Students Strike Over the Oral and Sign Language Segregation Policy at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1962 and 1969

Students Strike Over the Oral
and Sign Language Segregation Policy
at the Utah School for the Deaf
in 1962 and 1969

Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney

Published in 2016
Updated in 2025

Author's Note

As a parent of two Deaf children, my passion for Deaf education comes from my personal journey. My father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, also sparked my interest and shared with me the history of Deaf education in Utah, including its oral and mainstreaming impact. This inspired me to meticulously document the controversial events of that era. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be able to advocate for my kids without knowing the history. My studies at the Gallaudet School Social Work Program further deepened my understanding of the complexities of education, legislation, and policy. Moreover, my role on the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind has truly empowered me to advocate for my children and others in Utah who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled. This platform has given me the strength and voice to make a difference.

The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind is a state school that promotes inclusivity by serving a diverse student population of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, Low Vision, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled individuals. When we discuss Deaf education, we will primarily refer to the 'Utah School for the Deaf.' On the other hand, when we talk about the entire state school, we will use the term "Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind."

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Utah School for the Deaf underwent significant changes. The dual-track program and the two-track program, divided into an oral department and a sign language department, significantly impacted the lives of Deaf students and their families. To avoid confusion, we refer to the "dual-track program" from the 1960s and the "two-track program" from the 1970s on our education webpages. These programs will help us understand how these changes have affected students, teachers, administrators, and the Utah Association for the Deaf.

The "Deaf Education in Utah" webpages contain repetitive and overlapping sections, similar to those on other education webpages. The introductions to each section are also similar, and they will directly get to the point of the webpage's topic.

When writing about exceptional individuals for our history website, I use their first names to show appreciation for everyone who contributes to and supports our community's causes. Our patriarchal culture often links women's achievements to their husbands' last names rather than acknowledging their contributions under their own names. I want to break that mold. By using first names on the website, we promote inclusivity and equality. More importantly, this approach celebrates each individual's unique identity. Let's unite to honor everyone's contributions!

Also, our organization was formerly known as the Utah Association for the Deaf. We changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. To provide some background, we were originally called the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962. In 1963, we changed to the Utah Association for the Deaf, and then in 2012, we returned to our original name. When I write for the history website, I include both "of" and "for" to accurately represent the different eras in our association's history.

Thank you for taking an interest in this topic. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah.

Enjoy!

Jodi Christel Becker

Acknowledgment

Kenneth L. Kinner

I wanted to thank my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing about the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the impact of the "Y" system. As the father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, his first-hand experience within the system was a valuable source of information. Because I was so fascinated by those segregation programs at Ogden's residential campus while documenting historical events, I dove more into them, but I could not find the word "Y" system Ken had told me about in any documents for validation. My search led me to Dr. Grant B. Bitter's papers that he donated to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His paper played a crucial role in validating the existence of the "Y" system. One of his papers stated, "Thus there would be a true dual system rather than the present "Y" system that forces all parents to place their children under oral programs until the 6th grade or 7th grade year." The date on which Dr. Bitter wrote his paper about this program is unknown. It appears that Dr. Bitter penned his paper in the early 1970s to prepare for the meeting that followed the replacement of the dual-track program with a two-track program, which eliminated the "Y" system in 1970. So, I'm grateful to Ken for telling me about the "Y" system and how it affected many families. Otherwise, we would not have known about it or understood what "Y" means when we ran across Dr. Bitter's paper.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter's paper. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah

When Steven W. Noyce became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in 2009, his support for oral and mainstream education raised concerns within the Utah Deaf community. As a parent of Deaf children, I was worried that Steven Noyce would carry Dr. Grant B. Bitter's legacy by promoting oral education and mainstreaming all Deaf children in Utah. I raised this issue with Steven Noyce and Associate Superintendent Jennifer Howell in a letter on November 3, 2009. I knew that Steven, a former student of Dr. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and a long-time employee at the Utah School for the Deaf, was fully aware of the controversy between oral and sign language. To protect the ASL/English bilingual program, I detailed Dr. Grant B. Bitter's controversial history of oral and mainstreaming advocacy, as well as the profound impact of the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. I recommended providing an equal balance between the Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English bilingual options for families of Deaf children. I also requested preventive measures to avoid similar issues resurfacing. Steven acknowledged the accuracy of the information and said, "This is the most accurate paper I have ever read." This recognition of the paper's credibility underscores the importance of our advocacy efforts. I owe a debt of gratitude to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing this crucial history with me. His insights and knowledge have proven invaluable in our advocacy efforts for Deaf education. Without his help, we couldn't have opposed the oral agenda.

Thank you, Ken!

Jodi Christel Becker

Nellie Sausedo. Source: The Utah Eagle, November 1977

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Nellie Sausedo, a remarkable individual who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1967. Her contribution to this webpage is truly invaluable, as she shared her personal experience of the 1962 student strike at the school. Her story gave us a unique perspective on establishing the dual-track program, which divided the oral and sign language departments. Nellie was known for having an "elephant mind," and her enthusiasm for sharing stories about the school and its impact on students like herself is truly inspiring. If it weren't for her, this webpage would not have happened. Nellie, we are immensely grateful to you for playing a significant role in preserving and sharing this important story.

Thank you so much, Nellie!

Jodi Christel Becker

The Utah School for the Deaf students
went on strike in 1962 and 1969

This piece of history is my favorite. I appreciate the students' story about the strikes over the oral and sign language segregation policy. It's truly inspiring to hear about the brave actions of Ogden's residential school students who protested against the unfair "Y" System policy. It is heartbreaking to reflect on their social segregation from the oral and sign language departments on the school campus during the strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as their experiences in the dual-track and two-track programs. Their courage and determination to stand up for their rights are truly admirable. Thank you for playing a significant role in preserving and sharing this important story.

~Jodi Christel Becker~

Opening of the Utah School for the Deaf

In 1884, a significant development in Deaf education took place in Utah. The Utah School for the Deaf was established at the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, as a territory school for Deaf students. John Beck and William Wood, parents of Deaf children, demonstrated remarkable perseverance in establishing the Utah School for the Deaf, which provides specialized education for Deaf students. Despite the challenges they faced, including the search for a qualified teacher and limited financial resources, they pressed on. After collecting data on the number of Deaf children in Utah, their request to open a new school for the Deaf was recognized and approved through the legislative process (Metcalf, 1898; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure, Evans, 1999). This significant milestone in Utah's Deaf education history had a nationwide impact, setting a precedent for the establishment of similar institutions. The Utah School for the Deaf became a beacon of hope for Deaf students and their families in Utah and across the country.

John Beck. Source: FamilySearch.org

William Wood. Source: FamilySearch.org

Dr. John Rocky Park, the president of the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah, also showed great determination when he took on the responsibility of setting up a classroom for Deaf students at the school. His search for a qualified Deaf teacher led him to the East in 1884, where he met Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet, the president of Gallaudet College. Dr. Gallaudet's recommendation of Henry C. White, a Boston-based Deaf man who graduated from Gallaudet College in 1880, was a testament to the perseverance of these pioneers. On Dr. Gallaudet's recommendation, Dr. Park appointed Henry C. White as the principal and teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Evans, 1999).

Henry C. White. Photo courtesy of the Gallaudet University Archives

On August 26, 1884, a room at the University of Deseret was established as the Utah School for the Deaf, using a Combined System as the instructional method. This monumental event brought hope and opportunity to the Deaf community in Utah. Elizabeth Mary Wood, the Deaf daughter of William Wood, who had been attending the Colorado School for the Deaf, joined Professor White on the first day of class (Fay, Histories of American Schools for the Deaf, 1817–1893). Shortly after, John Beck's three Deaf sons, Joseph, John, and Jacob, who were attending the California School for the Deaf, also joined the class (Evans, 1999). Professor Henry C. White, a visionary, served as the school's first principal, as well as a teacher and head teacher, until 1890 (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946). His dedication and expertise shaped the school's early years. His leadership was also a significant turning point in the history of Deaf education in Utah, providing hope and a platform for the Utah Deaf community to not only receive education but also to thrive and contribute to society.

Elizabeth Mary Wood, 1886. Source: FamilySearch.org

Jacob Beck, 1921. Source: 1966 NFSD SLC Division, No. 56

Henry C. White, a resilient figure, worked at the Utah School for the Deaf for five years before losing his job in 1890 due to the infamous Milan Congress of 1880, an impactful event in the history of Deaf education, which passed a resolution mandating the use of the oral method in education. This decision, which sparked the oral movement across the country, posed a direct threat and jeopardized Henry's job. It led to his eventual replacement as principal in 1889 by Frank W. Metcalf, a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf (Evans, 1999). This change was a stark reflection of the growing emphasis on oralism in Utah and its profound impact on Deaf education.

As a Deaf person, Professor White did not gain much popularity during his tenure as principal (The Silent Worker, September 1897). His unclear speech likely contributed to this, despite being a versatile writer. The oral movement in Utah reflected Henry's replacement as principal in 1889 by a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf (Evans, 1999). He was eventually forced to resign from his position, which was then taken over by Frank Metcalf (American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, October 1889). However, it was clear that the students sincerely appreciated Professor White. On his 33rd birthday on December 18, 1889, his students presented him with a double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet, a gesture that brought him "unspeakable" happiness (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4).

