Saturday, September 04, 2010

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.
(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.
Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:
JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.
This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.
Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.
No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:
...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him
Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know some supporter of AB bill who actually told someone on YOUTUBE that his friends grew up oralism, and he (a oralist himself) felt his friends are better off sign language. Deaf people always compare to other deaf people speech and hearing and that's the sad truth.

Mike said...

And it should not be like that. It's the same idea of criticizing someone's signing or compare their signing "fluidity" with someone else. You don't do that. It makes you look petty and boorish.

Shel said...

That criticizing of someone's linguistic fluidity is what happens in other minority groups as well. It's not just in the Deaf community. It happens in other groups that have issues with the enforcement of the majority language at the expense of the minority language.

Take the Quebecois for example... there are people who are critical of others' use of the French language, believe it or not, and are fiercely protective of their language and vigilant about the bastardizing of their language. Example in point:
They refuse to borrow the English word Peanut for their beurre d'arachides... Peanut butter in English.

They look down on those who call themselves Francophones, but don't use the French language fluently due to living in other parts of Canada despite being French Canadian themselves. You say it makes one look petty and boorish. That may be, but it shows a lack of cultural understanding.

The bickering on the use of ASL, and of Spoken English (and no it doesn't include the written form) is just a symptom of an oppressed minority (whether you believe that or not is no skin off my nose) living under the shadow of a majority that has been hellbent for a given number of years on suppressing the minority language.

The Francophones in Canada fought hard to get French accepted as an official language (thanks to Trudeau, a proud Quebecois and Levesque, a militant separatist), after more than a hundred years of marginalization of the French language in education. Yet, in some provinces the French curriculum is STILL in danger of being diminished... it is not a language that can be called 100 percent protected at least in my view.

For the last 130 years, as you and I both know, the majority has been intent on suppressing sign languages in all countries of the world. And now you wonder why we are bickering amongst ourselves when, and whether to use ASL or Spoken English and in what situations.

You are contributing to this bickering, Mike.

Anonymous said...

The Deafhood Foundation has brainwashed Mr. Riker including its peers. Look the contradiction he has made which is senseless. Unbelievable...Pathetic...downright TOXICITY of his own world with DeafHood freaks. He owns his disorder, unfortunately.

CAD, California Association for the Deaf, has the bylaws with a DEAFHOOD in it. That's toxic enough to justify his contradiction.

I just can't believe how far they willing to go...I assume they think we're dumb. We're not.

State of California knows that...one of senator associates said..."they expect us to think that we're that stupid" regarding the AB2072 situation.

Mike said...

Anony....it wasn't I who criticized a deaf man's decision to use his voice and claiming falsely it was unintelligble. And how he lied about how Alquist interrupted John Fortius several times. It was only one time. I set the record straight. Tim Riker was in the wrong. And yet I supported his decision to use his voice. It didn't matter if a person decides to sign or use his/her voice.

Bickering? Oh, please! Consider the source first.

solipsism said...

the question is:
Why are the Deaf people, who bickered about Other_Deaf/deaf/hoh/hi/name_it people in the past, are silent and bicker-less about their own Deaf people ?

I believe this is Mike's main point. Not criticizing.

solipsism.me

Don G. said...

Mike,

Have you ever heard the expression, "fight fire with fire"? The AB 2072 supporters brought in two oral adults to testify. CDNIAS knew they would, and they made a strategic decision to have Tim Riker testify against the bill, to show it's not about "mute Deaf people who can't speak and are therefore against the bill". Simple as that.

As for your charge of hypocrisy, what you are failing to realize is that culturally Deaf people are NOT against the ability to use one's voice, should one happen to be able to utilize that particular skill. However, there ARE cultural rules as to when and how one can use one's voice within a Deaf setting. Tim followed that cultural rule in part, by informing the CDNIAS core group of his idea for using his voice to testify, and the group agreed, for the strategic reasons I suggested above.

I really can't believe you're STILL harping on this issue.....

solipsism.me said...

*whoosh*! right over their heads

solipsism.me

Anonymous said...

CDNIAS and Deafhood people are hypocrites. Clear?

Mike said...

