ll The Struggle to Save Signs Deaf Americans lacked the power t0 force schools to foree schools to instruct their uoils by means of sign languag. minority, even in dhe . Deaf teachers always were in the oldest residential institutions, and few deaf feople beeame superintendents or principals Even fee (any deaf individuals sat on schoo! governing hoacds. Moreover, deaf education in America was decentralized. European national governments or reli- xlous groups could dictate pedagogical methods for a whole country, bur no singe eutity had such hegemony over American school ‘early every state government, the federal government, private phi lanthropists, and local school boards all supported educational inse tutions for American deaf pupils, This very diversity, chough it mesne shat deaf people could never be certain where to concentrate their energies leo meant shac opponents of sgn language could rot achieve their goals easily; and it may help explain the survival of a language that many influential individuals and organizations wanted to destroy, Another factor in the stubborn persistence of American Sign Language, though, wan the strength of the American deaf com- munity and the skill of its lenders and spokespersons. The timing of the oralist onslaughe, 100, was fortunate for the cause of sigh laruage in che United Stares. The deaf commaniy already hac begun to organize itself; its communication network was in places and ithad a cote of educared and forcoful individuals co lead it. The NAD originated at a mezting in 1880, just one month before the Milan Congress. Schoo| Little Paners were ubiquitous by the late nineteenth venrury, ei seit pages carried an endless ses of ati cles about the fate of sign language and the challenge of oralism. Ls but ni TIE STRUGGLE TO SAVE SENS 19 Stronger articles appeared in the inclependent deaf press, particularly ins die Deaf Mutes' Journal, which was achieving its greatest success at che tam of the century. Quutsranding inctivicuals such as NAD presi dents Robert McGregor, Edwin A. Hodgson, Olof Hanson, Jay C. Howard, and George Veditz provided some of the most vigorous lend. ershig the American deaf community has had. ‘Thus, when che chal lenge did come, the deaf community was to some extent prepared. By the early 1870s, when Bell's Vibible Speech begen t© raise hopes for speech and speeclireading, mest of the arguments against oralism already were well known. Abbé de PEpée in the eighteenth century and Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet in che early aineteenth had identified many of the obvious weaknesses of speech as an instruc: tional objective and as a zedagogical method for persons who could not hear. Teaching by means of speech alone, they recognized, was maddeningly slow and frustrating for pupil and instructor. Teaching a ceudent to speak was similarly tedious and often bereft of results. Worse, it used valtuable time that was necessary to develop the pupils? intellectual abilities and moral sensc.' Following the apparent success cof the Clarke Institution and the New York Institution for the Im- proved Instruction of Deaf Mures, some of these old charges against cralism reuppeared. In 1872, for exemple, Benjamin D. Perccugill of the Pennsylvania Institution questioned the feanibility of oral insteucrion for the large umbers of students typically enrolled in state-supported residential schools. He made his argument from an examination of both the bis: torical record and from contemporary observation. Discussing the for mer, he wrote, The pioneers in the use [of deaf education}, Ponce, Carrion, Amv many, Pevsita, anel otters, certainly broughe ther pupils to a higher point of atrainment than is usually reached in our institutions for the deaf and dumb; not chat they employed any peculiar snd wonder. ‘working processes in veaching their pupils, but because they had but few pupils to teach, # long thne in which to teach them, and eaught them Ianguage, as [ suppose, mainly by practice and usage. In shore, Peteengill argued thae ie war not an inherent cuality of the ‘oral method although «!l the teachers he mentioned used primarily speech and speechreading in their teaching—but the fact tbat their students received intensive and constant instruction that eecounted for their success.ho THE STRUGCLE TO SAVE SINS Paste ofits studlene ro the same ill believed chat the Clarke School's ability to teach some to tall neo learn by micas of speechtcatng wis de 9 ors. “In the Northhampeon |sic] Institution for the Deaf and Dumb,” Peter commented, “itis to be observed that all the classes ave stnell, and much of the instruction personal and al.” This, eather than meched, he insisted, cxplained why ait school attained more success with oral methods than many sige. anguage teachers expected, accustomed as they were to the larger Lhe publicly supported residential institutions.