I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:
Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?
A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.On linguicism:
B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.
SCENARIOS:What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).
Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.
A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.
Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?
Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.
Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.
What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.
ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?
ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?
People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.
Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!
95 comments:
First, it was Tim Riker, not "Tim Arthur".
Second, he is not the CAD President.
As to the issue of why he used his voice? It was (I think) to show that a Deaf person who can speak is still opposed to AB 2072 for the reasons he outlined. Simple as that.
I already made the correction.
I didn't say he was CAD president, just president of the Sacramento Chapter.
The issue is not about using his voice. You need to reread what I wrote. I said it's the irony that a Deaf person who is a chapter president used his voice which he unwittingly elevated it over ASL in his effort and plea to get ASL elevated and recognized in the first. It's called "irony," DonG. Maybe even "hypocrisy" in some cases.
Also, in my blog title is says "CAD chapter president" which is clear that I'm talking about the chapter president and not president of CAD which is Ralph Singleton.
Wikipedia entry for "audism":
"The active audist is one who ... believe[s] that it is better to, for example, use spoken rather than signed languages."
If CAD Sacramento Chapter President SPOKE (used his VOICE) before the Senators, then Tim Riker is an audist?
Interesting question.
Hmmm....
*rubs chin*
A good catch.
His act said it all.
ummm maybe because deaf people aren't ASL only afterall? oh those darn hypocrite ASL supporter for using speech after they say they are not ASL only *roll eyes*
He was speaking at their language.
A spanish speaking person who knows English can speak English with it come to her community and how politic affect them.
Here's the quote
The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. ~Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, 1963
Don G - why was your recent vlog beneficial to you? You asked Mike to correct it but misreading it. You're nitpicking'!!!
How about asking Mr. Tim Riker directly why he used voice during that hearing? Giving him the full benefit of the doubt, I assume that he had valid reasons for using voice (rather than trying to rationalize it).
I agree that there exists double standard among few Deaf people about the communication mode that the ASL users use. It will not surprise me at all if they try to rationalize why they didn't object to Mr. Riker’s preference or decision in using voice.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Hypocrisy at work. That's what it was. If it were you in that position we'd see a completely different response. Some of the deaf people I know would be crying foul but his name did not spell Mike. Instead, it spelled Tim. Because of that everybody turned a blind eye on it. Simple as that. Dongkey made a classic example here by misreading your blog. Shameful.
Joseph -
"How about asking Mr. Tim Riker directly why he used voice during that hearing? Giving him the full benefit of the doubt, I assume that he had valid reasons for using voice (rather than trying to rationalize it)."
I have no objections here which means I give him with a lot of benefit of the doubt here. There is nothing wrong with using one's voice as long as there happens to be an ASL interpreter, voice interpreter, and even (if you're lucky) a real time captioner for a live internet/tv audience.
He has his reasons and it's probably a valid one but here lies the problem. He is trying to elevate the visibility of ASL and instead he used his voice which elevates the speaking part and none of the ASL part. And he's the chapter president, too!
My apology for not leaving my name about giving the quote.
Russell
Thanks for emphasizing your points again that I did not grasp at first place. The appearance of propriety is not always clear-cut. I will leave it to each individual's opinion.
Here is another one that you can add to your list if you want to: http://www.ascdeaf.com/blog/?p=498
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
By SPEAKING ORALLY, did Tim Riker demonstrate his "... dog and pony show" before the Senate? Was he "flaunting his 'deaf voice' in order to play on the sympathy of Senators [sic] who are led to view deafness as an unfortunate medical condition, and are then misled into seeing deafness as being mainly a disability issue"?
He was speaking to a large majority of hearing people out there... When one is in a deaf community, it is common sense to use sign language first and most. People who do not know how to sign and are in deaf community will have to use an interpreter to communicate. It is no-brainer.... If you know sign language and you are in the deaf community, then use the language that we speak in the community. I am pretty positive that Mendoza speaks Spanish when he is in a Spanish-speaking community. If he spoke English to a Spanish-speaking community (even if he knew how to speak Spanish) and used a translator, of course Spanish people will be insulted. Same thing with deaf people. Spanish people who know how to speak English will speak English when they are in English-speaking community.
I agree with JPR....it's all double standard.
Would the Deafhood be pleased with Tim Riker at the hearing since CAD took over the Deafhood's financial business? I honestly don't think so.
The Holism....your'e funny....Dongkey! That's why he's democrat. What about Poodlella?
It's only "live with an enemy, stay closer with an enemy."
You know, It's simple as that.....
Mike,
It is obvious that Tim Riker chose to be the messenger rather than the interpreter to give the message.
Many of us know that the interpreters do make mistakes interpreting our ASL.
I use my voice to give my presentations to hearing people because I want them to feel my messages.
We all know that interpreters do not speak our tone(feelings) of our messages.
I am sure that you do know why Tim Riker as a bilingual Deaf person chose to speak to the legislators but what puzzles me is that you want to know why Tim Riker spoke to the legislators.
I always speak verbally to hearing audience because I am the messenger to conceive those that what to know more about what they want to learn.
Your questioning why Tim Riker use his verbal communication to the hearing group does bring up why you have that concern.
