In my blog, "
Use of voice is way, way better than ASL! ", Tim Riker, chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD, responded in my blog comment section on why he choose to use his voice at the AB2072 California Senate Health Hearing. I am putting his combined responses here for ease of reading for my readers and a forum for him and others to respond and discuss here. Although for now I am assuming this is him responding unless otherwise notified.
Tim Riker - I had discussed with the people involved with the CDNIAS coalition regarding whether I should speak or sign during the hearing. I had their support to speak. Both ASL and spoken English were at my disposal because of my bilingual education while growing up. The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. Then if you are able to use that language directly and fluently then use it. If not, then use an interpreter. This applies to any situation and any language. When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation. Tim Riker.
And another response in the same blog comment section.
First, I want to make it clear that every language needs to be respected, whether it's American Sign Language (ASL), English, Spanish or some other language. To deny any language the equal respect it deserves is called linguicism. Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission. I don't see anyone pointing out that Assembly Member Tony Mendoza or any of the other Hispanic legislators spoke English rather than Spanish in the Capitol. If someone wrote an article celebrating that a Hispanic person chose to speak English rather than Spanish in a specific situation, wouldn't that be an insult to Hispanic people who speak Spanish? I want to note that I am multilingual and select the most appropriate language for each situation. My first languages are both ASL and English and I have my family who used ASL with me and my bilingual education at Maryland School for the Deaf to thank for having multiple languages at my disposal. The fact that I spoke English during the California Senate Health Hearing was because the primary audience I was speaking to were the Senators who voted on this bill-- all of whom speak English. However, the most comfortable language for me in most situations is and will always be ASL. 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. There are many with that background who have done that and they were among those who fought the hardest against AB 2072. I believe having a strong foundation and immersion in two different languages provided me the versatility I needed for various settings. However, how well I speak does not define who I am or my success. I know many very gifted, educated and successful Deaf people who use ASL to communicate and they don't hear or speak at all. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions. Tim Riker
He also responded in my blog "
Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?" I discussed whether I should speak English or use American Sign Language while testifying with the core committee. I had the support of the core committee. I think it's a general cultural rule if you're fluent in ASL but choose to speak English to a predominantly Deaf audience, it is offensive. In my case, even though there were many Deaf people watching, the main audience were the Senators on the Health Committee who ultimately had to vote on the bill. As a multilingual Deaf person, I spoke English with the support of other Deaf people because it was appropriate for me in that situation. By the way, please beware of Candy since I notice she will quote what other people say out of context. She did that earlier by quoting only a small part of my comment on another blog several months ago when I explained how audism and dysconscious audism in society creates a hierarchy. It's actually in every person's best interest to promote English and ASL bilingual education for every Deaf child so they can eventually choose for themselves which language they use for each situation. More importantly, when society is equally accepting of ASL, you will shatter this hierarchy which affects everyone regardless of how well they hear or speak. Tim Riker
20 comments:
You needed his (Tim) permission to use his name? My eye! In the past he'd use my name without my permission. That's double standard right there. Spoken like a true unsuccessful politician.
Let me drink another 4 shots of vodka if the print on your blog is still there.
Well said! I've nothing to add...just handwaving! (Deaf applause!)
That's what we have been saying all along, yet you mocked at our comments.... Did you really read all of the comments or not?
deafmommy (off to take care of my family and have better things to do...)
Time-Out, Tim Riker!
"When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation."
Would you feel offend if a blogger, Mike McConnell (He spoke in the B/Vlog conference at Gallaudet several years ago) or Gallaudet Board of Trustee, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann to speak with the MAJORITY of deaf people in the audience at Gallaudet? Would you blame both of them for not signing in the front of the Majority of Deaf people on the "Deaf's campus"?
It was GREAT for them to provide some interpreters and closed captioning in the audience.
Think about Marlee Matlin's speech at Oscar award. She did not use sign language down there. She spoke. There were the MAJORITY of hearing people in the audience. BOOM! She faced the controversy from the deaf people years ago. How selfish is that?
Remember Heather Whitestone, Miss America? She spoke without using sign language in front of the audience. BOOM! She also faced the controversy from the deaf people years ago. How selfish is that?
