Quotable Quotes of Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet

Here are these interesting quotes by Dr. Gallaudet in 1886, six years after the 1880 Milan Conference:

I commend this auricular method to all who are interested in the education of the deaf as one deserving of very great attention, because, if we take the number of the deaf who are capable of being taught aurally as amounting to 10 per cent, only, it is conferring upon them a great boon to teach them aurally; it is a greater boon even than giving them the power of imperfect speech.

And this quote:

Within two years after that time I exhibited this boy before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, and talked with him through the tube without difficulty, and today he has advanced far enough to be a student in our college; he is a young man full of promise, and he hears well enough to be able to sit by the side of either of you gentlemen and carry on a conversation with you through the tube.

And this one, too:

A third method which we are now practising in America with some exceedingly interesting results may be spoken of as the aural or auricular method. A very considerable percentage of those who are classed in the community as deaf-mutes have a degree of hearing which makes it entirely possible that they may be educated through the ear.

Who ever thought that Dr. Gallaudet would trot out a deaf boy at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., of all places, and hold him up as an example of a successful product of an oral and auditory teaching approach to gain a language? Imagine people like him doing that today at Gallaudet University. Students and staff over there would just have an apoplectic fit.

All this occurred on Nov 9,1886 according to the Royal Commission report. Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledged the importance of listening and speaking. This important acknowledgment came six years later after the famous Milan Conference in 1880 when Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet and Rev. Thomas Gallaudet opposed a resolution that passed banning sign language.

Let me repeat that again for you.

How do you reconcile with Dr. Gallaudet being against the banning of sign language in 1880 (Milan Conference) and 6 year later explained to the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom on the Condition of the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb on his commending the successful use of aural and oral teaching method?  How do you reconcile with those two facts? And the fact earlier in his life he became the first president of Columbia Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb and Blind in 1864 now today called "Gallaudet University."

Interesting, eh? I'm sure your brain hurts right now.

What Dr. Paddy Ladd said versus Dr. Gallaudet on 1880 Milan Congress

With thanks to Candy who provided some crucial quotes of Dr. Paddy Ladd in the first chapter of his book.

Paddy Ladd:

What could a Deaf person, a Deaf community become?

What could we have been had not sign language and Deaf teachers been removed from Deaf education after the Milan ‘Congress’ of 1880?

What could we have been had we not been forced to endure more than a century of English illiteracy, self-shame and stigma?

Who and what were we in the centuries before such prohibitions descended, when Deaf Professionals and Deaf pride was reputedly much stronger?

And, what can we bring forward from those times which might inform the fledging steps we must take in this 21st century?

Dr. Paddy Ladd is a British bloke who wrote a thesis from the point of view as a British person relevant to his experience in his country versus an American person in his/her own country. But let's look at what Dr. EM Gallaudet said in 1886 to Lord Egerton during a question and answer session with Dr. Gallaudet.

The most damning quote by Dr. Gallaudet to Lord Egerton in 1886? (6 years later after the Milan Convention of 1880)

"I am not aware that the opinion or the practice of any teacher in America, or of any school in America, has been changed by this action of the Milan Convention."

That is in direct opposition to claims today that deaf people (i.e. signers) were harmed by the Milan Convention decision in the United States.  Gallaudet and many others at the time rejected such a recommendation by the Milan Convention on oral method only route.

But here's an interesting twist, Dr. Gallaudet advocated for the use of the oral method in America as well. It was to be included with all other teaching and communication methods at the time.


32 Abingdon Street, Westminster.
Wednesday, 10th November, 1886.
Present: The Eight Hon. The LORD EGERTON OF TATTON In The Chair.


Source.

You have Lord Egerton asking questions to Dr. EM Gallaudet in 1886. This was done 6 years after the Milan Convention of 1880.  Note the bold sections. The red color ones are the more interesting quotes.

13.306. Lord Egerton: I see that a number of resolutions were arrived at by that Congress, and I think the Commission would be very glad to know if you could give us some idea of the opinion of those in America best calculated to express an opinion upon the results arrived at at that Congress?