Frank Metcalf took over as the school's principal in 1889, demoting Henry White to the position of head teacher. Frank supported oralism, which involved teaching Deaf students to speak and lipread, while Henry advocated using sign language in education. Their conflict, rooted in their differing educational philosophies, caused frequent disputes and intense animosity between them. The Board of Regents, caught in the middle of this tension, investigated and ultimately terminated Henry's employment with the school (The Utah Eagle, February 1922). Henry's ability to persevere in the face of adversity is a testament to his character and determination.

Frank W. Metcalf

In February 1890, Henry completely disassociated himself from the school (White, 1890; Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946). In 1894, Henry C. White criticized the school administrators for failing to directly consult with Deaf adults, questioning, 'What about the Deaf themselves?' Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?' (Buchanan 1850-1950, p. 28). This bold criticism underscores his advocacy for the Deaf community.

Although Henry C. White did not establish the Utah School for the Deaf, he is credited with leading and maintaining it, which still exists today, as a leader and administrator despite limited financial resources and a lack of support from the hearing community. During Professor White's final year at the school, Frank M. Driggs, the boys' supervisor, teacher, and a 40-year superintendent, had the opportunity to get to know him. He found Professor White to be 'well-educated, bright, alert, and active.' Frank praised Henry's efforts to keep the school running during the early years, when it required both money and courage (The Utah Eagle, February 1922, p. 2). His bravery in the face of such challenges is truly commendable, and his work was of significant importance.

In 1894, a significant event took place in the Deaf community. Deaf leaders, including Henry C. White, opposed Alexander Graham Bell's mission to promote oral education. This mission aimed to ban sign language and advocate for oralism. They also fought against the spread of oral day schools throughout the United States, perceiving this movement as a danger to Deaf culture and education. Henry C. White stood out as one of the most forward-thinking Deaf activists. He believed Deaf teachers deserved teaching positions but realized that vigilant Deaf adults needed legal support and protection for such claims. While working at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry encouraged his colleagues to establish, coordinate, and defend a new set of rights. He said, "We must assert our right to justice, or we will never receive it" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 32). Henry White's forward-thinking approach was remarkable.

Henry C. White was not the only one facing this situation. Deaf men who set up state schools for the deaf also experienced similar challenges, losing their positions as principals simply because they were deaf. They faced discrimination and prejudice from hearing individuals who wanted to take over the positions previously held by Deaf administrators. The Deaf Community acknowledged Professor White and three other Deaf principals—J.M. Koehler of Pennsylvania, A.R. Spear of North Dakota, and Mr. Long of the Indian Territory—as "shining lights in this particular," all men who had worked hard and made sacrifices, but told them to "get out" and make room for hearing men (The Silent Worker, March 1900, p. 101). At that time, the Deaf community regarded Professor White as one of the founders, and they were unaware of the involvement of two parents, John Beck and William Wood, in the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf. Nonetheless, the injustice Professor White and his peers endured serves as a stark reminder of the widespread discrimination during their era.

Elizabeth Mary Wood can be seen standing on the second right at the top, surrounded by other Deaf students, at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1887. Henry C. White, the principal and teacher, appears to be standing behind Elizabeth and the other woman. Source: FamilySearch.org

Start of Speech Training

In 1891, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced speech training for its Deaf students, which was not common in most state schools for the deaf at that time. The school believed that teaching speech and lip-reading could benefit many students, and about two-thirds of the students received speech therapy. The school had one class that used speech and lipreading, while the other two classes used a 'combined system' that included both sign language and speech (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999, p. 29). Florence Crandall Metcalf, a Child of Deaf Adults, former teacher at the Kansas School for the Deaf, and wife of the first superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf, played a crucial role as an oral program teacher (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999). This method would later become a controversial part of Deaf education history.

Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1894. L-R: Frank Milton Driggs, boys's supervisor; Earl Moore; Charles Thomas Stucki; Joseph Olorensaw; and Frank Walter Metcalf, superintendent at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: FamilySearch.org

During Superintendent Metcalf's administration in the late 1890s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed teachers trained in the oral method to help students improve their speaking and listening skills. Some of these teachers were also proficient in sign language. If a Deaf student had difficulty with speech or language development and couldn't communicate verbally, the oral teacher, who knew sign language, used it to bridge the gap and help the student communicate effectively (Roberts, 1994). This innovative approach, which focused on effective communication strategies, was highly successful, providing confidence in the methods' effectiveness.

Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1900. Top L-R: Frances N. Eddy, Edward P. Clarke, Sarah Whalem, M. Frances Walker. Bottom L-R: Katherine King, Frank W. Metcalf, Florence Crandall Metcalf, and Frank M. Driggs

In pursuit of their goals, many hearing parents insisted that their children learn to speak and read lips. However, Deaf individuals strongly opposed this approach (Robert, 1994). Since then, the debate over the use of oral methods versus sign language in Deaf education has continued for more than 150 years, and no completely satisfactory compromise has been reached to date.

The class at the Utah School for the Deaf took place in the 1890s. In a photo, Joseph Olorensaw is located behind the girl in the first row on the right, Earl Moore is behind Joseph, and Charles Thomas Stucki is behind Earl. Source: FamilySearch.org

An Introduction of Combined System

In 1901, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, under the leadership of Superintendent Frank M. Driggs, who replaced Frank W. Metcalf, adopted a teaching method known as the combined method. To help Deaf students learn, this approach incorporated manual alphabet, sign language, speech, and speech reading. State schools for the deaf across America widely used this method at the time (Robert, 1994).

The appointment of Frank M. Driggs as superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1901 initiated a significant chapter in Deaf education. After serving at the school for forty years, the school entrusted him with the task of identifying the most effective teaching methods for Deaf children and formulating policies that would benefit both the children and their parents. With unwavering commitment and a calm demeanor, he reassured parents, who, in their emotional state, would often ask, "Will my child be able to speak and read lips?" while pointing to their young Deaf child. His deep empathy and understanding of their concerns were evident, providing a sense of reassurance to the parents.

Under the administration of Superintendent Driggs, the school published a statement about its teaching methods in 1902, explaining that the combined method was not just a method but the most effective way to educate students. Teachers believed education, including English acquisition, was more important than teaching speech and lip reading. When a child faced difficulties learning speech, educators used the manual method, which involved sign language. They viewed all the different communication approaches, such as speech, manual alphabet, writing, and sign language, as tools to help the student learn and succeed (Roberts, 1994, p. 61-62).

Frank M. Driggs. Source: UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963

As the superintendent, Frank Driggs, who knew sign language, had to make a difficult decision. He had to choose between oralism and the combined system, a long-standing point of debate in Deaf education. This decision was crucial not only to the Utah School for the Deaf but to the entire field of Deaf education. With the best interests of the students and the future of Deaf education in mind, including parents, Frank Driggs was responsible for this critical decision (UAD Bulletin, April 1959).

Superintendent Driggs, a supporter of teaching Deaf children to speak, was well aware of the complex conflict between the rigid oral approach, which excluded signing. He was determined to navigate this significant challenge, deeply rooted in the history of Deaf education. The alums remembered their painful and unpleasant experiences with the slow lessons in lip-reading and speech. However, they were able to communicate with Superintendent Driggs in sign language when visiting the school after graduation. Despite disagreeing with his methods and philosophies, they acknowledged that he had the best interests of Deaf education at heart during the forty years he dedicated to the field. The alums expressed profound gratitude to Frank M. Driggs for providing them with valuable job opportunities, especially in vocational education programs. While receiving oral instructions at school, they observed clear evidence of the success of the combined teaching method (UAD Bulletin, April 1959, p. 1).

Standing at left was Frank M. Driggs, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1903

Deaf Employees at the Utah School for the Deaf

In the 1890s and early 1900s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed four Deaf teachers. They were Clara Eddy, Luella Stiffler, Elizabeth DeLong, and Nephi Larsen. Clara, the sister of schoolteacher Frances Eddy, served as an art teacher and girls' supervisor. Luella taught for only a few years at the school in Salt Lake City, Utah. Elizabeth, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and later of Gallaudet in 1902, was the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf. She likely taught 'oral failures,' while Nephi taught carpentry (Evans, 1999).

Nephi Larsen. Source: FamilySearch.org

In 1911, the administration released Elizabeth DeLong as a teacher to pursue business opportunities. Elsie Christiansen, a 1907 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, succeeded her as a domestic arts and science teacher. Later, the school rehired Elizabeth to teach sewing and dressmaking while Elsie continued to teach domestic arts and science (Fay, 1911; Evans, 1999). By the end of the 1910s, neither Elizabeth DeLong nor Nephi Larsen taught at the Utah School for the Deaf. This effectively ended the deaf presence among the faculty, possibly due to increased advocacy of the oral method or a perception that Deaf people could not assume "important" positions as teachers. By 1920, there were one or two Deaf teachers, possibly more. For the Deaf students, the world was completely hearing due to "oral movement," a term used to describe the increasing emphasis on oral methods of communication and a lack of adult role models (Evan, 1999).

Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org

In 1934, Kenneth C. Burdett, a graduate of the 1929 Utah School for the Deaf and the 1934 Gallaudet College, returned to his alma mater to become a teacher. He served the school for four decades and holds the record for being the longest-serving Deaf teacher employed at the school. Donald Jensen, Dora B. Laramie, and Jerry Taylor, who were also Deaf teachers, joined the board with Kenneth. Like Elizabeth DeLong, they grappled with 'oral failure' following the implementation of the segregation policy between oral and sign language in 1962. This policy, which required the use of oral methods over sign language, had a significant and lasting impact on their teaching methods and the future of Deaf education, as detailed in the webpage below.

The classroom at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1903

Over time, there was an increasing preference among hearing parents for their children not to learn sign language. These parents encouraged their children to concentrate on speaking, lip-reading, and communicating primarily through their remaining hearing (Robert, 1994). In response to these changing needs, the Utah School for the Deaf established an oral program in 1943. The curriculum of this oral program focused on lip-reading as well as spoken and written language (Pace, 1946), marking a significant shift in the history of Deaf education.

4th Grade Oral Class at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1919

Communication Methods of Instruction
at the Utah School for the Deaf

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Deaf students encountered significant challenges due to the introduction of an oral education program. Teachers primarily used the oral method for instruction, which prohibited the use of sign language until the ninth grade. Despite this ban, students displayed a strong commitment to communication by using sign language after school and in their dormitories, even at the risk of physical punishment in the classroom. Teachers often disciplined students for signing by hitting them with erasers or yardsticks (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). Nevertheless, these students demonstrated resourcefulness and determination to use sign language in the face of adversity.

Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind. Source: APH Callhan Museum

In the 1880s, Henry C. White was a lone advocate for sign language in Utah. By the 1950s, graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a strong, united community that actively supported sign language and residential school. They emerged as influential leaders within the Utah Deaf community, making a significant impact on the deaf educational system. They actively advocated for better education for Deaf children and expressed their concerns about the harmful effects of oral instruction. Their steadfast commitment to highlighting how these teaching methods undermined educational standards marked a significant historical moment. Through the Utah Association of the Deaf, they engaged with academic issues, gained a platform to express their concerns, advocated for change, and became more involved in the organization, which played a crucial role in the field of Deaf education.

Robert G. Sanderson

Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf, played a pivotal role in shaping teaching methods at the school. During this period, Robert Sanderson became a staunch advocate for the use of sign language in Deaf education. Drawing on their personal experiences with the manual method, the oral method, and the combined system, many members of the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed a preference for the combined method of instruction. Their influence was so significant that in 1955, the National Association of the Deaf reaffirmed its support for this combined approach during its convention (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This important endorsement further solidified the impact of their work.

Joseph B. Burnett

Between 1955 and 1956, the Utah School for the Deaf announced that it would adopt an oral method to teach elementary classrooms under the administration of Superintendent Harold W. Green. Following this, a gradual transition to a combined teaching method was planned for the intermediate grades.

In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, spearheaded a strong campaign against the inclusion of speech instruction in Deaf education. The other officers of the UAD supported him, firmly believing that the combined method of instruction used at the Utah School for the Deaf was the most beneficial aspect of education for deaf students.

As a result of this controversy, the Utah Association of the Deaf opposed Superintendent Green's plan, arguing that early speech training for deaf children presented inherent disadvantages. They also contended that the oral philosophy violated the right to equal education for each Deaf child and hindered their academic progress (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This controversy had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, underscoring the urgent need to address the issue.

Harold W. Green. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959

Around the same time, the Utah State Board of Education established a committee of eighteen members to examine the teaching methods used at the Utah School for the Deaf. Elmer H. Brown from Salt Lake City was appointed as the chairman of the committee. Among the members was Ray G. Wenger, a 1913 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf. He was recognized as Utah's most prominent advocate for the Deaf and was the first Deaf representative to serve on the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, having been a member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind since 1945. The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) welcomed Ray's appointment because he strongly supported the combined method in educational settings (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). Additionally, Ray was the first Deaf member of the advisory committee.

Ray G. Wenger

The UAD pledged its support for the investigation, provided it was conducted honestly, fairly, and impartially. However, the Utah Deaf community, whose input was crucial in this matter, expressed concerns about the investigation (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).

To prevent bias or prejudice from influencing the outcome of an investigation, the Utah Association of the Deaf, a strong advocate for Deaf education, requested an impartial consideration of all perspectives. The investigating committee, whose role was to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, listened to the Utah Association of the Deaf, which is primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, to understand their views on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions also welcomed input from educators, parents, and the general public.

During the investigation, Deaf adults emphasized to the committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, the state's official residential school for the Deaf, offers the best possible education for Deaf students. This school provides an excellent vocational education program for Deaf students as they reach adolescence, giving them an advantage over hearing peers when preparing for future employment. Most Deaf students who participated in this program secured jobs shortly after graduation. Deaf leaders also noted that a residential school fosters a better social life for Deaf children. They expressed that parents should understand that relying solely on the oral method is often insufficient for effectively teaching their Deaf child in many areas, based on their own experiences of being enrolled in inadequate oral programs (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).

The Utah School for the Deaf Printing Department. Source: The Utah Eagle, March 1955

The graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf were firmly committed to improving the academic skills of Deaf children in reading, writing, and mathematics. Their dedication to this cause is evident, and their efforts have significantly contributed to providing quality education for Deaf children. They emphasized that mastering these fundamental subjects is essential for acquiring important social skills, such as lip-reading and speech.

However, the group expressed urgent concerns about the lack of a clear direction for the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They believe the school must establish concrete goals for students regarding college preparedness. Many Deaf high school students were unprepared for college and unaware of the benefits of pursuing higher education. Deaf adults have suggested that the school should start college preparation in the first year of high school and design the entire high school curriculum around the criteria for college entry (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).

Jerry Taylor, teacher and his class. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

The officers of the Utah Association of the Deaf and graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf were committed to demonstrating to the hearing community that Deaf students are fully capable of receiving academic instruction and accessing a comprehensive education. During the investigative committee's discussions, the Deaf adults emphasized that they believed education was more important than speech. They reiterated this belief by stating, "Education is our priority."

“EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE DEAF
THAN THE MERE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND
READ LIPS! And the most efficient and quickest
way to educate Deaf children is competent
application of the Combined Method”
(Burnett & Sanderson,
The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956, p. 3).

When the investigation concluded, the results remained unknown. After substantial time and effort spent by Deaf adults and leaders in the Utah Deaf community presenting their invaluable insights to the educators and the committee, nothing changed. The Deaf leaders were taken back. In the aftermath, they observed that the Utah School for the Deaf was gradually shifting to offer two communication methodology programs at the school: an Oral program and a Simultaneous Communication program, which involves using both voice and sign simultaneously. No one was listening to the Utah Deaf community or taking their suggestions seriously (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).

Kenneth C. Burdett in Algebra class, 1954. Left to right: Kenneth Kinner, Kay Kinner, Donna Mae Dekker, Shanna Christiansen, Carol McFee and Clara Bosshardt

Despite the study outcome, the Utah Association of the Deaf continued to advocate for Deaf education. On March 19, 1959, the UAD Committee on Deaf Education, consisting of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf—including Ned C. Wheeler, G. Leon Curtis, Gladys Burnham Wenger, Arthur W. Wenger, and Robert G. Sanderson—visited the school to discuss its programs with the administration. The committee, formed to ensure the quality of education for Deaf children, faced challenges in evaluating the school’s various teaching methods. They could not determine whether these methods were effective or if the education being provided to Deaf children was adequate. Nevertheless, as alumni, the committee members believed they had the right to request that the administration keep them updated on the academic and professional achievements of the students.

Although the small oral day schools were expanding and raising some concerns for the Utah Association of the Deaf, particularly regarding their focus on speech and lip-reading over sign language, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf remained the best option for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and develop the necessary vocational skills to become a contributing member of the community (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, April 1959).

In 1954, the Main Building on the USD campus in Ogden was completed. The old Main Building, built in 1896, was demolished

Ray G. Wenger Addresses
Congressional Committee

Henry C. White, a forward-thinking former teacher and principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, observed in 1885 that Deaf individuals should be given teaching positions. However, he also recognized the necessity for legal support and protection for Deaf adults seeking these opportunities. Ray and Arthur Wenger, graduates of the 1913 Utah School for the Deaf and known as "Utah's Famous Twin Team," showed remarkable determination in tackling this issue. They traveled to Los Angeles, California, on July 16, 1960, at their own expense to attend an important meeting. Ray was scheduled to speak before a U.S. House of Representatives committee about a federal bill to provide training for Deaf education teachers. However, the original bill did not include provisions to prevent discrimination against Deaf teachers seeking employment, and the proposed advisory committee could potentially oppose the combined system. Ray and Arthur arrived to prevent such discrimination.

The Utah Association of Deaf Officers lobbied to amend the bill, and Ray's testimony, with its powerful and effective presentation, added to the combined method's defense. Ray's testimony had a profound impact, leaving a lasting impression on the House Committee members, as evidenced by including his remarks in the congressional hearing report (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960). Ray's words resonated with the association, influencing their decisions and shaping the future of Deaf education.

