On the surface, it may appear that there is a marginal difference between deaf and hard of people. Navel-gazing identity politics aside (including the white hot Oralism vs. ASL conflict which has little to do with this blog), the needs of these groups are different. Deaf signers who do not use assistive listening devices (i.e. hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) may not care whether or not there is a “loop” system in a room, and hard of hearing people who do not know American Sign Language (ASL) may not need ASL interpreters, and so it goes. Sure, many people fall in the gray area. They could be hard of hearing, wear cochlear implants, and be fluent in ASL or any other interesting combination. Regardless, people with hearing loss have specific needs in order to effectively communicate.

Hearing politicians often lump all people with “hearing loss” into a neatly compartmentalized category, or worse, with all “people with disabilities” or those who have “special needs”. This puts all people with a vested interest in any type of hearing loss in a position where they may collaborate to achieve somewhat dissimilar goals (loops for hard of hearing people and ASL interpreters for deaf signers, for example). However, scarce resources and a growing awareness of the difference between deaf and hard of hearing people can unravel well-intentioned efforts.

For example, a recent email from the Northern Virginia Resource Center announced that the Chicago O’Hare and Midway airports plan to install 11 videophones for the deaf or hard of hearing where users can request airport services and receive tourist information via VRS or call friends and relatives who have videophones. Great news, right? Well, one reader replied:

How is this going to help those who do not use sign language or even know it, and need to get services and information? Are those airports even aware that only a very small percentage of people with hearing loss will benefit from this service, while they ignore the rest?

That was an unfortunate response, it reeks of “we outnumber them, why give them this much attention and support?” And that is where the argument seems to be distilled at: numbers.

Some hard of hearing people, when seeking support from political leaders, argue that people with a hearing loss who do not use sign language vastly outnumber those who do. Their claim is true. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders at the National Institutes of Health, there are 28 million people with hearing loss in the United States. The Maryland legislation for the ASL as a foreign credit bill (HB0586 Maryland ASL Bill) in 2005 stated:

ASL is used as the preferred means of communication for approximately 500,000 deaf individuals in the U.S. and Canada.

Is the sign language community really that small? Mike McConnell wrote an insightful blog on the number of deaf and hard of hearing people in the U.S., and estimates that the number could be 930,000 or even 1 million. Assuming that the signing population is on the higher-end of McConnell’s estimate, 1 million, that is only 3.5% of the entire population of people with a hearing loss in the United States. A drop in the bucket.

Consequently, the “we outnumber them” argument is gaining traction with more and more advocates in the hard of hearing community. Terry Portis, executive director of the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) — formerly known as Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH) — threw down the gauntlet in the July-August 2005 issue of Hearing Loss:

In spite of this [the miniscule number of signers in the U.S.], how much of state and federal dollars are used to support the communication choice of the vast majority of people whose lives are impacted by hearing loss? While it is difficult to come up with exact numbers, I would suggest that state and federal funding for supporting hearing loss is exactly opposite of what it should be. The statistics of people who are hard of hearing are used to justify funding that then usually never gets to them.

According to Portis, less than 3% of HLAA members use ASL, so he represents a specific, albeit enormous, segment of the deaf and hard of hearing community. Porits explains that most HLAA members rely on hearing technology and visual clues such as speechreading (or lip reading) to help them communicate. A brief glimpse of HLAA position papers reveal the organization’s priorities such as insurance coverage of hearing aids, telecoils, education of hard of hearing children in regular school, and assistive device warranty laws.

Unfortunately Portis neglects the fact that there is a continued alarming lack of access for deaf signers all over the country. While the funding may be disproportionate, the available amount still does not provide the deaf signer with the equal access protected under the law or with the opportunities that a U.S. citizen deserves. Arguing that a proportionate amount of resources should be diverted to a much larger number of individuals with hearing loss who do not know how to sign could make logical sense to political leaders. However, it overlooks the unequal amount of access and opportunities for both groups.

A profoundly deaf person who does not use his/her voice or lipread well could have a more difficult time finding meaningful employment compared to a hard of hearing person who has a good command of lip-reading and speaks almost normally. In another example, a deaf signer who does not use his/her voice that has been taken to the emergency room could have a harder time communicating with a doctor without an interpreter compared to a hard of hearing person. There are different degrees of inequality in these situations.

Portis concludes that “it is time that advocates for people who are hard of hearing start to make some noise about serious funding inequities that are found throughout the country” and some have taken up his charge. Put another way, the tables have been turned for the signing deaf community. It is also possible that hard of hearing people who desire to become integrated into the hearing world with minimal barriers have ramped up their advocacy efforts while signers, more content among their own, may not feel as compelled to correct inequities. A larger population with a stronger desire to become part of the hearing world can easily overshadow the signing community. But that should not be the case.

The solution isn’t to transfer funds from one group to another or even to compare the amount of funding. Both groups should endeavor to create more funding for both, signers and hard of hearing people. There is no fixed amount of the funding pie that will be split between both groups of people with hearing loss that we must squabble over. Instead of taking $1 away from signers and giving it to hard of hearing people, both should be increased by $1. Together, we should seek equal access for both groups, even if the other is not present. So if a signing person is advocating for greater services for signers, they could also do the same for hard of hearing people, and vice versa. After all, we both understand the difficulty of being denied communication access, don’t we?


© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.


See related posts:
Dia De Los Muertos: A Cada Tierra, Su Uso    Crash!