Here is the requested personal information, the letter follows that.
Rev. Kirk VanGilder 40 Melendy Ave #2 Watertown, MA 02472 School of Theology 617.924.6398 TTY (dial 711 to obtain the relay service if you do not have access to a TTY) [email protected] Projected date of graduation ’08
Dear Editors,
I am a deaf student in the School of Theology currently in coursework for in the Doctor of Theology (Th.D) program. I would like to add my voice to that of Rowan Armor’s in expressing my confusion regarding the refusal of the College of Arts and Science (CAS) to recognize ASL for foreign language credit. The School of Theology has accepted my petition to recognize ASL for one of my two research languages. This acceptance recognizes the value of ASL as a language of research in the Deaf cultural context and it meets the criteria the School of Theology was looking for in the use of second languages for future research. Although I suspect this is a much different set of criteria than the CAS is looking to fulfill, it does point to the linguistic value of ASL.
CAS has every right to uphold the same language requirements for Deaf and hard of hearing students as it does for hearing students. It also has the responsibility to provide alternate means of learning a foreign language in its written form for those who cannot acquire foreign language through spoken teaching. Also, if Spanish is accepted for foreign language credit for a student from a Spanish speaking background, ASL should likewise be accepted in the same manner for Deaf students who come from an ASL using background. There is also the responsibility to clearly state the purpose for second language learning and the criteria a language needs to meet in order to be accepted. From what I can tell in the objections cited by Rowan, those in the decision making process are looking for whether ASL has a linguistic status other than English and is thereby foreign, a unique culture which sustains and uses this language, and a literature available for the study of this culture in its native language. This points to a desire for second language learning that exposes a student to a culture and worldview other than their own that uses a complete language system to convey and maintain its cultural boundaries. While I could be mislead by what has been cited, this seems to be what the debate over ASL is revealing.
What has appeared to become the barrier for ASL recognition is the array of persistent myths present among hearing people who have no familiarity with ASL, Deaf culture, and the wide body of scholarship in Deaf studies. As Nathaniel Pagan revealed, one such myth is that ASL is merely “English on the hands.” The best linguistic scholarship has shown that ASL contains its own unique grammar and syntax which is distinctly unrelated to English. ASL has also been shown to be sufficiently abstract and not iconic. Therefore, ASL is not an elaborate system of mime but a complete language. If ASL were merely mime, anyone would be able to understand it without study as one understands the storytelling of a street mime in Faneuil Hall. Another persistent myth is that ASL has no culture that sustains it. The best anthropological research will maintain that Deaf culture contains its own patters of behaviors and boundary maintenance just as other cultural groups do. Deaf culture contains elaborate ways of introducing oneself and taking leave from a group that hearing people often find bewildering and quite foreign. A third myth is that ASL has no literature because it is not a written language. ASL simply cannot be written because of its use of space in three dimensions to establish its unique grammar. This does not mean that there is no literature but rather that a bulk of the literature is an oral literature. The oral character of its literature is not unique to ASL, many spoken languages which would be considered foreign by the CAS contain the bulk of their literature in oral form or English translation for written means. In addition, a growing body of ASL literature has now been captured on videotape and much of the storytelling, poetry, folktales, and humor that convey the unique views of culturally people is available for study and used in teaching ASL as a foreign language. ASL clearly seems to meet the criteria set forth in the objections encountered by Rowan and others seeking foreign language credit for their ASL studies.
While I may be wrong in assuming that the CAS has not sufficiently considered the body of scholarship which supports the above claims, I cannot shake the feeling that those responsible for making this decision are basing their claims on unsubstantiated and persistent myths regarding ASL. It is my hope that CAS will review the literature available as other universities in Boston, the US, and around the world have done and accept ASL study for foreign language credit so the bicultural and bilingual nature of those who use both ASL and English either as their own language or a second language can be equally accepted in our society.
Rev. Kirk VanGilder