You provoking as usual?
John F. Egbert
Also the first thing we were advocating is bi-lingual (to be fluent in ASL and English) which is the best option for a deaf child. Even if a deaf child has trouble speaking in English, they also should be fluent in writing English... So we can provide these tools to deaf children to master ASL and English.
Cuz then the deaf child can speak to the hearing population and then use ASL in the deaf circles.
Tim Riker was probably trying to get people to see this whole picture. SO we can eliminate the Cued Speech, Oralism and all that nonsense communication assistance...
ASL and English is the way to go for a deaf child.... It is a perfect option...
John Egbert wrote:
"I am sure that you do know why Tim Riker as a bilingual Deaf person chose to speak to the legislators but what puzzles me is that you want to know why Tim Riker spoke to the legislators."
Why CDNIAS/CAD/Deafhood coalitions failed to kill AB 2072 --
--- Reason #16,196: Confused Leaders ---
John Egbert,
You're saying that interpreters lack the ability to "translate" deaf people's feelings or tone? You expect us to buy that? What a bunch of crock. The very fact that Tim Riker "spoke" instead of using ASL while deaf people are present is a glaring contradiction to "audism" that you are trying to eliminate. Is it any wonder why doctors try to fix deaf ears because of you. All you do is complain about lack of rights, AUDISM, and the like.
Go figure.
Russell
Ps. So much for those loud yellow t-shirts, eh?
russell,
You still don't get it
But we know you enough.
We say no more.
UNBELIEVABLE !!!!
Two things :
1. Don G misread Mike's Blog !
{{ copy and paste }}
Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter.
2. I cant understand why Tim Riker use his voice over ASL while he was opposing AB2072 ! Thats make NO sense at all !
Not Smart Crayon In The Box !!
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Deafhood + CAD = EPIC FAIL
I had also watched the health committee's hearing on AB 2072 and noticed Tim Riker's speaking on behalf of the opposition. I thot, oh, interesting that an AB 2072 opponent is "speaking" with his voice in front of a committee comprised of hearing members on behalf of including ASL as an option, rather than 'visual language'. Yes, indeedy, Riker spoke with his voice, by golly.
Yet Mike has been attacked for using his voice, his language preference being spoken English, at a Gallaudet conference. There were ASL terps, all kinds of terp services galore at the conference, and yet deaf ppl attacked his choice. There are deaf ppl who still believe to this day that Mike was being "deliberate" in using speech over ASL, as if he was putting on a tease.
I think Riker's using his voice to speak on behalf of the opposition was "playing" to a hearing audience, if nothing else.
Mike wasn't "playing" the deaf audience at Gallaudet. At least he was being honest about his communication/ language preference.
There's the difference.
Ann_C
I can almost believe that having a choice between two languages to use for political purposes but in this case, it seems the wrong language was used, lol....
Tousi
Personally, I think he used his voice because people would take him seriously than if he sign. There's so much discrimination and ignorance about ASL that It's like deaf people who use ASL have no "voice" in politic.
I mean, look at Bush, people made fun of his speech and called him dumb... But his speech has nothing to do with his intelligent. We deaf people know that. But it doesn't stop people from associating speech with intelligent. or ASL as poor dumb handicapped deaf people - "I do anything to make them speak and hear" attitude when some deaf people already know how to speak.
Hello Anti-AB2072 ,
NO OFFENSE !!
I find this very interesting . We know that Tim Riker is a Deaf and also he opposed AB2072 . But he chose to use his voice over ASL while they had ASL interpreters available . My question is " Does that make Tim Riker an audist ? "
This should be very interesting to see some true answers !
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Ann c.
If I speak to the Deaf in Deafread, I will use ASL.
Mike choose to use his voice to the Deaf people as he did to the Deaf audience at Gallaudet during the Deafread conference.
I will never use my voice to the Deaf audience and have the interpreter give my message to the Deaf people when I am bilingual: ASL/English. And Mike did...Why?
Ann c., we know that you are not bilingual and yet you think that you have the clout to give your opinion as if you are bilingual: ASL/English.
Please be humble.
GoatMan aka Travis,
Tim Riker is bilingual.
Your assumption that is he audist is far out.
My question is who are you?
Yikes - how is this possible that a Deaf CAD guy spoke at this hearing?
I thought CAD bylaws were Deafhood power to the max. and had outed any speaking, hard of hearing, non-Deafhood believer - geez where are the gatekeepers when u need them.
RE: why would he have the audacity to speak the language of the Legislative representatives on behalf of opposing AB 2072 - not a clue! Maybe cuz he truly had the "option." As opposed to folks who get routed to oral / aural only programs that actively deny them the acquisition of ASL.
he was exercising his choice - cuz he actually had one.
are you following me? or shall i TYPE LOUDER?
