The Omni Hotel Protests: The Climax of Cochlear Implant Tensions

The Omni Hotel Protests: The Climax of Cochlear Implant Tensions

                The tension set up by the recent reinvigoration of oppression has urged some of the Deaf community to support anti-implant sentiment. The deeply rooted historical issues served as a sort of “inception,” as described by Griffin, until the “crisis” that occurred simultaneously with the Civil Rights Movement.  The result, defined by Griffin as the “consummation,” manifested itself as improvements in telecommunication and legislature for deaf individuals (11). However, lingering behind the “mask of benevolence” that is medical intervention stands a renewed institutional oppression (Lane 5).

                The Omni Hotel protest represented both a revitalization in the fight for deaf rights as well as a new climax for existing issues.  Progress had been steadily and continually made in equality for all deaf individuals until cochlear implant technology was approved by the FDA in 1992 (Waltzman 9). At this point, implementation was slow, sporadic and still experimental, but the mix of strong deaf identity and medical support by the Alexander Graham Bell Association caused fundamental problems.  In the late 2010s, the frustrations of the deaf community finally gave way via the formation of the Audism Free America.  Their mission, in direct synchronization with many aspects defining deaf identity, is “to promote and protect the civil liberties of Deaf people and their linguistic birthrights” (Jordan).  Lizzie Sorkin, a deaf student at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) in New York states, “I am a deaf first before being a woman, before my faith, my sexual preference, my interests. I didn’t see my deafness as a problem. I didn’t need to be fixed” (James). The opposing side, The AG Bell Listening and Spoken Language Symposium, sympathized with medical intervention techniques including controversial CI surgeries. The direct clash in opinions of what should define a d/Deaf person reached an important peak at the Omni Hotel in Los Angeles in 2013.

                The protest against the Symposium in 2013 was established by Ruthie Jordan, an active and important Deaf founder in the Audism Free America organization. This was not the first protest against the same Symposium, but it was one that had garnered a vastly accelerated level of coverage in the deaf community because of police activity.  The day began, as described by Jordan in a video log or “vlog,” with security being called on her as soon as she walked into the hotel lobby before the protest even began.  Jordan was questioned by security on whether or not she had a room at the hotel and continually assured them that she was simply waiting at the open café & restaurant until 3PM check-in before heading up to her room until the 5PM protest.  It turns out that security was summoned by Judy Harrison, the AG Bell Symposium Program director, which only added frustration to the already tense atmosphere of the conference.  However, issues throughout evening would continue regarding the actual protest (Jordan). When they arrived, the protesters were unsurprisingly frustrated by the nature of the conference, but in accordance with traffic laws and general attitude, were entirely peaceful (Ringo). Still, security and police were once again summoned by Harrison and the hotel manager in order to control what they deemed as obtrusive behavior.  When police arrived, they found an entirely amicable and legal protest and were confused about the actions that Harrison and hotel staff took to try to control the protest themselves. The situation was eventually left alone after a brief interpreted conversation between Jordan and the four police officers, but not before the Deaf community noticed the oppression performed by organizers of the Symposium (Jordan).

                The encounter was relayed to social media by “vlogs” from Jordan and fellow protestors and was quickly sensationalized in a flurry of raw emotion.  The Atlantic describes the reason for such emotion stating, “The AGB has a complicated history with members of Deaf culture. AGB’s stated mission is to ‘[help] families, health care providers and education professionals understand childhood hearing loss and the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.’ Their preferred methods for doing so emphasize spoken language and de-emphasize the use of ASL” (Ringo).  The importance of sign language to both deaf culture and Deaf identity have already been significantly outlined in the history and rhetoric that even led up to the protest. The Alexander Graham Bell Association’s relationship with seemingly eugenic principles and with the cochlear implant Symposium only accelerated the anger surrounding the audist treatment of deaf individuals at the protest and in the broader world.  A common opinion held by sympathizers of deaf culture is that audism is not dead.  Still others, including some deaf individuals, have swallowed their pride, view deafness from a medical perspective, and admit to the unique benefits of the upcoming technology. Lisa Velez, another student at NTID agrees with the former: “I was born deaf, and I believe that I should just leave it the way it is” (James).   However, Christopher Lehfeldt, a dentist from Rochester, somewhat disagrees after receiving the cochlear implant surgery.  Lehfeldt admits that cochlear implants are “just another tool in the arsenal for better hearing that helps with full inclusion in the mainstream,” but admits that “no one person speaks for the deaf” (James).  There is obviously still significant disagreement between medical proponents and deaf supporters about the ethics of cochlear implant intervention.