® Pettengill’s questioning uetimade coward the suposed achievements of oral meth ds was important, but he was even more insightfal when he devel: ‘oped justifications for instruction hy means of sign language. a Letel Flot dak reel with the isue of what it means v0 be deaf and how thac affects the educational system for deaf Hig denied er stuns pa tbe oes die Sa onli oir claimed. Following in the tradition of Epée ond the elder Gallaudet, Pertengill wrote that the “chief calamity” and only “serious evil” re- sulking fom congenital deafness (Guat is, deafness since birth), was inelkewal arc moral darkess "I followed therefore, thatthe best system of education was that which “most speedily and effectually buns the dente ern snes Cee onal vates and improves his intellectual and moral faculties, and the soonest renders him au intelligent, reasonable, and civilized being,"! Except for the most ardent orelists, few denied that education by means of sign language could accomplish che goals Petuenull ser for deaf education. Pettengill dismissed as a mere “inconvenience” deaf e's frequent inability to atticulace clearly and ro speechread, He asture entough to recognize, however, that this argument would hot have much significance for many purents and teachers who wished, above all, to impart knowledge of the English language to dof children, He addressed this issue in an (873 article, Pettcngill chollenged the idea, vigorously advocated by oralists, thar knowledge and use of sign language interfered with learning Ex alish. He wrote that popils should “write more, and read more, and [linger)spell more; but it does nor necessarily follow that they should see sen ss than at present” Developing this de, Petal insted thot the obstacle to progress in learning “artificial language” (meaning any spoken Language for a deaf person) was not the use of a natural language, but fallure to ger enough practice with the “artificial” one, larlenese ta light, most extensively culti IE STRUGGLE TO save SIONS Bl Pettengill used a keen abse-vation to fortify this argument. Anticipat ing by nearly one hundred years research that would support his eon- tention, Peteengill wrote that he had observed that “the children of deaf-mate parents who have used signs, such as are employed in our institutions, from their infancy, Invariably, ocher things being equal, attain to a cortect use of written language sooner than ocher congeni- tal deafmnutes who have not had their practice in sign-making” Oily, this point was ignored for the next one hundred years of arpu ments over the value of sign language. Indeed, most of che rhetoric used by deaf and hearing people on either side of the oral-manual controversy was uninformed by research, The deaf proponents of sign language, however, had one weapon hearing oralists did not—personal experience with hearing loss. With very few exceptions, deaf people themselves, from their own expert ence, believed that sign language was the easiest and most effective communication tool for individuals who could not hear. Though deaf leaders thought that speech and speechreading skills were valuable assets, they doubred whether a significant number of deaf children would ever be able to speak clearly enough to make themselves under stood to strangers or would speechread sufficiently well te learn easily jus the classroom. Deaf people used their own experience te argiie in favor of education that germitted! the use of manual Ianguare and against day schools that prohibited ic. [As the day school movement geined adherents in the mic-1880s, for example, George Wing warned against mixing hearing and deat childeea. in the same school. Wing, who was hard of hearing, initlly hhad been entolled in a public schoo! as a child. He found the experi: ence crushing and degrading. He wrote in the American Annals of the Dea that putting a deaf child into such an environment was aYcrue!” experiment “und must he barren of good results.” Though @ fairly good speechreader with an understandable voice, he fele humiliation and discouragement in the public school! By concrast, Wing ft well Into the life of a deaf residential school where he could use sign lan- guage. Ie attended and was groduated from the American School for the Deaf ond later became a creative and successfil teacher inthe Llinois and Minnesora Institutions Robert P. McGregor, who founded the Cincinnati Day School (which used sign language) and became the first president of the NAD, in 1910 pointedly osked where the oral successes were. Ifspeech,132 THE STRUGGLE TO SAVE SIGNS and speechreading could create a deaf person who fitted into