A Rivalry Between Two Giant Figures:
Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
in Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
in Deaf Education in Utah
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Published in 2015
Updated in 2026
Published in 2015
Updated in 2026
Author's Note
Through my father-in-law, Kenneth "Ken" L. Kinner, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954 and was the father of two Deaf children, Duane and Deanne, I learned about the life and legacy of Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Grant was a prominent advocate for oral and mainstream education for Deaf children, and his profound influence on Deaf education in Utah captured my attention, largely thanks to Ken's vivid storytelling and insights.
Grant's ideologies have transformed Deaf education in Utah. His pioneering work in the 1960s advanced the movement to mainstream all Deaf children, earning him the title "Father of Mainstreaming."
Without Ken's invaluable recollections of Dr. Bitter's work and his counterpart, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson—a leader in the Deaf community who advocated for sign language and state schools for the Deaf—I wouldn't have been able to explore this significant part of history.
I created a webpage detailing Grant's career and contributions, offering insight into his impact on Deaf education in Utah. I recommend checking out the "The Deaf Education History in Utah" webpage, which offers an in-depth examination of the evolution of Deaf education in the state. You can also find a collection of Grant Bitter videos linked below.
Thank you for taking an interest in this topic.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
Grant's ideologies have transformed Deaf education in Utah. His pioneering work in the 1960s advanced the movement to mainstream all Deaf children, earning him the title "Father of Mainstreaming."
Without Ken's invaluable recollections of Dr. Bitter's work and his counterpart, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson—a leader in the Deaf community who advocated for sign language and state schools for the Deaf—I wouldn't have been able to explore this significant part of history.
I created a webpage detailing Grant's career and contributions, offering insight into his impact on Deaf education in Utah. I recommend checking out the "The Deaf Education History in Utah" webpage, which offers an in-depth examination of the evolution of Deaf education in the state. You can also find a collection of Grant Bitter videos linked below.
Thank you for taking an interest in this topic.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1962
Who is Dr. Grant B. Bitter?
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Grant's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind, who, in 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' landmark legislation that made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind mandatory for all Deaf, Dumb, and Blind citizens (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Grant advocated for mainstreaming all Deaf children, paving the way for widespread acceptance of this approach in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This landmark legislation ensured that children with disabilities, including those who are Deaf or Blind, would have access to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As a result, the educational landscape for these children continued to evolve, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in learning.
Martha Hughes Cannon. Source: Utah State Historical Society, Deseret News Archives
Grant's journey as an advocate for Deaf education was profoundly influenced by his daughter Colleen, who was born deaf in 1954. This personal experience deepened his commitment to promoting oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. His internship time at the Lexington School for the Deaf further shaped his beliefs, especially as he witnessed the separation of young children from their families. This experience reinforced his determination to fight for equal educational opportunities for Deaf children, as he believed that inclusivity not only benefits these children but also enriches the entire school community. His advocacy was driven by both his personal experiences and his professional dedication (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Colleen Bitter Addie. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune Obituary, July 24, 2003
In the 1970s, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf educator who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf, shared his observations of Grant. Grant was a staunch supporter of oral and mainstream education and was particularly vocal about his beliefs. According to Stephen, Grant's influence was profound; he was a hardcore oralist and one of the top leading figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than he was in promoting an oral and mainstream approach (Baldwin, 1990).
Stephen recalled that Grant's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a considerable impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Grant argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990).
Grant likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Grant believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Martha's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the language and communication accessibility needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Martha felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society.
This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Stephen recalled that Grant's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a considerable impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Grant argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990).
Grant likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Grant believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Martha's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the language and communication accessibility needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Martha felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society.
This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
Grant strongly believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. Oralism is a teaching method that focuses on teaching Deaf students to speak and understand spoken language, often without the use of sign language. Mainstreaming is the practice of integrating Deaf students into regular public schools rather than placing them in specialized schools for the deaf. Grant's push for both oral communication and mainstream education sparked a longstanding feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, which was primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, including Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, who became deaf at age 11 and was a vocal supporter of sign language and state schools for the Deaf.
The rivalry between these two giant figures—Grant Bitter and Bob Sanderson—stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain the upper hand in this complex educational landscape, akin to a chess match, which added to tension. As the conflict escalated, both groups rallied supporters to advocate for their views and influence public opinion and policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. Significantly, most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lipreading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a "two-way" educational program in which students spent their first six years learning the oral method. After that period, they had the option of choosing an oral or sign-language track (Smiley, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 14, 1962; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). This program quickly became a subject of controversy. By 1970, both students at the school and the parents of Deaf children began to publicly object to the dual-track system. Parents raised concerns that the oral program was "designed to fit the needs of hearing parents and not those of the students" (Deseret News, June 16, 1970, B6O). Despite these objections, some parents continued to support the oral education provided by the school for the deaf (Box Elder Journal, March 27, 1966, p. 5; Salt Lake Tribune, May 31, 1970, B9; Deseret News, June 12, 1970, C3; Deseret News, June 16, 1970, A18).
Grant Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefited oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. During his graduate training, Grant was upset to see Deaf children attending special schools and living away from their families; this was one reason he believed so adamantly in mainstreaming (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 15). In contrast, Bob, backed by the UAD, actively engaged in ongoing debates over the benefits of sign language vs. oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible sign-language education at the Utah School for the Deaf. The dispute became heated and was on full display during Grant's oral demonstration panels, at picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 21, 34).
