Is Hearing Believing? Cochlear implants allow the deaf community to hear a lot of noise For whatever reason, mainstream society doesn’t like aberration from the norm. It may be rooted in human nature to fix what is naturally or artificially wrong with us. Leaving cosmetic repair aside, when the human body fails us, medicine will step in the repair the damage. When it comes to such diseases as cancer and HIV/AIDS, it’s quite clear that treatment to remove or lessen the impact of the illness is in order. But with cognitive, behavioral and societal disorders, the lines are cleanly blurred. The most popular controversy has been that medication is increasingly prescribed to help those who have trouble with depression, panic disorders and attention disorders. But a new controversy, pertinent to the deaf community and educators, is whether or not the ability to hear is medically necessary for the health of those who cannot hear. Despite accepting the deaf as capable individuals, to a hearing person the inability to hear is commonly perceived as a pathology. The medical community has long looked to solve the inability to hear through varying methods involving neuroauditory surgery and hearing aids. But no method to cure deafness has brought about as much rancor, perhaps due to its success rate, as cochlear implants. Cochlear implants (CI) are a partial implant that turn sound into digital impulses which are translated by an external machine, sent to the cochlea, then these impulses are interpreted as sound in the brain’s cortical auditory nerve. The cochlea itself is not removed, but it is allowed to hear via the machine. Experimentation with CI began in the 1950s, gained popular exposure in the 1970s and in 1984 the procedure received approval from the FDA for adults. CI during this time was quite primitive compared to the technology in use today, which allows the deaf to hear music and sense small vibrations that before could not be of use to malfunctioning cochleae. As well, health insurance covers nearly in full the $60,000 procedure, so it is not the inaccessible luxury it had once been. Washington University in St. Louis states that 60,000 individuals have CI; in 1995, the National Institute of Health stated that only 12,000 had them. CI’s popularity is undeniable. Problem solved? Not quite. American Sign Language (ASL) has been used by the deaf population since the mid-1800s, when Thomas Gallaudet and Laurent Clerc established the first deaf school in the country in Hartford, Connecticut. The two combined the hand signs used in French sign language with those used in the States and popularized the standard among the deaf to use for communication. At the time, Gallaudet and Clerc may not have been aware they were creating an adhesive to link the then disparate deaf community via the new language. Until then, the deaf community was anything but; stigma and lack of resources scattered the deaf community into the fringe of society. With the creation and widespread use of ASL, the deaf community at-large had a means to communicate with each other and gain confidence. Louis Braille and his language read by fingertips incited the same revolution for the blind. In early April, a town meeting was held in Seattle to discuss the potential closure at View Ridge Elementary of a classroom serving deaf students, the closure due in part because of the increase in students with CI. As with special education programs, the trend in the public schools is to mainstream students with disabilities with students who are considered normal, thereby increasing their exposure to a perceived “regular” education. According to the Seattle Public Schools, the parents of CI children prefer the auditory-oral teaching methods to those based in ASL. Currently, nine out of 100 students served in the Seattle schools have CI, a rather small number to threaten closure of the classroom; a notable reason is that no parents signed their children into the class for the fall. But the trend outside the school district shows a great deal of students with CI. Almost half of the 48 students at the Listen and Talk center in Bothell have CI, and that program uses speech over sign as the communication during class. One parent at the meeting, Terry Dockter, never wants to see the day when the spoken word is chosen over sign. He is deaf, as are his wife, son and parents. This sort of deaf familial bond can be rare, however, as nearly ninety percent of the deaf are born to hearing parents. A cultural affinity must be gained in an adopted community of other deaf children, one that Dockter could see unwoven should CI replace a dependence on ASL for communication. The National Association for the Deaf takes an equivocal stance on the matter of CI. They acknowledge that CI, alongside closed-captioned television and hearing aids, is a scientific advance that overall benefits the hearing-impaired. However, they also note the psychological impact that trying to “fix” the hard of hearing has on the community and those who are not deaf. “The NAD recognizes the rights of parents to make informed choices for their deaf and hard of hearing children, respects their choice to use cochlear implants and all other assistive devices, and strongly supports the development of the whole child and of language and literacy. Parents have the right to know about and understand the various options available, including all factors that might impact development. While there are some successes with implants, success stories should not be over-generalized to every individual.” The study of symbols and signs, semiotics, makes a clear distinction between that which is signified and that which is signifying. The language itself is not really at question in this matter. What is at risk with the upsurge in CI is what the language represents for the deaf community as a whole. I myself am not deaf, nor do I have a family member who is deaf, so I may be jumping the gun as someone who can interpret the importance of sign language among those who use it daily. But I can attempt to make a prediction as to the change in the community when CI becomes more common. When the great wave of immigration to the United States occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, most of the immigrants quickly abandoned their language, replacing it with English. In great numbers, the children of the immigrants do not speak those native languages today. A connection to their relatives’ culture can still exist, but the language that bound them to their homeland no longer is in use. For at least a growing portion of the deaf community, this may provide a glimpse into the future of the hard of hearing and their families. The advent of CI is by no means a detriment to the deaf community; that would be a rash and unfounded statement. The chance to hear anything is an opportunity few would turn down. Nonetheless, the tightly stitched quilt that American Sign Language has provided the deaf community cannot be overshadowed by the immediate return cochlear implants provide. Much like the children of immigrants who no longer connect with their linguistic heritage, CI children may grow up to see a similar future. ASL is not all the deaf community has as their history. But as its birthright, it certainly doesn’t need to be discarded in favor of the best medicine has to offer. Material for this article has been collected from the House Ear Institute, the National Association for the Deaf, Gallaudet University, Deaf Community Advocacy Network, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (La Monica Everett-Haynes, reporter). J. Everett R.