debating hearing people about curing deafness, I understand the discomfort. It is a legitimate concern for conversationalists and ethicists. But if we view the question through the lens of politics—where power means who gets, what, when, why, and how—the shortsightedness of this objection becomes clear. The reality is that debate with hearing people builds crucial experiences for deaf people to achieve the very goals they say they want. Consider this: about 95% of deaf people have hearing parents. More than 99.5% of the U.S. population are hearing. Of about 8,000 elected state and federal officials as well as leaders in medical, scientific, entertainment, and corporate sectors, almost all are hearing. If abolishing a cure for deafness requires persuading these hearing people—as the critics of the Georgetown debate would presumably want—then we must refine our arguments not with those who already agree with us, but with those who experience the world differently. We need to explore how they understand the issue, whether they truly believe they know best, and what might persuade them otherwise. Disagreeing across differences is not easy. We can always shame others
into silence or compliance. But what happens when they are no longer in our presence? What is gained by persuasion—with the grinning fangs of emotion and reason—is real progress.
The path to lasting change is paved by reaching across differences, listening as if we are wrong, signing as if we are right, and eventually changing hearts and minds. With the cure on the horizon, the benefits of competitive debate with hearing people have never been more urgent. It carries little risk, too. In my experience, I have not seen anyone emerge from a debate more entrenched or intolerant. Instead, it reminds participants that disagreement isn’t evil, controversial topics are complex, and knowledge is fallible. Although I was born deaf in a deaf family, grew up studying at deaf schools, and had reviewed the arguments prepared by Gallaudet debaters, I was challenged at Georgetown that night in profound ways I had thought impossible. While watching the debate, I swung between the affirmative and negative positions like a pendulum, each speaker sending the argument in unexpected directions. On the affirmative side, Gallaudet and Georgetown students argued that
opposition to a cure was rooted in naivete and privilege. They pointed out that the deaf people in the library that night— myself included—were the exceptions to the rule with access to bilingualism and public accommodations. Meanwhile, despite over a century of advocacy, most of the 466 million people with hearing loss in the world still lack language, community, and employment. The negation speakers conceded that a cure for deafness might address those serious problems more efficiently. Still, they argued it would deprive the world of pivotal contributions from deaf people that make life beautiful. In the words of Gallaudet debater Trent Mora, to cure deafness would be to “silence the rich chorus of life with the monotonous drone of normalcy.” One of my favorite memories of the event was mingling after the postdebate vote at the university library where Georgetown alumni like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and President William Clinton had once studied and seeing the attendees say things like “I see the issue differently now” or “I’d never thought of that.” I wish the debate critics could have seen that growth, including how 64% of the people at the Georgetown debate ended up voting against curing deafness.
ABOUT THE AWARD The NSDA introduced the Activating Equity Award in 2023 to honor the work of groups or collectives of individuals who, over the past year or years, have dedicated themselves to the enhancement of the culture of equity in middle and high school speech and debate activities. The Activating Equity Award is presented by the Alben W. Barkley Forum for Debate, Deliberation, & Dialogue at Emory University in honor of all high school speech and debate coaches who daily plant the seeds of change through their teaching and support. The award supports that vision of community by rewarding organizations striving to ensure conditions of fairness and encouraging participation. The recipient receives a monetary award of $5,000 to help them further their work in pursuing equity in speech and debate and is publicly recognized during the National Tournament. For nomination details, visit our website at www.speechanddebate.org/ activating-equity-award.
The Center for Democracy in Deaf America (CDDA) aims to promote healthy democratic skills in the American Deaf community through disagreement, civic engagement, and debate in English and American Sign Language. Learn more at www.gallaudet.edu/center-democracy-deaf-america.
ROSTRUM | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2025 |
47