Letters sent to the Daily Free Press (not all of which were published)
From: Rowan Armor <radravin@bu.edu>
Date: March 30, 2004 8:39:05 AM EST
To: letters@dailyfreepress.com
Subject: Response to Nathaniel Pagan.Author: Rowan Armor
I respectfully acknowledge Nathaniel Pagan's opinion regarding American Sign Language, but must wholly disagree with a number of points on which he simply must be misinformed. I would remind Mr. Pagan that it is not my task to assign a headline to my article, and since it was generated by the Free Press, I can take no responsibility for the content of the headline. I further do not believe that American Sign Language counts for any form of requirement for students in the College of Arts and Sciences, as the SED courses aforementioned must be taken with elective credit and still do not serve to satisfy the foreign language requirement.Mr. Pagan is obviously also free to disagree with my characterization of Deans Samons and Henderson, but I would also remind him that he has not been the one who has dealt with the deans on this issue, and so cannot possibly gauge their intellectual conduct with regard to it. I would also inform him that I am well versed as to the positions held by both Dean Jeffrey Henderson and Dean Loren Samons, and that the office titles placed before their names were in fact edited in by the Daily Free Press, and cannot be counted as a sign of ignorance on my own part regarding these administrators.
I do not presume to state the purpose of a foreign- or second-language requirement, except to say that American Sign Language is certainly foreign to me, in all the ways that Navajo, Bambara, Urdu, and the most ancient Latin are. I would guess that the language is also foreign to Mr. Pagan, since he is so misinformed about the nature of ASL. American Sign Language is structurally and lexically most related to French Sign Language, as larger schools for the Deaf were first introduced in the United States by a Frenchman. In fact, British Sign Language and American Sign Language are as mutually unintelligible as Danish and Japanese -- irrefutable proof that American Sign Language is not simply some paltry attempt to represent the English language using the hands.
In fact, the fatal flaw in Mr. Pagan's argument is the fact that it is not American Sign Language that is not accepted at BU, but in fact no signed languages are. Even if an undergraduate or graduate student here at BU were fluent in Italian, French, Chinese, or Spanish Sign Language, they would still not be considered bilingual, despite their mastery of a language that springs from another culture. On all counts you are incorrect, Mr. Pagan, in drawing a rational distinction between the way Twi (an African language, not a Native American language, as you incorrectly state) is accepted by BU's administration and American Sign Language and in fact all signed languages, regardless of culture.
Sadly, ASL does not satisfy the foreign language requirement here at Boston University. Fortunately for humanity as a whole, however, the list of prestigious universities comparable and exceeding Boston University in academic clout that do accept American Sign Language is extensive. Indeed Brown University, MIT, NYU, Northeastern University, Purdue, over 47 schools whose names begin with "University of...," and Yale all accept this language for a foreign language requirement. The issue here is not whether Boston University will accept American Sign Language, it is simply a matter of when. It is a shame that signed languages at BU are being put on hold because of the misguided and staunch opposition of a few top administrators.
Date: April 1, 2004 5:51:30 PM EST
From: deborahd@teleport.com
Subject: ASL should satisfy CAS foreign language requirement
To: letters@dailyfreepress.com
Reply-To: deborahd@teleport.comOpen letter to CAS Academic Policy Committee Chair John Caradonna, Provost Berkey, and President Chobanian
I am compelled to respond to the recent flurry of letters to the DFP about ASL and the foreign language requirement here at BU. I am a graduate student of linguistics at the university and a nationally certified ASL/English interpreter of over ten years.
Signed languages are used the world over by those people for whom spoken language is not an option. The channel through which speech is received and learned is compromised such that oral/aural communication is less than satisfactory. The intact visual and spatial channels are used instead (eyes and hands in lieu of ears and mouth). Brain imaging studies (e.g. MRIs) have shown that signed languages produced by Deaf people are processed in the same areas of the brain as spoken languages used by hearing people; empirical evidence to show that while the modality is different, the underlying processing is the same. Like spoken languages, signed languages are acquired naturally by children, display variations of the same kind, and undergo regular linguistic change over time. Both signed and spoken languages share the same fundamental linguistic characteristics. Both reveal the potential of the human language faculty.
