Strikes by Students at the
Utah School for the Deaf
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
2016-2021
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
2016-2021
The Utah School for the Deaf students
went on strike in 1962 and 1969
went on strike in 1962 and 1969
This is Jodi's personal favorite part of the website's history
Opening of the Utah School for the Deaf
The Utah School for the Deaf began as a territory school for Deaf students in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1884. It was founded at the University of Deseret (later renamed to the University of Utah) in Salt Lake City, Utah, by William Wood and Joseph Beck, parents of Deaf children. Dr. John R. Park, president of the University of Deseret, on the advice of Dr. Edward M. Gallaudet, president of Gallaudet College, named Henry C. White (Deaf) principal of the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City (The Utah Eagle, February 1922).
The Utah School for the Deaf first opened its doors on August 26, 1884, in a room at the University of Deseret. The Combined System was the teaching method in use at the time (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure). Professor Henry C. White was the school's first principal, and he remained there until 1890 as a teacher, principal, and head teacher (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946).
The Utah School for the Deaf first opened its doors on August 26, 1884, in a room at the University of Deseret. The Combined System was the teaching method in use at the time (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure). Professor Henry C. White was the school's first principal, and he remained there until 1890 as a teacher, principal, and head teacher (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946).
Henry C. White. Photo courtesy of the Gallaudet University Archives
Beginning of Speech Training
Until 1891, when the Utah School for the Deaf was founded, little effort was made to teach the students speech. Articulation – speech and lip-reading – instruction was implemented because the school believed that the oral method would assist a significant number of students. Speech therapy was provided to about two-thirds of the students (Evans, 1999, p. 29). One class employed speech and lip-reading as the method of instruction, while the other two classes used a "combined system" that included both sign language and speech (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999). Florence Crandall Metcalf, the wife of the USDl's first Superintendent Frank W. Metcalf, also a former teacher at Kansas School for the Deaf, became an oral program teacher. A class of students was taught entirely by the oral method (Fay, 1893).
Frank W. Metcalf, USD Superintendent
With this goal in mind, an increasing number of hearing parents insisted that their children learn to speak and read lips. Deaf individuals, on the other side, were outspoken in their opposition (Robert, 1994). Since then, the controversy over whether to use the oral or signing method in Deaf Education has raged on for more than 150 years, with no definitive solution in sight.
Florence Crandall Metcalf
An Introduction of Combined System
Under the new administration of USDB Superintendent Frank M. Driggs, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah implemented the Combined Method, which included the manual alphabet, signs, speech, and speech reading. In 1902, the following statement on language teaching methods was published:
The method employed in the School for the Deaf and Dumb is what is called the ‘Combined System.’ This system is in vogue in most of the state institutions for the Deaf in America. It is the combination of the oral and manual method of instruction. It is the system that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Speech and lip reading are considered very important and are taught whenever the measure of success justifies the amount of time and labor expended. Mental development and acquisition of English are thought to be of greater importance, therefore, whenever a child fails to acquire satisfactory speech the manual method is employed…. Speech, the manual alphabet, writing and sign language are used, simply, as tools, to further [the child’s] attainments (Roberts, 1994, p. 61-62).
The method employed in the School for the Deaf and Dumb is what is called the ‘Combined System.’ This system is in vogue in most of the state institutions for the Deaf in America. It is the combination of the oral and manual method of instruction. It is the system that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Speech and lip reading are considered very important and are taught whenever the measure of success justifies the amount of time and labor expended. Mental development and acquisition of English are thought to be of greater importance, therefore, whenever a child fails to acquire satisfactory speech the manual method is employed…. Speech, the manual alphabet, writing and sign language are used, simply, as tools, to further [the child’s] attainments (Roberts, 1994, p. 61-62).
Frank M. Driggs, USDB Superintendent. UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Superintendent Driggs, as the driving force of USD, was in a position to decide what methods to incorporate in the teaching of Deaf and hard of hearing children. This policy decision necessitated serious consideration of what would benefit the children. Every emotionally distraught parent who questioned, "Will my child be able to speak and read lips?" while pointing to their young Deaf child became his major target.
Although Superintendent Driggs highlighted the importance of teaching Deaf children to speak, he acknowledged the fierce clash that existed between rigid oralism, which allowed no signing, and the Combined Method outlined above. From the beginnings of Deaf Education, there was a clash between the two philosophies (UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Although Superintendent Driggs highlighted the importance of teaching Deaf children to speak, he acknowledged the fierce clash that existed between rigid oralism, which allowed no signing, and the Combined Method outlined above. From the beginnings of Deaf Education, there was a clash between the two philosophies (UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Standing at left was Frank M. Driggs, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, 1903
At the turn of the 1900s, the USD would hire an oral method-trained teacher to assist Deaf students with speaking and listening abilities. Some of the teachers were also able to communicate using sign language. When any of the Deaf students struggled with speech or language production and couldn't communicate vocally, the orally trained instructor who also knew sign language could fill in the gaps with sign. This arrangement was successful (Roberts, 1994).
USD Classroom, 1903
However, the number of hearing parents who preferred their children not to learn any sign language had gradually increased over the years. These parents desired that their children learn to speak, rely on lip-reading, and use their residual hearing as their major way of communication. The Utah Deaf community was outspoken in their opposition to such a situation (Roberts, 1994). Instead of explaining to parents why their Deaf children needed sign language, USD created an Oral program in 1943 to meet these needs. Lip-reading, spoken language, and written language were used to teach the Oral program's whole curriculum (Pace, 1946).
4th Grade Oral Class, 1919
Communication Methods of Instruction at the
Utah School for the Deaf
Utah School for the Deaf
During the rest of the 1940s and into the 1950s, the Oral program was in effect prior to the installation of the "Y" system. The majority of the Deaf students began their education in an oral classroom where signing was not allowed until ninth grade. Students were, however, permitted to sign after school hours and in their dorms. Many children were hit with erasers or yardsticks by their teachers for signing, according to Celia May Laramie Baldwin, a 1965 USD alumna. In the classroom, signing was strictly prohibited (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
The graduates of the USD had become the next generation of Deaf community leaders. They have firsthand experience with the effects of oral instruction on Deaf students. They were well aware that using oral techniques in Deaf classes was compromising students' educational standards. As these new Deaf leaders grew more active in the educational issue, they discovered that the Utah Association of the Deaf provided them with a platform to speak out against these practices (UAD).