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Additionally, he expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Grant also called for the firing of Bob, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and the respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Bob, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The UAD, led by Bob, played a vital role in raising concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Grant sought to promote them. As a representative of the Deaf community, Bob provided significant insights into the challenges Deaf individuals faced in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Grant Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Grant used his power to push for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD to effectively counter his efforts. Despite the substantial influence of Grant and other proponents of oralism, the UAD and Bob remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
In contrast to oralism, Bob argued for “total communication,” a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the use of all available means of communication to support the development of Deaf children. This approach encompasses sign language, speech, lipreading, and written language.
Grant's support for oral education sheds light on audism, which has profoundly impacted Deaf education in Utah. Audism, akin to racism and sexism, promotes the belief that hearing and speaking individuals are superior to those who cannot. The Deaf community in Utah has historically endured various forms of audism, including language suppression, communication discrimination, and a strong preference for oralism (now known as listening and spoken language). As a result, expectations in Deaf education—particularly in reading, writing, and employment—have often been low. This autism has perpetuated negative stereotypes about Deaf individuals who do not speak, making it difficult for them to be represented in decision-making roles and leading to their underrepresentation in sectors like education, politics, and community leadership.
In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf has taken a strong stand against audism, advocating for the right to use sign language, access to language, and quality education. Their commitment is reflected in their active political engagement with organizations such as the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, especially during legislative sessions.
The rivalry between these two giant figures—Grant Bitter and Bob Sanderson—stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain the upper hand in this complex educational landscape, akin to a chess match, which added to tension. As the conflict escalated, both groups rallied supporters to advocate for their views and influence public opinion and policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. Significantly, most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lipreading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a "two-way" educational program in which students spent their first six years learning the oral method. After that period, they had the option of choosing an oral or sign-language track (Smiley, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 14, 1962; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). This program quickly became a subject of controversy. By 1970, both students at the school and the parents of Deaf children began to publicly object to the dual-track system. Parents raised concerns that the oral program was "designed to fit the needs of hearing parents and not those of the students" (Deseret News, June 16, 1970, B6O). Despite these objections, some parents continued to support the oral education provided by the school for the deaf (Box Elder Journal, March 27, 1966, p. 5; Salt Lake Tribune, May 31, 1970, B9; Deseret News, June 12, 1970, C3; Deseret News, June 16, 1970, A18).
Grant Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefited oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. During his graduate training, Grant was upset to see Deaf children attending special schools and living away from their families; this was one reason he believed so adamantly in mainstreaming (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 15). In contrast, Bob, backed by the UAD, actively engaged in ongoing debates over the benefits of sign language vs. oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible sign-language education at the Utah School for the Deaf. The dispute became heated and was on full display during Grant's oral demonstration panels, at picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 21, 34).
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Additionally, he expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Grant also called for the firing of Bob, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and the respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Bob, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The UAD, led by Bob, played a vital role in raising concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Grant sought to promote them. As a representative of the Deaf community, Bob provided significant insights into the challenges Deaf individuals faced in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Grant Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Grant used his power to push for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD to effectively counter his efforts. Despite the substantial influence of Grant and other proponents of oralism, the UAD and Bob remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
In contrast to oralism, Bob argued for “total communication,” a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the use of all available means of communication to support the development of Deaf children. This approach encompasses sign language, speech, lipreading, and written language.
Grant's support for oral education sheds light on audism, which has profoundly impacted Deaf education in Utah. Audism, akin to racism and sexism, promotes the belief that hearing and speaking individuals are superior to those who cannot. The Deaf community in Utah has historically endured various forms of audism, including language suppression, communication discrimination, and a strong preference for oralism (now known as listening and spoken language). As a result, expectations in Deaf education—particularly in reading, writing, and employment—have often been low. This autism has perpetuated negative stereotypes about Deaf individuals who do not speak, making it difficult for them to be represented in decision-making roles and leading to their underrepresentation in sectors like education, politics, and community leadership.
In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf has taken a strong stand against audism, advocating for the right to use sign language, access to language, and quality education. Their commitment is reflected in their active political engagement with organizations such as the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, especially during legislative sessions.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
Grant has had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. He obtained his bachelor's degree from the University of Utah. Before joining the Utah School for the Deaf, he worked as a religious education teacher. From 1950 to 1958, he taught the seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Subsequently, he received a scholarship to the Lexington School for the Deaf, affiliated with Columbia University, in New York City, where he earned a master's degree and a special education certificate while interning at the school from 1961 to 1962. Upon completion of his master's degree, he returned to Utah and began teaching in the Oral Extension classes of the Utah School for the Deaf in the Salt Lake City School District from 1962 to 1964 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Deseret News, March 18, 1974
After completing his doctorate in audiology, rehabilitation, and educational administration with a focus on special education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer of 1967, Grant returned to Utah following three years of study. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). He resigned from this position in 1969 due to increasing job demands (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1969). In addition to his leading role, Grant held part-time positions as the Coordinator for the Seminary program for Deaf high school students with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as the Director of the oral-only component of the Teacher Training Program under the Department of Speech and Audiology at the University of Utah, which was established in 1962 (University of Utah, November 28, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). This oral-only component aimed to teach Deaf individuals to communicate using spoken language, reflecting Grant's belief in oralism.
