The Relevance of American Sign Language
I recently read two interesting articles that raised some serious questions about the relevance of American Sign Language (ASL), albeit in slightly different contexts.
The first details a controversy in Western New York surrounding the appointment of Thomas Burns, a hearing individual who does not know ASL, as executive director of Deaf Adult Services, an agency that provides services to the deaf and hearing impaired in the region.
Those opposed to his appointment say that while he may know finances and how to run a business, he is not qualified for the job since he cannot communicate with the deaf community or with several of the agency's staff members who are deaf. His detractors have started a group called Western New York Deaf United to protest the appointment, but so far Deaf Adult Services has defended its decision to hire Burns, saying he is working hard to learn about sign language and the deaf culture.
The article includes several interesting opposition-viewpoint quotes that compare Burns' appointment to appointing a white man as the head of an African American association or someone who doesn't speak Spanish to a job requiring knowledge of the language.
Those are interesting and valid points, and the protestors say they don't want Burns to necessarily lose his job; rather they think he should become the chief executive officer so that someone fluent in ASL--someone who can communicate with the community he or she serves--can take on the more vital role of executive director.
It's hard for me to have a stance on this issue--I understand where the protestors are coming from, and I am somewhat surprised the agency didn't find someone who was qualified that also knows ASL. However, at the same time, it's entirely possible that an executive director can still do a fine job even if he isn't similar to those he is servicing. It's also possible Burns could even add a fresh viewpoint, especially if his main purpose will be to raise general awareness about Deaf Adult Services, as suggested in a letter from the acting president of the Deaf Adult Services Board of Directors posted at the bottom of the article.
The second article is broader, focusing on the relevance of ASL in general, not just in a specific situation. It's actually a blog from the Los Angeles Times that questions how ASL may be affected by the increasing incidence of cochlear implantation in young children.
With more and more people opting to have their deaf children get implants early in life, the blog questions whether or not ASL will remain as relevant as it has been over years. All of the experts quoted in the piece support learning sign language, even in children with cochlear implants, since outcomes vary.
It's also important to keep in mind that learning sign language will still leave the door open for children with cochlear implants to embrace and communicate with the deaf community. I understand why parents wouldn't want to wait until their child is older to make his or her own decision on the matter (since children learn spoken language more successfully if implanted before the age of 3), but I do think teaching a child sign language would be a good way to still allow the child to make the choice, while also protecting against the possibility that the implants aren't successful.