Milan 1880.

No other event in the history of deaf education had a greater impact on the lives and
education of deaf people. This single event almost destroyed sign language.
What Happened in 1880?
In 1880, there was an international conference of deaf educators, the Second International
Congress on Education of the Deaf. At this conference, held September 6-11, 1880, a declaration
was made that oral education was better than manual (sign) education. A resolution was passed
banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States
(represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, Issac Peet, James Denison, and
Charles Stoddard) and Britain. The sign supporters tried, but failed, to get their voices heard. Here
are the first of 8 resolutions passed by the convention:
1. The Convention, considering the incontestable superiority of articulation over signs in restoring
the deaf-mute to society and giving him a fuller knowledge of language, declares that the oral
method should be preferred to that of signs in the education and instruction of deaf-mutes.
2. The Convention, considering that the simultaneous use of articulation and signs has the
disadvantage of injuring articulation and lip-reading and the precision of ideas, declares that the
pure oral method should be preferred
The other resolutions dealt with instruction of impoverished deaf students, how to instruct deaf
students orally, the need for instructional books for deaf oral teachers, the long-term benefits of
oral instruction, the optimal ages for oral instruction and length of instruction, and phasing out of
manually instructed students. A photocopy of the Milan resolutions is in the book Deaf Heritage.
How Could This Happen?
It was a foregone conclusion. The outcome was basically "fixed" because the conference was
planned and organized by a committee that was against sign language. This committee selected
the attending representatives more than half were known oralists from France and Italy.
Although other topics were supposed to be discussed, the conference focused on the methods of
instruction, and representatives talked about the method of instruction used in their schools -
either speech or combined speech and sign. Immediately after these presentations, the resolutions
were made.
What Was the Immediate Effect?
The repurcussions to Milan were immediate:
Deaf teachers lost their jobs
The fledgling National Association of the Deaf attracted more supporters as deaf people fought to save their language
and culture
The president of Gallaudet College (now University) decided to retain sign language on the Gallaudet campus. This
monumental decision may have been largely responsible for sign language's survival.
What Was the Long-Term Impact?
Milan 1880 is of such significance in deaf history that it has been commemorated in artworks, such
as the artwork of artist Mary Thornley, who has done a painting showing hearing "hunters" seeking
to shoot down ASL.
In October 1993, Gallaudet University held a conference, "Post Milan ASL and English literacy." The
conference proceedings included an esay, "Reflections upon Milan with an eye to the future," by
Katherine Jankowski.
In retrospect, one could say that in the years since, sign language and oralism have learned to co-
exist peacefully. There will never be another Milan 1880.
This article was in response to a visitor's information request. Do YOU have an information
request? Send it in!




Milan 1880
Milan 1880 is an infamous historical mark of "slashing" sign language which led to the
Dark Age of Deaf Education. At this biased, pre-planned conference, International
Congress on Education of the Deaf in Milan, oralist proponents voted to ban sign
language.
The delegates declared that oral education was a better educational method than manual
education. At that time, sign language was seen as a untrue language, a poor substitute
of speech language. A resolution was passed to forbid sign language used in Deaf
education. Subsequently, sign language was removed in Deaf education. Oral method
was practiced in Deaf education.
The delegates of the U.S. and Britain were the only representatives against the ban of
sign language but their objection to the ban was neglected. Eventualy, this conference
had an enormous impact on the lives and an education of sign language users for the
next hundreds of years.
Prior to the year 1880, there were successful Deaf politicians, writers, artists, lawyers,
educators, and so on -- all of them spoke in sign language. After the conference in 1880,
things began to dramatically change. Successful Deaf professionals began to decline. The
quality of education and life for the deaf deteriorated quickly and sign language was
regarded as a shame.
At the low point in the history of Deaf education in the early 1900s, things began to
change a bit. Sign language was re-introduced into Deaf education to "support" speech,
as an oral method was realized as a form of failure. Deaf education once again had been
improved a bit.
Then, the embrace of sign language began to rise in the 1970s when William Stokoe
proclaimed that signed language is a true language in his research on American Sign
Language at Gallaudet College (presently Gallaudet University).
The rights movement and Deaf activists rose in the 1980s for the human rights and
language rights. Today deaf sign-language users enjoy lives with full accessibility to
education. Today Milan 1880 is remembered as a bitter symbol of the oppression of sign
language.
The Congress of 2010 in Vancouver, Canada, announced a formal apology and removed
the ban of sign language used in education.
Resources
Nick Sturley of U.K. maintains a wonderful website on Milan 1880 at
www.milan1880.com.


