Sign Language Ban on Bus?

As noted above, this is an old story, and the school has clarified that it's not banning sign language.

That being said, I do have some questions/comments about this story.
Danica Lesko and her parents say sign language is the only way to for the 12-year-old to communicate, especially while riding to school on a noisy bus.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing the first part of that claim, that it is the only way for her to communicate. So far as I can tell, she's attending a regular school. That means that she must be able to understand what her teachers are saying to her, and she must be able to give her answers orally. I find it hard to believe that all her teachers are using sign language, or that there's someone providing constant sign language interpretation for her.

So while she is hearing-impaired, she's not unable to communicate via other means than sign language.

My niece has a friend at her school who is hearing-impaired. She needs to use hearing aids in order to hear regular conversation -- and yes, in a very noisy environment, the hearing aid can be overwhelmed. My niece and several of her friends have learned sign language in order to communicate with her more easily.

There have, on several situations, arisen situations in class where she and her friends used sign language to communicate with each other. Other students were banned from speaking, and therefore their teachers told them that they were likewise barred from using sign language in any situation where the other students were likewise not supposed to be talking.

Which, to me, seems entirely reasonable.

So to me, the big question here -- which is not really answered in any of the information I've seen -- is whether there was an instruction for all the kids to stop talking, or if the other kids were being allowed to talk, and only the sign language was being disallowed. If the latter, then I'd agree that it is discriminatory and wrong. But if the former, then no, it is entirely reasonable. If an instruction is given to stop talking, that applies to all the kids. If we're talking about equality here, that means not just that freedoms are applied equally, but also that restrictions and rules are applied equally.
 
WildCat said:
No, not like that at all.
Click to expand...

Nope not at all. I still can't fathom why so many people try to generalize things instead of simply dealing with the facts in the actual case. I also don't understand the way people decide they know what happened without reading up on all the information and choose instead to have a knee jerk reaction to a headline.

It's a strange way to deal with reality IMO. :cool::confused:
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
So to me, the big question here -- which is not really answered in any of the information I've seen -- is whether there was an instruction for all the kids to stop talking, or if the other kids were being allowed to talk, and only the sign language was being disallowed. If the latter, then I'd agree that it is discriminatory and wrong. But if the former, then no, it is entirely reasonable. If an instruction is given to stop talking, that applies to all the kids. If we're talking about equality here, that means not just that freedoms are applied equally, but also that restrictions and rules are applied equally.
Click to expand...

If all children were required to be silent, a child signing would be adhering to that.
If all children were required to refrain from communication signing also would be forbidden.
The former would be a pretty stupid rule, the latter completely stupid.
 
kerikiwi said:
If all children were required to be silent, a child signing would be adhering to that.
If all children were required to refrain from communication signing also would be forbidden.
The former would be a pretty stupid rule, the latter completely stupid.
Click to expand...
If all kids were told to stop talking, that would apply to everyone, regardless of the form that talking took. Kids whispering would be breaking the rule; kids using sign language would be breaking the rule.

Otherwise, you are the one guilty of creating a two-tiered set of rules: one for kids who can't use sign language, that you're not allowed to talk at all; the other for kids who can use sign language, "Oh, it's fine for you guys to talk together, just not everyone else".
 
Wolfman that is a very astute observation. Do you have anything that would back up that idea?
 
Wolfman said:
If all kids were told to stop talking, that would apply to everyone, regardless of the form that talking took. Kids whispering would be breaking the rule; kids using sign language would be breaking the rule.

Otherwise, you are the one guilty of creating a two-tiered set of rules: one for kids who can't use sign language, that you're not allowed to talk at all; the other for kids who can use sign language, "Oh, it's fine for you guys to talk together, just not everyone else".
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the stupidity of even making such a rule.
Why would the kids be told to stop talking? If it is because talking distracts the driver, then signing clearly is not covered by the rule.
If it's because.. well, what other possible reason could there be?
 
Are the children required not to communicate? Or are they required to be silent? I think this is salient.
 
If I see a kid signing on a bus..................................
 