Arthur W. Wenger & Ray G. Wenger

Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming

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. Dr. Bitter'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 Blind, who, in 1897, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' which mandated attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946; Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1897 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Dr. Bitter 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.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1962

His daughter, Colleen, was born Deaf in 1954, which was another reason for his dedication to the advancement of both oral and mainstream education. Dr. Bitter supported the idea of mainstreaming for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children for two main reasons: his own Deaf daughter and his internship experience at the Lexington School for the Deaf. During his master's degree studies, he interned at Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school, and was shocked to see young children having to leave their parents for a week, often crying and screaming. His role as a father of a Deaf child, as well as his experience, inspired him to advocate for mainstreaming, allowing Deaf children to attend local public schools at home (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Martha Hughes Cannon. Source: Utah State Historical Society, Deseret News Archives

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 Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter, a firm advocate of oral and mainstream philosophy, was particularly vocal about his beliefs. His influence, as Dr. Baldwin noted, was profound. Dr. Bitter was a hard-core oralist and one of the top figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than him in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled how Dr. Bitter's criticism of the growing use of sign language had a significant impact, arguing that it hindered the development of oral skills and contributed to lower enrollment in residential schools, which he believed isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon and her team's proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution.

Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin

Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the oral and mainstreaming movements sparked a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, a group comprised mainly of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf community leader in Utah who became Deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch supporter of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giants was due to the ongoing dispute over oral and sign language in Utah's Deaf educational system. Their struggle was akin to a chess game, with each maneuvering politically to gain the upper hand in the deaf educational system. As a top figure in oral Deaf education, Dr. Bitter played a significant role in shaping Deaf education policies, advocating for an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, as did the Utah Association for the Deaf, engaged in disagreements during the listening and speaking demonstration panels, picket protests, education committee meetings, and board meetings. Dr. Bitter has also formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, two esteemed advocates for sign language, due to what he perceives as their interference with his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's television interpretation of news in sign language, as he felt it did not align with his educational goals. Finally, he has asked Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee, to resign due to her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, which he perceived as a drift from the committee's focus. Dr. Bitter held significant power as a parental figure and used parental influence and leverage to advocate for oralism, making it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to oppose him. The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience in response to the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter's opposition. This period was a significant turning point in their history and played a crucial role in shaping Deaf education policies. Their strength and determination not only helped them overcome these obstacles but also served to inspire others along the way.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: Gallaudet University Archives

Dr. Bitter has had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. His journey began at the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator. His passion for education led him to become a director and professor in the Teacher Training Program, where he focused primarily on oral education under the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. Dr. Bitter also served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.

Dr. Bitter 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, Dr. Bitter 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).

The Implementation of the Dual-Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf

In the fall of 1962, the Utah Deaf community was taken aback by the revolutionary changes at the Utah School for the Deaf. The introduction of the dual-track program, commonly known as the 'Y' system, took many by surprise and reverberated throughout the community. This unexpected change had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, evoking a strong sense of empathy within the community. The Utah Association of the Deaf, which advocated for sign language, was unaware that the Utah Council for the Deaf had spearheaded the change, advocating for speech-based instruction and successfully pushing for its implementation at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). It is believed that Dr. Bitter was a member of this council. The dual-track program provided an oral program in one department and a simultaneous communication program in another department, which was later replaced by a combined system. However, the dual-track policy mandated that all Deaf children begin with the oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Gannon, 1981). The Utah State Board of Education, a key player in educational policy, approved this policy reform on June 14, 1962, with endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The newly hired superintendent, Robert W. Tegeder, accepted the parents' proposals and initiated changes to the school system (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). This new program not only affected the lives of Deaf children but also placed significant burdens on their families.

Two-Way Program to be Instituted this fall at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962

The 'Y' system, part of the dual-track program, imposed significant restrictions and challenges on students and their families. This system separated learning into two distinct channels: the oral department, which focused on speech, lipreading, amplified sound, and reading, and the simultaneous communication department, which emphasized instruction through the manual alphabet, signs, speech, and reading. Initially, all Deaf children were required to enroll in the oral program for the first six years of their schooling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Following this period, a committee would assess each child's progress and determine their placement (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). The 'Y' system favored the oral mechanism over the sign language approach, severely limiting families' choices in the school system. The school's preference for the oral mechanism was based on the belief that speech was crucial for Deaf children's integration into the hearing world, a philosophy that was prevalent in the oral educational community at the time. Parents and Deaf students were left with no freedom to choose the program until the child entered 6th or 7th grade, at which point they could either continue in the oral department or transition to the simultaneous communication department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Paper, 1970s; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).

The placement of transferred students in the signing program labeled them as 'oral failures' (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). There was a discussion about the age at which students can transfer to a simultaneous communication program. According to the 'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Program Book, 1976,' this would be when they were 10–12 years old or entered sixth grade. However, according to the Utah Eagle's February 1968 issue, students must remain in the oral program for the first six years of school, which may be in the 6th or 7th grade. So, I am using between the 6th and 7th grades, rather than based on their age. Their birth date, progression, and other factors could determine their placement. This system had profound and lasting effects on the academic and social development of Deaf students, which should be considered in any evaluation of its impact.

The "Y" System of the Dual-Track Program Starting in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf

The implementation of the 'Y' system had a profound impact on the Utah School for the Deaf, leading to significant changes. The school had to hire more oral teachers and establish speech as the primary mode of communication, marking a significant shift in the school's approach. The dual-track program initially placed all elementary school students in the oral department, transferring them to the simultaneous communication department only if they failed in the oral program. This approach was based on the belief that early development of oral skills was crucial for Deaf students, with sign language learning considered a secondary focus. The change in focus and the increased hiring of oral teachers had a significant impact on the school's learning environment, altering its dynamics and atmosphere (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).

The Utah School for the Deaf has utilized a combined method in its classrooms since 1902. This method included a mix of manual signing, speech, and listening until the 1950s. The establishment of more extension classrooms highlighted parents' desire for their children to enhance their speaking and listening skills. As a result, signing was prohibited in oral classes. This restriction applied to Deaf students until the ninth grade, but they were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Elementary school students received basic instruction in speaking skills from hearing teachers, while Deaf high school students received instruction exclusively from Deaf teachers (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).

The dual-track program shifted its approach for prospective teachers from sign language to the oral method, prioritizing speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).

Speech training at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

The 'Y' system, used as a decision-making tool, played a crucial role in determining a student's educational placement in the dual-track program. Its influence on Deaf education was profound. For instance, in the oral department, a Deaf student would progress from preschool to sixth grade. After that, a committee would evaluate the student's speaking ability, school performance, test results, and family environment to decide whether to continue in the oral program or transfer to the simultaneous communication program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Regardless of whether they studied on the Ogden campus or in the Extension Division classrooms, established in 1959 to promote mainstreaming for Deaf children, the program expected all Deaf children to enroll in the entire oral department (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970; The Utah Eagle, February 1968). As a result, the Salt Lake Extension Program became almost as big as Ogden's residential school. Unfortunately, these regulatory changes had a detrimental impact on Ogden's residential school for many years, raising concerns about the future of Deaf education.

A student receives speech training from a USD teacher. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

At the time, teachers were required to obtain a bachelor's degree in Deaf education from an accredited teacher center and receive certification. Teachers who taught simultaneous communication also needed to be proficient in sign language (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

The new 'Y' policy at the Utah School for the Deaf resulted in a sudden shortage of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962). To fill this gap, the Utah School for the Deaf employed the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, an 'army of oral teachers.' Gallaudet College guided teachers in the simultaneous communication department, whereas the University of Utah assisted teachers in the oral department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Dr. Bitter is likely to get the idea for the new policy from his internship at the Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school in New York, during his master's degree studies (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The shortage of oral teachers and the subsequent employment of the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program significantly altered the school's teaching staff and methods, reflecting the broader changes in the school's approach to Deaf education. This adaptability of the training programs reassured the educational community about the resilience of the system in the face of challenges.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 24, 1974

The Effects of the Dual-Track and Two-Track Programs on the Kinner Family

This section describes Kenneth L. Kinner's experiences as a 1954 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and how it affected the family. Kenneth had a Deaf daughter named Deanne, who was born in 1961, a year before the implementation of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Kenneth's firsthand experience with the new dual-track program, which began in the fall of 1962, required his daughter to start the oral program at four and a half in 1965, despite her first language being American Sign Language (ASL). This program aimed solely at teaching speech skills, which forced parents like Kenneth and his wife, Ilene Coles, a 1959 graduate who preferred sign language, to enroll their children in it. Students who were unable to learn how to speak were eventually enrolled in the simultaneous communication department, a part of the dual-track program that focused on teaching both sign language and speech. However, in the "Y" system channel, a policy mandated that parents wait until their child completed their first six years of education or was 12 years old to enroll in sign language education in the simultaneous communication department, preventing Deanne from switching to the program she wanted until she turned 12. The oral program's goal was to enable all students to excel in their oral abilities, marking the start of a new war against the system (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Deanne shared that she had wanted to switch to the simultaneous communication program during her childhood, but due to the "Y" policy, her father kept telling her that he could not transfer her until she turned 12. Only after reaching this age could she finally switch to the program she desired (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).