Gallaudet: The feeling in America was that the resolutions adopted by that Convention, giving a formal approval to the pure oral method, were not entitled to very great weight. The Convention was far from being a representative body. I mean to say that there was no basis of representation, so that a particular institution or a particular country should be considered as being represented by a certain number of delegates. My own opinion at the time was, and nothing has since occurred to change it, that the decision of the Convention at Milan as regards the pure oral system, as expressed in these resolutions, was not to be taken as of very great weight in determining questions of method, and that opinion was entertained by a very large majority of the teachers of the deaf in America, including many who taught then and teach now on the oral method. In justice to the few who hold to a different opinion I should say there were some teachers in America who accepted the decision of the Milan Convention as expressing their views. I am not aware that the opinion or the practice of any teacher in America, or of any school in America, has been changed by this action of the Milan Convention.

13.307. Lord Egerton: May I take it that from your own experience the combined system, with as much vocalization as can be added, is the method that you would recommend !

Dr. Gallaudet: I should say oral teaching should be included.

13.308. Lord Egerton: Is that the method which is recommended in America today?

Dr. Gallaudet: That is the method which is recommended by the resolutions which I had the honor to read to the Commission yesterday, as coming from the largest Convention that has ever been held in America, and at which all methods were represented. My views are in accordance with the recommendations in those- resolutions, and I have held those views during now a period of 19 years. I may say frankly, that my experience prior to that time was such as to lead me to depreciate and undervalue the oral teaching of the deaf, and I wrote and spoke and worked as a manual teacher purely up to 1867 ; but when I then visited Europe and examined the oral schools, especially in Germany, I became satisfied that I had failed to grasp the situation theretofore, and I accepted at once the addition of the oral method as a necessity in any system that aimed to reach the highest good of the deaf.

So, the acceptance of the oral method today shouldn't be a problem. but the today's approach, understanding, and advance in technology are light years away from that of in 1886. Yet the signing is still recommended to be included. No harm in that but I must re-iterate that an informed decision is still up to the parents. Parents still hold the trump cards. All we can hope is at parents are adequately informed to make an important but informed decision.

Using the Milan Convention of 1880 as a scape-goat in order to blame the so called harm to the signing community does not hold that much weight. Competiting ideas on educational and communication approaches were a continual and dynamic process over the last 130 years since the Milan Convention of 1880. In each respective ideological practices it has become more refined along with increased knowledge and confidence in their area of expertise on AVT, SEE, ASL, MANUAL, CUED SPEECH, AUDITORY or ORAL approaches today combined with the use of hearing aids or cochlear implants that helps improve the acquisition of the spoken and auditory language.  What we now know today along with the advances in hearing technology cannot be compared to the thinking of the 1880s and rudimentary approaches with limited knowledge on educational practices and approaches. There is simply no comparison to be made in terms of equivalency here between two very different eras.

None.

The old adage that's true today is that there is no one shoe size that fits all for people with hearing loss from mild to profound hearing loss.  That philosophical approach is adequate today but not in 1886. Yet sign language is still a very important communication approach (even language) for people with hearing loss and those who don't have hearing loss.

The problem today is that some Deaf people are simply addicted with this whole scapegoating efforts doing the constant blame game in the name of Deaf politics rather than simply focus on positive examples and let that shine through. Which is why today I continue to say, "Deafhood? No thanks." You need to understand from my point of view as to why I say that. It's simple. It's these stupid Deaf politics that get in the way of. Sort of like refusing to agree to disagree but instead prefer to throw a temper tantrum on the floor for the world to see.

