallaudet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) I don' t believe Gallaudet was intended for people with hearing loss. When it was formed, and for most of its history, there were few if any options for people with hearing loss. Hearing Loss Association of America wasn't around ... hearing aids weren't around ... ALDs weren't around .... captions weren't around ... CIs weren't around. Of those, only hearing aids have been around more than a few years, and until a few years ago, even those were only marginally effective for serious losses.

2) I think the words "and hard of hearing" was added to many Deaf oriented things (DSDHH's, Accessibility, residential schools and Gallaudet) more recently ... possibly at the realization that Deaf numbers were very small (and shrinking) and HoH numbers were much larger (and growing) ... big numbers sound good when funding is needed.

3) Only a small percentage of people with hearing loss would consider Gallaudet as "for them" ... mostly that would be the hard of hearing who might be interested in ASL as a serious communication strategy, but as you know, most people with hearing loss aren't very interested in becoming fluent in ASL, since most people they know don't sign at all. Gallaudet has always been ASL based, and only recently (see 2, above) have attempts to broaden its focus been considered.

4) I believe the attempts to broaden the base of Gallaudet are seen by the protesters as a threat to its traditional ASL base ... with good reason. I believe (despite the many reasons put forward) that this broadening was the main impetus behind the protest. They are right; it IS a threat to its traditional ASL base. What they overlook is that Deaf Culture will be threatened by a number crunch that they cannot prevent. By insisting on a traditional and exclusive ASL base for Gallaudet, they are accepting a shrinking enrollment and eventually a diminishing funding that may jeopardize the entire institution.

5) Whether the protest has helped or hurt Gallaudet will be seen soon enough ... maybe much sooner than the protesters would like. I believe it will hurt. I believe that a broadend Gallaudet is the only way to protect it, but obviously the protesters disagree with me. It can't be good news for Gallaudet that the chair and a powerful US Senator have resigned from the board. The press throughout the protest can't have a long term positive effect on the willingness to pour massive funding into a diminishing and closed academic community.

6) Would they be better off broadening the base to save Gallaudet as an institution? That depends on whether they think it would be saved or destroyed by the broadening. They've made their choice and won the battle, but they may have lost the war.

7) But it's a valid question to ask ... "Is it best to change (broaden) a 'culture' in order to protect it, or does that very change also destroy it?" We had a threat to a "culture" with the American Indians. Were the Indians who opted to accept a "broadening" of their culture and to be more assimilated into the dominant culture better off than the ones who attempted to preserve the "purity" and their culture? Both lost a lot in the process, so even now it's not easy to say that either the assimilators or the protesters of Indian culture "won". If we can't figure that out 150 years later, then we can certainly understand how there could be differences of opinion about what's best for Gallaudet, today.