Sociolinguistic Aspects of the Black Deaf Community

Anthony J. Aramburo

Louisiana Rehabilitation Services

Introduction

The black deaf community can be described as a group of individuals who live in a “hearing- and color-conscious society” (Anderson, 1972). Black deaf people continually strive to overcome communication problems; in addition, they must deal with the racist attitudes that govern our society. As a group, they appear to be immersed in both black culture and deaf culture.

At least three issues surface as a result of this “double immersion.” One issue concerns the reality of the black deaf community, which is distinct from both the black community and the deaf community. A second issue concerns identity: given the double immersion in both black culture and deaf culture, it is possible that a black deaf person’s primary identity may be black, deaf, or black deaf. A third issue concerns communication patterns: the differences between black and white signing, including sign variation and code-switching.

This study investigates these issues and presents empirical data that permit a clearer sociolinguistic perspective than has heretofore been possible. Data relating to identity consist of the results of a survey conducted with 60 black deaf individuals; data relating to black-white communication patterns consist of videotapes of the conversational interaction of seven dyads controlled for race, audiological status, and signing skills.

The Black Deaf Community

As defined by Hillery (1974), a community is a general social system in which a group of people live together, share common goals, and carry out certain responsibilities to each other. Loomis (1983) states that communities strive to protect the resources that will serve to inform future generations of their cultural past. Padden (1980) distinguishes between culture and community, referring to the former as a set of learned behaviors of a group of people who have their own language, values, rules for behavior, and traditions; she points out that, in addition to culturally deaf people, the community can include both hearing people and audiologically deaf people who interact with culturally deaf people and who see themselves as working for solutions to various common concerns. Further evidence for the existence of both a black community and a deaf community is presented elsewhere (Higgins, 1980; Padden, 1980).

As stated above, the first issue concerns the reality of the black deaf community as distinct from both the black community and the deaf community. The contention is that there is a black deaf community that shares some characteristics and values of both the black community and the deaf community; in addition, it has some unique characteristics and values. With the black community, the black deaf community shares the struggle of overcoming societal prejudices and racism. The unemployment rate is higher in the black community than in the white community; among the black deaf, it is higher still. Indeed, underemployment is rampant in both black communities (Christiansen & Barnartt, 1987). In addition, there are few black political leaders in the black community, and in the black deaf community they are non-existent. The black community and the black deaf community share their black heritage, and the struggles that blacks endured to obtain their civil rights are salient in both.

The features shared by the black deaf community and the deaf community are largely in the domain of communication. Within the deaf community, American Sign Language (ASL) is important to socialization. Social activities, such as deaf sports events, deaf club activities, and deaf-related conferences and meetings, attract deaf people because they share a common mode of communication. Aside from this, stereotypes that classify the deaf as dumb, uneducated, and unable to work must be overcome by all deaf people in a “hearing world”; black deaf people and lower-class whites have additional stereotypes placed on them.

Characteristics and values unique to the black deaf community can be identified through patterns of social interaction, education, and use of sign language. For example, in most cities, the social clubs used by the black deaf community cater primarily to them (Higgins, 1980); the white deaf community uses separate facilities. No laws or rules mandate this occurrence; it simply happens. The clubs are used to disseminate information about how the group will carry out certain functions: club meetings, sports events, dances, card socials, and personal celebrations, such as birthdays and anniversaries, all happen at the club house; information related to jobs, problems that members are faced with, and new laws pertaining to deaf people are available there as well. In addition, black deaf individuals tend to marry among themselves, typically with someone who attended the same residential school. When a black deaf individual does marry a hearing person, that hearing spouse is usually black.

Educational patterns provide further evidence of the existence of a black deaf community. In recent years, the black and deaf communities have made significant achievements in the area of education. Blacks no longer need to settle for an education that is “separate but equal”; they can freely attend any school or university for which they are qualified. During the days of racial segregation, however, most elementary school programs for black deaf children were set up on all-black campuses. Although there were good intentions for educating this special group of students, the reality was that the tools and personnel needed to achieve the best results were not available; the programs were mediocre (Hairston & Smith, 1983), and in most cases the administrative personnel had no expertise in the field of deaf education. Teachers in black schools for deaf students were not required to have college credits related to the education of deaf children, and college programs that provided black students with a degree in education offered no such coursework. Teachers did their best to provide black deaf students with a decent education; however, the problem of communication persisted.