Ann_C - oh im so sad to see you use the word "attacked"
Mike may have gotten some flax for that choice (and i aint saying i support folks giving him flax for this choice) but "attacked"
Mike - for the record - were you jumped like the other Deaf guy who went to the barber shop and took off his hearing aids and said he got attacked cuz someone thought he had something to do with an audism group - later he recanted this statement
Mighty Mike - i thought u might be mighty pleased to see the diversity of reps and voices and think "we've come a long way" but some how u see it to mean hypocrisy? Did anything in the Oppose AB 2072 activism say - they oppose the use of speech?
nah. so..... ur point?
hey i wonder if ya all would like to call a truce. ya know - maybe have a dialogue of truths and find some common grounds and move forward peacefully and positively. i know, i know. it doesn't generate as much drama or clicks or rush but we might just find some other real lasting benefits.
wanna, huh? huh?
i would much rather work for mutual respect than to have to wide through the b.s. and muck
peace
patti
This is for John Egbert, the man that introduced me to deafread.com. Thank you John. Many people love you for it.
I had to laugh at what you said. You just degraded your own deaf community by saying the ASL interpreters out there are not reliable. Other classic example of how stupid you are.
You use your voice when talking to hearing people because you want them to feel your messages? That was funny. FYI, people feeling your message is not as important as having people understand them. Now I understand why people don't understand you. You focus too much on people's emotions.
I know you're a fisherman. You once told me you're a professional fisherman. Perhaps it's a case of excessive mercury?
Total hypocricy. A deaf person voicing his support of ASL? His actions proofed voice superior than ASL. His practice of Audism was embraced by CAD and Deafhood members.
Look at them backpedal while they rationalize Tim's voicing. *scoff*
Something else to consider..
Tim Riker once make this comment at another blog:
"Then you have a hierarchy created as a result of what society imposed on Deaf people. It starts with “normal” hearing people on the top of the hierarchy. Then it goes down the hierarchy based on the person’s hearing and speaking ability. A person’s ability to think and learn doesn’t matter as much."
I think Tim Riker is entitled to choose how he wants to get his message across. I don't think this is all about that, I think it has more to do with the reaction of the deaf community and their double standards.
Barry Sewell, aka Holism, guru on the hill, Dr holcum or whatever your multi-personality names,
You introduced yourself having a lot of money to give to the cause for Deaf babies and did we learn our lesson in believing a person like yourself having integrity.
BIG mistake and many already know now.
It is time to help parents of Deaf babies and children.
Forget self-amibtions.
john said
"I will never use my voice to the Deaf audience and have the interpreter give my message to the Deaf people when I am bilingual: ASL/English. And Mike did...Why?"
interesting... umm.. if he does't get this, he won't get the bill either. Both are about _choices_.
solipsism.me
In addition to what I said above, I wonder why he didn't also wear rose-colored glasses, lol.
Tousi
Patti, reread what I said. I said I don't have a problem with Tim Riker using his voice. In fact, I said it wasn't my business to say otherwise. It's his choice. I drilled my point at the end of my blog about the irony of trying to elevate ASL by a Deaf person but instead he chose to use his voice. And by doing that he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL. And this is a guy who is the chapter president of CAD!
So, where did I say I'm not for diversity? I'm all for it. Just that people have no real reason to attack a person for choosing to use his/her voice instead when there are interpreters available. I just see a double standard here in many cases.
As for the barbershop story, never heard of it.
Egbert, it'd be wise not to open your mouth everytime you come in here because each time you do that you somehow manage to put a foot in your mouth.
ASL interpreters are professionals. Now, what you said implied that ASL interpreters are unreliable in conveying the message from a Deaf person. And in turn imply that the two intepreters who were there that day when Tim Riker made his oral argument were not qualified enough to interpet Riker's argument had he done in ASL capturing his feeling and mood.
Becase of your status and leader of your organization you have effectively called all professional interpreters that they are unreliable to effectively communicate and interpret for a Deaf person signing away.
Way to go John.
Oh, and, yes, I did approve your comment here. I'm a busy man. Please have some patience next time.
Ok, patti, "attacked" was an exaggeration, but Mike put it this way, "complained and objected". Still a negative reaction to Mike's choosing his communication/ language preference, when there there was plenty of terp presence at Gallaudet.
John E, so you speak to hearing audiences because terps can't translate the emotion of your speech? Or is it because you want to "play to the emotions" of your hearing audience?
Bilingualism is not the subject Mike is addressing here.
Ann_C
My, my what a lot of extraneous second-guessing here.
Tim Riker obviously was pitching to a HEARING audience. Being bilingual, he took advantage of having that option and used it to good effect. Nothing more than that. In doing so, he demonstrated that ASL does not detract from speech development.
Imagine a bilingual Japanese businessman pitching to an American company choosing to address them only in Japanese. Would he succeed in selling his idea?
Dragging in Mike McConnell's spoken address to Gallaudet was irrelevant. That he chose a modality that did not match his audience despite being bilingual or its effectiveness was a different issue entirely. He was expressing his preference.
Dianez, you've missed my point back there. It's the ironic situation I've already discussed.
Your Japanese analogy does not apply here because in Riker's case there were interpreters already present. unless you are actually saying that Riker was attempting to impress the people?