One incident in the oral program was that while a substitute oral teacher was writing on the blackboard and talking, Deanne, who was seven, was reading from the textbook. She could hear constant sounds with her hearing aid, but she couldn't read lips from the back of the teacher's head. Often, Deanne would read from the book and then answer the teacher's questions. However, this time, the teacher kept calling her name while she was looking down and reading. Typically, she couldn't identify the caller due to the continuous background noise. After repeatedly calling her name, the teacher hit her with a stick and asked, "Why didn't you hear me when I called your name?" Deanne was stunned, but she remained calm until recess. Once outside, she hurriedly walked to her father's workplace, showing her arm to him while crying. His boss saw her crying and instructed her father to take her to school, where Ken reported the incident. The school apologized (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024). This incident nonetheless prompted a need for change.

Deanne, Kenneth, Illene, and Duane (center) Kinner, 1976

After nearly ten years of battle, the newly formed "two-track program" replaced the dual-track system in 1970, thereby eliminating the "Y" system. The two-track system allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf child aged between 2 1/2 and 21. This new two-track approach allowed their Deaf son, Duane, who was 11 years younger than Deanne, to enter the total communication program at the age of three in 1975 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

When Deanne was ten years old, her parents quickly removed her from the oral program in the fall of 1971, under the new two-track system, and placed her in the total communication program. This change in the educational system was considered a big step forward. Testing revealed that Deanne, who had grown up with language access at home, was at or above the academic level. Despite being placed with middle-and-high-school-aged kids who were performing below academic level, she persevered. Her friends, who had hearing parents, remained in the oral program. Deanne, the youngest student in the total communication program, found herself placed with the 15, 16, and 17 year-old students who had been deprived of language in the oral program. This environment had a profound impact on her emotional, social, and educational growth. She was exposed to inappropriate information for her age and was forced to mature and persevere quickly in the two-track program, a challenge that she faced with remarkable strength.

Although Duane grew up with total communication and was free to communicate in ASL, the trend toward mainstreaming grew, and enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf declined. With Deanne's encouragement, using her trauma from childhood experiences as evidence, she helped convince her parents to transfer Duane to the Idaho School for the Deaf in 1987. Duane thrived in this new environment, benefiting from a better education and access to peers who were his age. Furthermore, several of his age group classmates from the Utah School for the Deaf transferred out of state to attend residential schools across the United States, where they were able to get better education, social opportunities, extracurricular activities, and so on (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).

It is important to acknowledge the challenges that Deaf students and their families encounter when advocating for their right to access educational opportunities that meet their academic and social needs. These challenges often involve navigating complex educational systems, promoting the use of effective communication methods, and ensuring access to suitable learning environments. More details about the two-track program and the challenges it presented can be found further down the webpage.

The Main Building
of the Utah School for the Deaf

In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the dual-track program in the Main Building, known as the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the oral and simultaneous communication departments in separate wings. As shown in the picture above, the oral department was on the left, while the simultaneous communication department was on the right. Sources: Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968

In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the
dual-track program in the Main Building, known as
the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main
Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the
oral and simultaneous communication departments
in separate wings. As shown in the picture above,
the oral department was on the left, while the
simultaneous communication department was on the right (Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

The Student Protest of 1962

On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the implementation of a dual-track program, which resulted in the division of the Ogden campus into two distinct departments during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). This dual-track program was designed to offer a more customized education for Deaf students, with one track emphasizing oral communication and the other focused on sign language. It also divided Ogden's residential campus into an oral department and a simultaneous communication department, each with its own classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities. The school prohibited interaction between oral and sign language students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). However, due to low student enrollment in competitive sports, the athletic program combined both departments. The team had oral and sign language coaches to communicate with their respective students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This unique situation highlights the challenges and complexities of implementing the dual-track program.

During the 1962–63 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented changes without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were shocked to discover these changes. The dual-track program at Ogden's residential campus introduced drawbacks due to the strict social segregation environment. The oral program prohibited Deaf students from interacting with their peers in the signing department, resulting in significantly limited social interaction. Consequently, friends in different programs were unable to see one another during class or recess. One notable example of the program's damaging effects was the school's decision to separate a high school couple, causing profound emotional trauma for the students involved. The new social segregation policy under the dual-track program caused profound emotional and mental trauma for many students, highlighting the human cost of the policy.

These changes also caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).

The dual-track program's 'Y' segregation system, which separated students who used spoken language from those who used sign language, led to significant dissatisfaction and prompted protests. High school students voiced their concerns about this system, but the administration dismissed their objections. Students organized strikes in 1962 and again in 1969 to oppose the new dual-track policy. Their passionate protests highlighted their belief that the system created a 'wall' preventing interaction between oral and sign language students, a belief that underscored their strong sense of injustice. Despite the intensity of their arguments, the school administration continued the dual-track policy, ignoring the students' concerns.

Barbara Schell Bass. Photo: Robert Bonnell

Over half of the high school students staged a strike on the third Friday of September 14, 1962, a significant date in the history of the Utah School for the Deaf, over the social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus. Johnny P. Murray, a senior, was the leader protesting against the segregation policy. He recalled a strange visit from Tony Christopulos, who was the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, an oral advocate, and one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter, a key figure in the implementation of the dual-track program, was a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf at the time. Tony visited Johnny's home just before the start of the school year and asked his parents if they wanted their son to join the oral program. After Tony left, Johnny's parents asked him whether he wanted to enroll in the oral program. Johnny replied with a clear 'No' (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).

Johnny finally understood the reason behind the odd visit on the first day of school. The school administration had recently introduced a new policy called 'Y,' which allowed parents of older students attending the Utah School for the Deaf to choose their child's placement. The administration contacted all parents to learn about their placement preferences. However, the 'Y' policy, which seemingly offered a choice, was actually a tool for the administration to push more students into the oral program, thereby promoting social segregation. This was a significant concern for the students, as it could potentially lead to the loss of their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).

Johnny P. Murray

The students were worried about the dual-track program and its potential effects. They were especially concerned about possibly losing their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers. These teachers included Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett, father of Ronald Burdett, sophomore, and Dora B. Laramie, mother of Celia May "C.M." Laramie Baldwin, also sophomore (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

Deaf teachers of the Utah School for the Deaf

Johnny Murray, a senior Student Council president, and strike leader who opposed the oral and sign language segregation policy, organized a protest with the support of twenty-five high school students from the simultaneous communication program. This program, which allowed students to learn and communicate using both oral and sign language, was a symbol of unity and equality. The students were united in their cause, dedicating a week to preparing for the protest, inscribing 'Strike,' 'Unfair,' and 'Listen to Us' on posters that they propped up with shoe polish and wooden sticks. The Utah School for the Deaf teachers, including the four Deaf teachers, were unaware of the impending strike (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024).

After careful planning, the students executed their protest with precision. On Friday morning, September 14, 1962, they attended a seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and an important figure in the Utah Deaf community. He was not aware of their protest plans. After class, the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their posters. At 8:30 a.m., they marched into the hallway of the Main Building, starting from the gym where their classrooms were located. This demonstrated their strategic planning and unwavering determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).

Kennth C. Burdett

Ronald C. Burdett

During a protest, Ronald C. Burdett noticed that his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiled slightly as he began to understand the purpose of the demonstration. However, Kenneth felt hesitant about fully supporting the protest because he was worried about the potential impact on his job. Some of the hearing teachers were shocked and disgusted by the protesting students, believing they were being foolish for going on strike. One teacher, Thomas Van Drimmelen, became angry and attempted to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. In response, Dora B. Laramie, C.M.'s hard-of-hearing mother, shouted at him to stop, yelling, "Don't touch C.M.!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). The students' courage in the face of opposition was truly inspiring.

Dora Benoit Laramie

Celia May Laramie Baldwin

Thomas Van Drimmelen

The Ogden Standard-Examiner reported that by noon on September 14, 1962, the whereabouts of some students were unknown. While marching from the Utah School for the Deaf campus to Lorin Farr Park, two teachers searched for them. The students had hidden behind trees as the teachers' car passed by to avoid being discovered. They discussed going to a movie theater but found it was closed at 10 a.m. Instead, they went to Ronald Burdett's backyard to relax and hang out. Feeling hungry, they pooled their money and sent someone to the nearby grocery store at 26th and Quincy Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their lunch (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).

When Kenneth C. Burdett returned home from work, he was surprised to find the students there. Concerned for their safety and worried about the potential loss of his job, he quickly took them back to the Utah School for the Deaf. After that, the students returned to their homes for the weekend.

Seniors

Juniors

Sophomores

'Students of the Utah School for the Deaf on strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962

Tony Christopoulos, the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, suggested in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the recent student protest was initiated by unhappy parents. He stated that these parents had influenced their children's decision to strike. Furthermore, Tony clarified that only the Deaf students in the simultaneous communication department were dissatisfied with the changes, while the fifty-two Deaf students in the oral department did not participate in the protest (Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962). The simultaneous communication students protested independently to express their wish to stay united as they had been before the changes.