Early educational programs for deaf students did not require that teachers were well-versed in American Sign Language, and programs designed to teach sign language to teachers were scarce. In many schools for the deaf, sign language was not permitted in the classroom—the predominant mode for teaching was the manual alphabet, and often entire lessons were fingerspelled; needless to say, a solid grasp of the English language was required in order to comprehend what was being taught. In many cases, the home environment was not the ideal place to learn English, so the students had a great deal of difficulty.

Today, black deaf children who are born to hearing parents face the same communication predicament as their peers in the past—namely, many hearing parents refuse to communicate with their children through sign language. Parents often leave the burden of educating their child solely to the school system. Black deaf children born to deaf parents have an advantage over their peers with hearing parents, since deaf parents communicate with their children through sign language. When these students go to the residential schools, they bring sign language with them; this provides a means of communication other than fingerspelling. Outside the classroom, students converse using sign language; playground activities and other non-school-related activities permit students to develop their language and social skills.

During the years that black schools were not permitted to compete with white schools in athletic activities, black students had to travel in order to compete with rival schools. During these visits, black deaf students shared their language and taught each other new signs. Upon completing school, most black deaf students chose to learn a trade in order to make their living, and it has been suggested that a correlation exists between this choice and inadequate English skills. Moreover, this choice of vocational training greatly lessened the number of black deaf students entering college (Christiansen & Barnartt, 1987).

The number of black deaf students entering colleges and universities today remains small. Many students, whether in the residential schools or in mainstream special education programs for deaf and hard of hearing students, are graduating with a high school certificate rather than a high school diploma. Facilities and services offered to black deaf students are improving, but the number of black deaf individuals possessing a doctoral degree is very low when compared to the overall deaf community.¹

Although a certain level of achievement has been attained within the majority of deaf and hearing communities, black deaf individuals are still behind in terms of advancement. The black deaf person is doubly affected insofar as being labeled black and disabled amounts to simultaneous placement in two devalued worlds (Alcocer, 1974). Blacks in general have made considerable gains, but members of the black deaf community have had a difficult time emulating their success. Deaf people, like other minorities, are subject to categorical discrimination (Schowe, 1979). Deaf people in general did not participate in the movement to improve their civil rights until the 1970s, when they actively joined other organizations of disabled people in transforming their own special civil rights issues into the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Boros & Stuckless, 1982). However, many black deaf individuals have noticed no overall improvements in their community.

Additional evidence of the existence of a black deaf community comes from differences observed between black signing and white signing. Later in this chapter, evidence of these differences will be provided.

On the whole, members of the black deaf community are aware of both their black culture and their deaf culture. Much as members of the black community pass on cultural resources—such as black art, black folklore, and black spirituals—to future generations, members of the black deaf community pass along their resources. For example, an oral history about residential school experiences from the era when schools were segregated parallels the oral history of the black community about slavery.

Black or Deaf?

As discussed earlier, black deaf individuals are immersed in both black and deaf culture. It appears that the black deaf individual can be part of both cultures, so a question of identity arises—that is, does a black deaf individual identify primarily with the black community or with the deaf community? In an attempt to answer this question of identity, a survey was conducted among 60 members of the black deaf community in the Washington, D.C., area. The majority of the participants were high school and college students attending the Model Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD) and Gallaudet University. Approximately one-third of the individuals interviewed lived in Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas. Twenty individuals were targeted from each of three age groups: 18 to 25, 26 to 35, and 36 and above. A representative sample of 10 men and 10 women was targeted for each age group. Older members of the black deaf community from Washington, D.C., were sought as representatives of the adult population.

