The OP makes a very cogent argument, and so does the major respondent so far. As with most things, there should be some middle ground.
For those of us here for a while, we remember the "Lifelong Learning College". It was a wonderful adult education program with many offerings that had over 50,000 Villagers attend each year (the number of distinct individuals was less due to those taking multiple courses).
It ran for years until one hearing impaired individual blew into town with his high-priced Manhattan lawyers demanding certified ASL interpreters for every class. This individual was some sort of "activist", and he and his legal team had already done this in other communities around the country. After a few years of litigation and a lot of wasted $$$ the college was closed. What re-emerged from the ashes is nothing like it was before.
So, was that "reasonable"?? Fair??? Something that was available to 99.95% of the population was destroyed by someone trying to "accommodate" the other 0.05%. And for what???? To provide "nuance"???
Many of us lose some degree of hearing with age, golfers also lose distance and touch. When next year's Master's rolls around, I would like special tees at 5.000 yards, 15 shots per round handicap and a 2-putt maximum on those greens that run 14 on the meter. I'll be wearing the green jacket every Sunday evening for the foreseeable future. When the Olympics return, can I start the marathon at the 26-mile mark??? I could walk the remaining 385 yards and hold the world record. Are either of those "REASONABLE" accommodations???
Bottom line: Life is sometimes unfair, people have different abilities, and "all people are created equal" means only "under the law". Just as you can't make poor people richer by making rich people poorer, you cannot make the deaf hear by closing programs that 99.95% of the population enjoy, nor by throwing tons of money at the problem.
That being said, I don't think anyone would want to trade places with someone who has been deaf since birth, and there should be REASONABLE accommodations, aimed at reducing their degree of impairment, but realizing that will never achieve auditory "equality"
I also hope that the OP is not the opening volley of a new round of activism and litigation that will once again reduce the opportunities enjoyed by the 99+% of us.
|