Cochlear Implants = Genocide ?

I blogged a month ago about parents deliberately choosing to have deaf children.

Now I'm reading Marc Fisher's column in the Washington Post, about the student protests at Gallaudet University over incoming president Jane Fernandes, who it seems they don't think is "deaf enough" to be president of their university -- at least, in terms of how and to what degree she supports radical deaf culture. I say radical, because of this bizarre paragraph:

Fernandes tells of a friend on the faculty who has now broken with her -- "a former friend, maybe" -- who refers to the advent of cochlear implants, electronic devices that give the deaf a sense of sound, as a "genocide."

This is ridiculous, on many levels. Genocide is a very serious matter. To claim that cochlear implants represent "genocide" against deaf people is to invert a virtuous desire and action -- the desire to have the sense of hearing, with a vicious one -- generally considered to be the killing of people within a group because they are members of that group (ethnic, racial, religious, etc.).

To those who make such wild claims, I'd love to ask the following the thought experiment. What if all deaf people could be given cochlear implants -- or even better technological or medical surgeries -- that would give them full hearing. And what if medical science could determine how to fix deafness in the womb or genetically, so that no child ever need be born deaf again. And even all cases of accidental hearing loss (e.g., from loud music, old age, etc.) could somehow be corrected as well, such that any future deafness would only be temporary. That is, imagine a world where we could essentially banish deafness forever. I ask the defenders of deaf culture (as apparently an intrinsic good that must be defended at all costs) -- those who claim that cochlear implants amount to 'genocide' -- what would they say to such a seemingly wonderful turn of events? Would they fight it to retain "deafness" in the world? And if so, why?