In all, 33 men and 27 women participated in the study. The median age of the participants was 27.1 years. The age at which each respondent acquired sign language was recorded: 14 participants (23%) learned sign language before age 6, while 46 (77%) learned sign language after this age. Fifty participants (88%) attended a residential school; the remaining seven participants (12%) attended either public or parochial schools, or both. Four of the participants (7%) were children of deaf parents; the remaining 56 participants (93%) were children of hearing parents. In disclosing their competence in ASL, 55 participants (92%) described themselves as native signers of ASL.

The interviews were conducted on a one-to-one, informal basis. A comfortable setting was agreed upon by both the interviewer and the respondent. Interviews averaged 30 minutes in duration. In the initial part of the interview, respondents were briefed about the nature of the study; these preliminaries also enabled the interviewer to gain familiarity with the communication skills of each respondent. ASL was used as the primary mode of communication throughout all interviews.

First, respondents were asked background questions concerning age and onset of deafness, deaf family members, and educational history. Once comfortable with the interviewing process, the respondents were questioned about black culture and the black community in general. The questions were: 1) Who are some of the black leaders you recognize as influential in the black community? 2) Where did you acquire your knowledge of black history? 3) Have you ever felt you were discriminated against or treated differently, not because you are deaf, but because you are black? 4) In terms of upward achievement, where do you see the black community headed? 5) What contribution(s) do you feel black deaf people can make in bringing about racial equality? This session on black culture and the black community in general was followed by questions about deaf culture and the black deaf community. The questions included: 1) Just as we talked about in black culture, do you feel there is a deaf culture that exists in the deaf community? 2) Who are some deaf leaders you identify with? 3) What is the most significant achievement obtained by deaf people? 4) When in school, were you taught deaf culture in class? 5) Did you ever feel you were discriminated against or treated differently because you are deaf?

Subsequent to the discussion of the individual topics of black and deaf culture, the two topics were combined in order to inquire about the participants’ feelings on being black and deaf. The participants were asked to conjoin their knowledge and experiences of being black and deaf in order to comment on what they perceived to be black deaf culture. The questions leading into this discussion were: 1) How does black culture and the black community differ from deaf culture and the black deaf community? 2) What are advancements you notice that have been made by black deaf individuals? 3) Do you feel black deaf culture is alive and strong in the black deaf community? 4) What do you see as the most significant barrier black deaf individuals have to overcome in order to be considered equal with the black community and with the deaf community? 5) What do you hope to contribute to the black deaf community? 6) Which do you identify with first, your black culture or your deaf culture?

Results

The survey provided a general answer to the question of identity. Eight participants (13%) said that they identify themselves as deaf first, and then black; the remaining 52 participants (87%) identified themselves as black first. Among those participants that identified themselves as deaf first, the majority have deaf parents and were educated in a residential school for the deaf. These people are more integrated into the deaf community than those who identified themselves as black first. In response to questions about deaf culture, all of the participants agreed that there is a deaf culture. When asked about prominent deaf leaders, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet was named most frequently, and nearly exclusively by a majority of the participants. No contemporary deaf leaders were identified as making a substantial contribution to the deaf community; many of the participants, however, provided names from their school or local community when discussing who they felt made a contribution to the deaf community. On the whole, all of the participants agreed that the deaf community has progressed in recent years. Areas of achievement were noted in the fields of employment opportunity and education. All participants felt that they were discriminated against, or treated differently, because of their deafness, their blackness, or both; many of the participants also mentioned that they felt they were being discriminated against, or treated differently, by members of the deaf community in addition to the general hearing community.²

