A Note from the President By Samuel J. Supalla
Some Thoughts on Deaf Studies
To begin, there are many accomplishments made in regard to Deaf Studies as an academic discipline over the years. We have seen a number of programs created in the higher education settings with the name of Deaf Studies around the country. There are many more that are not named Deaf Studies explicitly. An indication of a program pursuing the concept of Deaf Studies is when they offer a sequence of American Sign Language coursework( e. g., ASL 1, 2, 3, and 4) to undergraduates for meeting their foreign or second language requirement.
As a reflection, Deaf culture underlying ASL coursework is of great value. Like any foreign language, students learning ASL will understand that the language belongs to the Deaf community( with the capitalized‘ D’ accounting for culturally deaf people who comprise a linguistic minority, for example). For full implementation of Deaf Studies as a concept, there would be an undergraduate degree offered in some of the American higher education institutions. Utah Valley University serves as a good example, and it went the extra mile by hosting a series of Deaf Studies Today! conferences( with the last one occurring in 2014).
Gallaudet University, a premier higher education institution for deaf students is not an exception to the rule regarding the Deaf Studies movement. It has a department called American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. Clearly ASL and Deaf culture have been accepted for what they are. While society has made great strides in understanding the significance of Deaf Studies, more work needs to be done. Perhaps the most challenging aspect to Deaf Studies is the rise of Disability Studies. What does Disability Studies mean? Are ASL and Deaf culture deemed part of Disability Studies, if at all? Although Deaf people have said that they are not disabled( or that they have difficulty relating to the concept of disability), some scholars and researchers still think they should be part of the Disability Studies framework.
Since the last newsletter issue, I learned that Dr. Yerker Andersson, who was a pioneering scholar and strong advocate for the concept of Deaf Studies, passed away( see the reprint of his obituary in this issue). I find it most fitting to include a few quotes from what Dr. Andersson had to say in the article " Deaf and Disability Studies: A Conversation with Yerker Andersson "( Andersson & Burch, 2010) as follows:
I see deaf studies as a distinct field focused on deaf people and the social aspects of deaf lives. Language is at the core, embodying terminology issues and the role and use of language in the development of cultural identity.( pp. 193-194)
… scholars in disability studies tend to focus less on deaf people or deaf issues; instead, they embrace an expansive notion of disability that includes bodily and mental aspects. Their treatment of language differs significantly from deaf studies, too. For example, disability critiques of language tend to focus just on stigmatizing terms or terms that groups have chosen to identify themselves. Less attention has been paid to the ways language, including signed languages, contributes to the creation of cultural communities or the ways language and modes of communication can be accessible or inaccessible.( p. 194)
( Continued to page 8)
The Power of ASL 7 Fall 2016 – Issue 3