Oralism leaves deaf children behind in our society


THE OLYMPIAN | • Published July 30, 2010

Years ago, a friend of mine told the story of his son’s birth. He recalled the doctor somberly gave the news that their son was deaf. The doctor was astonished when the parents hugged and rejoiced. They explained to the befuddled doctor that because he was deaf, he would be able to fully share the culture and language of his parents.


The doctor then added their new, perfectly healthy boy could be fixed through cochlear implants.

“Thanks, but no thanks,” they replied firmly.

Alarmed, the doctor insisted they were doing great harm and sternly lectured about potential speech and language delays. Undaunted, they proceeded with no implant.

Without an implant, his son is now fully immersed in deaf culture, understands American Sign Language fluently, reads at grade level English and acts mischievously as any young boy.

A cochlear implant is a device which is surgically attached to the cochlea. It bypasses the outer ear and transmits sound waves to the brain through a processor which is worn outside the patient’s head. An implant works where neurosensory hearing loss eliminates the effectiveness of the most powerful outer ear hearing aids.

Cochlear implants can be a substantial blessing for those who are postlingually deaf. After Rush Limbaugh went deaf, implants helped him regain his hearing and, love or hate him, continue his broadcasting career.

A candidate for a successful implant has a strong language foundation and wants to hear again. However, using implants in prelingually deaf children with no language foundation has created a firestorm of controversy pitting deaf culture against the audist opinions of medical and educational professionals.

Today, one out of 10 deaf children has cochlear implants. In 15 years, this is expected to rise to one out of three deaf children. Many doctors push parents of deaf children toward implants and oralism, insisting, despite the oxymoron, the best path is teaching a deaf child how to speak. The benefits of using American Sign Language as a method of communication are usually omitted or discouraged.

Those in support of prelingual implants insist the decision should be no harder than deciding to buy glasses to correct vision problems. Playing on the fears of distraught parents, doctors often fail to mention the enormous costs, years of commitment for speech therapy and frequency in which implants simply don’t work. The reality of longitudinal success rates for prelingual implants remains inconclusive and unimpressive. Further, the FDA recently warned that implanted children are more likely to develop several medical complications including bacterial meningitis.

Despite these unresolved issues or input from the deaf community, medical science continues to brainwash government leaders regarding prelingual implants and unproven speech theories. The deaf view this as an extension of the historic battle with Alexander Graham Bell.

Prior to Bell’s forcing oralism into deaf education, students flourished. William Gallaudet and others proved that American Sign Language has a vital role in language development and early deaf education. Bell, who detested Gallaudet, abused his power to systematically eliminate sign language and promote his version of oralism.

Two hundred years later, Bell’s approach hasn’t lived up to its hype. Increasingly, statistics show how oralism continues to leave deaf children behind. Despite the piling negative evidence, oralism thrives among hearing professionals as the model for deaf rehabilitation.

The deaf community continues advocating against prelingual implants. However, their pleas have, ironically, fallen on the deaf ears of oralist professionals who refuse to change while continuing to ignore the deaf community’s opinion. In order to create an ethical solution, the oralist rationale, which drives the increase of prelingual implants, must include deaf cultural perspectives and eliminate audist practices.

Stephen Roldan, a member of The Olympian’s Diversity Panel, is statewide coordinator of deaf services for the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. He can be reached at roldasj@dshs.wa.gov.

6 Comments to Oralism leaves deaf children behind in our society

  1. Mary's Gravatar Mary
    July 30, 2010 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    I still can’t believe this kind of nonsense is still published in this day and age. My son has bilateral cochlear implants and is VERY oral….he even knows a little sign to get by when his processors are off. He has a huge vocabulary and can interact with anyone he chooses. We go to the state school every other year to interact with other deaf students and he does well with kids who sign and those who are oral.
    He also has tourette syndrome, OCD and ADHD. He has more access to help more easily because he is oral. I have also been able to explain to him his condition and we have worked through it.
    Also, MOST parents aren’t and will never be as good at ASL as a deaf parent who has a child. Even with signing exact English it is hard.
    Parents have the right to chose and whether they chose ASL or oral, IT IS STILL A LOT of work. My son has never been left behind! He is leading the way.