As hypothesized, when compared to the responses of the black-identified participants, the responses of the deaf-identified participants were broader in scope with questions about deaf culture and more limited in scope with questions about black culture. This deaf-identification does not serve to preclude knowledge about black culture, but the responses of the deaf-identified do indicate much greater enthusiasm for questions related to deaf culture than those related to black culture. In contrast, the respondents who identified with black culture first said that they see their color as more visible than their deafness, and that they want respect for their ethnicity before their deafness. One comment was typical of many black-identified participants: “You see I am black first. My deafness is not noticed until I speak or use my hands to communicate.” As expected, the black-identified group gave more detailed answers than the deaf-identified group to questions about the black culture. All were able to identify with famous black leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson; when asked to identify the person who invented the cotton gin or the person who discovered plasma, they were not able to produce the names. Many of the participants were babies during the time blacks fought for their civil rights, so their knowledge was not first-hand. When asked where they acquired their knowledge of black history, the majority said that they did not learn about black culture in school. They were informed about their black heritage from what parents and siblings taught them in addition to what they learned on their own. Most could identify with present problems facing blacks; many of the answers focused on racial discrimination. In response to a question about how they would achieve racial equality, these participants spoke about blacks working together. Their common goal was to see blacks and whites, both deaf and hearing, interacting on the same level.

In the final battery of questions, participants were asked to comment on the black deaf community. In many of the responses, participants mentioned parallels between the black community and the deaf community. Also mentioned were notable accomplishments that blacks have made since the civil rights movement began. The barrier of communication was seen as the most prevalent obstacle separating the black deaf community from the black and deaf communities. Individuals in the black deaf community feel that their communication skills are not on the same level as hearing members of the black community. Communication is facilitated when individuals have something in common, but it is hampered when differences exist among individuals (Glenn & Glenn, 1981). Members of both the black deaf community and the black community share black culture, but the members of each group lack, to a certain degree, the ability to communicate effectively with each other through either American Sign Language or spoken English. Black deaf individuals often find themselves alienated from the dominant black culture. The lack of cross-cultural communication between members of the black deaf subculture and members of the majority black culture places both cultures at a distance. The participants who strongly identified with their black deaf culture also noted that differences exist in the ways of signing between black deaf and white deaf individuals. They mentioned too the separation of black deaf clubs and white deaf clubs as an ongoing dilemma that explains why both cultures are not totally cohesive.

The following are some not-so-flattering excerpts from the interviews that provide examples of what some of the participants said about the harsh realities facing members of the black deaf community:

•The black community in general has more opportunities for advancement than the black deaf community.

•Black deaf women have a much harder time at success than their male counterparts.

•Progress within the black deaf community has seen little or no improvement within the last 10 to 15 years.

•The total number of blacks seeking higher education has increased, while the number of black deaf individuals seeking higher education is still comparatively low.

•The deaf community has made progress, but the black deaf community still lags behind.

•Communication is important in terms of socializing skills. Black deaf individuals’ communication skills are weak when relating to the general black community

•Sign language skills are an important tool in functioning in the black deaf community.

•Upward achievement is difficult for black deaf persons without sufficient role models.

•Much of what black deaf people learn about black culture is through readings they do on their own or what family members teach them. We learned nothing in the schools.

•A black deaf person has to identify with their blackness first because of its visibility. Deafness is invisible. You do not notice I am deaf until I begin to communicate.

Members of the black deaf community have well-developed feelings and sentiments towards each other. They behave according to well-defined norms on what is proper and improper in their black deaf culture. Throughout the interviews, the sense of identity and the feeling of belonging were apparent in the comments and behavior of the participants. To be sure, a person who is black and deaf is not automatically a member of the black deaf community. Black individuals who become deaf late in life are examples of this; they have not yet experienced the combined effect of being black and deaf. Many of the examples of discrimination cited by the participants were not very encouraging in terms of comparisons between where black deaf individuals were 10 years ago and where they are today. Still, the black deaf community is a cohesive, highly motivated culture. Its members demonstrate a desire for self-improvement—prevalent in their responses is a need to educate the black deaf community. In order to find ways to improve their situation, the concerns and attitudes expressed by the participants warrant some examination and discussion.

Attitudes are commonly analyzed according to three components: affective, cognitive, and conative (McGuire, 1969). The affective component refers to the subjective feeling of what is good or bad. For example, the formation of a national organization for black deaf individuals is viewed with positive feeling; in contrast, black deaf individuals who lack motivation and enthusiasm to succeed are viewed as affectively bad. The cognitive component refers to the beliefs and ideals that are attributed to the members of a culture by others. Stereotypes are most frequently manifested in this component; for example, black deaf individuals are perceived by some individuals as being underachievers and lacking in motivation. The conative component refers to the behavioral intentions of individuals. For example, sign language skills are looked upon by members of the black deaf community as important to effective communication, but the majority of members of the black community who have deaf relatives lack the signing skills needed to communicate with them and other members of the black deaf community. The attitude of discrimination, referring to the behavior adopted by members of the black community which puts other individuals in the black community at a disadvantage, represents this conative component.