And secondly, you just unwittingly put ASL as second fiddle next to English! Are you saying that had he conveyed in ASL (even though he's the chapter president of CAD!) he wouldn't have succeeded in selling his idea? Even with professional ASL interpreters present? This is same unwitting mistake John Egbert made by saying interpreters are unable to convey the full meaning, emotions and expression to the satisfaction of a signer. In short, ASL interpreters are unreliable. And he essentially implied that those two professional interpreters present at the California Assembly AB2072 hearing were also seen as unrealible for Riker's ASL message.
My example at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University was quiet relevant here because it was all about choices. I explained already that what Riker choose to do I have no qualms about it. The bigger audience in Riker's example was probably the thousands of Deaf people tuning in to watch the AB2072 committee meeting.
In short: ASL cannot be conveyed adequately while English can.
Certainly Riker was expressing his preference. So was I. That's the idea. But Riker that day had unwittingly devalued ASL and interpreters at the same time and put using voice at the top. And at the same time wanted to elevate ASL to the Committee members present them while as chapter president of CAD to boot!
Boggles the mind!
Mike, it's evident people love to miss your points. That's the funny part.
Deaf, I never said I had a lot of money to give away. Never claimed to be wealthy either. It was folks like you that saw me under that light but I never said I had money to give away. Never claimed to be wealthy. It was something people like you just assumed that about me. It usually happen with people that are stuck at the poverty level, who would go so far to compare themselves with me. That is understandable.
FYI, I said it many times and will say it again for you. There are so many different ways to give back to a worthy cause. Money is not the only way to do it. Duh. From the sound of it you didn't know that. You seem to see everything in dollar figures, which is the sad part.
I think interpreters know what John and Dianrez mean. They often try to interpet the best they can. Interpreters don't interpret word by word and they are not mind reader either. Often, deaf people or hearing people have to give interpreters materials ahead of time so they can get think how to get the message across accurately.
If you don't believe me, try telling someone a story and ask them what it mean to them and watch them interpet the story differently from you.
Mike, I understand all the points that are being made here, however, I would like to respectfully disagree with a statement that was made here.
"In short: ASL cannot be conveyed adequately while English can."
ASL can indeed be conveyed adequately to those that understand ASL well, but it can be difficult to convert it into English adequately. Granted, it can be done, but its is not always adequate. Picture this, in ASL poetry. an A to Z poem can be conveyed beautifully, but it would be very difficult to convert it into the English language.
hi mike
thanks for ur reply to me.
1. im sorry u did get $hit when u used ur voice at gallaudet
i understand why u did - folks like to get information directly and if u can use ASL but chose not to in a Deaf setting it makes folks get the message 2nd hand and some may prefer that u value them over ur own comfort level
it may also be that some r actually trying to challenge us to aim a bit higher for ourselves. meaning that while ASL might not be our comfort zone and our "familiar" and we might not be as eloquent in it - we can only strive to improve if we use it
but i will acknowledge that even if u had used ASL at that conference u might have gotten $hit from some folks for not using it as well as it should be
in a nutshell - we often cant win and me myself i tend to proscribe to the thing u actually seem to be advocated for (if i followed u right and maybe advocate is too strong of a word cuz ur approach is in a "dig" format more than a rise up my people format)
ur point of - here was an opportunity to use ASL in the legislature - how often does this happen
seize the day - i agree. it would have been nice. yes - it would have made my heart skip to see more ASL at that space TRUE
but i (like u) respect Tim's choice
ill also not it might not be AS IRONIC as u r trying to make it because the excerpt text u provide is about the audiologist issue and not really about ASL access
if it were all about ASL access but chosen to be delivered in spoken English to:
make a point - see see i can speak
make it clear - interpreters suck
make brownie points - politiking
that sucks
and i dont support that and yes that is linguicism
but i dont know what or why it was
i have the power of man's red flower - in that i can speak and i do but i also challenge myself to use one of the most crushed upon languages in the U.S. of A. - the most fought over devalued oppressed tampered with (i know there are many and many have vanished from this eart so that is FAR worse)
i use it when i teach, i use it when i present, i have used it before overwhelming hearing audiences that have been hostile or ambiguous of my position, i have used it before presidents of colleges and to media outlets
all the time knowing i could be using me familiar English and talking more pretty than i am now and all the while knowing that i am not really doing justice to ASL but... i use it because so many many many others choose not to and because we must jump at da sun
mike u wrote:
"In short: ASL cannot be conveyed adequately while English can."
i dont think that is the actual language problem as so much as the problem that too few of us got ASL as a native language so its our own inadequacy and our own colonizations that creates the inadequacy.
if we can agree on that - wow - miracles of miracles
and hey what about my offer of a TRUCE??? Selective reading we have, eh?
much peace
patti
Valhallian,
I misplaced that one- "In short: ASL cannot be conveyed adequately while English can" in response to Dianrez.
It should've followed after my 3rd paragraph.
And secondly, you just unwittingly put ASL as second fiddle next to English! Are you saying that had he conveyed in ASL (even though he's the chapter president of CAD!) he wouldn't have succeeded in selling his idea? Even with professional ASL interpreters present? This is same unwitting mistake John Egbert made by saying interpreters are unable to convey the full meaning, emotions and expression to the satisfaction of a signer. In short, ASL interpreters are unreliable. And he essentially implied that those two professional interpreters present at the California Assembly AB2072 hearing were also seen as unrealible for Riker's ASL message.
In short: ASL cannot be conveyed adequately while English can.
I agree everything you said Valhallian. Just read John Egbert and Dianrez's comments again and see what they are implying about ASL, the interpreters ability to convey the meanings, and English and how they seem to continually place English at a higher order than ASL.
I repeated my points. It's the irony seeing the president chapter of CAD who is DEaf use his voice in order to elevate ASL while others made excuses for him either saying that interpreters were inadequate for him and cannot convey the full meaning for him (there were professional interpreters avaialable!) from ASL to English, or that using English would help him "succeed" better in selling his idea which put ASL at 2nd fiddle.
Which is it folks? Are you guys saying that ASL is better than English? Or that English is better than ASL in this situation with Tim Riker? Be careful how you answer it.
I've already explained fully in my blog on why I choose to use my voice that day at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University. My message was NEVER lost on the audience regardless whether they were deaf or not. Interpreters and captioners were available so it didn't matter which modality a person would use. The message would not be lost using whichever modalities.
Patty, the irony is there. The whole hearing with the anti-AB2072 crowd there whose main goal was to control and elevate the recognition of ASL in the pamphlet for distribution.
Riker said:
"We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents."
In short, the attempt to try and control the ASL message. And did so while using his voice as a Deaf person who is the chapter president of CAD.
Yes. Quite an ironic situation there if not a total conundrum.
As for my use of my voice, I got way more kudos and accolades than I did of those who disagreed and even less from those who actually given me crap so far as I can tell. It could be much worse but those Deaf people haven't made themselves know their intense dislike. Just a few of them.
Tim Riker SPOKE.
AVT advocates SPOKEN language.
Therefore, Tim Riker advocated AVT.
Tim Riker is an enemy of sign language?
Tim Riker is a false prophet?
Tim Riker is an audist?
Tim Riker demonstrated dysconcious audism by SPEAKING to the Senators?
"Just read John Egbert and Dianrez's comments again and see what they are implying about ASL, the interpreters ability to convey the meanings, and English and how they seem to continually place English at a higher order than ASL."
You misread me, Mike. I implied nothing about ASL. I implied nothing about the interpreters' ability. I do not ever place English or ASL on a higher order than the other.
What I said was about reaching the intended audience. Using the language of the audience. Selecting the most effective way to reach THEM, the policymakers and decision makers. I implied only that the intended audience did not know ASL.
This is not to say that using an interpreter and using ASL would not reach this audience. It can. However, Riker selected what he thought was the best way to target them, because he has that flexibility. Nothing unwitting about that.
Sorry you thought I was off point. Now that I have clarified my position, I'm out of here.
Dianrez, I already understood what you said. It's the words behind them on what you're saying.
Despite the available professional ASL interpreters, you have a Deaf guy who used his voice in English to convey his message and you say it was the most effective way to reach that hearing audience (i.e. the committee members).
THE most effective way?
Don't you see how that looks when you say that? Especially in light of the fact that he's the chapter president of CAD?
That comment alone, "THE most effective way" certainly does put ASL down a notch or two below that of spoken English regardless of the audience and with available professional ASL interpreters.
THE most effective way?
Oh, really?
the truce mike and the truth mike
what shall it be?
u r avoiding me - that that
re: ironic / irony - u have a fierce need to be right me pal. and u r kinda morphing this situation to fit however u want to make it or shape it so.....
hmmmmm perhaps ill withdraw my offer cuz u definitely be wiggling and perhaps spinning - i havent read ur latest entries
re: ur getting far more praise re: using ur voice at gallaudet than u did get $hit
well ann_c - do u see what this means?
huh?
this is what it comes down to folks - flaunting and posturing and politiking
i thought we could find some fundamental truths that we might want to agree on
can we? purity please?
1. English is a GRAND language
2. ASL is a GRAND language
Choosing to use English over ASL while ensuring that your English is accessible to others - is alright
Choosing to use ASL over English while ensuring that your ASL is accessible to others - is alright
Deaf children and Hearing kids (like yours mike) benefit from having two or more FULL languages
can we agree on those truths???
dont get tricky on me mike or ill get me boots on
just answer the above
trying to strike that balance on the teeter totter. if u can come from truth - we may just get somewhere
if u need to be praised to high heavens before u will be honest then i will say:
- yes u certainly do blog alot
- yes u certainly do like the stir the pot
- yes u certainly are a republican ; )
- yes i certainly wouldnt mind debating something with u as long as u dont go too b.s. on me
- yes it certainly was ur right to choose to talk at Gallaudet but given the fact that u do know ASL whether or not it was the right thing to do is completely a value judgment
peace
patti
Truce, Patti? I am not fighting you. What makes you think I'm fighting you? Or the against Deaf establishments? Just that certain things need to be made aware to the readers and public at large. Something I and many others think they're worth discussing.
I've stated in my blogs on how there seems to be a disconnect in what I've seen so far. And that's what I've been discussing here.
I'm a Conservative first, Republican second.