DonG,

Strategic decision? What utter bs that is. I'm sorry. All along they've been trying to promote to the committee members about the value of ASL and as a language by using ASL itself as your stage for the world to see. Yet, we saw an oral deaf do the talking instead. Either you don't have faith in your own ASL and your interpreters or you don't. And yet we keep seeing excuses.

Cultural rules? Oh please! You have professional interpreters available! No message would be lost. Most of the people that came up to me after my vlog/blog speech were positive about my message despite the fact that I choose to use my voice that day. I preferred it. And of all places, in the heart of Gallaudet University and while on live internet streaming tv. The message was never lost that day. This "cultural rule" thing is getting ridiculous.

Harping on what issue? I supported Tim Riker's use of his voice. I just simply noted the irony of trying to raise the visibility of ASL to those people at the hearing by using an oral deaf guy who used his voice instead.

Problem here now is that Tim Riker purposely misled readers about the so-called "several interruptions" by Alquist. And unconvincingly said that his speech was "unintellible".

Anonymous said...

Funny. You back-pedal and look worse. Give up. The damage are finish enough. Don't make yourself look idoits

Anonymous said...

When I was growing up, I had a best friend who had a terrible-sounding voice, she could speak very well but her voice.. She would often talk but not use her voice unless necessary..

Deaf people need to be told the truth if their voices sound terrible -- it is important.. Not all of us have pleasant-sounding voices.. I don't know if this deaf man knows if his voice sounds different or not?

Also the way this Senator talked to him, it appeared as if the Senator was talking to him like a child instead of an adult. When you read the conversation between both of them, it makes me cringe and Im sure others have felt that way. Deaf people get talked like this way and it is very irritrating. Why did she talk to him like this? Me wonder.. Was it because she couldn't understand him very well or he could not understand them... There was some kind of communication breakdown. WIth Tim Riker, there was none...

The truth hurts but it has to come out. Too many deaf people are deceived in thinking that they have nearly-perfect voice and speech when in reality they dont. Then that is when they should be encouraged to use ASL interpreters..

You don't seem to understand the problems of ASL interpreters out there.. There are VERY VERY VERY few skilled interpreters out there due to the fact that we have inept professors teaching them, some of them cheat by getting certificates and all that. It is very disappointing... We also have to work on revamping the interpreter programs and raise the bar... Too many times, interpreters have embarrassed us. Even worse, they will interpret exactly what we say if we sign in ASL... Makes us look dumb... I have had many bad experiences with interpreters, I could talk all day about them but it is not the time to do it...

deafmommy

Anonymous said...

One more, I watched a brief video, I noticed when John started to speak, the interpreter had to strain to hear him, she had to move more closer to him and every time he talked, he would talk word by word. And then the senator interrupted him at the end to tell him to stop as it was over. He did not have a chance to speak everything. I felt bad for this man John because he did not have a chance to tell his whole story and I could tell that the interpreter had a hard time hearing him talk. After he was done, the mother of two deaf children started to talk, the interpreter moved back to her original position and interpreted smoothly as she talked. See the difference here....

If John had used an ASL interpreter (providing if the interpreter is skilled at translating ASL -- many times courtroom interpreters are very skilled and highly paid so they do a good job), he probably would have looked good and the Senator would not have responded him as a child...

Deafmommy

Anonymous said...

One more, I watched a brief video, I noticed when John started to speak, the interpreter had to strain to hear him, she had to move more closer to him and every time he talked, he would talk word by word. And then the senator interrupted him at the end to tell him to stop as it was over. I felt bad for this man John because he did not have a chance to tell his whole story and I could tell that the interpreter had a hard time hearing him talk. After he was done, the mother of two deaf children started to talk, the interpreter moved back to her original position and interpreted smoothly as she talked. See the difference here....



Deafmommy

Anonymous said...

how does deafhood brainwash Rider? He grew up with both ASL and English instead of "speech first, ASL later". So it isn't like he was oral-only who joined deaf culture late in life.

Anyway, I think Rider felt bad for the guy because he could express himself so much more but only get interrupted alot. the guy is not stupid. Being interrupted alot by professionals happened to me as well. they weren't getting anywhere with me. I have to use notes because my thoughts are better written down than it is spoken. That's why I send emails than I do interviews. It's hard to explain but I understand what that guy is going through (the one you say Rider critizes). And ASL is not my first language either.

