-
Who Represents Whom
- Gallaudet University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
190 Who Represents Whom From time to time adult deaf leaders of state and national organizations are criticized for the type of thoughts and feelings they express. For example, the November–December 1971 issue of the Jersey School News carried a talk “Regarding Communication Methods in Educating the Deaf” given by Dr. Pauline Jensen before the Katzenbach Parents Organization.3 At the conclusion of her remarks Dr. Jensen stated: I find it significant that the spokesmen for total communication can speak. The best argument for early oral communication is that these deaf people who can speak intelligibly have become the leaders of the deaf community. For them, speech made a difference. Another example was published in the January 1972 issue of the Volta Review. It was a talk given by Mr. George Fellendorf at a California Association of Parents (CAP) convention held at Concord, California, November 6, 1971. Said Mr. Fellendorf in part: Many deaf adult leaders of national, state, and local organizations were born, reared and educated during a period when use of the hearing aid was not considered appropriate or necessary for those identified as deaf. Since a great majority of these deaf leaders are individuals whose hearing loss occurred at later than the fifth year, it is obvious that these individuals do not represent my prelingually deaf child nor the children of many of you in the audience. Our insights into the attitudes and experiences of prelingually deaf and hearing impaired adults is quite sparse. Our primary sources are those individuals whose hearing loss was incurred prior to the age of 4 or 5 years and who are sufficiently articulate to speak out or write for the benefit of parents of future generations of children with similar etiologies and age of onset. Many of these individuals can be found among the ranks of the Oral Deaf Adults Section (ODAS) of the Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf. The emphasis on preschool education for hearing impaired children, on the maximum use of residual hearing (which we know that virtually all deaf children have), and on the encouragement of parents to The Deaf American (May 1972) 3. The Marie Katzenbach School for the Deaf serves students in the state of New Jersey. 191 take a role in the auditory environment and learning of young hearing impaired children is something which has taken place within the last 10 years. Thus, the young deaf person today, in his 20’s, who had the advantage of having his hearing loss detected before the age of 2; who was fitted with monaural, if not, binaural, hearing aids; who had training from an experienced teacher or therapist before the age of 3; and whose parents were aware of and dedicated to maximizing the use of residual hearing, is indeed a rare individual in our deaf society today. This is a fact of which we as parents of deaf children and young adults should be aware as we evaluate the statements, attitudes and performance of many of those who are guiding us from the leadership among the deaf and the ranks of deaf organizations. Realizing it or not, Mr. Fellendorf in his above remarks was throwing verbal smokescreens in a masterful way. To the uninitiated, his statements cannot help but appear convincing. First, if what Mr. Fellendorf has said occurred the last 10 years then his own daughter and the members of the ODAS are too old to have benefited from the conditions he described to be of recent origin. What is Mr. Fellendorf saying that is really new? The John Tracy Clinic and other preschool clinics throughout the country are not of recent vintage. Maximum utilization of hearing aids and parent involvement are old hat to them. Generations of us postlingualists have grown up and struggled through the oral method. The training of the majority of teachers was based on oral-auditory methods . Rare, indeed, was a manual communication class for hearing adults. Those of us who did not spend our lives in a little or non-communicating family environment were lucky. In all probability it is true that the degree and quality of oral-auditory methods have improved and that there is a more widespread and intense utilization of hearing aids. However, is it true that since we postlingual deaf were not brought up utilizing a hearing aid we do not fully grasp its merits? Aside from the better speech and language base that we have, are...