The graduates of the USD had become the next generation of Deaf community leaders. They have firsthand experience with the effects of oral instruction on Deaf students. They were well aware that using oral techniques in Deaf classes was compromising students' educational standards. As these new Deaf leaders grew more active in the educational issue, they discovered that the Utah Association of the Deaf provided them with a platform to speak out against these practices (UAD).
Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind. Photo courtesy of APH Callhan Museum
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both USD graduates, indicated that throughout the 1950s, the USD established three primary techniques of instruction: the manual method, the oral method, and the combined method. The USD alumni's exposure to each of these three main techniques of education resulted in a large number of UAD members supporting the combined method. When the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) released a reaffirmation of its support for the Combined Method of Instruction for Deaf children at its convention in July of 1955, it was seen as a significant show of support (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
Robert G. Sanderson
|
Joseph B. Burnett
|
Between 1955 and 1956, the USDl reported to the public that its primary classrooms will be taught using the Oral Method during the administration of USDB Superintendent Harold W. Green. Following that, during the later intermediate grades, a gradual transition to the Combined Method would take place. In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, led a ferocious campaign to prevent the incorporation of speech instruction into Deaf Education. The remainder of the UAD officers aided him. They wanted to keep the Combined Method of Instruction at the Utah School for the Deaf, which they thought was the most valuable part of the education. Because of this controversy, UAD came out firmly against Superintendent Green's plan, claiming that early speech training for Deaf children had intrinsic disadvantages. They claimed that oral philosophy infringed on each Deaf child's right to an equal education and slowed their academic progress (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
Harold W. Green, USDB Superintendent. The Utah Eagle, October 1959
Around the same time, the Utah State Board of Education appointed an eighteen-member citizen committee to look into the instructional methods used at the Utah School for the Deaf. Elmer H. Brown of Salt Lake City served as the committee's chairman. One of the committee members was Ray G. Wenger, Utah's most prominent Deaf advocate and USD's first Deaf representative serving on the USDB Governor’s Advisory Council (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956). The UAD agreed to support the investigation if it was conducted in an honest, fair, and impartial manner. The Deaf community had serious reservations about the investigation.
Ray G. Wenger
Ray G. Wenger, a 1913 USD graduate, was reappointed to the Governor's Advisory Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in April 1958 after serving on it since 1945. Wenger's appointment was welcomed by the UAD because he was a strong supporter of the Combined Method in educational settings (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956). He is thought to be the first Deaf member of the Advisory Committee.
The UAD requested that all points of view be heard equally. UAD hoped to avoid bias or prejudice impacting the investigation's outcome in this way. Members of the investigating committee heard from USD graduates and UAD Deaf adults about their perspectives on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions were also open to educators, parents, and the general public. The Deaf adults emphasized to the investigating committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, as the state's official residential school for the deaf, provided the best possible education for Deaf students. When the Deaf students reached the age of adolescence, they were able to enroll in the residential school's excellent vocational training program. They had an edge over a hearing child because they were able to prepare for future employment as a result of this. Many Deaf students who choose this path found jobs right away after graduation. A residential school, according to the Deaf adults, provided a better social life for Deaf children. The Deaf adults felt that parents should be aware that the exclusively oral method was insufficient to teach their Deaf child in so many areas, based on their own experiences of being pushed into an inadequate oral program.
The USD Printing Department. The Utah Eagle, March 1955
The USD Alumni and UAD individuals emphasized the need of enhancing Deaf children's academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics in order for them to have an adequate education. They argued that once these three fundamental subjects were mastered, lip-reading and speech could be learnt more easily as important social skills. Finally, they expressed concern that the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf lacked a positive direction for their students. USD, they believed, was not establishing concrete goals for students in terms of college preparedness. The Deaf high school students were not only not equipped for college, but they were also not informed about the advantages of higher education. USD should begin college preparation in the first year of high school, according to the Deaf adults, and the entire high school academic program should be designed around college entry criteria (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
Jerry Taylor, teacher and his class. Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
As Deaf adults, these UAD leaders and USD alumni recognized how difficult it was to explain a fundamental reality to hearing people. They wanted the hearing community to understand that the Deaf students could be taught in academic areas and that the Deaf students desired to receive a real education. To those on the investigative committee, the Deaf adults stated this sentiment as plainly and clearly as they could. They stated unequivocally,
“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).
The outcome of the investigation was unknown when it came to a close. Nothing happened after all the rhetoric and time spent by Deaf adults and leaders in the Deaf community presenting papers to the educators and committee. There was no change. The Deaf leadership was taken aback. In reality, as a result of the incident, USD began to provide two communication methodological programs at the school: an Oral Program and a Simultaneous Communication program (voice and sign used at the same time). No one seemed to pay attention to the Deaf or take their comments seriously.
Kenneth C. Burdett in Algebra class, 1954. Left to right: Kenneth Kinner, Kay Kinner, Donna Mae Dekker, Shanna Christiansen, Carol McFee and Clara Bosshardt
The UAD Committee on Deaf Education paid a visit to the Utah School for the Deaf on March 19, 1959, to speak with school administrators. Ned C. Wheeler, G. Leon Curtis, Gladys Burnham Wenger, Arthur W. Wenger, and Robert G. Sanderson, all USD alumni, served on the committee. That day, Arthur was not present. The committee didn't have enough time to evaluate the academic outcomes of the school's programs properly. They couldn't say whether the various ways were effective or whether the Deaf children's overall education was adequate. The committee members, however, felt they had a right to request USD administration officials to keep them informed of the students' academic and professional accomplishments because they were alumni. Despite the fact that small oral day schools were growing in popularity and posing a threat to UAD, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf was still the best place for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and gain sufficient vocational skills to become a contributing member of society (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
Ray and Arthur Wenger, 1913 USD graduates, flew to Los Angeles, California, on July 16, 1960, to attend a crucial meeting. Ray was scheduled to speak before a committee of the United States House of Representatives about a federal bill that would provide training for teachers of the deaf. The original bill failed to include safeguards to prevent discrimination against Deaf educators seeking employment. The Utah Association of the Deaf officers lobbied to amend the bill. Ray's testimony added to the Combined Method's defense with a powerful and effective presentation. His remarks were included in the report of the congressional hearing. Wenger's testimony had a lasting impression on the members of the House Committee (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960).