Wolfman said:
If all kids were told to stop talking, that would apply to everyone, regardless of the form that talking took. Kids whispering would be breaking the rule; kids using sign language would be breaking the rule.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the exact scenario I outlined earlier. Telling the kids to be quiet is a reasonable rule and enhances safety since a bus full of loud kids distracts the driver. Telling the kids they cannot communicate at all, via voice or sign language, is an unreasonable and pointless rule. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with simply exerting control over the kids.

I raised my kids to question pointless rules. If using sign language on the bus were against the rules (we know its not from the follow-up story) I would support any kid challenging that rule by.
 
kerikiwi said:
I was commenting on the stupidity of even making such a rule.
Why would the kids be told to stop talking? If it is because talking distracts the driver, then signing clearly is not covered by the rule.
If it's because.. well, what other possible reason could there be?
Click to expand...


Because talking was causing fighting and disruptions that distracted the bus driver and the safety of the kids being driven is more important that the kids having a conversation in the back of the bus for 30 minutes on the way home.

If everyone is told not to talk because of the group behavior on the bus, it IS unfair that all the kids are being punished for the actions of the few. But welcome to reality, that's gone on for hundreds of years.


But there is no indication that the trouble makers have not been dealt with. This happened 12 years ago, so it seems she's probably 24 years old right now.

I wonder why there is no information that the parents won a discrimination law suit if the situation went down the way they said it did?

There's a real problem with reaction to a story without all the facts.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, as long as we've arrived at Speculationville Station.....

How about a little Connect The Dots Paranoid Conspiracy Mystery Theater 2000?

We have two conflicting "formal" statements, apparently. If the statement about the letter from the school is correct then we have:

1. A letter saying that she was signing after being told not to.
2. A statement that the school and district do not forbid signing.

If both are true, then she's being singled out. Is it discrimination? Or is it a counter-ploy to their lawsuit. Would it be possible that the school lawyers think they have an ambulance-chasing scam on their hands and believe (probably because people at the school said so) that the girl can use vocal communications but is using signing to further the disability claim. We've all heard of the cases of people with disability being caught lifting heavy weights and doing physical activities that should be possible. Private investigators make half their income on these types of cases.

Or.... again assuming the veracity of both "statements", would it be equally possible that the school nurse or a doctor advised the school that if she doesn't exercise her vocal chords and work at "listening better" she will continue to worsen and this is just "tough love" because they want her to fully recover, being the care-giving wonderful people that they are?

All sorts of possibilities.
Click to expand...

I'm speculating that they simply wanted her to start talking and listening normally, so they could present evidence in court that she really isn't hearing-impaired, it's all just an act. Or maybe she was signing with her middle finger.
 
I'd be interested to hear the school's side of the story, as presented it sounds too open and shut, so I can't help but wonder if there's more to it.

One thing that does occur to me is that if you have a small group of people who have effectively their own language within the larger group and are using it to obviously talk about people in that group who don't understand them it could be a case of kids being kids and "you-sit down and shut up, and you- stop signing about him/her and winding them up". Just a thought.
 
The important missing information is whether at any time she endangered or emotionally traumatized and of the other children on the bus by making a sign that resembled a gun or possibly a Poptart.
 
Truethat is right. (Never thought I'd write that sentence down.)

This happened in 2001. Here's a story from 2007 http://www.deafweekly.com/backissues/121907.htm
that states:

STUDENT REFILES LAWSUIT AFTER SIGNING BAN

A deaf New Jersey student who was banned from using sign language on a school bus in 2001 has refiled a lawsuit against Brfanchburg Stony Brook school board and officials. Danica Lesko, who turned 18 in January, has been waiting for justice for seven years, her father, John Lesko, told The Star-Ledger. Danica’s parents contend the ban “set off a chain of events that emotionally traumatized” their daughter and brought in a traumatist who found the youth “mistrustful and defensive.” Said John Lesko: “All we want is to get in front of an impartial jury and be heard.”
 
truethat said:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this happened of April in 2001?

If I got that wrong I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. I stand corrected. The article I read had a ##-##-01 date but at the bottom of the page said it was updated May ## 2013.

How the hell did the story get bumped on so many sites this week?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Apparently not. I stand corrected. The article I read had a ##-##-01 date but at the bottom of the page said it was updated May ## 2013.

How the hell did the story get bumped on so many sites this week?
Click to expand...

A wizard did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom