As a former Clarke trustee, I was deeply saddened by your front-page story detailing the abuse reported by former students. I had heard reports of abuse by the Numbers, but it is extremely painful to learn its depth and breadth. That parents would return their children to Clarke, knowing they were suffering, speaks to their desperation. More than 90 percent of severely and profoundly deaf children are born into hearing families. Parents, unable to communicate with their deaf child, saw Clarke as a possibility for a miracle; their child would learn to speak.

Unfortunately, we now know that since hearing aids available in the 1950s-70s would not give a child with profound hearing loss access to sound, clear speech would never be possible. ASL or a combination of speech and sign would have served them best. The oralists at Clarke didn’t know this, but they saw that if allowed to sign, the deaf children would give up on speaking. Banning signing was not meant as a punishment or to isolate children from their “natural Deaf culture.” It was done to maximize speaking.

In retrospect, one can see how devastating this was to the children, especially with the abuse. I was also disturbed to see the totally inadequate piece “Clarke today” on the back page. Today’s Clarke is a completely different institution, and you have an opportunity and obligation to offer your readers balanced reporting. Hearing families today are faced with the same dilemma of what choice to make for their deaf infants. Since less than 0.5 percent of the population of the U.S. uses ASL, most parents would like their child to be able to navigate the hearing world. Since the advent of cochlear implants which allow even the profoundly deaf to hear, parents now have that choice. Speaking doesn’t “erase” their child’s deafness; Deaf and deaf communities are merging.

I hope you will do an equally in-depth article with interviews with Clarke staff and of current parents and young alumni so that your readers will have a balanced view rather than being left with an overall negative view of Clarke.

Catherine Bartlett
Northampton