Signed languages are not versions of their geographically shared spoken languages. Syntactically, ASL and English differ, at times radically, in their syntactic structure. Just as a native Spanish speaker would find incomprehensible (or at least detect second language intrusion if bilingual) someone using Spanish vocabulary in English word order, a Deaf ASL user would have the same experience if such a person were to sign in English word order. Morphologically, ASL inflection and derivation are carried out using rule-governed spatial referencing and movement to achieve complex nuances of meaning. English uses the tools at its disposal, bound morphemes and periphrastic constructions, to do the same. Phonologically, English exploits a limited set of sounds and combinations of sounds. ASL similarly exploits systematically a subset of the possible hand shapes, locations, palm orientations, movements, as well as gestures of the face and upper body. ASL is as different from English as English is from Spanish. In fact, British Sign Language is so different from ASL that they are not mutually intelligible. There is no spoken to signed correlation here.
At American universities, language teachers are primarily, though not always, native users. Instructors use language teaching texts, supplemental readings in the language, and readings about the language and about the culture(s) to which it is linked. ASL has at the ready all of the necessary materials to achieve a rich curriculum of instruction. There are hosts of qualified instructors in Boston and throughout the nation. There are current textbooks, video and CD-ROM instructional materials, historical and modern prosaic and poetic literature on video, books about Deaf peopleâ•?s experience in America spanning 200 years, and elaborate studies in print and on video focusing on cultural issues, regional and dialectal variation, subcultures within the Deaf community, and educational issues facing Deaf people. Furthermore, there is no shortage of students who would register for these classes, which are all currently available at BU!
There is no legitimate basis for the University's assessment that signed languages are intrinsically ineligible for fulfillment of the foreign language requirement. Knowledge of signed languages is invaluable for many academic post-graduate pursuits, and disallowing ASL (and other signed languages) while allowing Twi or Navajo to count for the foreign language requirement is not only unacceptable, it is suspicious. This policy imposes an undue burden on Deaf bilingual students as compared with hearing bilingual students (who are not required to learn an additional non-native language to satisfy the CAS foreign language requirement). The current discriminatory policy must be changed.
Deborah Perry, CI, CT
Certified Sign Language Interpreter
deborahd@teleport.com
deborahd@bu.edu
617-562-4422
GRS, MA Applied Linguistics Program
Graduation year 2004
Letter sent to the Daily Free Press but not published:
Dear Editors,
I am a deaf student in the School of Theology currently in coursework for the Doctor of Theology degree. I wish to add my voice to that of Rowan Armor’s in expressing my confusion regarding the refusal of the College of Arts and Science (CAS) to recognize ASL for foreign language credit. The School of Theology has accepted my petition to recognize ASL for one of my two research languages. Although I suspect this decision was based on a different set of criteria than the CAS is looking to fulfill, it does point to the academic value of ASL.
From what I can tell in the objections cited by Rowan, CAS is looking for whether ASL has a linguistic status other than English and is thereby foreign, a unique culture which sustains and uses this language, and a literature available for the study of this culture in its native language. This points to a desire for second language learning that exposes a student to a culture and worldview other than their own that uses a complete language system to convey and maintain its cultural boundaries. While I could be misled by what has been cited, this seems to be the criteria revealed in this debate.
What has appeared to become the barrier for ASL recognition are persistent myths present among hearing people regarding ASL. One such myth is that ASL is merely “English on the hands.” Linguistic scholarship has shown that ASL contains its own unique grammar and syntax which is unrelated to English. Another persistent myth is that ASL has no culture that sustains it. Anthropological and sociological research maintains that Deaf culture has its own patters of behaviors and boundary maintenance just as other cultural groups do. A third myth is that ASL has no literature because it is not a written language. The “oral” character of its literature is not unique to ASL, many spoken languages without written form have the bulk of their literature in oral form or written English translation. A wealth of ASL literature has now been preserved for study on videotape. Thus the storytelling, poetry, folktales, and humor that convey the unique views of culturally Deaf people are available and used in teaching ASL as a foreign language. This scholarship seems to show that ASL meets the criteria being expressed by CAS.