'New Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1969
In 1968, Grant's passion for oral Deaf education led him to become the director and professor of the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. His primary focus was oral education, and he maintained this position until 1987, a year after the program's closure. Additionally, Grant served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1967
Grant strongly believed in oralism, which is the conviction that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. This belief was not merely theoretical for him; he actively supported the cause by founding the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970. This initiative reflected his commitment to oral Deaf education. In 1981, he also established the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters. Additionally, Grant served as the chair of the Utah Chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where he led efforts to support and advocate for oral Deaf individuals, further demonstrating his dedication to this mission (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
Grant was also a prominent lobbyist on Utah Capitol Hill, effectively collaborating with legislators. He continuously emphasized the importance of adequately preparing Deaf and hard-of-hearing people for life in an English-speaking environment. Grant said teaching Deaf people the skills necessary to live a 'normal' life was crucial. His influence in Utah during the 1900s was comparable to that of an early pioneer of oralism, Alexander Graham Bell, who impacted Deaf education in the United States during the 1800s. Grant's advocacy for the full integration of Deaf people into mainstream society was unwavering, and he saw speech as the means to achieve this (Baldwin, 1990).
Grant was also a prominent lobbyist on Utah Capitol Hill, effectively collaborating with legislators. He continuously emphasized the importance of adequately preparing Deaf and hard-of-hearing people for life in an English-speaking environment. Grant said teaching Deaf people the skills necessary to live a 'normal' life was crucial. His influence in Utah during the 1900s was comparable to that of an early pioneer of oralism, Alexander Graham Bell, who impacted Deaf education in the United States during the 1800s. Grant's advocacy for the full integration of Deaf people into mainstream society was unwavering, and he saw speech as the means to achieve this (Baldwin, 1990).
Alexander Graham Bell. Source: Wikipedia
Grant's impact on oral Deaf education is undeniable. His nationwide public appearances, which include workshops for oral interpreters at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Utah, highlight his dedication to advancing the field. From 1974 to 1978, he held leadership roles at the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, serving as chair of the Governmental Relations Committee and leading the International Parents' Organization. These positions underscore his influence and contributions. Additionally, his collaboration with the Utah Congressional Team, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, who was the Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, further exemplifies his reach and impact (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
As a parent of nine children, Grant's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in Deaf education, with an emphasis on the oral approach.
As a parent of nine children, Grant's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in Deaf education, with an emphasis on the oral approach.
*****
Lisa Richards' Artwork
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Lisa Richards, born in 1959, created the artwork reflecting on her experiences growing up during the Bitter era and its impact on the Deaf educational system in Utah. She considers how her parents, as followers of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, affected her well-being and contributed to her language deprivation. Lisa attended the oral program at Lafayette Elementary School in 1964 and was part of the Utah School for the Deaf from the 1960s to the 1970s.
In 1964, Lisa Richards read the group news to the rest of the faculty at the oral class for the Utah School for the Deaf at Lafayette Elementary School
Drawn by Lisa Richards in 2022, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
Her artwork serves not only as a personal narrative but also as a critical commentary on Grant's prevailing attitudes toward sign language and state schools for the deaf during that time. Through vivid imagery, Lisa aims to raise awareness about the lasting consequences of language deprivation and highlight the importance of embracing American Sign Language (ASL) in educational settings.
Drawn by Lisa Richards, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
On February 24, 2020, Lisa shared a powerful video about her experiences in the Oral Extension Division at the Utah School for the Deaf. Established during Dr. Bitter's advocacy for oral education, this program aimed to help Deaf and hard-of-hearing students learn to speak and stay close to home for their education. Despite facing many challenges under Grant's influence, Lisa's choice to share her story highlights the healing power of storytelling. Her experience emphasizes the importance of preserving Utah's Deaf education history, ensuring that the voices of the Deaf community are remembered and acknowledged.
*****
A Rivalry Between Two Giant Figures:
Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
in Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
in Deaf Education in Utah
The rivalry between Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson represents a significant chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah. These two giant figures greatly influenced the advancement of Deaf education in the state, and their contentious interactions added an element of conflict, making their story particularly captivating. Their dispute had a profound impact on Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the passionate dedication and differing philosophies that can emerge in the pursuit of educational excellence for the Deaf community.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1936 and Gallaudet College in 1941, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His dedication to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf after previously serving as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, which enabled him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. It was also in 1965 that Bob began his advocacy against Grant (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
His fearless nature led him to challenge Grant, a powerful figure and influential at the University of Utah and in the legislative arena, who supported both oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Many parents who supported oral education backed Grant. Bob's repeated confrontations with him angered Grant and his supporters, who subsequently demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Bob's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Avaad recognized the importance of Bob's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah, and he refused to fire Bob. This decision highlighted the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. Bob had recently been hired as a Deaf Services Coordinator, underscoring his significant value to Utah. Avaad's support for Bob's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
The conflict between Grant and Bob mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Edward advocated for sign language, while Alexander fervently promoted speech and lipreading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1936 and Gallaudet College in 1941, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His dedication to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf after previously serving as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, which enabled him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. It was also in 1965 that Bob began his advocacy against Grant (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
His fearless nature led him to challenge Grant, a powerful figure and influential at the University of Utah and in the legislative arena, who supported both oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Many parents who supported oral education backed Grant. Bob's repeated confrontations with him angered Grant and his supporters, who subsequently demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Bob's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Avaad recognized the importance of Bob's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah, and he refused to fire Bob. This decision highlighted the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. Bob had recently been hired as a Deaf Services Coordinator, underscoring his significant value to Utah. Avaad's support for Bob's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
The conflict between Grant and Bob mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Edward advocated for sign language, while Alexander fervently promoted speech and lipreading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
Source: 'Never the Twain Shall Meet: The Communication Debate by Richard Winefield'
Grant Bitter's challenge to the Utah Association for the Deaf was not a random act; it was a response to what he perceived as a threat to his position. During the interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Grant stated that Bob, who became Deaf when he was 11 and grew up in both public school and state school for the deaf, "knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the Deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the Deaf community was concerned" (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30).