I don't judge people on their preference to use or not use their voice. Same goes for signing preferences. And the use of their hearing aids or cochlear implants. Nor do I go behind closed doors and do all these Salem witch trials to determine (i.e. the extreme audacity) whether if this or that person is "Deaf-centric" enough in the name of "deafhood." When that happens you KNOW those people are brainwashed and fervently ideological who do not realize the consequences of making those kinds of inquiries can have. That's one of the reason why segregation and discrimination are happening behind closed doors.  And that "deafhood" has become about politics and ideology and nothing about acceptance for what they are instead focus on "who" they are. This is true for CAD (California Association of the Deaf) when they proposed to use the "deafhood" requirement in order to be a member (see video below).

Can we say "segregation" now? Can we say "discrimination" now? Can we say that those people simply do not accept people with hearing loss by focusing on what they are?

This "deafhood" ideology is now becoming the new "McArthyism." It's no longer a philosophical concept but it has now become a required practice.




Basic summary of that video.

*CAD requires members to be a part of "deafhood."

*Must take workshops in order to qualify as officers of CAD.

*Says it is discrimination if one says "no thanks to deafhood" and cannot run for officer of CAD.

*Medical view of "deafhood" - everything is always about improving our lives, who are they to tell us what shouldn't be or should be.


I'll include more summary briefs for those who don't know sign language later on.

Dr. Gallaudet praised the oral and auditory teaching method.

Interesting stuff about Dr. Gallaudet.

Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged the power of hearing when it came to education and teaching people with hearing loss. He explained to the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom on the Condition of the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb (as reported in the 1892 Volta Bureau report) on commending the successful use of the aural and oral teaching method despite the availability of the manual method at the time.

Segment 13.147 - 13.152 from the Commission notes, Dr. Gallaudet detailed on how he exhibited a young boy the example of on the power of hearing to the National Academy of Sciences which gave him further insight and understanding on the power of using residual hearing for teaching and developing a language. Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged that success to the Royal Commission despite the crude"technological" approach that was available to them at the time. So successful was the use of this boy's residual hearing by using a particular method of teaching ensured his language success to carry on appropriate conversations with hearing people.

Dr. Gallaudet:
A third method which we are now practising in America with some exceedingly interesting results may be spoken of as the aural or auricular method. A very considerable percentage of those who are classed in the community as deaf-mutes have a degree of hearing which makes it entirely possible that they may be educated through the ear. The percentage is put variously at from 12 to 25 per cent., which even at the lowest figure is a large percentage of the whole number. The first movement in reference to the aural teaching of the deaf was made in Nebraska four years ago, and it was found in that institution that the percentage was quite large of those who were capable of being taught by the ear. I saw in that institution a little more than two years ago a class which was being taught entirely upon this method, and the process of teaching was an exceedingly interesting one. The class consisted, perhaps, of 11 or 12 pupils. There had been a careful examination of the amount of hearing possessed by each of these pupils, and that pupil who heard the least was placed at the teacher's right hand, the one who had a little more hearing was placed next, and the one who had a little more further on, while the one who had the greatest amount of hearing was furthest removed from the teacher. The teacher then in a voice elevated above the ordinary tone was able to dictate to those pupils, and they had all of them been actually taught to use that hearing which they possessed, which prior to the instruction was not supposed to have been sufficient to be made available at all as a means of instruction. In other words, those pupils were gradually ceasing to be deaf-mutes; they were speaking very well, and they were hearing as well as persons whom we call hard of-hearing persons. The result would be that, having come to the school under the legal appellation of "deaf-mutes," they would go out of the school not deaf-mutes at all.

The Commission (LORD EGERTON OF TATTON):
How is that result attained?

Dr. Gallaudet:
The process I can describe a little more fully by reference to the result of a very interesting experiment which we tried in the primary school connected with our college at Washington. In that primary school we try a good many experiments, and we do what we can to develop various methods. The children come in at the age of seven, and they continue in the school for eight or nine years. We had a boy who entered before we began to teach articulation. He was accredited to us as a deaf-mute from one year of age. He lost his hearing in infancy before he learnt to speak; he was absolutely dumb, and the degree of hearing that he possessed was not supposed to be of any account at all. He was registered as hearing slightly very loud noises. Not long after he entered we began teaching him speech, and he was taught to articulate. His progress was only moderate; his success was so imperfect that after a year's effort it was almost decided to give up attempting to teach him any further, but his teacher discovered, purely accidentally, that in uttering a word when the boy's face was turned away from him the boy reproduced the sound. With the use of the hearing tube it was presently discovered that the boy could repeat the vowel sounds and many of the consonant sounds without difficulty; he could repeat words the meaning of which he did not in the least degree understand. The teacher then at once began to educate his hearing. This degree of hearing which the boy possessed had never been enough for him to hold any conversation with members of his family or with any person at an ordinary distance from him.

