Bonnie Tucker is a law professor, who became deaf at two. She communicates orally.
On the subject of Cochlear Implants, it has been analysed that she supports the view that "if CIs become widespread enough and work well enough for most D/deaf people, the most deafness would become a choice. And if people then chose not to have CIs, the general public would probably not -- and probably not be morally obligated to support -- extensive federal and state aid to schools, interpreting services, etc."
Choice, what about we were born this way and that argument is based on man over nature, and no respect for diversity. Would she like to tell that to all the linguistic diverse groups that make up the world, and we essentially become a one language globe. Does she fail to appreciate that diversity in language leads to windows of new understanding, and to failure to acknowledge this, buries our heads in the sand. Why not tell all minority language users to drop their native language, and just use English. Tucker's arguments are based on the premise that money makes the world spin, and decisions are based on this.
She might have her own insecurities about her own deafness, have a desire to hear, but she she doesn't need to project her own personal crap onto the rest of us who are perfectly happy.
As she's a lawyer, perhaps she should suggest to suggest genetically modifying Black people's skin, white. That way they would not experience discrimination, or any other inaccess. In turn, society would not have to pay for nor accommodate diversity. People choosing to stay Black, or how they were born, then the state would not be obliged to have in place race discrimination legislation, modes of redress nor enforce this.
That is essentially what she is saying, and its downright offensive. I do not wish to have a hole drilled into the side of my head, nor pretend / learn to be a hearing person, at the whim of some unsound academic argument.
Comments (11)
Another point about Bonnie Tucker's views is: CIs do not cure deafness. What she is saying is reinforcing the misconception that having a CI makes you a hearing person.
Tell her to piss off; I'd rather be deaf than hearing anyway!
Posted by robwilks | May 11, 2006 2:59 PM
I agree, but her argument goes beyond that and says IF CIs work, better than they are now (advance in tech).
She is saying there is an obligation to have invasive surgery.
Posted by A | May 11, 2006 3:01 PM
She's a law professor?! That is too weird. I agree with your comments, and am a bit scared that people have such weird ideas.
On a similar note, I suppose I should go back in the closet and pretend not to be a lesbian.... because if I get gay bashed, it's my own fault for coming out?!
Posted by j | May 11, 2006 5:09 PM
Umm...can we have a link to the article/post or item that inspired this blog entry.
Posted by Tony Nicholas | May 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Check Deaf Academics.
Posted by A | May 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Just a thought: my reading of this is that her intended emphasis was the potential views of the general public (not herself) in the future and how that might impact policy, not what people choose currently, CIs as "a solution" and so on. If so, she might have wished she wrote "the[n] most deafness [might] become a choice [in the eyes of the general public]" (my edits in square brackets) to make it clearer that she's philosophising about the policy implications not deafness-as-a-choice per se. Policies are driven by public perception after all and I can imagine a lawyer ruminating how future public perception might affect policy, especially one who has read and written in this area.
Its a pretty speculative statement for anyone to be taking too seriously IMO and personally I'd want the original context to make proper sense of it before judging it.
Which brings up one more thought: if you're going to quote someone on the 'net, IMO its polite to link the original article or at least state its origins if its not on-line or accessible to most readers. Without this, readers have no way to read the quote in its original context. I can't locate this quote from a quick google source. So I agree with Tony: could you tell us where you got the quote from? (A link please: I can't see anything relevant on the deafacademics.org website BTW.)
Posted by Audiosity | May 12, 2006 2:08 PM
Do you mean the Deaf academics email list? Me not a member!
Posted by j | May 12, 2006 7:02 PM
Five days and the OP hasn't replied...
Don't tell me you (the OP) publicly quoted from a private post from a member's-only forum...?
Posted by Audiosity | May 17, 2006 3:16 AM
Life doesn't revolve around this blog. Deaf Academics isn't private. There is no veto of membership, anyone can join, so how is the list private?
Posted by A | May 17, 2006 10:11 AM
I asked, I didnt state.
Posted by Audiosity | May 20, 2006 1:57 AM
I am amazed at how people like Bonnie Tucker can say the things they do about CIs. CIs are not the panaceas for many deaf individuals that they are tauted to be. CIs do not suddenly create a hearing person out of a deaf person any more than attending law school makes a Supreme Court Justice out of every lawyer. CLs do help certain individuals with hearing losses and there are specific types of loss that respond better to CIs than other types.
But the issue with CIs is the decision-making on the part of the parents of deaf kids ostensibly as an effort to do "what's best" for the kid. The vast majority of CI people are still technically deaf.
As for special schools, etc., they are not a MUST for all deaf children, but, again, the regular public schools fail miserably in doing their duty to that class of children, therefore, special this and special that is necessary to keep the playing field more level than it would be without them.
CIs are here to stay, yes, but that doesn't mean there will be an automatic positive result. And the government will indeed herd CI kids into regular programs without any empathic regard for their individual needs.
Posted by The Wizened Deaf Non-CI Adult | June 4, 2006 5:27 AM