While I may be wrong in assuming that the CAS has not sufficiently familiarized itself with this scholarship, I cannot shake the feeling that those responsible setting policy are basing their claims on unsubstantiated and persistent myths regarding ASL. I hope that CAS will review this scholarship as other universities have and accept ASL study for foreign language credit.
Kirk VanGilder
Graduate Student, School of Theology
From: Becky Reuker
To: letters@dailyfreepress.com
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:30 PM
Subject: ASL letter to the editorI am writing to offer a unique perspective on the issue of ASL not counting for CAS’s Foreign Language requirement, rightfully raised by Rowan Armor’s letter (“American Sign Language should count for class credit, March 26, pg. 7). As a linguistics major, I am one of the few students in CAS lucky enough to take ASL and have it count for non-elective credit.
A year and a half ago, I was just like many of you reading this letter—I knew nothing about ASL or Deaf people. I vaguely remembered Linda from Sesame Street and thought I knew how to fingerspell. But my studies here at BU have helped me to discover and pursue my passion for language and human connection. From personal experience I know that ASL provides a gateway into a separate culture and way of life, one that fascinates me to no end. And did you know that ASL has beautiful poetry, where movements and handshapes are artfully manipulated in similar ways to how English poets use alliteration and rhyme? I didn’t before, but I am awed by it now.
My own experiences aside, I have noticed that this is the only major university issue discussed recently in the Daily Free Press that has not prompted a single letter, comment, or clarification from BU administration. This silence, especially that of the CAS Deans in question, troubles me. What is their motivation in denying ASL the recognition it deserves? I do not understand. I encourage you to check any linguistics textbook and see what it says about the legitimacy of ASL. Heck, just type “ASL linguistic research” into Google and 0.25 seconds later the first link you will be shown leads to the American Sign Language Linguistics Research Project, a major study on ASL syntax being conducted right here at Boston University! I call upon the Deans of the College of Arts and Sciences, our academic leaders, to explain their position, or end the discrimination against the natural language of the American Deaf community.
Learning a language other than your own is one of the most rewarding endeavors anyone can ever undertake, and I wholeheartedly support the notions behind the CAS Foreign Language requirement. But today I am advocating specifically for the inclusion of American Sign Language. If the administration allows us, we can use this beautiful language right here in our own city to help break down the barriers that separate the hearing majority from the misunderstood linguistic minority of the American Deaf community.
-Becky Reuker
CAS '06Published by the Daily Free Press (with editorial changes in the capitalization of "Deaf").
Submitted to the Daily Free Press:
Dear Dean Henderson,
Thank you for clarifying the criteria used to determine the validity of languages considered for foreign language credit at for the College of Arts and Sciences. It greatly advances the understanding of your position on ASL. I cannot help but to wonder when ASL was last fully reviewed by CAS and if the full gamut of scholarship on ASL and Deaf culture now available has been considered.
On the ‘foreignness’ of ASL, I wonder if CAS likewise rejects Native American languages for foreign language credit because they fall within the geographical boundaries of North America? Culture is not defined merely by geo-political boundaries but rather by communities of users. Although Deaf culture is widely dispersed throughout North American culture, and thus retains some of the similar values and patterns of interaction, it retains features unique to the culturally Deaf point of view that are quite unlike those of hearing communities. Elaborate means of introduction and leave taking from a group are formed out of the historical experiences of culturally Deaf people and neophytes to ASL study often find them baffling to encounter. Likewise, the study of Deaf culture and ASL, leads to much of the same bicultural and bilingual awareness produced when studying French, German, or Spanish and the unique cultural contributions of users of those languages.
Recent years have also produced a body of literature in ASL on videotape that is available for study. This literature is produced in ASL by culturally Deaf people and reveals our unique viewpoints on the world and issues that concern us. ASL poetry, storytelling, folklore, and humor all points to a way of experiencing and engaging the world that is quite different from the variety of ways of hearing people. Most proper ASL curriculum makes use of these materials once receptive competency in ASL is gained. Also available is a growing body of written literature by culturally Deaf people that, while in translation or Deaf people’s second language of English, nevertheless reveals the experience, viewpoints, values, and commitments of Deaf culture and how they differ from the larger hearing society in North America.