Tony Christopulos. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959

'Dissatisfied students of the Utah School for the Deaf ended the strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 15, 1962

On Monday, September 17, 1962, Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder arranged a meeting with students to discuss the strike. During the meeting, Superintendent Tegeder, torn between his duty and personal beliefs, asked the students why they went on strike. The students, with a courage that would inspire generations to come, questioned the existence of two departments on campus and the disparity in the number of students enrolled in each department, as quoted: "Why do we have two departments on campus?" and "Why does the oral department have more students than the simultaneous communication department?" Despite his disagreement with the changes, he had to support the new policy. He couldn't think of any other response except saying, "Oh well!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).

Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder highlighted in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the walkout of twenty-five students at the Utah School for the Deaf was not only an act of defiance but also a strong statement of their needs. The students, who felt limited in their social interactions and dissatisfied with the school's separate facilities, decided to take matters into their own hands. Their bravery in standing up for their rights is truly inspiring. They yearned for more social interaction with the fifty-two other students in the oral program and expressed unhappiness with the separation of the classrooms, dormitory rooms, and playground areas. Superintendent Tegeder shared their feelings and admitted, "I'm dissatisfied with many of these myself." He further explained that some students had been living in dorms together for eight years, and the new teaching program forced them to separate from their old friends, which had taken an emotional toll on them (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).

Robert W. Tegeder. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959

Nellie Sausedo, a junior and one of the protestors, recalled when she and some students protested against the school's policy of segregating them into dormitories, dining rooms, and classes such as physical education, cooking, sewing, printing, and school events. The students were deeply unhappy with this segregation and missed the days when everyone could be together in the same room at the same time. Their determination to fight against the signing restrictions and the unacceptable segregation system was unwavering. Nellie, one of the protesters, expressed that "No one listened" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). Despite the students' intervention efforts, the school administration persisted with the dual-track policy.

Regardless of the circumstances, Johnny P. Murray made significant contributions during his time at the school. He had the courage to lead a united student strike challenging the segregation policy between oral and sign language. We appreciate his bravery and the difference he made. After his passing in 2024, his life has left an indelible mark on our community.

Nellie Sausedo

After implementing the dual-track program and concluding a student protest, Tony Christopulos asked high school Deaf students from the simultaneous communication program to promote unity and acceptance in light of the new 'Y' system changes. The 'Y' system changes refer to a shift in educational approach, encouraging students to integrate into the hearing world. During the meeting, Tony used a chalkboard to illustrate the concepts of the 'Deaf World' and the 'Hearing World.' He warned students against isolating themselves in the Deaf World, which he marked with an X. Instead, he emphasized the importance of integrating into the Hearing World, which he circled (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Tony's college education, which focused heavily on oral instruction, shaped his perspective on the integration of Deaf students into the hearing world.

Following the 1962 protest against social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a steadfast advocate for oral and mainstream education, and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education conducted an investigation but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). In the face of societal segregation, the simultaneous communication students demonstrated their unwavering determination and courage by staging their own protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who served as the president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The dual-track program's implementation marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson

Utah Association of the Deaf Meets Wilburn N. Ball,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction

During a student protest and a change in policy at the Utah School for the Deaf, a group of officers and members from the Utah Association of the Deaf, each with their own unique expertise, became concerned about the urgent need to address the implementation of an oral philosophy in classrooms. The group, which included Robert G. Sanderson, G. Leon Curtis, Ned C. Wheeler, Robert L. Welsh, W. David Mortensen, Joseph B. Burnett, Kenneth L. Kinner, and Gladys Burnham Wenger, who was hard-of -hearing and served as an interpreter, believed it was important to address these concerns with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. They requested that the changes already taking place in the Utah School for the Deaf be reconsidered and emphatically stressed the importance of sign language for Deaf children.

Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. Source: Utahn, 1961

The group expressed their dissatisfaction with the dual-track program, which began with all children participating in the oral program. They disagreed with this approach and remained committed to maintaining a signing atmosphere on campus, as it is crucial for preserving Deaf culture. They wanted to convey their concerns to Dr. Wilburn.

In response, Dr. Wilburn presented a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He randomly selected one and began reading it aloud. The letter from the parent expressed a desire to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program. Although the UAD officers were surprised by this perspective, they remained steadfast in their goal of preserving the signing atmosphere.

It was later revealed that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf had encouraged parents to write letters to State Superintendent Wilburn, expressing their support for the new 'Y' system policy. Administrators who favored oral education strongly defended the changes made at Ogden's residential campus. Unfortunately, the Utah Association of the Deaf found itself in a challenging position, as parents overwhelmingly preferred oral education for their Deaf children (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Despite this, the Utah Association of the Deaf remained steadfast, demonstrating their commitment to advocating for the best education for Deaf children and reassuring all stakeholders about the future of Deaf education.

Officers & Members
of the Utah Association of the Deaf

Robert G. Sanderson

Ned C. Wheeler

W. David Mortensen

Joseph Burnett

G. Leon Curtis

Robert L. Welsh

Kenneth L. Kinner

Gladys Burnham Wenger

Limited Educational Choices
at the Utah School for the Deaf

The educational journey for Deaf children in the Salt Lake area was challenging. Oral day schools were available for those who wanted their children to learn to speak and use hearing aids. However, families who preferred simultaneous communication had limited options. All children were placed in the oral program until 6th or 7th grade, regardless of their speaking and hearing ability or limitation. After that, parents could enroll their children in the residential school in Ogden for the simultaneous communication program, regardless of their location. This often meant that the child had to live away from home, which was distressing for many parents. The only alternative was to withdraw the children from their current school and enroll them in a public school. However, this decision often resulted in the denial of requests for a sign language interpreter. This limited choice, particularly the lack of sign language interpreters, significantly affected the children's education and overall well-being (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

The educators who worked with Deaf students in the 1960s were deeply dedicated to their cause. They believed that English proficiency was crucial for success in a hearing world. With the best intentions, they advocated for an oral approach focused on training students' speech and listening skills. However, they overlooked the potential of sign language as a tool for teaching English to Deaf students. Additionally, their methods were not always practical or effective, and they did not realize their approach could be oppressive or discriminatory. This oversight also led to an increasing number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities taking over Ogden's residential school to meet their needs (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).

During this time, oral day schools often accepted Deaf students with average abilities to assess their potential for oral skills. These schools believed that early training in these skills was crucial. However, the lengthy process of evaluating their oral abilities, which took around eight years, led to identifying some students who struggled with speaking much later, typically in 6th or 7th grade. This struggle with speaking, a fundamental skill for communication, was a significant challenge for these students. By this time, they had already been labeled as 'oral failures' before being placed in a signing program. Unfortunately, the advocates of the 'Y' System, a dual-track program that aimed to teach oral and sign language separately, did not consider the lost time, which resulted in students missing out on critical early years of language learning essential for brain development. When these students entered middle school, their lack of exposure to sign language left them language-deprived, placing them at a significant disadvantage that impacted their overall educational experience. This unintended consequence of the 'Y' System's approach underscores the systemic issues present in Deaf education and the urgent need for change.

J. Boyd Nielson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1969

Oral educators believed it was never too late for a Deaf teenager to learn sign language. They assumed these teenagers could quickly pick it up in middle school after transferring out of the oral program. However, this assumption proved to be incorrect. Oral advocates promoted this view to maintain a positive public image. Unfortunately, Deaf students had limited opportunities to achieve true linguistic proficiency. By postponing sign language instruction until middle school, those labeled as "oral failures" were required to learn an oral-spoken language first. As a result, their natural language—sign language—was neglected, hindering their ability to reach their academic potential.

The most tragic aspect is that no one sought to understand the reasons behind their academic struggles. The prevailing assumption was that Deaf students lacked intelligence, but the educational system's flawed approach led to their failure. The personal stories of Deaf students highlight the human impact of this misguided system—a tragedy that must be addressed.

$Picture$

Kenneth C. Burdett teaching math, 1960

Principal Tony Christopulos, a key figure in the educational system, played a pivotal role in shaping the educational system. He appointed Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 Utah School for the Deaf graduate and a respected member of the Utah Deaf community, as the curriculum coordinator for the simultaneous communication department. Another key figure, J. Boyd Nielsen, who advocated for oral education, held a similar position in the oral department and was one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter himself was a significant figure in Deaf education and played a vital role in shaping the educational framework of that era.

Kenneth identified a flaw in the 'Y' educational system, which consisted of a dual-track program designed to teach oral and sign language separately. This system allowed students to choose their preferred mode of communication after completing either 6th or 7th grade. However, this approach had unintended consequences. After the implementation of the 'Y' system, Kenneth found himself unable to assist the most promising students in achieving their academic goals. Instead, he ended up focusing on helping those who had struggled and failed in the oral program. Unfortunately, the Deaf students, who were already below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate, needed his support the most. These students faced significant challenges in communicating in both English and sign language due to their limited proficiency in either language (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009). This situation suggested that the structure of the school's 'Y' system was fundamentally detrimental to the students' success.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Deseret News, March 18, 1974

Did You Know?