Arthur W. Wenger & Ray G. Wenger
The Implementation of the Dual Track Program
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. The Utah Egale, October 1962
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, known as the "Father of Mainstreaming," Utah's trend toward mainstreaming grew steadily in the 1960s, before the term became popular with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 1975. He was a hard-core oralist and one of the top oral leaders in the country. He, as a father of a Deaf daughter, Colleen (b. 1954), was also a powerful voice for oral and mainstream education. No one, according to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf man who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s, could match Dr. Bitter's persistent oral/mainstreaming philosophy. At every opportunity, Dr. Baldwin recalled his attacks on residential schools and his adamant opposition to the popular use of sign language in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter campaigned for oral and mainstream education for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students and had a long-standing feud with the Utah Association of the Deaf, especially with Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf community leader in Utah. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson were both recognized as gigantic figures and had an animosity toward each other.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a Curriculum Coordinator for USD, a director, and professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Utah School for the Deaf had been using the Combined Method in the classroom since 1902, with both manual signing and speech/listening until the 1950s. As the number of Extension classrooms increased, it became clear that more parents wanted their students to master their speaking and listening skills. In oral classes, signing was not permitted. During this time, Deaf students in oral classrooms were prohibited to sign until they were in ninth grade. This restriction only applied during the time spent in class. The students were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Hearing teachers were hired to teach elementary school students basic speaking skills. Only Deaf high school students were allowed to be taught by Deaf teachers (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a Curriculum Coordinator for USD, a director, and professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Utah School for the Deaf had been using the Combined Method in the classroom since 1902, with both manual signing and speech/listening until the 1950s. As the number of Extension classrooms increased, it became clear that more parents wanted their students to master their speaking and listening skills. In oral classes, signing was not permitted. During this time, Deaf students in oral classrooms were prohibited to sign until they were in ninth grade. This restriction only applied during the time spent in class. The students were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Hearing teachers were hired to teach elementary school students basic speaking skills. Only Deaf high school students were allowed to be taught by Deaf teachers (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
In the fall of 1962, the USD implemented a new policy known as the Dual Track Program, commonly known as the "Y" system. The "Y" system was nicknamed for the fact that all Deaf students entering the residential school had to start in the Oral Division (the stem on the "Y"). The primary means of communication in the school would be speech, necessitating the hiring of more oral educators. Until the child was 11 years old or entering 6th grade, the parents and/or Deaf student would not be able to choose which communication mode to use for the child's instructional language: either keep the child enrolled in the Oral Division, where speech and listening were done, or enter the Simultaneous Communication Division, where both sign and speech were used (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The older Combined Method was replaced by the Simultaneous Communication Method.
This policy was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, which was founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is thought to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to be in favor of this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The dual-track educational system was approved by the Utah State Board of Education on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
This policy was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, which was founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is thought to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to be in favor of this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The dual-track educational system was approved by the Utah State Board of Education on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
Speech training. Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
By the time the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Oral Program, according to USD, must have a mindset that is "pure oral." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The branches on the "Y" served as a decision "crossroad." In the Oral Division, a Deaf student progressed from preschool to sixth grade. After that, a committee met to decide whether the student should stay in the Oral program or transfer to the Simultaneous Communication (Sim-Com) program. This decision was made based on the student's performance in school, test results, and the family's environment (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Because all of the children were expected to enroll in the entirely oral program, either on the Ogden campus or in the Extension classrooms, it was not surprising that the Salt Lake Extension program was nearly as big as the Ogden residential school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October, 19, 1970; The Utah Eagle, February 1968). For years, these regulatory changes had a deleterious impact on Ogden's residential school.
The branches on the "Y" served as a decision "crossroad." In the Oral Division, a Deaf student progressed from preschool to sixth grade. After that, a committee met to decide whether the student should stay in the Oral program or transfer to the Simultaneous Communication (Sim-Com) program. This decision was made based on the student's performance in school, test results, and the family's environment (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Because all of the children were expected to enroll in the entirely oral program, either on the Ogden campus or in the Extension classrooms, it was not surprising that the Salt Lake Extension program was nearly as big as the Ogden residential school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October, 19, 1970; The Utah Eagle, February 1968). For years, these regulatory changes had a deleterious impact on Ogden's residential school.
A student receives speech training from a USD teacher. USD Program Book,1960s
Teachers were now required to obtain a bachelor's degree in Deaf education from an accredited teacher center and become certified at this time. Teachers of simultaneous communication must be prepared in sign language and finger spelling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). The University of Utah's teacher training program for Deaf teachers filled a sudden shortfall of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962), which was artificially produced by the new policy at USD. Gallaudet College served as a source of information and a guide for teachers in the Simultaneous Communication Division, while the University of Utah served the Oral Division (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Is it possible that Dr. Bitter got this new policy idea from the Lexington School for the Deaf when he worked on his master’s degree? One can only speculate.
By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
The catch was this: At the age of three, all Deaf and hard of hearing children were required to start the Oral Program. There was no other option available to the parents. If the Deaf student's oral education failed, or if he or she did not learn to talk or listen well enough to pass, the child was transferred in the Simultaneous Communication Program. The student was given every opportunity to excel in oral skills and was normally kept in the Oral Program until he or she was ten or twelve years old (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976). Parents who genuinely wanted their Deaf child to learn sign language in the classroom had to wait until their child was transferred to the Simultaneous Communication Program at the same age (Kenneth L. Kinner. personal communication, May 14, 2011).
By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
The catch was this: At the age of three, all Deaf and hard of hearing children were required to start the Oral Program. There was no other option available to the parents. If the Deaf student's oral education failed, or if he or she did not learn to talk or listen well enough to pass, the child was transferred in the Simultaneous Communication Program. The student was given every opportunity to excel in oral skills and was normally kept in the Oral Program until he or she was ten or twelve years old (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976). Parents who genuinely wanted their Deaf child to learn sign language in the classroom had to wait until their child was transferred to the Simultaneous Communication Program at the same age (Kenneth L. Kinner. personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf
The "Y" System Program was held at the Main Building
of the Utah School for the Deaf.