Perhaps it is time for the College of Arts and Sciences to revisit their stance on ASL and give the growing body of literature and scholarship available to them a fresh look and put aside the biases of the past that have long prevented the knowledge of ASL and culturally Deaf people from being known to a wider audience.
Kirk VanGilder
Graduate Student in the School of Theology
From: lendavis@uic.edu
Subject: Response to Dean's letter on ASL
Date: April 9, 2004 12:45:25 PM EDT
To: letters@dailyfreepress.com
Cc: jhenders@bu.edu, berkey@bu.edu, achob@bu.eduTo the editor:
I read with interest Dean Jeffrey Henderson's reasoning for not allowing ASL to be considered a "foreign" language at BU.
We at the University of Illinois at Chicago also considered the issue and did decide to allow ASL to fulfill not only the foreign language requirement but also have allowed Deaf and disability studies courses to fulfill the diversity requirement at the university. In allowing ASL to serve the language requirement, UIC joins 139 other universities including such institutions as Yale, Brown, and MIT to name only a few. (see http://www.unm.edu/%7Ewilcox/ASLFL/univlist.html )
Since Dean Henderson does not dispute that ASL is a language, nor does he dispute that there is a culture and history that goes with the study of ASL, his argument rests on one point--that "since it is almost exclusively used by inhabitants of North America who cross the whole spectrum of North American culture, and it has not (or not yet) generated a corpus of literature with the breadth and general circulation beyond its own users that would put it on a par with the languages traditionally adopted for a humanities requirement."
To these points I would respond:
1) ASL is in structure part of a larger sign language system that includes French Sign Language and many other variants. (British Sign Language, for example, is quite different from this group.) In that sense, it is clearly a dialect of a language whose borders extend well beyond North America.
2) The Modern Language Association, which is the professional organization of all English, French, Spanish, and other foreign language departments, recognized ASL as one of its official foreign languages. (see Table 2a and 2b http://www.adfl.org/resources/enroll.htm )
3) For all practical purposes, ASL is "foreign" to most hearing people. Many people in the US are quite comfortable speaking Spanish at home and in their neighborhoods but would find the use of ASL to be outside of their domestic experience. Travelling to a Deaf Club or to Gallaudet University in Washington, is, I can assure you, much more exotic than traveling to France or Germany.
4) Dean Henderson assures us that [ASL] "has not (or not yet) generated a corpus of literature with the breadth and general circulation beyond its own users that would put it on a par with the languages traditionally adopted for a humanities requirement," but he can only do that, I'm afraid, because he has not had the opportunity or pleasure of seeing Deaf plays, watching Deaf poetry, engaging in Deaf history or culture in general as have the growing numbers of hearing students who have taken ASL and Deaf Studies courses.
In effect, Dean Henderson wouldn't dare tell us that African-American culture or Latino/Latina culture hadn't achieved the greatness of American culture in general, although many people including my own teacher at Columbia University Lionel Trilling said this about emerging cultures in the 1960's. Why is it allowable for non-experts in Deaf Studies to opine about the range and depth of a culture they may well know little or nothing about? No expert in Deaf Studies would agree with Dean Henderson's sweeping statement.
When the University of Virginia was considering whether or not to adopt ASL as a language that would fulfill the foreign language requirement, there were debates like the one going on at BU. Some well-meaning people like Dean Henderson opined that ASL wasn't a foreign language, but ultimately the weight of evidence convinced the faculty senate to decide for ASL. I don't think there's been a downside there, nor at the 139 other universities, and I know that the only downside to rejecting ASL at BU would be that a lot of students who want to learn ASL would be discouraged. When we consider that ASL usually becomes the third to fifth most popular language when it is so permitted tells us that we don't serve our students well to prohibit ASL's fulfillment of the foreign langauge requirement.
Best,
Lennard J. Davis
Professor
Department of English
Department of Disability and Human Development
Department of Medical Education
Director, Project Biocultures
Mailing Address:
Department of English (MC 162)
601 South Morgan Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607-7120
Office: UH 1832
Phone: (312) 413 8910
Fax: (312) 413 1005
Back to main page about ASL and the BU foreign language requirement
[last modified 4/9/04 ]