This chapter is about a student in a sign-language class whose teacher is deaf. Their teacher continues to refer to them as "hearing" as a describing word.
I think that it is okay when you are describing someone because that is something about that person. On the other hand, it is unacceptable for hearing people to refer to deaf people as deafs. I don't know, I guess I just think the rules should apply both ways. I understand that people that are deaf are a minority portion of the population but I still don't think its right for a teacher to refer to students as 'the hearing person' or anything along those lines. It just doesn't make sense to me. Honestly, I think it goes back to the golden rule again...treat others the way you want to be treated. People that are deaf don't like for that to be their signifier and as a hearing person I wouldn't want that to be mine.
Now, I don't fully understand the problem in this class. The teacher may call this student by name but use their hearing as a describing word. In this case, I think it would be fine. That is a characteristic about the student but it should not be a consent thing in this class. Students should never be degraded or labeled in any way. I know I probably don't understand the context and I'm sure it is not insulting at all but it just doesn't seem right to me.
When the teacher refers to the hearing students in the class as 'hearing' that actually bugs me. We just read numerous chapters on titles that are given to people and that titles are rude, etc. why can't the students in the class that are hearing just be called their actual name? There are more than just hearing and deaf that are different between people. I think the only way that I would be ok with being called hearing is if it wasn't derogatory.
ReplyDeleteI agree! All the book talks about is making sure you are being respectful towards people who are deaf and I think it should go both ways! I know its easier said than done but why can't everyone just get along? haha
ReplyDelete