Bob campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education to serve on committees alongside other members of the Utah Association for the Deaf. Grant challenged this, particularly targeting Della Loveridge, a legislator and advocate for the Deaf community, who had appointed Bob and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Grant was also a member. He felt threatened by their appointments but denied this during his interview. He believed that his objections were perceived as a threat to them (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
During a state committee meeting, Della described Grant as "emotionally disturbed." Grant expressed concern that the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where its meetings were held. In response to his concerns, he requested that Della resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely heavily invested in Deaf education because they had been excluded from the two years of preparation and implementation of the dual-track program introduced in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and created divisions within the community, leading to intense debates that exacerbated the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Grant's interview also revealed a significant conflict between him and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an advocate for the Utah Deaf community, as well as Dr. Sanderson. Both Jay and Bob were part of a committee studying the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. With the support of 300 parents of Deaf oral children, Grant successfully blocked their proposal on how the Utah School for the Deaf should run (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Bob campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education to serve on committees alongside other members of the Utah Association for the Deaf. Grant challenged this, particularly targeting Della Loveridge, a legislator and advocate for the Deaf community, who had appointed Bob and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Grant was also a member. He felt threatened by their appointments but denied this during his interview. He believed that his objections were perceived as a threat to them (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
During a state committee meeting, Della described Grant as "emotionally disturbed." Grant expressed concern that the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where its meetings were held. In response to his concerns, he requested that Della resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely heavily invested in Deaf education because they had been excluded from the two years of preparation and implementation of the dual-track program introduced in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and created divisions within the community, leading to intense debates that exacerbated the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Grant's interview also revealed a significant conflict between him and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an advocate for the Utah Deaf community, as well as Dr. Sanderson. Both Jay and Bob were part of a committee studying the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. With the support of 300 parents of Deaf oral children, Grant successfully blocked their proposal on how the Utah School for the Deaf should run (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965
Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked with Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Frank's portrayal of Dr. Sanderson differed from that of Dr. Bitter. As a Deaf educator, Frank regarded Bob as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Bob had a deep understanding of the connection between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their opportunities in higher education, which ultimately leads to successful employment outcomes.
Additionally, Frank noted Bob's dedication to advocating for young individuals with leadership potential. Bob made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Bob's personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling out of place in public school likely shaped his commitment to this cause. After overcoming an illness, he thrived at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he observed the educational and social challenges many Deaf children faced in mainstream settings. He was acutely aware of the loneliness and isolation that these children often experienced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Bob's transformation from feeling lost in public school to succeeding at the Utah School for the Deaf exemplifies his resilience and profound understanding of the obstacles faced by Deaf students.
According to Frank, Bob emphasized the importance of socialization in education. Bob urged teachers to cultivate a culture of inquiry among students regarding their school experiences. He stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He highlighted that socialization is a crucial aspect of Deaf education that is often overlooked (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it serves as a call to action for educators and the wider community to create inclusive and supportive learning environments for Deaf students. Bob's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, underscoring the need for a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He argued that children should learn not only the traditional three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—but also the essential role of socialization. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019).
Bob believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Bob's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Additionally, Frank noted Bob's dedication to advocating for young individuals with leadership potential. Bob made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Bob's personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling out of place in public school likely shaped his commitment to this cause. After overcoming an illness, he thrived at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he observed the educational and social challenges many Deaf children faced in mainstream settings. He was acutely aware of the loneliness and isolation that these children often experienced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Bob's transformation from feeling lost in public school to succeeding at the Utah School for the Deaf exemplifies his resilience and profound understanding of the obstacles faced by Deaf students.
According to Frank, Bob emphasized the importance of socialization in education. Bob urged teachers to cultivate a culture of inquiry among students regarding their school experiences. He stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He highlighted that socialization is a crucial aspect of Deaf education that is often overlooked (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it serves as a call to action for educators and the wider community to create inclusive and supportive learning environments for Deaf students. Bob's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, underscoring the need for a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He argued that children should learn not only the traditional three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—but also the essential role of socialization. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019).
Bob believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Bob's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Dr. Frank R. Turk, a Deaf Educator. Source: Deaf Life, August 1989
In a 1982 interview with Gallaudet College, Bob discussed his one-year professorship at the college, during which he held the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies. In contrast to oralism, Bob argued in an interview for “total communication,” a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the use of all available means of communication to support the development of Deaf children. This approach encompasses sign language, speech, lipreading, and written language (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982).
Bob consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated with urgency that "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. If the process is delayed, a deaf child just cannot catch up—too much is lost. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, 3).
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular mode can quickly stifle the communication process (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982).
Bob explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982).
Bob reflected that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he learned sign language, marked a transformative chapter in his life. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who had limited access to language at home, because they were born deaf and had hearing parents. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the constrained options he faced in public school.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Bob became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the USBE to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. He focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As a Deaf Services Coordinator, Bob Sanderson witnessed many Deaf individuals facing challenges with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the USBE, highlighting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system faced significant literacy challenges. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the broader curriculum. Bob’s empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education in their lives, stating that it was more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the USBE to recognize the significance of the three R’s—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education was ten thousand times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 USBE meeting, Bob made a powerful statement against oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," he declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
The challenges Bob observed in the lives of Deaf individuals included language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities to sustain their jobs over time (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These experiences likely motivated him to question Grant Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
Bob consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated with urgency that "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. If the process is delayed, a deaf child just cannot catch up—too much is lost. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, 3).
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular mode can quickly stifle the communication process (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982).