In 2005, the Utah School for the Deaf held their reunion at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. During the event, Ronald "Ron" Burdett and Celia May Laramie Baldwin discussed the 1962 student strike, a significant event that had a lasting impact on the school's history. They shared their experiences with the alums in attendance. At the time of the strike, the teachers were unaware of Johnny P. Murray's role as the leader since the students chose not to reveal their identities. Duane Harrison, a retired hearing teacher from the Utah School for the Deaf, learned about Ron's announcement during the reunion and remarked, "Now I know who started the strike" (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, September 2007).

Duane Harrison

The Videos of the
1962 Student Protest

In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program policy that prohibited students who communicated orally from interacting with those who used sign language. We have included videos of former students from the school who protested against this segregation system on the Ogden residential campus. It's important to acknowledge that participants' memories may vary due to the passage of time. They shared their stories as they remember them, which has helped us understand and appreciate their compelling experiences.

Your story has the power to inspire and educate others. We would love to hear from you if you were a protester in 1962 or 1969. If you have any videos of yourself from that time, please email them to me at [email protected]. Additionally, I would be happy to record a video of you recounting your experience as a protester. Thank you for considering sharing your impactful story with us.

In 1962, Ronald C. Burdett, a 1965 graduate,
participated in a student strike with other high school
students at the Utah School for the Deaf.

Wallace Bruce, an oral teacher, listens to the music with students Ronald C. Burdett (left) and Thomas Rulon Osmond (right) in 1959. Tom is a member of the well-known Osmond clan.

Celia May Laramie Baldwin, a 1965 graduate
of the Utah School for the Deaf, participated in a
student strike with other high school students in 1962.

Celia May Laramie Baldwin, age 4 in 1951. 'U' Workshop Brings Hopes. Source: Newspaper unknown.

Nelle Sausedo, a 1967 graduate of the
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.

The Walkout Strike of 1969

The dual-track system has become quite complicated over time. There were still separate classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities. The February 1968 issue of The Utah Eagle described the dual-track program as demanding and challenging, with long work hours. The Utah School for the Deaf emphasized that parents, teachers, and administrators had not to cooperate but must collaborate fully for the program to succeed. One of the biggest challenges was scheduling classes and activities to ensure that all students, regardless of their division, actively participated in separate classrooms, extracurricular activities, and dormitories that fostered the development of their maximum communicative skills and academic achievement. Facilities for two separate twenty-four-hour programs also must be available for a dual-track program to succeed. Collaboration among parents and employees was vital to the program's success (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

An oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

In February 1968, the Utah Eagle reported that the school still provided separate facilities for students who were either oral or used sign language. The aim was to help them develop their communication skills to their full potential. These programs divided extracurricular activities into separate categories, except for the athletic program. The athletic program recruited student-athletes from both programs, as there weren't enough students to form complete teams (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011). Despite facing logistical division challenges at Ogden's residential school, the students have displayed remarkable resilience over the years since the failed protest in 1962. Dissatisfaction with the dual-track program's continued social segregation increased, which sparked the 1969 protest.

Since 1962, the dual-track program has still prohibited oral and signing students from interacting on campus for six years. Many students in both programs, fed up with the restrictive compliance with the oral method's 'no signing' rule and the resulting social segregation, took matters into their own hands. Between 1966 and 1968, a group of these students initiated a meeting with Principal Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate, to discuss combining the two departments into one. They felt that segregation was unnecessary and burdensome. Despite their initiative, Tony listened to the students' concerns and requests but did nothing to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It is unsurprising that the students eventually protested.

Paul Arthur, Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1968

In May 1969, Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the oral department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the simultaneous communication department, discussed a walkout protest plan. Following the infamous 1962 student strike, the two student leaders collaborated with other students to develop a strike strategy they wanted to model. This strike, which was a significant event in the history of student activism, was a powerful demonstration of the students' collective voice and their ability to bring about change. Many of the students who participated in the 1969 protest had witnessed the 1962 strike as children, and it served as a source of inspiration for their own protest (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). These two student presidents were the key individuals who led the walkout.

Oral Senior Student Council members, are left to right, Laura Fisher, Pete Mazza; Kathleen Allen; Miss Starr, Advisor; Paul Arthur, Mr. Andersen, Advisor; Rebecca Call, and Tedi Ann Ercanbrack. Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1969

Smiley Briseno, Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1969

Simultaneous Student Council Officers, left to right, Dora Laramie, Advisor; Bridget Laramie, Treasurer; Smiley Briseno, President; Maria Garcia, Secretary; Thomas Van Drimmenlen, Advisor and Henry Armijo, Vice President, discuss Christmas decorations for the Simultaneous wing of the school building. Source: The Utah Eagle, December 1968

Three weeks before their 1969 high school graduation, the oral and simultaneous students, with fierce determination, secretly made posters in their dorm rooms. After the early morning seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more than 100 middle and high school students bravely walked out of the campus and protested at the flag area outside the Main Building on the Ogden campus. This protest, which attracted a larger number of oral students than the 1962 protest, was a testament to their unwavering determination. However, Principal Christopulos, who opposed ending the campus's social separation due to oral advocacy reasons, was not pleased with the students' 'walkout' and issued an order, threatening the seniors with having their high school diplomas revoked if they continued. The seniors were terrified because they needed their diplomas to continue their studies after high school or to enter the workforce. It was a one-sided dialogue because the principal was adamant about not ending the campus's social separation. The cancellation of the seniors' graduation banquet by Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder added fuel to the fire. He also refused to listen to student appeals to end social segregation on campus. Fearing punishment and not graduating, the seniors called off the continued strike (Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011).

The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah

On the Ogden Campus, a walkout took place at the flag area outside the Main Building,
as shown in the picture above.

The Video of the
1969 Student Walkout

Paul Arthur, a 1969 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf,
was part of the student strike in 1969.

Lisa Richards' Artwork
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter

Lisa Richards

As shown in the picture, Lisa Richards, who was born in 1959, is practicing her speech in the oral program at Lafayette Elementary School in 1964. In 2022, she drew a picture that reflects her formative years during the Bitter era and its impact on Utah's Deaf educational system. Lisa was a student at Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s, and her story embodies personal growth and resilience.

Drawn by Lisa Richards in 2022, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf

On February 24, 2020, Lisa Richards shared a video recounting her formative years in the oral program of the Extension Division at the Utah School for the Deaf. This occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, when Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a leading proponent of oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. His advocacy led to the creation of an Extension Division in the Salt Lake area, allowing Deaf children to attend classes closer to their homes. Lisa's experience under Dr. Bitter's influence was challenging, but her decision to share the video is a testament to the therapeutic power of storytelling and its role in preserving Utah's Deaf education history.

Raymond Monson’s
Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter

Raymond Monson was 11 years old when he witnessed the 1962 student strike at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He has a deeply personal story to share. After graduating from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1971, he worked at Don Glen's construction company during the summer of 1969. Recently, he became friends with Jonathan Hodson, a Deaf individual who participated in the oral program in the Salt Lake area and worked for Don Glen. Their shared experiences have brought them close. During a conversation, they discussed the recent student walkout protest and how it failed. They also discussed the negative impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter had on Deaf education in Utah.

Raymond's memory of Dr. Bitter and his impact on the oral and sign language segregation policy at the Utah School for the Deaf is vivid. Dr. Bitter's influence extended beyond the Utah School for the Deaf, reaching the Deaf Seminary Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His support for the policy of segregating the oral and simultaneous communication departments was a decision that not only angered Raymond but also profoundly affected the signing students, highlighting the injustice of the situation. According to Raymond, Dr. Bitter and the school's oral teachers held a negative attitude toward signing students. The dual-track program also had a ripple effect on the Ogden Branch for the Deaf, located just two blocks away from the residential campus and the seminary class.

Raymond Monson, Source: Utahn, 1971

Raymond compared Dr. Bitter to the wall that separated West Berlin from East Berlin during the Cold War. He believed that Dr. Bitter failed to acknowledge the difficulties faced by some Deaf students in the oral system due to their inability to speak and the prohibition against using sign language. Raymond also compared the strict restrictions of oral deaf education to East Germany's restrictive communism, equating the freedom of Deaf students to communicate in sign language with the freedom of West Germans in a democratic country. He firmly believed that Dr. Bitter did not have the authority to force Deaf students into the oral system, which eventually led to divisions among Deaf adults.

Raymond's memories of his school days are tainted by the lack of sensitivity shown by the teachers in the oral program toward the discrimination experienced by signing students. These teachers separated the signing students from their oral peers, creating a hostile environment. The comparisons he makes between this discrimination and the racial discrimination of the time are striking, highlighting the injustice of the situation.

In August 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program, leading to Raymond's transfer to the oral program. This program aimed to integrate Deaf students into mainstream society but faced opposition from the Utah Deaf community. Raymond felt devastated by his placement and couldn't understand why. He missed his classmates who used sign language for communication and desperately wanted to interact with them. Later, Raymond's mother, Marjorie, who was also deaf, discovered that Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate and the school principal, had contacted Raymond's father, Fred, who was hearing, to ask if he wanted Raymond to enroll in the oral program. Without consulting Marjorie, Fred decided and allowed the transfer.