Sure, the more languages you have the more potential benefits you'd have. But that's beside the issue when it comes to parental rights in making an informed decision for their deaf/hh children based on a variety of factors and circumstances. You cannot force them nor can you dictate them.
I've already said in my Brueggemann's piece, "It's all about personal choices and not whether voice (English) is the better language and/or modality than ASL. It's just a preference."
You can get your boots on if you want but I've maintained my personal opinions and facts to the matter. I certainly cannot please everybody. That's true since day one. Might as well get used to that concept.
Dianrez wrote in regards to why Tim Riker SPOKE: it was "the most effective way to reach THEM, the policymakers and decision makers."
Tim Riker SPOKE.
Tim Riker felt ASL lacked the ability to be an "effective way to reach" the Senators.
Did Tim Riker perpetuate a Deaf Hate Crime?
AVT professionals agree with Dianrez: they feel SPOKEN LANGUAGE is "... the most effective way."
Dianrez advocates for spoken language?
Dianrez is an audist collaborator?
oh my gosh a conservative first
well their might not be no hope for us then Mike
u be saying potato and ill be saying potatoe until the end of time
but.... i dont think anyone was advocating to take away parental choice to choose.
my opposition of AB 2072 was based on:
1. a govt should not REQUIRE someone to bring their baby to an audiologist under the cloak of promoting "options" cuz that is discongruent
- and the CAA just said they dont want to have this duty of explaining the pamphlet either cuz its not within their scope of practice so.....
i dont think its very cool for a state govt to be ordering a group of professionals to do their bidding in opposition to that very group's own professional organization saying we ain't qualified and we do not support this bill
pickle there be, eh mike?
2. id like the parents and babies to have an option to pick where they go to get the pamphlet and whether or not they pursue more diagnostic auditory evaulations
if u r a champion of parental rights - shouldnt u be championing their right to choose who go to see for the pamphlet????
3. me thoughts - the pamphlet should not list ANY program that endorses an ONLY standpoint whether it be ASL only or spoken English only
those systems might still operate (although i dont kinow of any ASL ONLY program - i do know of many private oral / aural ONLY programs called OPTION schools and oralingua etc in CA) i just dont think the ONLY ones should be listed by the government because they actively exclude and deny
so pamphlet saying - kids deserve:
a fully natural and accessible language (ie ASL) and the language of our dominant culture (ie English)
Bi / Bi explained
English only explained
- spoken, written, with or without signed systems
done
simple
and then.....
drum roll
the parent chooses
re: "What makes you think I'm fighting you?" Well no - u r right we have never gone womano mano - nope but there is alot of noise and kookyness coming out of your quarters, right. its ur right, ur option but wouldnt our time be better spent figure out what we can and do agree on
am i getting warmer???
can u hear me now???
how about now??
re: "cant please everyone" - true. this is why i aim to please that which is just right and true. how about u?
peace
patti
My goodness, it is obvious that you are nursing your wounds over DeafRead conference and your Gally years..
Because you are obsessing over this issue to make yourself feel better. Can you just for once listen to what we are saying and do some soul searching/analyzing to see why you are feeling this way..
We are not against deaf people who use their voice, it is how and where they use it.. If they use their voice in a primarily deaf audience, what is so wrong about using ASL? If you did not have interpreters at DeafRead, would you have used ASL or what. You are very difficult to lipread and you don't use a lot of facial expressions. So if you were talking, we would not be able to understand you at all....
Do you get our gist? If you want to belong in the deaf community, follow the cultural rules... Simple as that...
I just suspect that you are feeling very hurt over all of this and it is hard for you to accept the rules in deaf community.. Once you are in a specific community, there are unwritten rules to follow through, otherwise the community will not accept you as a member. That is the way a community operates. If you want to speak and not use ASL, then why are you in our community? I don't understand this at all..
Deafmommy
Deafmommy...WTF?
Nursing my wounds? Gallaudet was a great and interesting time for me. I'm not sure what you're getting at and about Deafread, too.
"If they use their voice in a primarily deaf audience, what is so wrong about using ASL?" - I never said there was anything wrong about using ASL. Where did I say it was wrong?
"If you did not have interpreters at DeafRead, would you have used ASL or what." - What the heck are you talking about? What is this "Deafread" thing you keep bringing up? I was at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University, nothing about Deafread. Oh, unless you're talking about the Deafread award thingy? I never attended and had no desire to. It had nothing to do with interpreters. I do fine without them.
"You are very difficult to lipread and you don't use a lot of facial expressions. So if you were talking, we would not be able to understand you at all...." Huh? There are many Deaf signers who do not even sign without ever twitching a face. Utter nonsense here.
"Do you get our gist? If you want to belong in the deaf community, follow the cultural rules... Simple as that..." Hey, there is no "belonging" here. Unless you are proclaiming to all of the deaf and hh people that what you have is a club? Nuh uh. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do or say. I am representative of Gallaudet University. I am a part of the deaf and hh community as a whole which includes signers. You cannot "kick me out" if that's what you're trying to say which is a bit ridiculous.
"I just suspect that you are feeling very hurt over all of this and it is hard for you to accept the rules in deaf community.. Once you are in a specific community, there are unwritten rules to follow through, otherwise the community will not accept you as a member."