Eighty-seven percent of the individuals taking part in this study stated that they identify with their black culture first. Other studies relating to deafness provide evidence of unhealthy denials of self (Stewart, 1969). Stories are often told of individuals denying their deafness, claiming to belong to the hearing world, but when black deaf individuals discuss whether they identify first with the black community or with the deaf community, they state they are not denying one or the other but rather are placing each in the proper perspective of degree of societal acceptance. An often-cited reason for identifying with the black culture first is the actuality of skin color. Black deaf individuals believe that society views them as black first because of the high visibility of skin color. Deafness is an invisible handicap; until a person uses sign language or speaks in a manner unnatural to native (normal) speech, it is not obvious to a viewer that the person is deaf.

Communication Patterns

As discussed earlier, differences have been observed between black signing and white signing. It has also been observed casually that the signing of black deaf individuals varies as a function of the race of the other participants in a conversational setting; that is, black signers sign differently with white signers than they do with other black signers. The second part of the present study collected empirical data on sign language production in black-white interaction. This data provides evidence of code-switching by black signers.

Specifically, the conversational interaction of seven dyads was videotaped. The participants in the study were: two black deaf men, both native ASL users, hereafter identified as X and Y; one black hearing man, a professional working in the deaf community; one white deaf man, a professional working in research on deafness; and one white hearing man. Table 1 presents the composition of the seven dyads set up among these five participants and the language used in each dyad by the participants. Each dyad was videotaped for approximately 20 minutes while the two participants, alone together in the taping room, engaged in casual conversation. The setting was kept as informal as possible. All other participants, as well as the videotaping crew, were dismissed so that the signing mode of each dyad would not be influenced by the presence of others. The general topic of conversation is the same in all dyads. ASL is the predominant mode of communication used when both participants are deaf (native ASL users); when either of the hearing participants are involved, the predominant mode of communication is ASL-like signing, as opposed to pure ASL.

Table 1. Composition of Conversational Dyads and Language Used

Dyads 1, 2, 4, and 5 provide evidence of code-switching. Although the predominant mode of communication in these dyads is ASL-like signing, the deaf participant in each dyad often began the conversation in ASL and then switched to incorporate more English in the signing. An example of this is the initialization of ASL signs, such as the use of the I-handshape instead of the 1 (index finger)-handshape to sign “I.”

Dyads 6 and 7 display sign language variation within ASL, as opposed to code-switching to ASL-like signing. ASL is used by both speakers in each dyad as their primary mode of communication; there are not any “English-like” features embodied in their conversation. Moreover, initialized signs are not used by these deaf participants in their all-deaf dyads. In contrast, the feature of initialized signs is fast apparent in dyads 1, 2, 4, and 5. Nonmanual features also are different between these two groups; exaggerated body movements and facial expressions are not as prevalent when a deaf participant converses with a hearing participant, as compared to when both participants are deaf.

In setting up this project, it was hypothesized that the deaf participants would sign differently when paired with a hearing participant than when paired with each other. In light of this hypothesis, what takes place in dyad 3 is significant when compared to dyads 6 and 7. ASL is used in all three dyads. Yet, in dyad 3, X and Y use signs when paired together that they do not use when paired separately with the white deaf participant in dyads 6 and 7.