Bob explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982).
Bob reflected that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he learned sign language, marked a transformative chapter in his life. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who had limited access to language at home, because they were born deaf and had hearing parents. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the constrained options he faced in public school.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Bob became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the USBE to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. He focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As a Deaf Services Coordinator, Bob Sanderson witnessed many Deaf individuals facing challenges with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the USBE, highlighting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system faced significant literacy challenges. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the broader curriculum. Bob’s empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education in their lives, stating that it was more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the USBE to recognize the significance of the three R’s—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education was ten thousand times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 USBE meeting, Bob made a powerful statement against oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," he declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
The challenges Bob observed in the lives of Deaf individuals included language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities to sustain their jobs over time (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These experiences likely motivated him to question Grant Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
|
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 23, 1964
|
A Dispute Between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter: The Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter: The Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
The dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter highlights a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education. Grant's strong preference for oral philosophy has significantly influenced the field, making this a compelling topic for exploration.
At the University of Utah, Grant organized the "Oral Demonstration Panel," where local Deaf adults shared their experiences in oral education environments. The audience included supporters of sign language, such as Dr. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing individuals. After the oral presentations, a Q&A segment allowed for further discussion. During one of these sessions, Bob asked Grant, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" During one of these sessions, Bob asked Grant, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" However, Grant abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation, which showcased the prevailing tension (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Bob and Grant was both intense and visible. Grant's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not only as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Bob and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance as they sat in the audience. Nevertheless, Beth Ann was determined to ensure that Bob had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signing as quickly as she could. Despite Grant's challenges, Bob was able to understand the content and actively participate in the discussion (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
At the University of Utah, Grant organized the "Oral Demonstration Panel," where local Deaf adults shared their experiences in oral education environments. The audience included supporters of sign language, such as Dr. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing individuals. After the oral presentations, a Q&A segment allowed for further discussion. During one of these sessions, Bob asked Grant, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" During one of these sessions, Bob asked Grant, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" However, Grant abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation, which showcased the prevailing tension (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Bob and Grant was both intense and visible. Grant's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not only as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Bob and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance as they sat in the audience. Nevertheless, Beth Ann was determined to ensure that Bob had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signing as quickly as she could. Despite Grant's challenges, Bob was able to understand the content and actively participate in the discussion (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
The conflict surrounding Dr. Bitter had a profound effect on the landscape of oral Deaf education. Legia Johnson, a parent and advocate for oral teaching, expressed her alarm over Grant's decision to include her daughter, Colleen Johnson Jones, in his demonstration panels. Grant chose Legia's daughter to represent his own, as she spoke more articulately than his daughter, also named Colleen. The incident led to Legia resigning from her teaching role at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf. Her resignation was a clear protest against the appropriation of her daughter as a tool in Grant's demonstrations, highlighting the significant rifts within the oral education community (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
Moreover, Bob's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself caught in an ongoing conflict between Bob and Grant. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Grant would openly voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Moreover, Bob's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself caught in an ongoing conflict between Bob and Grant. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Grant would openly voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Robert G. Sanderson ran for president at the 1964 National Association of the Deaf conference
Beth Ann observed the heated exchanges between Bob and Grant. Bob would deliberately provoke Grant, who would retaliate in a similar manner. During the legislative hearings, Grant spoke as quickly as possible and used complex vocabulary to challenge Beth Ann's interpreting skills. Nevertheless, she managed to keep up with the discussions, which only seemed to infuriate Grant further. Throughout these confrontations, Bob remained composed, refusing to be disturbed by Grant's taunt: "You can read my lips" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Bob lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips. He chose to ignore Grant's provocation and continued to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Grant's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. Although she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter and Sanderson era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program that combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of it. For instance, a father enrolling his 14-year-old Deaf son in an oral program expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing skills. In search of guidance, he met with Dr. Jay J. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann, was a sign language interpreter, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, and also a vital ally in the Utah Deaf community. During their meeting, he asked the father if he was aware of the total communication program option. The father expressed his lack of knowledge about such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This lack of awareness prompted Dr. Campbell to recognize the need for a brochure outlining both educational programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant challenges, Jay was determined to provide parents with the necessary information. He emphasized the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet in line with research findings (Campbell, 1977). However, Grant Bitter strongly opposed this plan, arguing that the total communication system was merely a philosophy and not a legitimate teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Bob clearly stated his position on the controversy surrounding Deaf education: he believes that parents should have the right to choose the educational program that best suits their Deaf children. However, he emphasized that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He highlighted the importance of having reliable information to help parents make informed educational decisions. He is against any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research foundation (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods illustrates the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Bob lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips. He chose to ignore Grant's provocation and continued to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Grant's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. Although she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter and Sanderson era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program that combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of it. For instance, a father enrolling his 14-year-old Deaf son in an oral program expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing skills. In search of guidance, he met with Dr. Jay J. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann, was a sign language interpreter, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, and also a vital ally in the Utah Deaf community. During their meeting, he asked the father if he was aware of the total communication program option. The father expressed his lack of knowledge about such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This lack of awareness prompted Dr. Campbell to recognize the need for a brochure outlining both educational programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant challenges, Jay was determined to provide parents with the necessary information. He emphasized the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet in line with research findings (Campbell, 1977). However, Grant Bitter strongly opposed this plan, arguing that the total communication system was merely a philosophy and not a legitimate teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Bob clearly stated his position on the controversy surrounding Deaf education: he believes that parents should have the right to choose the educational program that best suits their Deaf children. However, he emphasized that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He highlighted the importance of having reliable information to help parents make informed educational decisions. He is against any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research foundation (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods illustrates the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Controversy Surrounding Channel 4 News
This story recounts the events that inspired Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to pursue his Ph.D. It highlights a notable controversy from the late 1960s involving Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor of special education at the University of Utah. Bob's journey began in 1971, a pivotal year in the history of the Utah Deaf community, marked by conflicts that extended beyond the curriculum at the Utah School for the Deaf. As a result, Bob's motivation to pursue a Ph.D. emerged during the early 1970s.