hearing sociery, he asked, why could nor oralises produce these individuals to testify to thelr accomplishinents? To sn NAD convention he said, ‘You all know that the “restored Joke among us. We are always hex society” deaf person is a seanding ing of hin, but we have never sen, shman’s flea, es soon as we put our finger on him he are to be somavhere alae, vo we he never been able to capture eal simon pure oralistic "restored to seciaty" deal person snd hal hin (wo get him under the microscope and describe hin Instead of making deuf people fiteed for hearing society, McGregor charged, speech and speechreading made dhem “truly pidable.” “With imperfeur speech,” McGregor concluded, “they carniot mingle freely with che Bening geal knowing no signs they are equally ae sen in a Even an occasional advacate of oral methods also wondered why orally caught deaf people did not publicly supporr speech and speech. reading. E. S, Tillinghasc, a hearing son of David Tillinghast, had served as superintendent of several western state schools for de pil and he stated this problem in 1909 at a meeting of che AAP “It has always seemed to me.” Tillinghast cold the gathering of oral (cathe, “that chere is something radically wrong with oralisin which cannot cum out deaf geaduates who uppreciate the value of the meth- eck by which they were inceructed." He wene on, even more for fally, Tthoughe ... how ehvilling it would be to have a deaf man... stand p here and defend the Oral methed orally... . We do not sew such a deafman hete, ... We have mer together co ralk ahout the education af, and the deaf thecuselves reect whae we are huving to say. There must be some very profound reason for this? The reason was not terribly proformd: Most deaf Americans communicated most easily by means of sign language and fingerspell- ing. They rejected the goals of the AAPTSD and, if chey were at all tive in deaf advoescy, worked against attempts to eliminate manual communication from deaf schools. One individual who was active in uttempts (0 save sign language was Olof Hanson. Born in Sweden and educated at che Minnesota School for the Deaf and Gallaudet College, from which he graduated in 1886, Han- son Was one of the first American deaf a chiteets. He alco taught and became an ordained Episcopal minister. In the history of the Ameri- 133 Of Hanson vaso deaf avchitect and one of the mast powerful leaders of the Aeris deaf commaenity in the ears yen of ee teruith centr can deaf community, however, Hanson is hest remembered as a tre less advacate, He belonged to several deaf organizations, headed the NAD for three yeurs, wrote veluminously for the deaf press, and helped convince President Theodore Roesevele to keep the doors of the Civil Service open to deaf warkers Hanson also believed in the value of manuel communication for deaf pupils and in 1889 made en unusual suggestion directly t Bell ‘Acchat cime Bell was especially concerned about prevenring deaf people from marrying each ocher. This gave him anether reason co ‘oppose sign language. Bell argued thac using signs prevented deaf indi- viduals fcom interacting with hearing people and encouraged them to incermarry rather ¢o thaa find hearing mates. Bell's sclution, of course, was that denf people medily cheir communication method to meet the preferences af hearing people. Hanson, who apparently had made Bulls acquaintance while & student at Gallaudet, recommended just the opposite. In a letter of February 13, he told Bell that hearing people should change their communication habits co facilitate interac tion with deaf persons, and he requested Bell's assistance in achieving this goal. Hanson's letter was carefully reasoned and p cespect that many denf people, particularly those who knew Bell per sonally, had for him. Hanson apologized for some of the more extreme criticisms that Bell had received from time to time in the deaf press assuring him that they did not reflect the opinions of educared deaf It showed the134 THE STRUGGLE TO SAVE SIGNS 1, for one, ac lease" Hanson told Rel, * : a leases" Hanson told Bell, “bog to express ny ion of your valuable labors in behalf of our class." Hanson athe agreed with Bell chat “the deaf should associate lees with another and mare with hearing people,” but, he added, “how so bring ie about is ehe difficuley.” vBeadch rows Forcing de wrote cope ro agtend hearing schools and ro give nets oninratcn aetna ‘lie root [of deaf people's rendentey rovear! exclusive ineeraccioel Hea foe dee: than that The df are foregners amon rere vie lags they can never Ler.” Hewson arg thr epecheading includ wecly obstating one form of viel eiurcaon that is but another mode of sig less ca because “to che deuf, speech sed nah any tte Gr neo” Soe eae Bed cori