I Fill This Small Space: The Writings of a Deaf Activist

Reaction to See! See! See! See! Article

79 Reaction to See! See! See! See! Article THE CALIFORNIA FORUM 1017 Lido Street Anaheim, California 92801 13 February 69 My Dear Mr. Newman, Thanks for your note last week along with a further contribution titled “Teacher Training” for The California Forum. There are two reasons, one minor and one major, why I do not think we shall be able to use your contributions after “See! See! See! See!” This decision has nothing to do with you personally, nor with your English! The minor reason is the fact that your contributions also appear in The Deaf American. Although we did begin the series with “See! x 4,” as a bimonthly paper we are easily and progressively overtaken by the monthly Deaf American: it is four articles ahead of us now, (we did scoop themonthlywithanannouncementof your“Teacherof theYear”award) and a reprint in The California Forum would be just that—a reprint. Of course, I am assuming all good teachers subscribe to The Deaf American, the one and only national publication of its nature. The major reason, however, is the following from a writer who wishes to remain anonymous at this time. (His letter is hastily written and he wishes to rewrite and polish . . .) I quote: . . . What I have to say is slightly critical. I feel guilty about that basically because (of the fact that you seem) willing to give of your own time, talent and energy for no recompense at all to put out The Forum. I also feel that it is a much better Forum than we have ever had before. The Deaf American (June 1969) 80 Now for the critical part. It was certainly true, as you admitted in your September–October editorial, that the articles seemed to be heavily weighted in favor of the Anaheim-Riverside School for the Deaf area. Frankly, they also seemed heavily weighted toward a more “manual” point of view. Please understand that I don’t object to manual methods (I use fingerspelling as an aid to speech in my own classroom) or to residential schools. I think, however, we ought to make an effort to balance our presentation , more particularly since much more than half of our membership are usually day school (primarily oralist) teachers. Only if we can get them to see one another’s views, clearly and dispassionately presented (if that’s possible) can teachers on both sides of the ancient controversy begin to learn from one another, respect one another’s positions, and maybe even soften up a little on their own views. (That was a heck of a disjointed sentence, but it just came pouring out of my disjointed mind that way.) My main point is that I am afraid that too much of one point of view will only anger a large segment of our teachers. (Solutions!) I was particularly bothered by the article, “See! See! See! See!” by Lawrence Newman. If you want my honest opinion (which most people don’t really want, and few are stupid enough to give, but I’ll give it to you anyway and hope that we will still remain friends) I’m afraid that if I am going to be subjected to four more of Mr. Newman’s articles, I have grave doubts as to whether I will join C.A.T. next year myself.2 It got a very negative reaction from many of my day school friends in this area. When I asked one young new teacher what she thought of it, I remember that she gave me one of those half forced smiles—not wanting to offend—and said, “Well, it was kind of cute.” It struck me that perhaps that trite word, “cute” fits pretty well. The article cut in both dictionary senses of the word: 1. clever and 2. shrewd. It was cleverly written to be sure, but I carried with it—in the text and between the lines—an insidious message. The message was very clear. It was that all of you teachers who are trying to get your students to “Talk! Talk! Talk! Talk!” (We all recognized the reference to the old Tracy Clinic maxim) and to Learn! Learn! Learn! Learn! without using any manual assistance are engaged in an 2. C.A.T. is shorthand for the California Association of Teachers of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (C.A.T.D.H.H.). 81 absurd waste of time akin...