By way of explaining these differences in lexical choice, it is important to note that all three deaf participants had ample time to meet each other and converse about different topics before the actual process of data collection began. This time together permitted each participant to become comfortable with the other two, as well as familiar with the others’ respective modes of communication. Further, analysis of the discourse in dyads 3, 6, and 7 did not reveal any discernable differences between the speakers in each dyad with respect to hesitance in signing. As opposed, then, to the social familiarity versus non-familiarity of coparticipants, and even participant uncertainty (hence hesitance) about particular ASL signs, the social identity of participants as black versus white appears to be sociolinguistically salient in accounting for certain lexical variation in the data. Specifically, the citation forms of FLIRT, SCHOOL, and BOSS occur in dyads 6 and 7, but black forms of these signs occur in dyad 3 (see figures 1–2, 3–4, and 5–6). When asked about these particular forms and other similarly categorized forms that are not described here, the black deaf participants characterized them as older signs used by blacks, originating from the time that blacks attended segregated schools for the deaf. When questioned further about why blacks sometimes do not use these forms, one of the black deaf participants explained that the forms are not used when a black person is with “a person who is not a part of that culture.”

Figure 1. FLIRT, citation form.

Figure 2. FLIRT, black form.

Figure 3. SCHOOL, citation form.

Figure 4. SCHOOL, black form.

Figure 5. BOSS, citation form.

Figure 6. BOSS, black form.

The discourse in dyad 3 also differs from the discourse in dyads 6 and 7 with respect to facial expressions, body movement, and the size of the signing space used by the participants. The facial expressions are exaggerated in dyad 3, and both participants use their signing space to the fullest. In contrast, X, in dyad 6, and Y, in dyad 7, use less exaggerated facial expressions, fewer body movements, and a smaller signing space when conversing with the white deaf participant than when conversing with each other.

Other studies provide additional evidence of variation in ASL that is related to ethnic background (e.g., Woodward & DeSantis, 1977; Woodward & Erting, 1975). The findings of the present study suggest that the two sociolinguistic oppositions of deaf-hearing and black-white (i.e., variables of participant social identity) can have interlocking effects on discourse. For example, in dyad 6, X is more of a passive listener when conversing with the white deaf participant. The only instances where Y interrupts his coparticipant in order to speak are all in dyad 3, when he is conversing with X.

There is a general observation in the literature that native ASL signers use a more English-like signing when conversing with hearing signers than when conversing with other deaf signers (Lucas & Valli, 198). In dyad 1 of the present study, X produces a greater number of English-like signs than occur in any other conversation in the data corpus. For example, in many instances, X uses an ASL sign and then “corrects” the sign with an English equivalent, such as ME-TRY in ASL followed by I T-R-Y. X also uses more copulas in this conversation than occur in any other conversation in the corpus. Additionally, he uses the emphatic form of WORK, which, with non-manual features, means “working hard,” adding the sign VERY to indicate emphasis. In contrast, when X converses with Y (dyad 3), copulas, as well as the initialized sign for “I,” are not used at all. When these same two participants converse with the white deaf participant (dyads 6 and 7), their conversational styles include English-like features. Finally, throughout his entire conversation with the white hearing participant (dyad 5), Y keeps his responses short and uses almost perfect English word order; when with this same white hearing participant (dyad 4), X does not correct toward English as frequently as he does with the black hearing participant (dyad 1), but he still incorporates English-like features in his signing.

Summary and Conclusions

The existence of a black deaf community is in part evidenced by the survival of all-black clubs for the deaf, where members go to socialize in a setting that satisfies their communication needs. The existence of this community is reinforced by a history of segregated schooling. The lack of adequate facilities and qualified personnel needed to prepare black deaf individuals for the future is reflected not only in the high levels of unemployment and underemployment found in the black deaf community, but also in the small number of black deaf individuals who enter institutions of higher learning.

In the present study, black deaf individuals were surveyed to answer the question of which community they identify with first: the black community or the deaf community. The majority of the respondents identified themselves first with the black community; they believe that they are seen by others as black first since, unlike skin color, their deafness only becomes visible when they communicate in sign language. In contrast, the remaining respondents identified themselves first with the deaf community, since they are more immersed in this community; they are from deaf families, grew up in residential schools for the deaf, and as adults they socialize mostly within the deaf community.