according to Hanson, wuld nove be sblew learn "the dee oo we encour el cog mace Gea ey wo fie avowed ofthe manual habe x widely a pol Honcon belisved this could be dh is could be done by teaching fingerspelling the public echwle He sold Bell hae Phil, Cilla, tin sepciawens dent of heats School, had recommenda othe sate Tegislaure shar teaining in the manual alphabet be added to che curriculurm in fingerspelling in dex : cori, THE NEBRASKA CONTEST 1s Mlinois. But this idea needed support from a person of Bells stature Hanson suggested to Bell thac “if you would lend your essistance, either by personally address ng a convention, or in any manner ou think practicable, you would do a favor, which, 1 think, che deaf ‘vould much more quickly appreciate chan your past services.”" Bell never did the “favor” He later explained to a hearing per- son, who made» similar suggestion, that he believed that ie was unre- alistic to expect the majority (in other words, hearing people) to leare. 4 special communicacion ructhod just for the advantage of the deaf ininority.® Though Hanson failed in this actemat ro sway Bell, he continued the struggle to preserve sign language in deaf schools. THE NEBRASKA CONTEST Since the United States has no central authority to dictare educa tional practice throughout the country, the strugzle between the deaf community and the oralists cook place int a piecemeal fashion. Some ore often it was meet ‘times the arena was a convention of teachers. Ings of governing boards or school administrators, places in which deaf people had licele influence, Uther times ic was the pages uf deaf periodienls, che Lircle Papers, and professional journals, but theve skir mnishes in print were ritualized and had lisele mening. The AAP- TSD's Assodation Review was predictably and overwhelmingly in fa- vor of speech and speechseading and opposed to all: menual communication, whereas the American Annals of che Deaf, unuil Ed- ward Allen Fay surrendered the editorship in 1920, was open ro all opinions but staunchly supported the right of deaf people ro use their fown language. Yer enother arena was stare polities, and from 1911 r6 1915 the deaf community and American oralists squared off against each other in the state of Nebraska, The reason was a state law that suid, in part, All children hereafter admitted to the Ncbraske School for the Deaf sind all children who have not advanced Ireyond three years in the ‘Course under present methods in said school shall hereafter be aught fand trained in said school by the oral, aural [heasing only] and Tiny feading method to the exclusion of the deaf alphabet and sign lan- ‘guage, ualess incapacitated by mental defects or malformation of the vocal cords.”TIE STRUGGLE TO SAVE Siciys sum, the law required the Nebraslea School ro follow a particular method for reaching its deaf students, a method thar most deaf adules found insdequate and one that precluded deaf instructors. Deaf Americans responded by drawing upon all the resources their comma. nity had developed. ‘The fist response came from Hanson. As president of the NAD, he lobbied againse the bill to establish the oral law; he wrote to the governor of Ne sent him an “official” NAD starement. The NAD statement contained a number of diferent arguments ayainse oralisin. Ie claimed, for example, that the law did not recognize the volidity or importance of the opinion of its supposed beneiciaries, son claimed that 95 percent of deaf Americans approved of the “Combined System,” wherein studencs who could learn orally were taught speech and speechteading, bur others ceveived theit instruc- tion manually, The stacement said chat even those individuals who actended oral schools and thus experienced the method themselves “severely conde:nn those who would exclude the sign language.” The statement also argued thar the Nebraska law would not be consistent with usual practice in the United States 2s “the Combined System is din the instruction of 8) per cent of the deaf in this country.” alism, it eantinued, would be @ hardsluip o deaf students, They € able to understand sermons, enjoy lectures, oF take part inally, che NAD position was thar deaf education should be leit in the hands of experts, not the state legislature. “Ie would he wists sensible,” Hanson wrote, “Yor the Legislators to enact that all sick persons must take Osteopathic treatment and no other?” When the oral bill cleared the Nebraska legidture and the gov- emer signed ic, deaf people changed tactics. Instead of opposing the new law, they sought co shape its interpretation, At first, they ap- pealed to the new superintendent, Frank Booth. Hodgson wrote an dlrorial in the Deaf Mutes’ Jounal, optimistically sugeretin Booth was more beoa raska an ug that minded than he had appeared to be when he led che AAPTSD." Hanson began correspondence with Beoth, ting the familiar arguments in favor of dhe combined method ‘suring Booth thar he could interpret the Nebraska law flexibly, bur Booth was not interested. He told Hanson that he would change the Nebraska school to che oral method as quickly and as thoroughly as possble."