What about Russian President? He came to USA to meet USA President. He spoke Russian and uses a special equipment to speak in English at the press conference? No one complains.
The United Nations have provided some special equipments for the United Nations Ambassadors at the meeting all the time. No one complains.
That's the double standards, Tim.
So, IMO, I think you have the lame excuse, Tim. Sorry to say it.
*cough* *cough*
In truthful, the bi bi prograrm don't allow oral speak. In an bi bi prograrm, the student require keep their voices turned off. You isn't good representation of an bi bi program.
CAD is hypocrites. You talking is OK. Others talking is not OK. Double Standard
OMG, what arrogance!
"The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. "
Really? What rule? Me culturally deaf, me offended if deaf speak in ANY situation? not.
"Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission"
OOOooOOooo the arrogance! There's a rule that when mentioning someone in their blog or news article, one has to get permission? Nuh uh.
BTW, Riker that part where I quoted you was the main point of your long comment, add in axdism and all that does not change the message of that quote of yours. That's my perception. :)
Finally, Riker, you lied about this supporter not being understood by the Senate Health Committee hearing.
Alquist UNDERSTOOD John, she just wanted John to get to the point. Read that part of the transcript:
______
John: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortias, 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 (inaudible) since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Wananet?? University in (Inaudible) where I 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’d been working as a deputy district attorney in (inaudible) county as a volunteer. Currently...
Alquist: And why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Why am I supportive of the bill?
Alquist: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.
John: It gives people an opportunity, a chance to have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be (inaudible), it would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not, I’m going off my speeches, I’m the first to admit, that I am not part of the deaf community, 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...
Alquist: Just speak to me.
John: What’s that?
Alquist: I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Okay, 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 (inaudible) 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.
Alquist: Thank you very much.
John: Thank you.
_______
Note there are only five inaudibles and when Alquist said to John "Just speak to me.", that wasn't Huh? Eh? What did you say? Nor did Alquist say, Please repeat, I didn't understand. etc. The interpreter at the hearing fluked big time. Alquist understood John.
Basically, what she's saying to John is,Get to the damn point! But, she said it nicely, she said "Speak to me." Alquist also said "I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?"
Note that she said "I like what you're saying" Does that sound like she don't understand John? Nah. Nah, Alquist UNDERSTOOD John.
OOOoooOOOOOooo The arrogance!
;)
OMG, what arrogance!
"The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. "
Really? What rule? Another unwritten rule? Me culturally deaf, me offended if deaf speak in ANY situation? not.
"Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission"
OOOooOOooo the arrogance! There's a rule that when mentioning someone in their blog or news article, one has to get permission? Nuh uh.
How one uses other people's name depends on the context of the blog/article and one does not need to get permission except in certain situations and in your case, that exception does not apply, legally.
BTW, Riker that part where I quoted you was the main point of your long comment, add in axdism and all that does not change the message of that quote of yours. That's my perception. Besides I knew deaf readers are smart enough to remember where that came from, as you did. :)
(Comment sectin does not allow more than 4,096 character...)
to be continued....
continued, as stated...
Finally, Riker, you lied about this supporter not being understood by the Senate Health Committee hearing.
Alquist UNDERSTOOD John, she just wanted John to get to the point. Read that part of the transcript:
______
John: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortias, 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 (inaudible) since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Wananet?? University in (Inaudible) where I 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’d been working as a deputy district attorney in (inaudible) county as a volunteer. Currently...
Alquist: And why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Why am I supportive of the bill?
Alquist: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.
John: It gives people an opportunity, a chance to have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be (inaudible), it would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not, I’m going off my speeches, I’m the first to admit, that I am not part of the deaf community, 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...
Alquist: Just speak to me.
John: What’s that?
Alquist: I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?
John: Okay, 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 (inaudible) 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.
Alquist: Thank you very much.
John: Thank you.
_______
Note there are only five inaudibles and when Alquist said to John "Just speak to me.", that wasn't Huh? Eh? What did you say? Nor did Alquist say, Please repeat, I didn't understand. etc. The interpreter at the hearing fluked big time. Alquist understood John.