Hey, I am "member." Not that I care for a club mentality. For you to draw the line on acceptance simply shows arrogance. I accept everybody whether they know how to sign or not.
"That is the way a community operates. If you want to speak and not use ASL, then why are you in our community? I don't understand this at all.."
I use ASL. But I prefer to speak most times. You have a problem with that. Not me. Understand that not everybody are like you. And yet I still have lots of Deaf friends, deaf friends, and hh friends. I've no problem.
Does deaf communities have the cultural rules and we must follow it ?? Please help me to understand this what this mean to u ? If we do not follow the cultural rules then what happen ? This is very odd to me !
Deafmommy ,
Do me a big favor , please ask Tim Riker the same question as u asked Mike !
"That is the way a community operates. If you want to speak and not use ASL, then why are you in our community? I don't understand this at all.."
We would love to hear Tim's response , we would be appreciate it if he does response to this question ! Thanks .
I'm glad you asked this question about cultural rules. Most of the time, it is unwritten rules and we follow it..
For Tim Riker, he was speaking to a large group of hearing people about AB2072. I would also like for him to comment on that as well. However it is good for hearing people to see that deaf people can master English and ASL language and be bilingual.
If Mike was speaking to a large group of hearing people, it would be perfectly fine for many of us.. However, since he knows how to use ASL, he chose to use his voice instead at the conference.. I know he keeps saying that it is his choice... Supposedly, if there was a Hispanic conference, a person who knows how to speak Spanish but decides to use a translator and speaks English through translator the Spanish-speaking audience, what do you think they would react? I know that they would react verynegatively to this especially. It is the same with deaf community... The French President prefers to speak in French whenever he can but he is fluent in English. He decides when to speak French and when to speak English, partly because he is following the cultural rules.
If you know how to use sign language but you prefer to talk to deaf audience, it is harder on them because when you sign, it comes out more naturally and from the person. Using an interpreter, the language is going through two voices to be translated and some pieces can be mistranslated or omitted or whatever. Many interpreters are not skilled in translating from English to ASL at all. So many of us prefer that if a deaf person is skilled in using sign language, to use it first before using an interpreter only for deaf audience.
deafmommy (a busy mommy)
deafmommy, and that's fine. However, you either have faith in your interpreters that they're skilled and professional enough then you shouldn't worry. In my case there were four interpreters there that day at the vlog/blog conference. Plus, the main audience was really the people who were tuning in on live internet television that had three things they could rely on and that they had an interpreter, real time captioning, and voice. The 2nd audience was the ones sitting in the chairs at the physical location of Gallaudet University. No message was lost as indicated in the comments people have left in my blog.
The same for Dr. Brueggemann's case. There was an interpreter, live captioning for the whole audience attending, and real time captioning all done live and on recording for those who may have missed the event. No message was lost.
As for Riker, there were interpreters involved, you had voice, and the people who tuned in which consist of the hearing audience in the assembly and the internet audience of which some of them donated their time to transcribe the whole AB2072 committee meeting until an official one came out. Ultimately, no message was lost.
Communication access was there regardless of this "cultural" expectation. Culturation expectation should also consider the value of personal communication choice when there are resources available to allow you that opportunity to speak or sign (e.g. interpeters available).
Demarcating the differences between a hearing and deaf audience gets old here. There are numerous factors that may give that person a reason to use his/her voice or sign. As long as the message isn't lost then there should be no reason to complain regardless whether person knows ASL or not.
Deaf mommy....
Unspoken cultural rule? Really?
Or is it really an ASL extremist rule, spoken and unspoken?
If it is an unspoken rule, when why is it that in every professional conference I go to, there are deaf/hoh that speaks (no ASL)and the culturally deaf do not object?
Me thinks, it's only an ASL extremist' rule.
When Marlee Matlin spoke at the Oscars, it was the extremists that objected. Was it not?
Which brings something to mind...
NAD conference... Why is that there were no deaf people that spoke? Is NAD an extremist? I find it odd. At my professional conference, there was diversity.
NAD, diverse? hmmm
Candy, there are unwritten rules everywhere, especially in cultures. Most of them have to do with common courtesy, others are simply cultural habits.
Sensitivity to unwritten rules is an indication of one's emotional or cultural maturity and respect for others.
It is courteous to use the language of one's target especially when one is bilingual. It is courteous to at least acknowledge the other's language if for some reason one has to use an interpreter.
Such goes a long way when one is trying to influence the other, and starting from a position of respect is a step forward.
"ASL extremism" is not the point, not even involved at all.
Dianrez wrote: "there are unwritten rules everywhere, especially in cultures."
What about the rule of the Deaf community that specifically forbids ASL deaf people from harassing oral deaf people and their organizations who advocate a preference to speak than to use ASL?
Never heard of it?
It's unwritten.
just hadda address to the last anonymous commenter above me that responded to the unwritten rule, to sum it all in one word..........touche!
A. You can't do that here.
B. Why not? Is there a rule posted?
A. Not exactly but everybody knows it.
B. Yeah? Where is this rule?
A. It is unwritten.
B. Unwritten? Then how can I know?
A. Ask any Deaf person.
B. Hmmm. I see. Well, you shouldn't say that to a deaf person.
A. Why not?
B. Unwritten rule.
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, 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, especially with Deaf people.
