"For Hearing People Only" (Third Edition) by Matthew S Moore and Linda Levitan. With a foreward by Harlan Lane. Both are Deaf so forth, Linda is Latened Deaf.

Chapter 37 Page 213

Is it OK to use the term "deaf-mute" in reference to a deaf person who can't talk? No, it's no longer an acceptable term. "Mute" prefers to someone who cannot talk, that is, produce intelli-gible speech, or someone who has malfunctioning or missing vocal cords. "Mutism" is a medical or psychological condition_the inability or refusal to produce sounds. Virtually all deaf person are physically and psychologically normal in this area. They have vocal cords and voices, just as the vast majority of hearing people do. This also applies to deaf people who prefer to communicate exclusively in sign language. Their vocal apparatus is perfectly normal. But, being deaf, they cannot hear themselves talk, and thus, cannot easily modulate their voices. Consider: If you were born deaf or became deaf as an infant and have never heard yourself talk, it's extremely difficult to talk clearly, with normal intonation. So signing is the natural mode of communication for many deaf people; speaking can never be. A few deaf people have good clear articulation__better than some hearing people__but most don't. It's a matter of personal preference, deciding what we feel most comfortable with.

Page 214

Why Isn't "deaf and dumb" an acceptable term?

Think about the last time you used the word "dumb". you used it to describe something stupid, clumsy, or foolish, right? A century ago, this term was in common use. Nobody thought twice about its propriety. It's outmoded now, and insultingly inaccurate. We're aware that this term is still used in England to describe someone who is deaf, but that doesn't say much for the discernment of those who persist in using it. As for the correct term, why not simply say "deaf"?

A note on "politically correct" terms

Originally, the terms "deaf-mute" and "deaf-and-dumb" were not considered pejorative: they simply referred to a severely or profoundly deaf person who didn't speak. "Semi-mute: referred to a moderately deaf or one who had become deaf after learning how to speak, both of whom could profit from articulation training.
Nobody thought twice about the political correctness of such terminology. The American School for the Deaf was first called "The Connecticut Asylum, at Hartford, for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons, although, it should be noted some of the deaf people involved disliked having "Asylum" in the title. The original name of Gallaudet University was "Columbia Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind," then, after it was chartered, "National Deaf-Mute College." (It was renamed "Gallaudet College" in 1894.) The first publication in the "Little Paper Family" (1849 was The Deaf Mute. At its1880 founding, the National Association of the Deaf called itself "National Convention of Deaf-Mutes." No disrespect was intended or inferred. These terms simply reflected the prevailing 19th-century belief that deafness causes muteness.

Ironically, it was the oralist who began trying to abolish the term "mute." They made grandiose claims that all deaf children could be be taught how to speak. But the Deaf community (who knew better) refused to believe it. They did not want to speak, and did not want to be identified as speaking deaf. Because the oralist tried to suppress sign language in favor of speech, Deaf leaders preferred to continue calling themselves "deaf-mutes," as it made the oralist uncomfortable. Identifying oneself as a "deaf-mute" thus became a symbolic act of defiance to the oralists' explicit goal of "making the deaf speak." it was wielded as a cultural badge of pride. As the great Deaf leader George Beditz remarked, "If oral magicians who yank educational rabbits out of silk hats and pearls of speech out of the mouths of those who have never heard, choke over it, why, bless'em!"

Nonetheless, the terms "deaf-and-dumb" and "deaf-mute" gradually faded from acceptable usage. Sensibilities have changed since Veditz made his whimsical comment. All deaf children now get a stiff dose of speech training( we have the oralists to thank for that), so there is little point in splitting the deaf population artificially into speaking and nonspeaking categories. "Deaf-and-dumb and "deaf-mute" are now politically incorrect, period.

We dislike these terms because they now convey a negative attitude. "Deaf and dumb" does not connote pride or wholeness. It conjures a pitiful, pathetic, dull-witted image, with a hint of subnormal intelligence. "Deaf-Mute" suggests that a deaf person is doomed to a life of silence, without speech, without hope. We've run into these terms repeatedly, and we find them annoying, inaccurate, and insulting.

How widespread are the terms "deaf-and-dumb" and "deaf-mute." They seem to be more common in England and Canada than here, although that's not saying very much. We've seen several examples of headlines from the British press that made us cringe, but then, we've seen American headlines that were just as bad. In England, "deaf and dumb" is used to describe even deaf people who can speak clearly. The British Deaf Association, for one, has been waging a public-education campaign against this term. But entrenched attitudes, and the thoughtless terminology that reflects them, die hard.

We have found the term "deaf-mute" in contemporary books (e.g.. A Day in the Life of America). This is bothersome, because a book's influence is more permanent and perasive than that of a newspaper. Books are kept. They have influence. Staying power. Once they 're published, they rowed and re-borrowed, read and reread by school children and adults. And you can't fire off a letter to the author that gets published in next Monday's morning edition.

We have also seen these terms on television, not from the anchors or reporters, but from hearing people being interviewed. Actual eamples: "He's a deaf-mute." "My neighbor's a mute." "She's deaf and mute and went to the deaf-and-dumb school." A number of hearing people who really should know better are caught using phrases like these. If you're going to be quoted by the press or a TV reporter, please think twice! (Or just think!)

We'd like to note that [b]DEAF LIFE has an occasional feature, "Oh,No! Not Again!", which "showcases" examples of these offensive terms as used in contemporary media Readers have sent in examples and we've run across a number of them ourselves. We find them all over the place.

So what are the correct terms? Understandably, some hearing people find the simple, blunt, four-letter word "deaf" a bit hard to swallow. : Deaf" can mean not only "unable to hear, " but "heedless" or "unwilling to listen." Common expressions such as "deaf to their pleas," "their appeal fell on deaf ears," " turned a deaf ear, " and " the silence was deafening," have a decidely negative connotation. To some people, "deaf" still connotes something shameful. Recent euphemisms include "hearing impaired," "hearing-handicapped," "hearing-disabled," "auditorily handicapped," and "non-hearing." Most deaf people disllike these terms, as they promote a negative image of deaf people as broken ears or malfunctioning machinery. "Deaf" refers to the medical fact of hearing loss, but can also designate pride and cultural affiliation (i.e., "Deaf"). Fussy terms like " auditorily-handicapped" don't.

Some members of our community honestly prefer "hearing-impaired" to the more archaic "hard of hearing" __and vice versa. "Hearing-impaired" may be useful as a way of designating all those with various degrees of deafness, including mild, moderate, severe, and profound hearing loss. But those who insist on using this term should best employ it in combination, i.e., "deaf/hearing-impaired/hard-of-hearing.: That way, nobody left out. The majority of deaf people prefer the simple term "deaf."

We'd like to note that the International Federation of the Hard of Hearing, the World Federation of the Deaf, NAD, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Advancement of the Deaf, have all agreed that the term" hearing-impaired" is no longer acceptable, and that "deaf/hard-of-hearing" should be used in all future references.