Basically, what she's saying to John is,Get to the damn point! But, she said it nicely, she said "Speak to me." Alquist also said "I like what you’re saying, don’t look at your notes. Why are you supportive of the bill?"
Note that she said "I like what you're saying" Does that sound like she don't understand John? Nah. Nah, Alquist UNDERSTOOD John.
OOOoooOOOOOooo The arrogance!
;)
Well, that's weird...comment section said it couldn't post my full comment..but then, here it is!
I see you posted a new post on Riker's lies about this supporter...
Just one question. Is Ella a member of the core committee who supported Riker's voice? If true, how hypocritic of her to oppose 2072! No wonder Ella has been so quiet after you found out about Riker's using voice. You're a damn good investigator!
Hmmm, "core committee" smacks of DBC, 'memba, "core members" of DBC?
Has me wondering just who really were the members of the core committee that opposed AB 2072.
Permission to use his name? Holy cow, Riker doesn't know the internet.
BTW, I understood John Fortias well enough during the hearing too. His speech was distinct enough to understand, even though it took Alquist's requests to get to the point. Don't think the health committee didn't understand Fortias, but more like they were running short on time.
I've nothing against anyone using the communication mode of his choice when there are interpreters available. The fact is, Riker did use his spoken English to speak to an important audience, the politicians voting on AB 2072, not to the Deaf audience that attended the hearing.
It's playing to a political audience on their terms, not yours or the deaf community's. In retrospect, as an opponent to 2072, was Riker really "speaking" on his own terms?
Ann_C
You keep referring back to Marlee Matlin, everyone was shocked when she spoke at the Academy Awards-- because she always used sign language... Now Marlee Matlin has our upmost respect, she goes everywhere with Jason and uses ASL to everyone... Wow what a remarkable woman... I admire her for showing the beauty of ASL and she uses it all the time.
Marlee Matlin understood where we came from and now she is working along with us, she did not turn her back against us...
Heather Whitestone has done NOTHING for the deaf community at all....
See the difference....
deafmommy
Deaf Mommy,
Here's why you felt that Heather Whitestone hasn't done for the deaf community. She felt that people like you are ignorance are the smallest community was not marketable. She focus whats important and it works for her by making bucks.
What I'm trying to say...quit bitchin' and get with the facts.
Anonymous (8:45 a.m.)
Heather told me she had to use voice and stuff because her mother is dominant and demanding....
So the truth remains it is that she is stuck with "mommy"!
Anony at 12:02...
A matter of opinion and hearsay since you're simply an anonymous person with no name to back up your assertion.
Remember, anybody can claim or say anything in here.
Remember that next time.
So Mike asked Dr. Brueggemann for permission, but not Tim Riker. Wow, what a double standard. Pure hypocrisy at its best! That's disrespectful Mike. Tsk tsk.
"Below is an email response from Dr. Brueggemann. Both of us exchanged emails in my conversations with her to understand what went on with her after the DPN2 protest and why she used her voice that day. I emailed her yesterday and got her permission to print this email response explaining why she used her voice for the graduating class that day on May 12, 2006."
krack the kokonut
Anonymous at 3:41PM,
Your example failed here. The difference is allowing a personal email be shown publicly where she explained why she used her voice that day. So, getting permission would be required here since it's a personal email we're talking about.
In Tim Riker's case it does not even come close. He spoke publicly. He words were recorded on video. In fact, they were also recorded on two unofficial transcripts. Maybe they failed to ask him for permission, too? Ridiculous. No permission was needed on what was already publicly available. No hypocrisy here.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Mike,
What rule are you referring to that you need to get permission to publish an e-mail out of respect for that person's privacy but you can say whatever you want about someone who testified? I think when you put words into someone's mouth, then isn't that just as disrespectful as publishing comments meant to be private?
I think there's a double standard. It is hypocrisy.
krack the kokonut
Anony at 6:56
Not the same thing. Sorry. With email you risk copyright and breach of privacy versus what was made in public and recorded for public consumption.
Watch your language.
Post a Comment