                The protests by the AFA represent a renewed societal crisis by which the definition of deafness remains ambiguous. The protests brought treatment of deaf individuals into the focus of bioethics and the general public to serve as support for the movement against cochlear implants.  However, general acceptance of improved medical technology by the public has served as the primary obstacle to garnering full support from deaf and hearing communities; the next Symposium will be held in Arlington, Virginia in 2017. Deaf identity is now far more complicated as oppression has shifted from overt to covert.  Medical intervention among young deaf children with hearing parents is exceptionally convoluted: parents must now resolve the conflict of opportunity for their children apart from apparent consent (Lang 92).  The choice is difficult and riddled with important questions from both positions: Who should decide when or why a child needs surgical intervention? Should the child have a choice? Stuck between the hearing and deaf world, where will children that get implants find their identity? Although many of these questions have not been answered, the protests at the Symposium served as a catalyst for necessary dialogue between the deaf, the general public, medical professionals, and the Deaf.

Perhaps instead of considering the difference between pathological and cultural viewpoints, the deaf and hearing world should consider the humanity of deafness. NTID director Alan Hurwitz wonderfully summarizes this neutrality stating, “Some of us grow up using sign.  Others elect to have cochlear implants; they are all proud to be deaf” (James).

Works Cited

AudismFreeAmerica. "AUDISM FREE AMERICA." : July 2013. N.p., 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Bramwell, Ros, Harrington, Frank, and Harris, Jennifer. “Deafness – disability or linguistic minority?”  British Journal of Midwifery, vol 8., no. 4. 2013.

Branson, Jan, and Miller, Don. Damned for Their Difference: The Cultural Construction of Deaf People as Disabled: A Sociological History. Washington, US: Gallaudet University Press, 2002. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 25 October 2016.

Cerny, Janet. Deaf Education in America Voices of Children from Inclusion Settings.  Gallaudet University Press. Washington, D.C. 2007.

Christiansen, John B, and Barnartt, Sharon N. Deaf president now: the 1988 revolution at Gallaudet University. Gallaudet University Press. Washington, D.C. 1995.

Christiansen, John B, and Leigh, Irene. Cochlear implants in children: ethics and choices. 2002. Ebrary. Web.

Eckert, Rowley. “Audism: A Theory and Practice of Audiocentric Privelege.” Humanity & Society, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, pp. 101-130.

Eisen, Marc D. “History of the Cochlear Implant.” Cochlear Implants, edited by Susan B. Waltzman, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014, pp. 118-127.

Greenwald, Brian H. "Taking Stock: Alexander Graham Bell and Eugenics, 1883-1922." The Deaf History Reader, edited by John Vickrey Van Cleve, Gallaudet University Press, 2007, pp. 136-132.

Griffin, Leland M. “the rhetoric of Historical Movements.” Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest, Third Edition. Charles E. Morris III and Stephen Howard Browne, eds. Pittsburgh: Strata Publications 2013, pp. 11-13.

H-Dirksen L. Bauman. “Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 9, no. 2, 2004, pp. 239-246.

Hull, Raymond H., ed. Aural rehabilitation. Singular Publishing Group, 1992.

James, Susan Donaldson, and Huang, Grace. “Deaf and Proud to Use Sign Language.” ABC News. 12 December, 2006.

Jordan, Ruthie. “AFA Rally Part 1.” Audism Free America: July 2013. Web.

Kolb, Rachel. “The Deaf Body in Public Space.” The New York Times. 28 December, 2016.

Lane, Harlan. The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. DawnSignPress. 1992

Lang, Harry G. “Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics and Choices (review).” Sign Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002, pp. 90-93.

Leigh, Irene W. A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford University Press, New York, 2009.

Mauldin, Laura. Made to Hear : Cochlear Implants and Raising Deaf Children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. Ebook Library. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Mauldin, Laura. “Precarious Plasticity: Neuropolitics, Cochlear Implants, and the Redefinition of Deafness.” Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 39, no. 1, 2014, pp. 130-156

Ringo, Allegra. "Understanding Deafness: Not Everyone Wants to Be 'Fixed'"The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 9 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Roland, Peter S., and Roland Jr., Thomas. “Cochlear Implant Surgical Technique.” Cochlear Implants, edited by Susan B. Waltzman, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014, pp. 118-127.

Strauss, Karen Peltz. A New Civil Right – Telecommunications Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans. Gallaudet University Press. Washington, D.C. 2006.

Van Cleve, John Vickrey and Barry A. Crouch. A Place of Their Own Creating the Deaf Community in America. Gallaudet University Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Walsh, Kathy. “New Cochlear Implant Technology Gives Deaf People A ‘New Ear.’” CBS Denver. 6 January, 2016.

Waltzman, Susan B.; Roland, J. Thomas. Cochlear Implants. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014. Ebook Library. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Wrigley, Owen. The politics of deafness. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1996.