On the left was the Oral Department, and
on the right was the Simultaneous Department. Utahn, 1957
of the Utah School for the Deaf.
On the left was the Oral Department, and
on the right was the Simultaneous Department. Utahn, 1957
The Student Protest of 1962
After the Utah State Board of Education had just adopted the Dual Track Program at the end of the 1962 school year. The Ogden campus was swiftly divided into an Oral Division and a Simultaneous Communication Division over the summer, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The athletic program was the only exception. The students' competitive sports program had to be combined because each division did not have enough students for their respective athletics (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
All of these changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
All of these changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
Barbara Schell Bass & Robert Bonnel
On the USD-Ogden campus, more than half of the high school students went on strike that day (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Johnny Murray emerged as a leader in protesting the changes. He recalled a bizarre visit from Tony Christopulos, principal of the Utah School for the Deaf and oral advocate, to his home shortly before school began. Tony approached Johnny's parents and asked if they would like him to join in the oral program. After Tony left, Johnny's parents asked him whether he wanted to enroll in the oral program. "No," he responded. He recalled a bizarre visit from Tony Christopulos, principal of the Utah School for the Deaf and oral advocate, to his home shortly before school began. Tony approached Johnny's parents and asked if they would like him to join in the oral program. Following Tony's departure, Johnny's parents inquired if he wanted to join in the oral program. He said, "No." They most likely told Tony about it because they supported their son's decision.
Johnny only realized this strange visit after school had begun (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Because the new policy included a parent-preference-for-placement criterion, it appeared that the administration contacted all of the parents to learn about their preferences. Those who were oblivious to their Deaf child's learning style or the greatest educational option for their Deaf child were willing to follow the administration's example and enroll their children in the oral program. Unlike the Murrays, it seems that the majority of parents did not ask their children what they wanted.
Johnny only realized this strange visit after school had begun (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Because the new policy included a parent-preference-for-placement criterion, it appeared that the administration contacted all of the parents to learn about their preferences. Those who were oblivious to their Deaf child's learning style or the greatest educational option for their Deaf child were willing to follow the administration's example and enroll their children in the oral program. Unlike the Murrays, it seems that the majority of parents did not ask their children what they wanted.
Johnny Murray
In addition to their concerns about what else the Dual Track Program would mess up, the students were worried about losing their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers: Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett (father of USD sophomore, Ronald Burdett), and Dora B. Laramie (mother of USD sophomore, Celia Mae Laramie Baldwin) (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Deaf teachers of the Utah School for the Deaf
The president of the Student Council, Johnny Murray, a senior, led a student protest. He had the support of the Simultaneous Communication Program's twenty-five high school students (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). Johnny and the other students worked diligently for a week to create protest posters. They wrote their statement using shoe polish and propped it up with wooden sticks. The USD teachers, including the four Deaf teachers, were completely unaware of their strike plans (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The secret preparations were completed. After attending a seminary class of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given by Deaf instructor, G. Leon Curtis, the students did not show up for classes on Friday, September 14, 1962, at 8:30 a.m. The students wanted the teachers to know they were present, so they briefly appeared in the doorways of their classrooms before departing (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). They marched onto the USD campus from the old gym, where they collected their posters. A meeting with the State Board of Education was requested on some of the signs (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
The secret preparations were completed. After attending a seminary class of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given by Deaf instructor, G. Leon Curtis, the students did not show up for classes on Friday, September 14, 1962, at 8:30 a.m. The students wanted the teachers to know they were present, so they briefly appeared in the doorways of their classrooms before departing (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). They marched onto the USD campus from the old gym, where they collected their posters. A meeting with the State Board of Education was requested on some of the signs (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
Kennth C. Burdett
|
Ronald C. Burdett
|
During the protest, Ron Burdett noticed his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, standing off to the side during the protest. Kenneth grinned a little since he knew why the protest was taking place, but he didn't feel he could participate actively because he needed to keep his job (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009). Some hearing teachers were disgusted and astounded by the children. They thought the high school students were crazy for striking. One of the teachers, Thomas Van Drimmelen, became so enraged that he attempted to remove Celia May Laramie Baldwin from the march. "Don't touch C.M.!" her mother, Dora B. Laramie, yelled as she hurried to stop him. “Leave her alone!” (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
Dora Benoit Laramie
|
Celia May Laramie Baldwin
|
Thomas Van Drimmelen
Nobody knew where the students were around noon (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). The students marched from the USD campus to Lorin Farr Park. While two teachers drove around looking for them, they hid between trees. The students considered going to a movie theater, but it was closed at 10 a.m. The gang then walked to the Burdetts' backyard to chill out. They chipped in their money and dispatched someone to the neighborhood grocery shop on 26th and Quincy Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their lunch because they were hungry (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
Kenneth C. Burdett was surprised to see students at his house when he arrived home from work. He hastily returned them to USD, fearful for their safety. From there, the students returned home for the weekend (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
Kenneth C. Burdett was surprised to see students at his house when he arrived home from work. He hastily returned them to USD, fearful for their safety. From there, the students returned home for the weekend (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
Seniors
Juniors
Sophomores
Tony Christopulos. The Utah Eagle, October 1959
Following the student protest, USD principal Tony Christopoulos informed the Ogden Standard Examiner that he believed the action was caused by some unhappy parents. He felt the students' parents had influenced them to pull the stunt. He told the reporter that the Oral Program's 52 Deaf students of the same age group did not engage in the walkout. The Deaf students in the Simultaneous Communication program were the ones who were dissatisfied with the changes (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). The latter group of students wished to keep everyone together as previously, and they were not acting on the orders of any angry parents.
USD teacher, Tony Christopulos brought the high school Deaf students into a classroom not long after the Dual Division program, with its "Y" routing, went into effect and the student protest was over. Tony made the decision to try if he could gain the students' support. On the chalkboard, he drew the phrases "Deaf World" and "Hearing World." He specifically advised them against entering the Deaf World. On the "Deaf World," he drew an X. Then he drew a circle around the "Hearing World," emphasizing the importance of going there (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Undoubtedly, Tony's higher education, which placed a strong focus on oral instruction, influenced his views on how Deaf students should be integrated into the Hearing World.