* Various state estoxiations of deef people (which at the time were independent of the NAD) tried to help heir Nebraska peers by influencing the governor. The Minnesota, Mississippi, South Car- THE NEBRASKA CONTEST Fn Wa Bt as hh en fae pres, Edad Bath es Ny doe alse Buna. he hkl Whores uaeiie Roa Taso Sc Eee Semeur of he ck Sa pre Deshi he elo Cee en ol dah py ll signing and fngerpeling, fina, and Kansas Associations for che Deaf, for example, passed 15 Slur condemning oral." Booth, though, was equa we dhe pres sure exerted by the deaf community. sesadsened In the fall U/ 1911 Lie wusatcepunched and seonath. son by inviting the head ofthe NEA, Carol Tease, to sea in Omaha, To the Nebraska Teachers Asotin, Pease delivered = hstering tte on sgn languae a a pean co he vrs of orl teach. He claimed cheeses aught hy mem fg sem “freaks, -dusnmies;" who had no friends and resembled trained dogs, Tete perfor for their wasters but unable to suppor hase By eonernt, orally taught deaf people bec me noel The en cik dren from cralachook, Pee stated, develope acral” ses de Je thetn virtually inulistinguishable from hearing child c's eat ated Booth et the ler published ta Nebrasa’s Tle paper, rhe Nebraska Joa, thus ching ied commas af his support for Pers’ rsulkng anc radial wewes ni erin deaf conununity dd noe give in. Vedi sonst hat the NAD rise 55,000 to re lobbyts and ight the oral law and petition drive began.” Benween. 1,500 and 1,700 deat oeepiesanel lceter of protese against stict ora. Though its fan using crv ss far helo Vedi’ ope, the NAD de ris $122 1912 ane in to support thie flr mines Nebraska's lw? Hanson a fetoead ee locue! gobi support for deaf people's argnments b138 Mi: STRUCLE TO SAVE stan sending lecters to the three newspapers in Omaha. The leevecs reiter: ated the major poinrs in favor of the combined eyscem and cided that Gallaudet College’s entrance records showed that students educated by this means were more successful chan orally trained deaf people in geining access to the college. Hanson then increased the political pressure. He wrote letters co the newly elected Nebraska governor, trying to win him to the deaf position, and he used NAD funds to hire Lyman Hunt as a lobbyist. Hunt, a Nebreske School for dhe Deaf graduate and former teacher, was directed to go to Lincoln, the state eapieal, and chere try to influ fence legislaccrs in favor of legislation to overturn the 1911 law. At the urging of William Davis, a hearing man from Omaha who worked closely with Hanson, two legislarors introduced such a bill in. 1913. In support of it, Hanson wrore to all four members of the Senate commiztze on the “Deal, Dumb, and Blind,” explaining once again why deaf people supported the combined system." Sul, the Nebraska store leglslanuce was not convinced. In 1913 and again in 1915 it defeated bills to overturn or modify the 1911 oral law. Alter nearly four years of struggle, the Nebraska School for the Desf became an oral school with a stall manual department for “oral ‘allures, Ina sense die American deaf community lost chis steuggle. The legislative defeats of 1911, 1913, and 1915 seemed 10 indicate that those hearing people who controlled deaf education listened only oralists—to the AAPTSD, Bell, organized patents, and the NEA— rach ations that represented them, Yet that is not the whole story. The Nebraslea clash also showed thar deat people in America were a community, chat they could rally around common interests, and that they could articalate their belief. Throughout America, deaf individuals wich no personal stake in the Nebraska situution coneribured their words, and even s few of cheit dollars, wo assise their peers. The NAD, for the ficet time, acted in the tole of an organized interest group in American politics. It sponsored legislation, paid a lobbyist, and organized a Jerter-wniting campaign. In the 1910s the NAD had noe yet achieved the stability and strengeh, ir would develog loter, but it had Loid the groundwork and established the precedent of deaf peaple working for themselves eo further their own interests. Deaf Americans were neither silent nor apathetic as hearing people tried to take away cheir language. SAVING SIGN LANGUAGE FOR POSTERITY Be SAVING SIGN LANGUAGE FOR POSTERITY “The steuales of the early twenticth century produced two important Schuyler Long’s The Sign Language: A Manwal of Signs, and the NAD's