In 1971, before Bob completed his doctorate, controversy arose again regarding Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's voluntary use of sign language interpreting for the nightly Channel 4 News. Bob, the Deaf Services Coordinator, assigned this task to Beth Ann to allow Deaf individuals access to and understand current events in sign language. However, Grant Bitter and his supporters at the University of Utah, who advocated for oral communication, expressed dissatisfaction with this decision. They urged Dr. Avard Rigby, Bob's supervisor, to prevent Beth Ann from interpreting the news in the lower right corner of the TV screen (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Bob Sanderson, the Deaf Services Coordinator; Gene D. Stewart, a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the Deaf; and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, the sign language interpreter, were anxious when Avard invited them to a meeting with the oral advocates who were complaining about the presence of an interpreter during the evening news. Bob, Gene, and Beth Ann were deeply concerned about losing this crucial service and were on pins and needles to learn how Avard would respond (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
In the meeting, Avard, acting as a mediator, listened to the complaints from the oralists. At that time, there were only three major news channels, and Beth Ann interpreted for just one of them. Avard responded by asking, "Well, if you don't like watching her, why don't you change the channel?" (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). This remark only served to further infuriate the oral advocates, who then demanded that he fire Bob. They were upset with Bob's role in organizing the sign language interpretation of the news. However, Avard refused to comply, asserting that Bob was one of his best employees (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006). His response brought relief and joy to Bob, Gene, Beth Ann, and much of Utah's Deaf community (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). This powerful moment illuminated the strength of their solidarity and the significance of their cause.
In 1971, before Bob completed his doctorate, controversy arose again regarding Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's voluntary use of sign language interpreting for the nightly Channel 4 News. Bob, the Deaf Services Coordinator, assigned this task to Beth Ann to allow Deaf individuals access to and understand current events in sign language. However, Grant Bitter and his supporters at the University of Utah, who advocated for oral communication, expressed dissatisfaction with this decision. They urged Dr. Avard Rigby, Bob's supervisor, to prevent Beth Ann from interpreting the news in the lower right corner of the TV screen (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Bob Sanderson, the Deaf Services Coordinator; Gene D. Stewart, a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the Deaf; and Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, the sign language interpreter, were anxious when Avard invited them to a meeting with the oral advocates who were complaining about the presence of an interpreter during the evening news. Bob, Gene, and Beth Ann were deeply concerned about losing this crucial service and were on pins and needles to learn how Avard would respond (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
In the meeting, Avard, acting as a mediator, listened to the complaints from the oralists. At that time, there were only three major news channels, and Beth Ann interpreted for just one of them. Avard responded by asking, "Well, if you don't like watching her, why don't you change the channel?" (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). This remark only served to further infuriate the oral advocates, who then demanded that he fire Bob. They were upset with Bob's role in organizing the sign language interpretation of the news. However, Avard refused to comply, asserting that Bob was one of his best employees (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006). His response brought relief and joy to Bob, Gene, Beth Ann, and much of Utah's Deaf community (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). This powerful moment illuminated the strength of their solidarity and the significance of their cause.
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell serves as an interpreter for Deaf TV viewers during newscasts. She volunteers as the interpreter in the right-hand corner of the TV screen on Channel 4 during the news broadcast. Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992
After a contentious meeting with Dr. Rigby, Dr. Bitter, and others, Bob confided in his coworker, Gene Stewart. He expressed, "No one listens to you unless you have a Ph.D. after your name, so I'm going back to school" (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012, p. 3). During this time, Bob struggled to gain credibility despite holding a master's degree. In contrast, Grant enjoyed the respect and support that came with his Ph.D., realizing its importance for recognition in the field. Motivated by recent backlash, Bob decided to take action. He enrolled at Brigham Young University and earned a doctorate in educational administration in 1974, becoming the first Deaf person at BYU and in Utah to obtain a Ph.D. (Deseret News, September 26, 2003).
The rivalry between these two influential figures—Dr. Bitter, who promoted oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who advocated for sign language, intensified the conflict and influenced their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for discussions about Deaf education in Utah, highlighting significant divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
The rivalry between these two influential figures—Dr. Bitter, who promoted oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who advocated for sign language, intensified the conflict and influenced their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for discussions about Deaf education in Utah, highlighting significant divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
'State Educator First Deaf Student To Receive Doctor Degree at BYU.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 29, 1974
Hannah P. Lewis Recognizes
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson as a Guiding Light
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson as a Guiding Light
Hannah P. Lewis, a mother of a grown Deaf son, wrote a compelling article for the Deseret News on November 24, 1977, in response to a meeting held by the Utah State Board of Education on November 18, 1977. In her piece, she advocated for total communication and addressed the significant challenges faced by Deaf students, questioning the duration of ongoing studies in this area. She posed a critical question: How many more years would this study require?
During the board meeting, Grant Bitter advocated for oral communication. Hannah, on the other hand, expressed concerns about the challenges many Deaf kids face when learning speech skills. She emphasized the importance of sign language as a fundamental tool for effective communication. She challenged the idea of relying solely on spoken language, especially for those who encounter communication barriers. Hannah observed that Grant was worried that a student who could talk might choose to use sign language rather than speak.
