Question D

[Jonetta]

At the center of the controversy is Wooten’s belief that the best teaching method is speech reading as opposed to sign language. Putting aside the eugenics factor, what did you learn about the merits/issues of both methods?

[Robin]

Well, if the person was not born deaf but lost their hearing later, lip-reading may be the way to go. They've heard spoken words and may be able to mimic sounds better than someone who has never heard anything.

I think signing would enable the person to at least communicate with others who could sign. And, if hearing people did not learn the language, they could also write notes as Oldham did in the story.

[Jonetta]

Like you, Robin, I saw the merits of both methods as you’ve described. The only difference is that those mastering speech reading would also need to learn sign language to communicate with the overall deaf community. An example is actress Marlee Matlin who speechreads and signs.

I think the author did a good job of presenting both methods without bias while presenting the prejudices against both.

[Charlene]

I agree. It was most interesting to learn that groups were (are?) polarized on this issue.

[Lauren]

I see no problem with teaching both, especially if the person was not born deaf.

The purpose is to enable people to communicate. Does it really matter what method they use to do so?

@Charlene - people are very opinionated and always think they are right and others are wrong. It causes unnecessary pain and suffering.