A Deaf teacher criticises Alexander Graham Bell
This interesting letter penned by Mr Gallaher, a prominent Deaf teacher, was written in June 1891 for the Journal of Education. In it he criticises Alexander Graham Bell quite considerably for attempting to block development of sign language teaching. Further, Gallaher criticises Bell’s oralism as a system that has found little favour and sign language is the best means of educating the deaf.
Its not often one sees a defence against the oralist doctrine in an education journal – especially when its written by a Deaf person – and perhaps even more rarely, it constitutes what is a direct criticism of Alexander Graham Bell who had attempted to block funding intended to improve the progress of the deaf in an education setting. There’s no doubt Alexander Graham Bell sunk low in order to maintain his oralist stance.
The National Deaf Mute College at Washington, which was the subject of Bell’s objections, is now known as Gallaudet University.
James Ernst Gallaher was a Deaf teacher. He absolutely refuted the notion that oralism had any possible future for the Deaf and wrote a book called Representative deaf persons of the United States of America; containing portraits and character sketches of prominent deaf persons (commonly called “deaf mutes”) who are engaged in the higher pursuits of life. This work was published in 1898 and it contains biographical sketches and portraits of prominent deaf individuals who were involved in professional pursuits. A copy of this work can be found at the Internet Archive.
James Ernst Gallaher’s letter in the Journal of Education 1891. For the text see below.
“Oralism”
Teachers and the public in general know who the inventor of the telephone is, but they are in ignorance as to why his name should be used so frequently in connection with the education of the deaf. To begin with, Prof. Bell’s wife and mother are both deaf, and the professor was himself at one time an instructor of the deaf, and herein lies the explanation of his interest in a class of people generally known as deaf-mutes. He, however, is the acknowledged representative of a system of instruction but little in favour among those longest engaged in the work of unravelling the world of knowledge to children of silence. It is the “pure oral” system, – a method of instruction which professes to make orators out of children totally deaf.
The first school for teaching deaf children exclusively by articulation and lip-reading was opened twenty-four years ago, since which time the advocates of “oralism” have been making strenuous but unsuccessful efforts to catch up with their great rival, the sign language. How barren of results have been their efforts will readily be seen when it is stated that there are today nearly nine thousand deaf children receiving instruction in the United States, and of this number only a trifle over one thousand are pupils of “pure oral” schools. Of the seventy-six schools for the deaf in our country, only eighteen are oral, and most of them are small private schools. But it must be remembered that the remaining fifty-eight schools give instruction in articulation and lipreading to such pupils as can be benefitted thereby.
The reason teaching the deaf exclusively by articulation, — and the important fact to bear in mind is the word exclusively. – does not meet with favour among experienced educators, is that (1) reading the lips is nothing but lip-signs, which is far too uncertain and wearisome to be depended upon; (2) that perfect hearing is absolutely necessary to good speech, hence the unnatural and disagreeable speech of the deaf; (3) too much time is wasted in having the deaf child learn to talk, which could be much better employed in imparting knowledge in other ways, and (4) that the great majority of those who received oral instruction at school find it of little practical value to them in contact with the business and social world.
Still, there are a few, a very few mutes who possess a naturally good voice (mark it, not acquired but natural), and who have a remarkable facility for lip-reading. They are to be found among the former as well as the present pupils of our State institutions and the oral schools. The trouble with Prof. Bell and his small army of followers is that they do not separate the wheat from the chaff; in other words, they do not admit that it is worth while to instruct only a small proportion of the deaf by the oral method.
Prof. Bell, not long ago, astonished and displeased the principals and teachers of the deaf (excepting the 18 oral schools. of course,) by appearing before the appropriation committee of the United States Senate and opposing the granting of $5000 for a normal department in the National Deaf Mute College at Washington. His alleged reason for such action was that the bill was designed solely to foster the sign language, and he did not want our National government to appear to put its seal of approval on any one system.
He openly attacked the mute’s natural language of signs, and termed the employment of deaf teachers of the deaf a “backward step,” merely because such teachers could not hear a mute mumble a few words! It is a matter of history that some of the very best teachers of the deaf are themselves deaf, and it is also well known that some of our articulation teachers are absolutely worthless so far as results are concerned.
Germany is the stronghold of oral teaching of the deaf. Who ever heard of a celebrated deaf mute educated there? Who ever heard of a famous mute that graduated from one of the oral schools of the United States? It is a fact that all the brilliant and distinguished mutes of America, past and present, were educated by the sign language. This is the language which has “showered incalculable blessings upon the deaf” – which the great German teacher, Frederick M. Hill, declared “a most efficacious means of assisting pupils,” and concerning which our own Prof. Bell a few years ago said: “In regard to mental development, undoubtedly nothing could reach the mind of a child like the language of signs.” The teachers of the deaf are now puzzled to account for the professor’s apparent hostility to what is undoubtedly the best system of instruction for the deaf yet perfected.
J. E. GALLAHER, Teacher of the Deaf.