Raymond struggled with the challenging oral program and was unhappy with the curriculum. Despite not fully understanding his communication barriers, his mother persuaded him to continue the program for his father's sake, adding emotional weight to the story. The image of 11-year-old Raymond and other oral students watching out the school window during the 1962 student strike added to his emotional journey.

As Raymond grew older, he discovered that many other Deaf individuals shared the same negative feelings about Dr. Grant Bitter. To cope with their frustration, they often made fun of Dr. Bitter. One of his friends, C. Roy Cochran, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1961 and was the father of two Deaf children, Don and Lisa, found a humorous way to diffuse his anger toward Dr. Bitter. Roy proposed renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, to "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department," a suggestion that quickly became a community joke. Raymond found the idea so funny that Roy "commanded" him to rename Dr. Bitter as "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department." Despite the ongoing conflicts with Dr. Bitter, this use of humor was a powerful tool that unites and gives hope to the Utah Deaf community.

C. Roy Cochran. Source: Utahn, 1960

In the summer of 1969, Raymond, who had just completed his sophomore year, drew a cartoon of Dr. Bitter to express his frustration being in the oral program. He shared the drawing with his mother and his hard-of-hearing brother, Brian, and they both found it amusing. The next day, Raymond showed the cartoon to Jonathan Hodson at work, who found it funny. Afterward, Raymond told his mother and brother he planned to mail the picture to Dr. Bitter's home. Despite her worry that he would get into trouble because he was still in high school, his mother supported his decision. They agreed that he would not sign his name on the picture. Raymond, with courage beyond his years, typed a letter with the picture, and his mother helped him correct his grammar. He then mailed it to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book to find the address.

Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriot Library, University of Utah

Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter.
Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriot Library, University of Utah

A week later, Jonathan Hodson told Raymond that a copy of his drawing was on his family's dinner table, but he promised to keep it a secret. Dr. Bitter was interested in identifying the artist and disseminating the copies to track down the individual responsible for the artwork. Raymond's mother warned him not to brag about his artwork. When school resumed in the fall of 1969, the leaders of the Utah Association for the Deaf announced that Dr. Bitter was upset about a picture that an anonymous artist had created depicting him in a humorous light. Dr. Bitter blamed the Deaf leaders for the drawing and called a meeting of his Oral Deaf Association for Utah to find out who the artist was.

Jonathon Hudson

Raymond reported that despite Dr. Bitter's best efforts, they were unable to identify the person who drew a picture of him (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 1, 2010). W. David Mortensen, a prominent leader of the Utah Association for the Deaf, advised Dr. Bitter to drop the matter altogether (Jonathan Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011).

Interestingly, thanks to Dr. Bitter's generous donation, I discovered Raymond's drawing in the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library and wanted to know who drew it. This discovery sheds light on using humor as a coping mechanism in the Utah Deaf community. During my research, Jon, who is Deanne and Duane Kinner's third cousin, provided me with information, which prompted me to reach out to Raymond to understand the inspiration behind the drawing, as detailed on this webpage.

W. David Mortensen. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell

The Implementation
of the Two-Track Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf

Another round of students' acts of resistance during the 1969 walkout protest against the continued enforcement of "Y" social segregation in the dual-track program was a defining moment in history, echoing the 1962 student protest at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite not achieving the desired results, they found new ways to voice their discontent. Some sign language students boldly crossed the oral department hallway, while others took the simultaneous communication department route. This act of defiance broke the "Y" system rule, which had designated these spaces as 'off-limits' in order to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even confronted their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). For nearly a decade, the Utah Association for the Deaf, in collaboration with the Parent-Teacher-Student Association, comprised supportive parents who advocated for sign language and fought against the "Y" system. Despite years of dismissal and opposition, their unwavering determination and resilience in the face of social segregation are truly admirable.

Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, when faced with a challenging situation, sought assistance from his boss, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Campbell, a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community. Motivated by his concern for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new instrument system that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). His dedication and commitment to the cause are genuinely inspiring.

Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1973

Ned C. Wheeler, who became deaf at the age of 13 and graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1933, was the chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council. He proposed the "two-track program" in response to various events, including Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association to the "Y" system policy. On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy, paving the way for the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program with choices, eliminating the "Y" system. This new program allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their deaf child aged between 2 1/2 and 21, marking a significant shift in Deaf education (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).

Ned C. Wheeler

However, while supervising the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell noticed that parents were often unaware of their children's educational and communication options (Campbell, 1977). Despite the Utah State Board of Education releasing policies in 1970, 1977, and 1998, the Utah School for the Deaf's Communication Guidelines did not provide parents with a wide range of choices. This lack of clarity resulted in ineffective placement tactics due to the prevalent oral bias. On April 14, 1977, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page study report concerning the Utah School for the Deaf at the Utah State Board of Education. He also sought to improve the school's education system through more equitable evaluation and placement methods. However, Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, vehemently opposed Dr. Campbell's research, accusing it of containing falsehoods and drawing unfounded conclusions about the University of Utah's Teacher Oral Training Program and educational programs across the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). The presentation was heated, with over 300 parents supporting the oral method and applauding Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, as they presented their arguments (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).

Two-Track Program With Communication Method Choices at the Utah School for the Deaf

A group of parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education. They sought to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, citing its inconclusive nature. Also, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Those attendees were Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd Perkins, Dennis Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.

Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:

Removing Dr. Campbell from his position;
Assigning him to another position; or
Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were intimidated by some of the state's programs (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal sparked a firestorm of tension. The Deaf group fiercely opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and chaotic, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating situation, Dr. Talbot asked the Deaf community members to leave the room (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Disagreements still exist about what the Deaf people did during the meeting, as different versions of what happened differ.

The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, despite the controversy surrounding his analysis, which included data from independent researchers, they disregarded all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). This decision had consequences, as Dr. Campbell's plan crumbled down, including a two-year study to improve education through fair assessment and placement procedures. His plan was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).

The mental trend of the "Y" system in the two-track program, with prevalent oral bias, had a significant impact, restricting parental choices for their Deaf children's education and communication. In the 1970s, Dr. J. Jay Campbell aimed to provide fair information through the Parent Infant Program Orientation, but Dr. Bitter opposed his efforts. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research (Campbell, 1977; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

The Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a key advocate for the ASL/English bilingual safeguard, criticized this biased approach and challenged for unbiased and equal information. Finally, in 2010, Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, an oral advocate and former university student of Dr. Bitter, as well as a long-time teacher and school director, developed the Parent Infant Program Orientation to provide parents with fair and balanced information. However, the majority of Deaf children born to parents still had to choose an "either/or" selection between ASL/English bilingual (which replaced total communication) or listening and spoken language (which replaced oral) options for their children's education and communication, leading to the expansion of the listening and spoken program.

Steven W. Noyce. Source: Twitter

To sum up, Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a prominent figure in Utah's oralism and mainstreaming movement, which has significantly impacted Deaf education in Utah since 1962. Despite the new two-track program and the school's option guidelines, his efforts led to a decrease in the number of Deaf students attending Ogden's residential school, which also resulted in a decline in the quality of education. The mainstreaming approach gained popularity but left many alums heartbroken. Dr. Bitter held significant power as a parental figure and used parental influence and leverage to advocate for oralism, making it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to oppose him. When the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a Specialization in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes American Sign Language classes, it still emphasizes Listening and Spoken Language more. This ongoing influence reflects the lasting impact that Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, continues to have on Deaf education in Utah. If you want to learn more about the evolving mainstreaming movement, you can visit the 'Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspectives' webpage on this website.

The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf

For many years, the mental trend of the "Y" system in the two-track program, which had a prevalent oral bias, persisted. This trend prevented parents from receiving clear information about their children's educational and communication options. This changed Joel Coleman, superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, and Michelle Tanner, associate superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf, intervened.

After over fifty years of oral advocacy group dominance, starting in 1962, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Michelle Tanner, with the support of Joel Coleman, achieved a significant milestone in 2016 by eliminating and replacing the two-track program with a hybrid program in 2016, creating a more unbiased collaborative environment between the listening and spoken language and the ASL/English bilingual, or a personalized deaf education placement, which ends in 1st grade at the Utah School for the Deaf. The ultimate goal of providing education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students is to ensure that parents have access to a range of options and do not feel restricted to a limited choice for their child's education. This program also eliminates the need for parents to make an 'either/or' choice between the two programs. This approach, which introduces American Sign Language (ASL) without forcing students into a placement that isn't effective, has been remarkably successful in reducing language deprivation.

Michelle Tanner shared that parents are not just satisfied but thrilled that the Utah School for the Deaf team has moved away from the "Y" system approach and is now working collaboratively to meet the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021). Joel and Michelle are essential administrators who have played a vital role in achieving the objectives of Dr. Jay J. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Their innovative approach is crucial and brings hope for unbiased and equal information. They have shown great support and bravery in improving the system for all parties involved, and their joint efforts have marked a significant step forward in pursuing a more inclusive educational system.

Michelle Tanner, USD Assoc. Supt; Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent; Carolyn Lasater, USB Assoc. Supt. Source: Twitter

Notes - Coming Soon!

Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024.

References

Will update the references later

Buchanan, p. 28