USD teacher, Tony Christopulos brought the high school Deaf students into a classroom not long after the Dual Division program, with its "Y" routing, went into effect and the student protest was over. Tony made the decision to try if he could gain the students' support. On the chalkboard, he drew the phrases "Deaf World" and "Hearing World." He specifically advised them against entering the Deaf World. On the "Deaf World," he drew an X. Then he drew a circle around the "Hearing World," emphasizing the importance of going there (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Undoubtedly, Tony's higher education, which placed a strong focus on oral instruction, influenced his views on how Deaf students should be integrated into the Hearing World.
Robert W. Tegeder, USDB Superintendent. The Utah Eagle, October 1959
Johnny and a few other students were summoned to meet with Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder the following Monday. When he inquired why they went on strike, the students responded with their own questions, such as "Why do we have two departments on campus?" and "Why does the Oral Department have more students than the Simultaneous Communication Department?" The Superintendent, who was privately opposed to the change, was obligated to support the new policy at the time. He couldn't think of anything else to say to them besides, "Oh well!"
The students expressed their dissatisfaction with the policy, which divided students into separate dormitories, dining rooms, physical education classes, cooking classes, sewing classes, printing classes, workshop classes, and school events. The students longed for the old days, when everyone was together at the same time. The students claimed that they were protesting the restrictions on their signing. They believed the situation had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer be tolerated. One of the protestors, Nellie Sausedo claimed, "No one listened. Who were the Deaf ones" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007)?
The students expressed their dissatisfaction with the policy, which divided students into separate dormitories, dining rooms, physical education classes, cooking classes, sewing classes, printing classes, workshop classes, and school events. The students longed for the old days, when everyone was together at the same time. The students claimed that they were protesting the restrictions on their signing. They believed the situation had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer be tolerated. One of the protestors, Nellie Sausedo claimed, "No one listened. Who were the Deaf ones" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007)?
Nellie Sausedo
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson @ Gallaudet University Archives
In the wake of the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and oral advocates suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) was orchestrating the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education looked into the matter but couldn't find any connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
Utah Association of the Deaf Meets Wilburn N. Ball,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. Utahn, 1961
The officers and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf felt it was time to talk with the State Superintendent about the oral philosophy taking over the classrooms at the Utah School for the Deaf during this time of crisis. 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 made comprised the UAD group. They visited with Dr. Wilburn N. Ball, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an attempt to intervene with the changes in Ogden that had already occurred. They intended to emphasize the importance of sign language for Deaf children.
Because Gladys Burnham Wenger was hard of hearing, she acted as an interpreter for the group (Prior to the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1965, the Utah Deaf community relied heavily on hard of hearing people). These adult Deaf community members expressed their dissatisfaction with the Dual Track Program, which began with all children in the Oral Program. They wanted to express their feelings to Dr. Wilburn about keeping the signing atmosphere on campus the same. Dr. Wilburn responded by displaying a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He chose one at random and began reading. The parent stated that he or she wished to enroll his or her Deaf child in the oral program. The UAD officials were at a loss for words in the face of these parents' unambiguous requests.
Later, it was discovered that the USD oral program teachers had requested parents to send letters of request to State Superintendent Wilburn. These letters were used to effectively defend the changes made at the USD campus via Superintendent Bateman (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The USD oral teachers expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with this type of political maneuvering (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). There was little UAD could do about this situation due to the parents' oral preference.
Because Gladys Burnham Wenger was hard of hearing, she acted as an interpreter for the group (Prior to the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1965, the Utah Deaf community relied heavily on hard of hearing people). These adult Deaf community members expressed their dissatisfaction with the Dual Track Program, which began with all children in the Oral Program. They wanted to express their feelings to Dr. Wilburn about keeping the signing atmosphere on campus the same. Dr. Wilburn responded by displaying a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He chose one at random and began reading. The parent stated that he or she wished to enroll his or her Deaf child in the oral program. The UAD officials were at a loss for words in the face of these parents' unambiguous requests.
Later, it was discovered that the USD oral program teachers had requested parents to send letters of request to State Superintendent Wilburn. These letters were used to effectively defend the changes made at the USD campus via Superintendent Bateman (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The USD oral teachers expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with this type of political maneuvering (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). There was little UAD could do about this situation due to the parents' oral preference.
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
Oral day schools were available in Salt Lake City to provide educational placements for parents who wanted their Deaf children to talk and use hearing aids. However, families in the Salt Lake area that chose simultaneous communication for their Deaf child had few options. Remember that until 6th grade, all of the children were in the oral program. Parents would have to send their older Deaf child to the residential school in Ogden when their child reached this age, regardless of where the family lived, in order to attend the simultaneous communication program. These kids couldn't possibly live at home. Living at the school campus was a major drawback for many parents. They have no other option but to remove the children from USD and enroll them in a public school. Requests for a sign language interpreter at a public school were sometimes denied when a parent pursued this approach (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The unifying concept of these oral educators appeared to be their desire to provide Deaf students with tools they believed Deaf students required for long-term success in the hearing world. They believe that in order to acquire jobs, Deaf students need to know English. The young student had to be able to talk and hear in order to learn English. They reasoned that speech training and listening abilities would become essential for success. They saw success as being inextricably linked to instilling the oralist mindset in Deaf students. These teachers didn't consider their behaviors to be oppressive or discriminatory. There were no studies or research on sign language at the time, demonstrating how American Sign Language assists Deaf students learning English. This oral paradigm may have been well-intentioned, but it was completely ineffective in achieving long-term "success."
The number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities was on the rise in the 1960s. These students eventually took control of the residential school in Ogden (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961, p. 2).
Deaf students with normal minds and capabilities were pushed into oral day schools because oral skills needed to be drilled early in life to see if the child had any potential in these areas, according to the oral philosophy. The issue was the time it was thought to take to assess oral abilities. It shouldn't have taken eight years to figure out that certain students couldn't hear or talk. However, the program took eight years, and these sixth-graders were labeled "oral failure" before being placed in the signing program. It's amazing that the proponents of the Y-system didn't feel responsible or bad for the time lost by these Deaf students (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). As a result, the students missed out on the crucial early years of language learning for which the brain was wired for. The student was unable to learn spoken English and was disallowed the use of sign language. The student was unable to learn spoken English and was denied the ability to communicate through sign language. They had no language as they started middle school.