The language of the black deaf community is ASL, yet variations occur; specifically, as found in the present study, black deaf individuals commonly change their signing in conversations with outsiders to the community. Usually, “black signs,” which originated when the schools for the deaf were segregated, are not used when conversing with white deaf individuals. This sociolinguistic variation is further evidence for the existence of a black deaf community.

Overall, as an essential part of the deaf community, the black deaf community faces the challenges of securing better education, more promising employment opportunities, and social advancements similar to those already acquired by members of the black community at large. Both in drawing attention to these issues and in describing some sociolinguistic features of black deaf discourse, the overriding aim of this chapter is to stimulate further research on the black deaf community. It is hoped that future studies will increase our understanding of this particular minority group as well as other minorities within the deaf community.

About the Presenter

Anthony J. Aramburo is a rehabilitation specialist for Louisiana Rehabilitation Services, working with a deaf caseload. He graduated from Gallaudet with an M.A. in linguistics of ASL, and his interests lie in the area of sociolinguistics, particularly in studying sign language variation within the black deaf community. He is certified as a sign language interpreter by the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and is president of the Louisiana Chapter of RID.

References

Alcocer, A. M. (1974). Proceedings of the working conference on minority deaf. Northridge, CA: Center on Deafness, California State University at Northridge.

Anderson, G. B. (1972). Vocational rehabilitation services and the black deaf. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 6(2), 126–128.

Boros, A., & Stuckless, R. (1982). The dynamics of social lag among deaf people. In A. Boros & R. Stuckless (Eds.), Deaf people and social change: Working papers #6 (pp. 15–45). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Department of Sociology.

Christiansen, J. B., & Barnartt, S. N. (1987). The silent minority: The socioeconomic status of deaf people. In P. C. Higgins & J. E. Nash (Eds.), Understanding deafness socially (pp. 171–196). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Glenn, E. S., & Glenn, C. G. (1981). Man and mankind: Conflict and communication between cultures. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hairston, E., & Smith, L. (1983). Black and deaf in America. Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers.

Higgins, P. C. (1980). Outsiders in a hearing world: A sociology of deafness. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hillery, G. (1974). Communal organizations. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Loomis, O. H. (1983). Cultural conversation: The protection of cultural heritage in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lucas, C, & Valli, C. (1987). Language contact in the deaf community. Paper presented to the New Ways of Analyzing Variation XVI Conference, Austin, TX.

McGuire, W. (1969). The nature of attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Padden, C. (1980). The deaf community and the culture of deaf people. In C. Baker & R. Battison (Eds.), Sign language and the deaf community: Essays in honor of William Stokoe (pp. 89–103). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Schowe, B. M. (1979). Deaf workers on the home front. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Stewart, L. G. (1969). Fostering independence in deaf people. Paper presented at the Forum of the Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf, New Orleans, LA.

Woodward, J. C, & DeSantis, S. (1977). Two to one it happens: Dynamic phonology in two sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 77, 329–346.

Woodward, J. C, & Erting, C. (1975). Synchronic variation and historical change in American Sign Language. Language Science, 37, 9–12.

1. These observations come from in-depth interviews with administrators and teachers at the Southern School for the Deaf in Baton Rouge, LA (closed in 1978). The interviews covered the educational situation for the black deaf people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas in particular.

2. This issue was raised by Dorothy Gilliam in an article in the Washington Post (April 18, 1988), which appeared a month after the Gallaudet protest. The article remarked that “it is tempting to think that within their own world, every person who is hearing impaired is totally visible, absolutely equal. But according to some black and white parents of students in Gallaudet’s Model Secondary School for the Deaf, the institution over the years has sometimes displayed marked insensitivity to black students.” One parent describes the racism she witnessed as “horrific, shocking.” Some parents formed a Black Concerns Committee, which organized discussion groups between black and white students and workshops on race relations. One goal of the committee is the appointment of a black deaf person as one of the deaf board members guaranteed in the student victory. A further example of the racism that exists in the deaf community was provided by a white foreign student studying at Gallaudet for one year. This student inquired about shopping at a market near the campus and was told by a white deaf university administrator that it might not be wise to shop there, because “that’s where all the black people shop.”