Two hundred and fifty years ago, L'Epée and Heinicke were engaged in a disagreement over the role of signs in the education of deaf students, with L'Epée supporting both natural and methodical signs and Heinicke advocating for an oral method without a manual component. This was the beginning of the oral/manual controversy. This controversy set a precedent for the ensuing centuries, throughout which supporters of manual communication, with few exceptions, acknowledged the importance of speech. Those supporting what might be considered a pure oral method typically argued that children, their parents, and their teachers should never resort to manual communication because of the perceived dangers to speech and socialization in the hearing world. Hearing educators and other professionals have often forced an either/or choice when none was needed. It began with the argument that we could have either oral-only education or manual communication, but not both, when the logical answer was to help deaf children develop all their skills to the greatest extent possible. This false dichotomy persists today despite evidence to the contrary. However, signs and sign languages will exist as long as there are deaf individuals, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are available to deaf children from birth and through the entire educational process. [This article is excerpted from Moores, D. F. (2016). "Quality education and sustainable learning trajectories for deaf learners." In G. A. M. De Clerck & P. V. Paul (Eds.), "Sign language, sustainable development, and equal opportunities" (pp. 75-90). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.]