MM said...

Deafhood has a LOT to answer for , not least promoting anti-speech and anti-non-signing deaf people. Whatever happened to "whatever mode is best for the person ?" Deaf against deaf against hearing against everyone that doesn't conform to some mythical definition.

Anonymous said...

How about the so-called strategy of the opposition's thinking that someone using his voice, even though it is his right, backfiring because now maybe some of those legislators think oralism just might be the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Tousi

Mike said...

Deafmommy,

John Fortius spoke into the microphone. Most words you can understand, even the interpreters were able to get most of what he said. I was able to hear most of the words. Two unofficial transcripts got 99.5% of his words right. His voice was indeed intelligible.You cannot deny that any longer.

He spoke fine. Just that his voice sounded different. No biggie... except for Tim Riker and other people. Who'd ever thought this day would ever come that an oral deaf person would criticize another oral deaf person for using his/her voice.

Just pure irony that day.

Mike said...

Tousi,

That's what I was thinking, too. Instead of highlighting on how wonderful ASL was you had the chapter president of CAD use his voice to try and explain that.

That's the irony there.

Somebody wasn't thinking at the time.

But hey, I support his decision to use his voice and speak his mind. But the irony is still there and Deaf people will continue to wonder to this day on why ASL wasn't put on a pedestal that day.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it has anything to do with his voice or how he pronounce words, but lots to do with being able to express himself freely. The guy was using written notes and they wanted him to stop reading off his notes. This sort of thing some deaf people struggle with without coming across as stupid. Why do they need him to stop reading off his notes? It is what he feel most comfortable with.

Of course, there are people who critize Obama for using speechwriter

Anonymous said...

solipsism wrote: "the question is:
Why are the Deaf people, who bickered about Other_Deaf/deaf/hoh/hi/name_it people in the past, are silent and bicker-less about their own Deaf people ?"

Perhaps the answer lies in Dr. DonG's recent posting:

Dr.DonG: "... YOU are spitting in the face of those Deaf people who gave YOU the gift of ASL. And worse, you are spitting in the face of those Deaf people who came before you who cherished, supported, and passed on ASL so YOU could have that gift, too."

http://www.deafhooddiscourses.com/?cat=68

Usually, a gift is without strings.

Does Dr. DonG view Deaf people as his personal puppets?

Anonymous said...

and what have you done so far, Mike?

MataMan said...

Mike - 2 things. One: the interpreter has trained ears... which enables her to have a better hearing than regular folks. Just because the terp can understand him 98-99% of his speech doesn't mean the Senator can.

Two: I believe you are taking it way out of context. Tim Riker saying that John is unintelligible is because John is not able to state his position clearly for Senator. You have stated several times in your vblogs and Gally presentation that you prefer to talk rather than using ASL because you are able to communicate your thought better. Comparing John's testimony with Tim's to Senator, John's speech was completely unintelligible and incoherent (not in terms of hearing). He was just rambling on and on and this is not the way to present your case in front of Senator. Nobody cares for his biography story. The way John tried to state his stance on this issue was abysmal. Perhaps he needs to retake Communication 101 course?

John isn't being criticized here for talking funny. He is being criticized for his sloppy speech.

Mike said...

Mataman, for one you are incorrect about the unintelligible part.

Number one: Tim was clearly talking about John's voice as being unintelligible. Not about his rambling speech. Tim made no reference about his rambling speech just only his voice was unintelligible.

Number two: Tim referred to ASL saying that had John used it people would understand him better. Otherwise Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times (false) implying that she couldn't understand him talking (false).

Here's the money quote:

"I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times."

Oh, I agree. Leave out the biography. Just like Tim could've, too.

"TIM RIKER: I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy."

They just wanted to know why you support the bill or not. Just state your name, your profession, and reason for this bill.

Anonymous said...

Tim Riker wrote: "If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said"

Important part = "... the audience would have UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING he said."

Important Part II = Tim Riker wrote that John Fortius' "VOICE was UNINTELLIGIBLE."

"VOICE"

Not "testimony."

"VOICE"

Tim Riker claimed John Fortius was NOT UNDERSTOOD because his "VOICE was UNINTELLIGIBLE."

"VOICE"