http://www.handspeak.com/study/library/?byte=m&ID=65




The Milan Congress in 1880
The "Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf" met in Milan, September 6 - 11, 1880.
It was a turning point in the history of the deaf education. A resolution that the deaf students should
be taught orally and that the use of sign language should be banned was approved.
The "preparation" for the Congress
The Congress was conceived and planned by a committee against the use of sign language. The
official representatives of the Congress were selected to insure a victory for the oral method: of the
164 delegates, 56 were French oralists and 66 were Italian oralists. Together, the oralists from France
and Italy represented 74% of the Congress.
Apart from the opening and closing speeches and visits to the schools, the Congress work was limited
to 12 hours, during which 3 or 4 pro-oralism members tried to convince the rest of the group of the
justice of their position withstanding the strong evidence for the use of sign language.
On the congress, an English delegate wrote: "The victory for the cause of pure speech was gained
even before [the] congress began."
The resolution
All of the delegates, except for the four Americans, agreed on the following resolutions:
I. The Congress,
Considering the incontestable superiority by articulation over signs in restoring the deaf-mute to society and giving him a
fuller knowledge of language,
Declares that:
The oral method should be preferred to that of signs in the education and instruction of deaf-mutes.
II. The Congress,
Considering that the simultaneous use of speech and signs has the disadvantage of injuring articulation and lip-reading and
the precision of ideas,
Declares that:
The pure oral method should be preferred.
These were what came out as a result. There were a few deaf people present who favored the use of
sign language, but their motion was not even brought up for vote.
It became evident that there was a big "dividing line" between the deaf world and the hearing world.
The deaf people claimed that the hearing people have selected a language and determined what is
the best education for them without any consultation from the deaf people themselves.
After the congress, the use of sign language was banned from the instruction of the deaf. Also, the
meeting led to the disappearance of deaf instructors from the institutes.
The participants
Zucchi, the president of the Royal Institute for the Deaf in Milan, started the session on September 6.
He presented the results of an investigation which showed that, "... it is universally agreed among the
instructors of the deaf that the manual alphabet and the use of signs will be no more... the word will
conquer; it is a privilege of man, the sole and certain vehicle of thought, the gift of God."
The organizers designated the director of the school for the deaf in Milan, Giulio Tarra, as the
president of the convention. During the opening remarks, Tarra asked that the delegates remember
that "Oral speech is the sole power that can rekindle the light God breathed into man..."
In his address which lasted more than two sessions, the abbot Tarra started by saying, "The kingdom
of speech is a realm whose queen tolerates no rivals. Speech is jealous and wishes to be the
absolute mistress."
Don Serafino Balestra, the director of the school in Como, was the first in Italy to embrace the oral
method and the one to spread it nationwide. He made a touching plea: "... for a catholic priest, it is
necessary that the deaf-mutes speak, because they have confessions to make... I beg all of you. Vote
for speech, always the speech!"
After Magnat tried, in vain, to get the delegates to read a book on his "combined system" (which
advocates the use of both speech and signs), everyone else declared that the oral method was the
best. The only person who tried to defend the "combined system" was Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. He
affirmed that his "visual method, which is the same as the 'mixed' method, offers the greatest benefits
to the majority of deaf-mutes... in all schools, the sign language will prevail as it is the natural
language of the deaf-mutes."
Upon the closing of the meeting, the verdict was clear: the pure oral method was approved by a large
margin. Tarra concluded, "Yesterday, we were shouting 'Long live Speech!' Now we will say, 'Long
live Pure Speech!'"
What did the media say about this event?
The press during that time showed great support for the decision reached at the convention. It
applauded the arguments set forth by the oralists, and stated that the arguments reinforced the
importance and credibility of the oral movement. The change in the educational methods was seen as
a great French-Italian redemption and a step toward progress.
The Italian newspapers differed in their treatment of the event. For example, the Corriere della
Sera placed an emphasis on the cooperation of Italian and French armies and compared it to the
partnership at the convention for the good of those poor deaf-mutes. L'Unit Cattolica appeared to
show a slight disrespect for Gallaudet when it wrote "during his intervention, he spoke and signed at
the same time -- he seemed to be deaf himself."
http://www.istc.cnr.it/mostralis/eng/pannello14.htm