The unifying concept of these oral educators appeared to be their desire to provide Deaf students with tools they believed Deaf students required for long-term success in the hearing world. They believe that in order to acquire jobs, Deaf students need to know English. The young student had to be able to talk and hear in order to learn English. They reasoned that speech training and listening abilities would become essential for success. They saw success as being inextricably linked to instilling the oralist mindset in Deaf students. These teachers didn't consider their behaviors to be oppressive or discriminatory. There were no studies or research on sign language at the time, demonstrating how American Sign Language assists Deaf students learning English. This oral paradigm may have been well-intentioned, but it was completely ineffective in achieving long-term "success."
The number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities was on the rise in the 1960s. These students eventually took control of the residential school in Ogden (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961, p. 2).
Deaf students with normal minds and capabilities were pushed into oral day schools because oral skills needed to be drilled early in life to see if the child had any potential in these areas, according to the oral philosophy. The issue was the time it was thought to take to assess oral abilities. It shouldn't have taken eight years to figure out that certain students couldn't hear or talk. However, the program took eight years, and these sixth-graders were labeled "oral failure" before being placed in the signing program. It's amazing that the proponents of the Y-system didn't feel responsible or bad for the time lost by these Deaf students (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). As a result, the students missed out on the crucial early years of language learning for which the brain was wired for. The student was unable to learn spoken English and was disallowed the use of sign language. The student was unable to learn spoken English and was denied the ability to communicate through sign language. They had no language as they started middle school.
J. Boyd Nielson. The Utah Eagle, October 1969
Oral educators had the misconception that it was never too late for a Deaf teen to learn sign language. They thought the Deaf teens might be able to study sign language in high school. The oral proponents used this technique to avoid tarnishing their carefully crafted public image. However, there was an optimal period for students to gain linguistic proficiency, and these "oral failures" were pushed to learn the wrong language first. They were never able to realize their academic potential since their natural language was sign language, which was not taught until middle school. The most tragic fact was that no one was interested in discovering why they didn't. The presumption was that the Deaf student was simply not bright enough, but in truth, it was the educational system's flawed thinking that was to blame for the academic failure.
Kenneth C. Burdett teaching math, 1960
Under the supervision of Tony Christopulos, Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 USD alumnus who later became a USD teacher, was appointed as a Curriculum Coordinator of the Simultaneous Communication Program. J. Boyd Nielsen was his equivalent in the Oral Division.
Kenneth didn't take long to notice the "Y" system's underlying flaw. Because they were first placed in the oral program, he couldn't work with the more promising students to help them achieve their academic goals. His program didn't include them. Rather, Burdett focused his efforts on helping those who had failed the oral program. These Deaf students' educational achievements had fallen below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate. The students were unable to communicate in either English or sign language as a result of their lack of proficiency in either language. This was anecdotal evidence that the fault resulted from USD's harmful "Y" structure (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
Kenneth didn't take long to notice the "Y" system's underlying flaw. Because they were first placed in the oral program, he couldn't work with the more promising students to help them achieve their academic goals. His program didn't include them. Rather, Burdett focused his efforts on helping those who had failed the oral program. These Deaf students' educational achievements had fallen below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate. The students were unable to communicate in either English or sign language as a result of their lack of proficiency in either language. This was anecdotal evidence that the fault resulted from USD's harmful "Y" structure (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Deseret News, March 18, 1974
Duane Harrison
|
Did You Know?
At the 2005 Reunion for the Utah School for the Deaf, held in the gym at the Sanderson Community Center of Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Ronald Burdett and Celia May Baldwin briefly shared with the alumni about the 1962 Student Strike. Duane Harrison, a retired hearing USD teacher, heard Burdett announced that Johnny Murray was the leader of the strike. All those years ago, the teachers could not figure out who was behind the strike because the students refused to say. Harrison said, “Now I know who started the strike” (Johnny Murray, personal communication, September 2007). |
Videos of the 1962 Student Protest
The Utah School for the Deaf implemented the Dual Division system in 1962, prohibiting oral and simultaneous communication students from interacting. Videos from former Utah School for the Deaf students striking against segregation are attached. The participants' memories may differ. Because it's been so long, they told us their narrative as they remembered it, which helped us to understand and appreciate their captivating story.
Please email me your video if you were a 1962 or 1969 protester and want to share your story. I'll gladly post your video on our website. If you wish, I can videotape your story. You can reach me at JodiBeckerKinner@gmail.com. Thank you!
Please email me your video if you were a 1962 or 1969 protester and want to share your story. I'll gladly post your video on our website. If you wish, I can videotape your story. You can reach me at JodiBeckerKinner@gmail.com. Thank you!
In 1962, Ron Burdett, class of 1965, joined in a student strike with other high school students at 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, class of 1965 at 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. Newspaper unknown.
Nelle Sausedo, a 1967 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students involved in the 1962 student strike
The Student Walkout Strike of 1969
Since the Dual Track Program was introduced at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1962, where all Deaf students were expected to start in the Oral program, the system had grown rather complicated. They were not to enroll in the Simultaneous Communication program unless they had "failed" the oral program by the age of 11 or 6th grade. There were still separate dormitories, separate eating areas during meals in the dining hall, and separate play areas during recess.
The Dual Track Program, according to the February 1968 issue of The Utah Eagle, required endless hours of difficult and exacting work. It would not have been possible to accomplish without the full cooperation of both teachers and administrative staff. The deaf school emphasized that for the Dual Division Program at the school to succeed, parents, teachers, and administrative personnel must all believe in it totally. It was vital for parents and employees to completely collaborate with the program in order to achieve this (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The Dual Track Program, according to the February 1968 issue of The Utah Eagle, required endless hours of difficult and exacting work. It would not have been possible to accomplish without the full cooperation of both teachers and administrative staff. The deaf school emphasized that for the Dual Division Program at the school to succeed, parents, teachers, and administrative personnel must all believe in it totally. It was vital for parents and employees to completely collaborate with the program in order to achieve this (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
USD Oral Class. USD Program Book, 1960s
The purpose of offering these separate facilities was to allow oral students to develop their speaking and listening skills to their full potential, and simultaneous communication students to develop develop proper manual and oral skills. With the exception of competitive sports, this division encompassed extracurricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). There were not enough students from each division to field full teams in the sporting program. As a result, student athletes from both the Oral and Simultaneous Communication Divisions were recruited (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011).
Lisa Richards
In 1964, Lisa Richards 'practices with speech' by telling the rest of the class about the group's group's news in the USD oral program at Lafayette Elementary School
Paul Arthur, The Utah Eagle, April 1968
To that purpose, students from the two separate programs were prohibited to interact on campus. In 1969, many students in both the oral and simultaneous communication divisions could no longer tolerate the social segregation and rigorous devotion to the oral method's 'no signing' component. At the time, the principal, Tony Christopulos, was strong oral advocate. From 1966 to 1968, a group of students met with Mr. Christopulos and attempted to negotiate the merger of the two divisions into one program. They felt segregation to be an unnecessary burden. While Christopulos may have listened to the students' frustrations and desires, he did nothing to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It's no surprise that the kids eventually protested.
In May of 1969, a plot for a "walkout" was discussed. Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the Oral Department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the Simultaneous Communication Department, were the two key students who spearheaded the 'walkout.' Both student presidents worked together with other USD students to devise a strike plan (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). They wanted to model their revolt after the infamous 1962 Student Strike, which most of these kids had seen as a child.
In May of 1969, a plot for a "walkout" was discussed. Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the Oral Department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the Simultaneous Communication Department, were the two key students who spearheaded the 'walkout.' Both student presidents worked together with other USD students to devise a strike plan (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). They wanted to model their revolt after the infamous 1962 Student Strike, which most of these kids had seen as a child.
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. The Utah Eagle, February 1969
Smiley Briseno, 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. The Utah Eagle, December 1968
Three weeks before the 1969 high school graduation, both the oral and simultaneous students secretly made posters in their rooms. After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' early morning Seminary class, more than 100 students from both middle and high school bravely walked out of campus and protested at the flag area outside the Main Building on the Ogden campus. Unlike the 1962 protest, this one attracted a larger number of oral students. Mr. Christopulos, the USD Principal, 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. They needed their diploma in order 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 meal by Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder added fuel to the fire. He also refused to listen to student appeals to end segregation on campus (Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011).
On the Ogden campus, the walkout was held
at the flag area outside the Main Building
at the flag area outside the Main Building
Video of the 1969 Student Walkout
Paul Arthur, a 1969 alumnus of the Utah School for the Deaf,
was a member of the student strike in 1969
was a member of the student strike in 1969
Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Raymond Monson, Utahn, 1971
Shorty after the 1969 walkout, Raymond Monson, a 1971 USD alumnus, got a position with Don Glen's construction company in the summer of 1969. Don Glen’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Glenn, were Deaf.
Raymond found that Jonathan Hodson, a Deaf friend, was also employed by Don Glen. They were great pals. Their conversation frequently reverted to the recent student walkout and how it failed. During lunch, they also discussed Dr. Grant B. Bitter's harmful impact.
Raymond recalled Bitter's powerful influence not only on the Utah School for the Deaf but also on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Deaf Seminary Program. Dr. Bitter actively supported the policy of separating the USD Oral and Simultaneous Communication Departments, which enraged Raymond. Not only Dr. Bitter, but all of the Deaf oral teachers seemed to have a bad attitude toward the signing students, according to Raymond. What happened on the USD campus and in Seminary class had an impact on the Ogden LDS Branch for the Deaf.
Raymond recalled saying that Dr. Bitter was like the obstinate, unmoving wall that divided West Berlin from East Berlin in Germany during the Cold War. Dr. Bitter, according to Raymond, never realized or refused to recognize that some Deaf pupils struggled under the oral system since they couldn't speak and were banned to sign. Raymond compared the restrictions of strict oral deaf education to the victims of communism in East Germany, while Deaf students who were free to converse in sign language were compared to West Germans who had far more freedom in a democratic country. Raymond felt Dr. Bitter did not have the authority to force Deaf students into the oral system, which eventually caused divides among Deaf adults.
Looking back, Raymond believes that the Oral Department teachers were unaware of the discrimination against signing students, who were barred from interacting with oral students on campus. The atmosphere, according to Raymond, created a negative situation for the students. He also felt t hat discrimination was similar in many ways to the discrimination that existed at the time between Black and White people.
When the program changes were revealed on the first day of school August of 1962, Raymond was devastated when he was enrolled in the oral program. At the time, he had no idea why. He wished he could see his Simultaneous Communication classmates again. He was not permitted to converse with them. He was also not permitted to sign. His Deaf mother, Marjorie, later learned that Tony Christopulos had contacted her hearing husband, Fred, and asked whether he wanted his son, Raymond, to enroll in the oral program. Fred made the decision without consulting Marjorie and offered his approval for the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the rigorous oral method and was unhappy with its program. To please his father, Marjorie tried to persuade him to stay in the oral program. As a result, she couldn't grasp Raymond's frustration with communication barriers. Raymond recalls looking out the school window with the other oral students during the 1962 student strike. He was eleven years old at the time.
Raymond found that Jonathan Hodson, a Deaf friend, was also employed by Don Glen. They were great pals. Their conversation frequently reverted to the recent student walkout and how it failed. During lunch, they also discussed Dr. Grant B. Bitter's harmful impact.
Raymond recalled Bitter's powerful influence not only on the Utah School for the Deaf but also on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Deaf Seminary Program. Dr. Bitter actively supported the policy of separating the USD Oral and Simultaneous Communication Departments, which enraged Raymond. Not only Dr. Bitter, but all of the Deaf oral teachers seemed to have a bad attitude toward the signing students, according to Raymond. What happened on the USD campus and in Seminary class had an impact on the Ogden LDS Branch for the Deaf.
Raymond recalled saying that Dr. Bitter was like the obstinate, unmoving wall that divided West Berlin from East Berlin in Germany during the Cold War. Dr. Bitter, according to Raymond, never realized or refused to recognize that some Deaf pupils struggled under the oral system since they couldn't speak and were banned to sign. Raymond compared the restrictions of strict oral deaf education to the victims of communism in East Germany, while Deaf students who were free to converse in sign language were compared to West Germans who had far more freedom in a democratic country. Raymond felt Dr. Bitter did not have the authority to force Deaf students into the oral system, which eventually caused divides among Deaf adults.
Looking back, Raymond believes that the Oral Department teachers were unaware of the discrimination against signing students, who were barred from interacting with oral students on campus. The atmosphere, according to Raymond, created a negative situation for the students. He also felt t hat discrimination was similar in many ways to the discrimination that existed at the time between Black and White people.
When the program changes were revealed on the first day of school August of 1962, Raymond was devastated when he was enrolled in the oral program. At the time, he had no idea why. He wished he could see his Simultaneous Communication classmates again. He was not permitted to converse with them. He was also not permitted to sign. His Deaf mother, Marjorie, later learned that Tony Christopulos had contacted her hearing husband, Fred, and asked whether he wanted his son, Raymond, to enroll in the oral program. Fred made the decision without consulting Marjorie and offered his approval for the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the rigorous oral method and was unhappy with its program. To please his father, Marjorie tried to persuade him to stay in the oral program. As a result, she couldn't grasp Raymond's frustration with communication barriers. Raymond recalls looking out the school window with the other oral students during the 1962 student strike. He was eleven years old at the time.
C. Roy Cochran, Utahn, 1960
As Raymond grew older, he found that other Deaf individuals felt the same way he did about Dr. Bitter. He and his friends would make fun of Bitter. One of the funniest guys was C. Roy Cochran, 1961 USD alumni. Cochran came up with the idea of renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, as Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department. It was his way of using humor to diffuse the anger among the Utah Deaf community as they continued battling with Dr. Bitter. Roy “commanded” Raymond to name Dr. Bitter as “Mr. Grant Bitter, Pin Head Department.” He thought it was so funny.
As Raymond grew older, he found that other Deaf individuals felt the same way he did about Dr. Bitter. He and his friends would make fun of Bitter. One of the funniest guys was C. Roy Cochran, 1961 USD alumni. Cochran came up with the idea of renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, as Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department. It was his way of using humor to diffuse the anger among the Utah Deaf community as they continued battling with Dr. Bitter. Roy “commanded” Raymond to name Dr. Bitter as “Mr. Grant Bitter, Pin Head Department.” He thought it was so funny.
When Raymond was between his sophomore and junior year during the summer of 1969, he drew a cartoon of Dr. Bitter as a way to release his anger. He showed the drawing to his mother and Brian, his hard of hearing brother. They both thought it was funny. He also showed it to Jonathan Hodson at work the next day. Raymond told his mother and brother that he was going to mail the picture to Dr. Bitter's home. His mother was worried that Raymond would get into trouble because he was still in high school. They made a deal that he would not put his name on the picture. Raymond typed a letter with the picture, with his mother helping to correct his grammar, and mailed it to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book for the correct address.
Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriot Library, University of Utah
Jonathon Hudson
A week later, Jonathan Hodson told Raymond that a copy of Raymond’s drawing was on his family’s dinner table. Jonathon promised he would not tell anyone about it. Raymond’s mother begged him not to boast about his drawing. As school resumed in the fall of 1969, the UAD leaders made an announcement that Dr. Bitter was very upset about this picture drawn by an anonymous artist. It seemed that Dr. Bitter blamed some of the Deaf leaders for the picture. Dr. Bitter called a meeting of his Oral Deaf Association for Utah and asked the members if they knew who drew the picture (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 1, 2010). He was determined to find out who the artist was. Dave Mortensen, a leader in the Utah Association of the Deaf, told him to let it go (Jonathan Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011). Bitter didn’t want to give up but it seemed he never found out who drew that picture of him (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 1, 2010).
W. David Mortensen @ Robert Bonnell
The Implementation of the Two-Track Program
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. UAD Bulletin, June 1973
Despite the fact that the "walkout" did not have the desired results, the students found means to continue their protest. The signing students walked through the Oral Department hallway regularly, whereas the oral students walked via the Simultaneous Communication Department hallway. These areas were frequently 'off-limits' in order to keep communications 'clean' in these areas. Some students fought back against their oral teachers, condemning them of oppression and dominance. Superintendent Tegeder soon realized he couldn't handle the situation and turned to the Utah State Board of Education for assistance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010).
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which was supervised by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which was supervised by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years (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
Despite the new program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. Parents were not given a clear picture of their child's educational and communication choices (Campbell, 1977). Inappropriate placement tactics were widely practiced, despite policies issued by the Utah State Board of Education in 1970, 1977, and 1998 USDB Communication Guidelines requiring USD to give parents with a full variety of options. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" section.
Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and Deaf Education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since 1962. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. From 1962 until 1987, he was in position of 'power' for 25 years. He exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation 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). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed away in 2000, his spirit lives on in the field of Deaf Education.
Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and Deaf Education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since 1962. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. From 1962 until 1987, he was in position of 'power' for 25 years. He exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation 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). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed away in 2000, his spirit lives on in the field of Deaf Education.
The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
Since 1962, parents had requested both oral and sign language options for their Deaf children, but the Bitter/Noyce administration refused. It was finally approved under the guidance of Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, providing parents options to choose from.
After more than fifty years, the Utah School for the Deaf has finally found the necessary administrators in Joel Coleman, Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent, who are committed to providing an equal deaf educational system.
Under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, the "Hybrid" Program was successfully created in August 2016, enabling "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language (replaced oral) Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, also known as a personalized deaf education placement. More details can be found in the "Creation of the Hybrid Program" section.
After more than fifty years, the Utah School for the Deaf has finally found the necessary administrators in Joel Coleman, Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent, who are committed to providing an equal deaf educational system.
Under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, the "Hybrid" Program was successfully created in August 2016, enabling "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language (replaced oral) Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, also known as a personalized deaf education placement. More details can be found in the "Creation of the Hybrid Program" section.
Michelle Tanner, USD Assoc. Supt; Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent; Carolyn Lasater, USB Assoc. Supt @ Twitter.com
Personal Communication
References
Will add more references later
References
Will add more references later