Hannah reflected on her personal experiences, sharing that her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf, often felt "dumb" during his visits home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that both he and his Deaf peers were intelligent and that deafness was simply a barrier to their expression. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her to do 36 years earlier.
Hannah emphasized the importance of considering various communication methods, pushing back against the notion that authority figures, such as Dr. Bitter, should dictate how Deaf children communicate. She expressed deep gratitude to Bob Sanderson, a well-known advocate for the Deaf community, for his invaluable support during her son's upbringing (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977).
Despite having different political views, Hannah recognized Bob's significant impact as a guiding light for the Deaf community. "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," she stated, adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After obtaining his Ph.D., Bob continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003. Given this context, Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Frank R. Turk's positive assessment of Bob.
During the board meeting, Grant Bitter advocated for oral communication. Hannah, on the other hand, expressed concerns about the challenges many Deaf kids face when learning speech skills. She emphasized the importance of sign language as a fundamental tool for effective communication. She challenged the idea of relying solely on spoken language, especially for those who encounter communication barriers. Hannah observed that Grant was worried that a student who could talk might choose to use sign language rather than speak.
Hannah reflected on her personal experiences, sharing that her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf, often felt "dumb" during his visits home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that both he and his Deaf peers were intelligent and that deafness was simply a barrier to their expression. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her to do 36 years earlier.
Hannah emphasized the importance of considering various communication methods, pushing back against the notion that authority figures, such as Dr. Bitter, should dictate how Deaf children communicate. She expressed deep gratitude to Bob Sanderson, a well-known advocate for the Deaf community, for his invaluable support during her son's upbringing (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977).
Despite having different political views, Hannah recognized Bob's significant impact as a guiding light for the Deaf community. "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," she stated, adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After obtaining his Ph.D., Bob continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003. Given this context, Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Frank R. Turk's positive assessment of Bob.
The Impact of the Utah School for the Deaf
The Utah Association of the Deaf has been pivotal in championing sign language and supporting the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Since 1962, Dr. Grant B. Bitter has notably shaped the landscape of oral and mainstream education for the Deaf in Utah, drawing on his experiences as a parent and his professional expertise. His efforts led to a decline in the number of Deaf students at Ogden's residential school, which, unfortunately, diminished the quality of education there.
The mainstreaming approach, which became popular in Utah during the 1950s, left many Ogden graduates feeling disappointed because they cherished their memories on the school campus where they received the necessary support and resources they needed, which they felt were lacking in mainstream settings that prioritized integration over specialized education. Following the closure of the Teacher Training Program within the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah in 1986, Dr. Bitter retired the next year (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, while the University of Utah offers a specialization in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program that includes American Sign Language classes, the program still primarily emphasizes listening and spoken language—an enduring legacy of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000.
Thanks to the efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, which tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, responsibility for this cause has been passed on to the next generation. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingual education and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
However, it is equally important to recognize the contributions of Dr. Bitter and other advocates for oral education to the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their efforts to promote oral and mainstream education are a crucial aspect of this history. As Robert Heinlein said, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must acknowledge and valiantly address the ongoing challenges in Deaf education. By understanding these issues, we can better advocate for the rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equitable opportunities. The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a vital role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive both academically and socially. By amplifying their voices and experiences, we can work toward a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential.
The mainstreaming approach, which became popular in Utah during the 1950s, left many Ogden graduates feeling disappointed because they cherished their memories on the school campus where they received the necessary support and resources they needed, which they felt were lacking in mainstream settings that prioritized integration over specialized education. Following the closure of the Teacher Training Program within the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah in 1986, Dr. Bitter retired the next year (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, while the University of Utah offers a specialization in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program that includes American Sign Language classes, the program still primarily emphasizes listening and spoken language—an enduring legacy of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000.
Thanks to the efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, which tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, responsibility for this cause has been passed on to the next generation. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingual education and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
However, it is equally important to recognize the contributions of Dr. Bitter and other advocates for oral education to the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their efforts to promote oral and mainstream education are a crucial aspect of this history. As Robert Heinlein said, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must acknowledge and valiantly address the ongoing challenges in Deaf education. By understanding these issues, we can better advocate for the rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equitable opportunities. The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a vital role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive both academically and socially. By amplifying their voices and experiences, we can work toward a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in his office
A Collection of
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Videos
During a cleaning session at work, my colleague Julie Hesterman Smith, an ASL interpreter, and I were excited to find some old videos created by Dr. Grant B. Bitter. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all our interpreters, especially Julie, for their hard work in captioning these videos.
In 2011, Julie devoted countless hours to transcribing recordings. Unfortunately, a computer crash resulted in the loss of all her work, forcing her to start over. Undeterred by this setback, she persevered and successfully completed the transcripts again. Thanks to her dedication, we proudly uploaded these videos to YouTube in 2012, enabling us to share Dr. Bitter's valuable insights along with those of the oral panelists, including his daughter, Colleen.
While we aimed for accuracy in the captions, the low quality of the videos and difficulties in understanding some panel members may have led to a few inaccuracies. We sincerely appreciate the contributions of all the panelists and did our utmost to ensure their words are accurately represented.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker & Julie Hesterman Smith
In 2011, Julie devoted countless hours to transcribing recordings. Unfortunately, a computer crash resulted in the loss of all her work, forcing her to start over. Undeterred by this setback, she persevered and successfully completed the transcripts again. Thanks to her dedication, we proudly uploaded these videos to YouTube in 2012, enabling us to share Dr. Bitter's valuable insights along with those of the oral panelists, including his daughter, Colleen.
