ASL panel discusses issues of deafness

Several years ago when she was in high school, Lisa Ripper and her younger brother decided to hit the McDonald’s drive-thru for dinner. At the time, McDonald’s drive-thrus were a simple system consisting of a menu, a speaker and a microphone. The Ripper siblings placed their order but because they are both hearing impaired, they couldn’t make out what the voice coming over the speaker was saying.

“So we were like ‘OK, OK, yeah.’”

When the Rippers went to pick up their order at the window, it was heftier

than expected.

“We drove away with $25 worth of McDonald’s. Double everything. I am very thankful now that they [have your order] on the screen, so you can check what you want before it comes to you.”

The way technological advancements, such as McDonald’s improved drive-thru order boards, have bettered the lives of deaf and hearing-impaired individuals was just one of several topics discussed at the American Sign Language Club’s 16th Annual Deaf/Hearing Panel last night in the O’Hara Student Center Ballroom.

Over the course of an hour and a half, six panelists answered questions from the 200-member audience and addressed subjects ranging from cochlear implants to challenges facing the deaf community. The discussion was part of Pitt American Sign Language Club’s effort to spread awareness about the experience of living with deafness.

“We want to show the struggles they go through, the crazy things that happen in their lives and how they can succeed like anyone else,” club technical manager Rob Dibble said.

With four of the six on-stage panel members being either deaf or hearing impaired, they all signed their words or had their words signed by a certified interpreter. They also stood in front of a large projection of white text on a black screen to provide closed captioning. Only panelists Amy Ahearn, the mother of two deaf children, and Dr. Kim Mathos, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, do not live with a hearing impairment.

Debate arose among the panelists over the topic of cochlear implants, electronic devices surgically implanted into the ear of a deaf individual to improve hearing. Many deaf individuals can’t hear because certain hair cells in the ear that are necessary to pick up vibrations are damaged.

Cochlear implants bypass the need for these hairs by stimulating the cochlear nerves of the ear using electrical impulses. This method allows deaf individuals to hear, though at a lesser capacity than those born with hearing. Cochlear implants contain an external device that includes a microphone, a speech processor and a transmitter and an internal device that includes a receiver and electrodes. An individual can remove the external portion for activities such as swimming, but the device will not work without all components being attached.

The panelists explained that while part of the deaf community views cochlear implants as a positive advancement, a separate part of the community sees choosing the implant surgery as an unnecessary risk or an attempt to turn deaf children into something they simply are not — hearing.

“That’s a touchy subject,” panelist Kenny DeHaan, who is deaf and an adjunct professor for sign language classes at Pitt, said of cochlear implants. “The deaf community does vary on this. It’s a melting pot. Does it divide it, maybe. If you have a strong deaf person, yes, they would be against it.”

Ripper, a graduate student in Pitt’s School of Public Health whose brother has a cochlear implant, spoke to the success her sibling has found using the device.

“I’ve seen them work,” she said. “It’s amazing technology if you think about it.”

Panelist Devin Rosentreter, a deaf individual and professional counselor for other deaf people, argued that parents who choose to implant a cochlear device in their deaf child should also ensure that the child learns sign language. He highlighted the fact that if a deaf child wants to swim or participate in some other sporting activities, he or she will need to take out the cochlear device. If the child doesn’t have an alternate form of interacting without the cochlear implant, then he or she will be cut off from communication with others.

“If [the cochlear implant] fails, you have a backup,” Rosentreter said of sign language instruction.

In addition to cochlear implants, the panel also discussed the way other technological advancements have already impacted the deaf community and will continue to do so in the future.

“It can be a double-edged sword at times,” DeHaan said.

On the one side, he said Internet access has allowed people to communicate more easily through tools such as Facebook, but technological advancement also includes genetic engineering.

“Are we going to try and get rid of the deaf?” DeHaan asked. “It’s a little scary.”

Some members of the deaf community see their deafness as a quality that makes them unique.

“Within the deaf community, acceptance is valued,” Ahearn said.

The panelists also returned repeatedly throughout their presentation to the barriers deaf individuals face in a world where hearing is the norm.

“Hearing people still oppress us even today. It’s not officially done,” panelist William “Bam” Coleman III, a deaf individual and sign language interpreter, said.

As an example of this oppression, he pointed to a lack of sign language interpreters in health care settings and a lack of legislation to remove such barriers.

“When will it stop? After I’m dead?” Coleman asked. “I’ll have to rise from the dead to find out. I don’t know.”

Ahearn expressed hope in regard to the continuation of breaking down barriers for deaf individuals.

“I think about my two deaf kids. I want to see those services improve. I don’t want my kids to be repeating all the same experiences you’ve had. I want things to be better for them,” Ahearn said.