film collection. ks cesumviins ‘Long’s authorship of a book describing signs is not surprisin ‘A ptaduate of the lowa School for the Deaf and Gallaudet Collese, Long heeame one of only « handful of deaf people who managed to win and hold adminiscrarive positions in desf education during the early twentieth century, In 1902 he became acting principal of his alma mater and permanent principal in 1908, He also wrote and pub- ‘shed poetry and edited periodicals for the denf community. Like boy oc Eo Long worried many of hie contemporaries in the deaf community, chat syn language might loses expreslve oes and unifer it was not lesened in the form inherited from previous generations The "ic ihe second edition of his book, published in 1918, noted thae sign language was no longer taught in any school, and “no atvempt ig made to see that itis learned and used correctly.” Thus he hoped thar his work would “help to preserve this expressive language, to which the deaf owe su mul is its original puriey and heanry, and that ic will serve as a standard of comparison in different parts of the country, thereby tending to secure greater uniformity.” ity if J. Stugler Lang hopal 0 presen “American Sigx Language an chee tutor Ly publishing « anal of sis10 THE sTRUGC 0 SAVE SIONS, ist published in 1909, Long's hook was a ref li ar-language dictionary than a modem linguist sexe He used frig long ¥ than a moder linguistic sexs. He ce few phorogriphs and employed English word descristions of hosel face, and Body movement to illarate how pasicelar von shen be formed. Long arranged the book as though Engh woeds had exact equivalents in sig, although he stated in the text that language was “idiographic” rather than a “word language.” burthen more, Long did not explain the nuances of facial expresion, sy avec, and space utliarion that are noguised tele nc mes wing warsnaial seuctare of Anerean Sign Language Ponce work, therefore, was lardly a definitive, or even entirely arcorecs, eviction of the Jeg aonots Ss sTarguage, bu le mated a recogni, “tutti largurge wie wor recording" A morc ubidaiselen, snidone using a more sanactory madivm, wae the en the great sag anaes ofthe es este Vest eral this novel dea, Twice ested NAD rstlent Veitewas an uncompromising feof rat an advocate “ue language, Neve tactful the Bakimorenntve described ols whens and “ev and he believed hat sgn Langue was "she nobles gf God lus given to deaf people" During ht pres der af the NAD, frm 1907 0 1910, Ve gan C0 fase money © use the new technology af films eo secord o ted este ne record examples of the Unite Sere eat sg, henna deat nh way, Vets Tele rerienn Sign Langage could avoid the fate of Fucopean sign law, NAD: project © One of Bright nul mot acre leaders ofthe Amen dn comma, Garg W. Ved niiced an NAD ret preseree Amercan Sie Longe on fir, “mane SIGN LANGUAGE LIVES ON un gaages, which he thought had degenerated and lost their power after they were pushed ont of the schools The NAD project lasted from 1910 eo 1920, During that decade the NAD captured on film soems, lectures, and stories of the old days rendered in American Sign Language, without voice or lip moverner: The signing models included deaf Gallaudet professors John B. Hotchkiss and Amos G. Draper; Edward Miner Gallaudet and Ed- ward Allen Fay, both Gullauder College administrators; the deaf prin- cipal of the New York Sckoal for the Deaf at Fanwood, Thomas F. Fox; Robert P. McGregor. first present of the NAD; George T. Dougherty, a deaf chemist; and a deaf Episcopal priest, James H. mad. One of the best models and most moving signers was Vedirz himself, who delivered an address entitled che ‘Preservation of Sign Language. SIGN LANGUAGE LIVES ON By che 1920s, when the debate over sign language was muted, es it ‘would remain with few exceptions until the 1360s, the deof commu nity was buttered hut nor beaten. A small core of deaf ceachers te- ruined in most state schools, ceaching vocational subjects and chose studenes who were considered oral failures. Some victorles had been won, In 1905 the Illinois legislacure had reversed an earlier decision and withdrawn state supprt for day schools; in 1912 the New York School for the Deal, after surveying deaf leaders, had decided not to abandon signs for pure cralism; Long's textbook of signs and the NAD films had recorded sign language for fucure generations of deaf pecple; the NAD and other organizations of deaf people were sill strong and continued co ssppore the principle of signdanguage-based instruction; end Gallaudet College remained a signing schoo! for Amy ’s deaf elite." The strength the American deaf community devel diff oped in the earlier nineteenth century served it well through the cult years of the 1890s, early 1900s, and beyond.