While we aimed for accuracy in the captions, the low quality of the videos and difficulties in understanding some panel members may have led to a few inaccuracies. We sincerely appreciate the contributions of all the panelists and did our utmost to ensure their words are accurately represented.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker & Julie Hesterman Smith
The videos of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Includes interviews conducted by oral deaf education advocate and University of Utah professor, Dr. Bitter with Arthur Simon, Sue DeHaan, Elaine. Includes questions about each individual's educational background.
Provides perspectives from Deaf individuals who primarily communicate through speech and speech reading on situations when they would utilize an interpreter or other supports i.e. note taker. Dr. Bitter moderates the discussion at the University of Utah in 1983.
This video was filmed in Dr. Grant Bitter's Special Education 540 class, in May 1987. There is a panel of Deaf individuals discussing their preferences regarding speech reading and oral interpreting.
This video was recorded in May 1987 at the University of Utah in ED 540. Instructor Dr. Grant Bitter facilitates a panel of Deaf adults discussing their educational background, speech reading, and preferences regarding oral interpreters.
This video was recorded in May 1987 at the University of Utah in ED 540. Instructor Dr. Grant Bitter facilitates a panel of Deaf adults discussing their educational background, speech reading, and preferences regarding oral interpreters.
Note
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, Utah Deaf History Channel, YouTube, October 15, 2010.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006.
References
Baldwin, Stephen C. "Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception." National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Bitter, Grant B. "Summary Report for Tenure." Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1985.
Bitter, Grant B. "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk." Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 22, 1986.
Bluhm, H.P. "Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project." J. Willard Marriott Library; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 17, 1987. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=813266
"Board Of Education Backs Teacher Staffing Concept," Deseret News, June 12, 1970, C3.
Cinelli, Pattie. "Sanderson Researches social factors in VR Programs for Deaf Persons." On the Green, vol. 12, no. 12 ( January 11, 1982): 1-2.
Cummins, John. "Deaf School Appeals Lodged." The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5.
"Deaf School Backed," Deseret News, June 16, 1970, A18.
"Deaf Seek Better Schooling." Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28.
Kent, Cheryl. "The Times Breed Leadership." The Deaf American, vol. 34, no. 8, 1982.
"Leaving the Safe Walled World of Silence Is a Challenging Step for Deaf," Salt Lake Tribune, May 31, 1970, B9.
Lewis, Hannah, P. "End fight on deaf methods." Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4.
Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Hughes_Cannon
"New Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division." The UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1 (Summer 1969): 1.
Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter. Deseret News, July 2, 2000. https://www.deseret.com/2000/7/2/19547436/obituary-grant-bunderson-bitter/
"Oral Approach To Teaching Deaf Is Defended At Confab," Deseret News, June 16, 1970, B6.
"Sanderson deserves his due." Deseret News, September 26, 2003.
"She Lives in A Silent World," Box Elder Journal, March 27, 1966, 5.
Stewart, Gene. "Robert G. Sanderson – "Sandie." DSDHH Newsletter (April 2012): 2-3.
"The University of Utah." Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977.
"Two-Way Program to Be Instituted This Fall at Utah School for Deaf," Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962, 1B.
Turk, Frank R. From Oaks to Acorns: Promoting Deaf Youth Leadership Through Multigenerational Engagement. Deaf Life Press, May 2019.
William F. Smiley, "State Okeys 2-Way Plan For Teaching of Deaf," Salt Lake Tribune, June 14, 1962, 1B–2B.
Bitter, Grant B. "Summary Report for Tenure." Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1985.
Bitter, Grant B. "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk." Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 22, 1986.
Bluhm, H.P. "Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project." J. Willard Marriott Library; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 17, 1987. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=813266
"Board Of Education Backs Teacher Staffing Concept," Deseret News, June 12, 1970, C3.
Cinelli, Pattie. "Sanderson Researches social factors in VR Programs for Deaf Persons." On the Green, vol. 12, no. 12 ( January 11, 1982): 1-2.
Cummins, John. "Deaf School Appeals Lodged." The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5.
"Deaf School Backed," Deseret News, June 16, 1970, A18.
"Deaf Seek Better Schooling." Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28.
Kent, Cheryl. "The Times Breed Leadership." The Deaf American, vol. 34, no. 8, 1982.
"Leaving the Safe Walled World of Silence Is a Challenging Step for Deaf," Salt Lake Tribune, May 31, 1970, B9.
Lewis, Hannah, P. "End fight on deaf methods." Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4.
Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Hughes_Cannon
"New Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division." The UAD Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1 (Summer 1969): 1.
Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter. Deseret News, July 2, 2000. https://www.deseret.com/2000/7/2/19547436/obituary-grant-bunderson-bitter/
"Oral Approach To Teaching Deaf Is Defended At Confab," Deseret News, June 16, 1970, B6.
"Sanderson deserves his due." Deseret News, September 26, 2003.
"She Lives in A Silent World," Box Elder Journal, March 27, 1966, 5.
Stewart, Gene. "Robert G. Sanderson – "Sandie." DSDHH Newsletter (April 2012): 2-3.
"The University of Utah." Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977.
"Two-Way Program to Be Instituted This Fall at Utah School for Deaf," Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962, 1B.
Turk, Frank R. From Oaks to Acorns: Promoting Deaf Youth Leadership Through Multigenerational Engagement. Deaf Life Press, May 2019.
William F. Smiley, "State Okeys 2-Way Plan For Teaching of Deaf," Salt Lake Tribune, June 14, 1962, 1B–2B.