The Commission:
Was the speaking tube that was used an ordinary speaking tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, a flexible speaking tube. Within two years after that time I exhibited this boy before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, and talked with him through the tube without difficulty, and today he has advanced far enough to be a student in our college; he is a young man full of promise, and he hears well enough to be able to sit by the side of either of you gentlemen and carry on a conversation with you through the tube.

The Commission:
The fact is that his power of hearing had been overlooked?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Just so.

The Commission:
There was no extra mechanism in the tube?

Dr. Gallaudet:
No. The result in that case shows that a very small amount of hearing, untrained to be useful, has existed in hundreds of deaf persons who have gone on through life dumb and hard of hearing, and classed as deaf, whereas they might, under this aural or auricular method of instruction, have been taken entirely out of the category of deaf-mutes.

The Commission:
Is there any medical inspection of these children before they enter school, and is any attempt made by the doctors to improve the hearing if the passages have become clogged by cold or disease?

Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, in all our better schools there is a careful medical inspection of the children as they enter; it is usually the case that all means have been exhausted to benefit the hearing by the parents and friends of the children before they are brought to the institution. An examination by the medical man exhibits that fact. There are a few instances where the hearing by medical treatment has been improved, but they are very few. I commend this auricular method to all who are interested in the education of the deaf as one deserving of very great attention, because, if we take the number of the deaf who are capable of being taught aurally as amounting to 10 per cent, only, it is conferring upon them a great boon to teach them aurally; it is a greater boon even than giving them the power of imperfect speech.

Now, imagine with today's technology on hearing aids and cochlear implants, and how much of  a boon they would bring. Of course, there are no one shoe size fits all here. Each to his or her own on how one is taught and raised, and, of course, an informed parents' own decision on how it would be done for their child with a hearing loss.

Who ever thought that Dr. Gallaudet would trot out a boy to the National Academy of Sciences (see bolded red color words above) and hold him up as an example of a successful product of an oral and auditory teaching approach to gain a language?

ADDENDUM: In 1886 according to the Royal Commission report (see excerpt above in red bold letters), Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledged the importance of listening and speaking. This acknowledgment came six years after the famous Milan Conference in 1880.

In 1880, there was an international conference of deaf educators, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf. At this conference, held September 6-11, 1880, a declaration was made that oral education was better than manual (sign) education. A resolution was passed banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States (represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, Issac Peet, James Denison, and Charles Stoddard) and Britain. The sign supporters tried, but failed, to get their voices heard.

How come this was never brought up whenever people used the old Milan Conference argument? Did E.M. Gallaudet handed in his own head on a platter when he trotted that deaf boy out to the National Academy of Sciences about his remarkable speaking and listening ability via the "tubes"? Did the Deaf community ever find out about this or was this tidbit of information was purposely withheld and not discussed when E.M. Gallaudet practically fawned over the deaf boy as being able to speak quite well and hear some, and be able to carry a conversation with a hearing person by show casing him in front of the National Academy of Sciences?

Ah ha....I see. I see. Hmmm. Hmmm. *nods my head*

A Poll: Was Edward Miner Gallaudet an ASL-only extremist?

Lately the view has been that Alexander Graham Bell is an oral-only extremist, which is probably true, then it'd be fair to ask this question: Was Edward Miner Gallaudet an ASL/Sign-only extremist, too? What exactly is an "extremist"?

Cast your vote in a poll below.