  2. Melissa Benton's Gravatar Melissa Benton
    July 30, 2010 at 11:17 PM | Permalink

    This is typical deaf culture hogwash. The facts and statistics strongly demonstrate that children who develop speech and language early in life and who are educated in auditory oral classrooms attain higher levels of education and employment.
    The deaf culture should allow parents to make their own decisions concerning what is best for their children. If parents are deaf and their child is born deaf and they want them to have the same culture and language, that’s fine. But the deaf culture needs to respect the fact that 90% of children who are born deaf are born to hearing parents, and those parents want their child to be able to hear all of the wonderful sounds of life. In my line of work, I have personally witnessed many children who were born deaf, had a cochlear implant at a young age, attended auditory-verbal therapy, and were ready to attend mainstream school when they were 5 years old. Their hearing and speech abilities were so good that you could not even tell they had a hearing loss. Another factual statistic: the success rate of cochlear implants is 99%. This is amazing technology that works very well. Don’t listen to the lies of the deaf culture. They feel threatened because they are the minority. If they don’t want to be part of the hearing world, they need to stay out of the hearing world’s business and stop spreading lies about cochlear implants.

  3. Jennifer's Gravatar Jennifer
    July 31, 2010 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    I feel I must reply to this post as the writer is grossly mis-informed about children who are pre-lingually implanted. The author states that, “The reality of longitudinal success rates for prelingual implants remains inconclusive and unimpressive.” There are many studies being conducted about this very thing. I have two children who are involved in this one: http://cdaci.org/information.html. I have three deaf children, all bilaterally implanted at different ages. All three of my children are conversant in ASL because they are and always will be deaf. I grew up in the deaf community and culture. I understand what traditional “hard core” oralists have done to the DEAF. I have witnessed it in my own family. I do not support that view and I do not support the view to do nothing and let them be Deaf. My children are proof that in this day and age, a person can have the best of both worlds. Both worlds must be willing to allow it though.

  4. August 2, 2010 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

    I must mention that being oral do NOT leave deaf children behind. Rather they helped bridging the difference with hearing people. I do support learning American sign language however. I believe learning both oral and ASL would greatly help in development.
    The writer have no basis saying oralism leaving deaf children behind. Myself being oral have no problem. In fact I have graduated with top honors and with high college entrance test scores. Granted oralism may not work with some deaf children. It all depended on children environment and their parents and their willingness. I do believe that deaf children should have a choice as how to learn via ASL or oralism. Being coerced would not assist in development. Rather it will turn them away unwilling to learn anything.
    Both oralism and ASL have worked for deaf children. Doctors should NOT pushed parents to have implants put on. That is like trying to erase ashame and close book on deafness just like they did to mentally ill in 50′s.

  5. anonymous's Gravatar anonymous
    April 10, 2011 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

    There are cases though where CIs are being used to NOT provide children with interpreters that are requested by the children and their Deaf parents. This is sad. Children with CIs should not be considered FULLY hearing. They are more hard of hearing and should be given the educational benefits of anything needed in the classroom. CI are also being used by judges that don’t research to keep children from their Deaf parents by claiming the Deaf parent forces the child to take the CIs off when if fact that is not true. It is just so sad.

  6. Dianne W's Gravatar Dianne W
    August 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    Well it is interesting to see what so many hearing parents of deaf children really don’t grasp, oralism is indicative of the brainwashing that the parents undergo after they learn their child is deaf. I am a product of oral education and I am often told my speech is incredible that you wouldn’t know that I am deaf. Well there is a flip side problem because one talk and deceive the listener that when they are informed that I am deaf they refuse to accept this truth all because my speech doesn’t allude to the facts. It has been a major curse for me education-wise and employment-wise. To this day I live in a very isolated situation, the hearing don’t associate with me because I am not hearing and the deaf because I’m not deaf enough. I didn’t learn ASL till 4 years ago and still the deaf community says I don’t sound deaf enough. Oralism, to me is a terrible thing to put a child through. It is an exercise of isolation and self-loathing. I grew up hating myself because I wasn’t hearing. Life at home with family was hard, I hated sitting at the table because I couldn’t join in on the conversations or laugh at the jokes if I asked what they say the reply would be “nothing, not important”. Those three words hurt more than anything, family reunions and such I hated them for the same reasons. I will NEVER go to my high school reunions because I didn’t have friends, didn’t like those in my class so why should I want to see the very same people inflict such pain when I was younger. Children with CI are not hearing they are STILL deaf. The CI’s are only fancy super expensive hearing aids. Its just another way for parents to deny their child is deaf and get them the best possible education that allows them the child and the parents to embrace deafness as it is. No it isn’t easy to learn ASL but if you do your deaf child will love and appreciate your willingness to communicate at their level not force them to be something they are its all a BIG LIE!!

  1. By on June 24, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.