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 primarily use ASL to communicate. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions.
Tim Riker
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
Oh Candy -
you did not just type "ASL Extremists"
pls tell me an impostor is impersonating u and u urself did not spread that dang b.s.
Didn't u know the ASL extremists bogus entries that a certain b/vlogger inserted into Wikipedia entry on TRUE extremists groups - got booted cuz that is just so lame
sorry to see u putting forth that EXTREME rhetoric
dang - i was just starting to feel warm and fuzzy about ya
if u go to Drs. Padden and Humphries - Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture they have a section about the use of voicing / speaking in Deaf settings - the norms of it
Two Deaf scholars with PhDs who can speak and use ASL - wow how extremely interesting
now re: rules - i ain't one to run around shouting at folks they gotta obey the rules and bylaws like the Park Keeper in Mary Poppins's in fact im more inclined to have us questions and test rules when they are unjust
it is clear that mike getting a little flak from a few folks at Gally re: his use of voice - left a wound and a mark
he himself admits to far more praise for his choice than a few choice words of chagrin
end of the day - he will do as he pleases
end of me day - i aim to do that which is just right and good
as Mike noted - ASL is pretty much an undervalued and underutilized and under-visible language so if we could all commit to using it and celebrating it when the opportunities present themselves that would be dandy
at the same time, we aint gotta give nobody crap for when they choose not to but we should have the right and choice to say - dang lost opportunity - would have loved to see this directly in ASL rather than interpreted
or we can just keep gabbering about this ASL issue in text English
hey - another irony!
peace
patti
Patti..
How else can I differentiate between those who support a diverse deaf community and those who only want to see ASL and nothing else within the deaf community?
There are deaf people that refuses to accept anything but ASL, without wanting to clump everyone together, I had to specify which group of people I'm referring to.
Time will present itself where the word extremist will be less used. Just as well as time will present itself where people are more accepting of other modalities such as a CI. You asked questions over at your latest post, when you share what you "know", you should also provide cites to that as well. If needed, I'll go over there and point it out to you. Didn't want to jump in over there because I don't have a CI nor do I have kids that have one.
However, for this "extremist".. Will think on this one Patti...
We need a more tolerant deaf cyberworld.
:)
hi candy
thank u for being willing to visit the term "extremist"
re: CIs i dont think they are modality but i understand what u meant
re: what i know and citing it - ill check that out
re: a more tolerant Deaf cyberworld -
amen to that
i think we are almost there
at least im feeling very ready to start a new and choose me words very thoughtfully
i trust we will all still be prepared to challenge each other but if we come from love we might just get somewhere
saw a rainbow today so im ready for a new convenant in the blogsphere
way over due eh
re: extremist - there may be more Oral / Aural only extremist than their are ASL ones
i wouldnt mind being saddled with the title of extremist only if it is in the spirit of being an extremist for love that MLK discussed - im not quite worthy yet - methink (see link below)
thank u for ur help in moving me along via the dialogue over at ur place
http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/what-kind-of-extremists-we-will-be-qqq/
Mike - i thank u for letting us have this chat in ur space
peace
patti
Joseph Pietro Riolo
Please read Tim Riker's comment carefully.
"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.'
Your arguments at another blog site (url provided by you) on the same topic are no good. The blog site discussed people using their voice in a Deaf environment. The Deaf environment was Gallaudet University.
Tim used his voice in a hearing environment. A hearing person should sign in a Deaf environment especially when he or she plans to work in that environment.
We are getting sick of you and your worthless arguments.
@ Annonymous, see how you're taking this personal by saying "We're sick of your stupid argument." tsk tsk
Read Tim Riker's statement again.
He said "I think" He THINKS! Why? Cuz he ain't sure. Why? Well, you figure it out.
Well, I'm going tell you straight up, this is coming from a culturally deaf person - ME :0), that this unspoken rule is hogwash.
Read again:
There is NO rule! None. Nada.
Rules that are unspoken tend to be created by know it all's.
Candy,
Let's discuss your points in your recent comment. I would like for you to answer the following questions directly:
First, do you agree that Deaf culture is not the same as hearing culture and that ASL and English are separate, but equal languages?
Next, let's just say you're traveling to another country for business or political reasons. Your goal is to obtain a business contract to sell your products for the next 3 years. You want to make the best impression possible, so you would study that country's culture and business etiquette. The reason you do this is so you can be as respectful as possible while you're in their country, in their business. If you're already fluent in their language and knowledgeable about their culture, then you would communicate with them directly. Otherwise, you would use an interpreter who is bilingual bi-cultural. Do you agree that is what a rational person would do if they were making a business trip to another country?
Next, if you're the President or representative of a business and you're speaking to your employees in a formal, public setting. You happen to be bilingual and bi-cultural, but you choose to communicate in a different language and different culture than your employees. Is that making the best possible impression on your employees who are the audience?
Finally, do you agree as a culturally Deaf person who is multilingual and multi-cultural, knowing ASL, English and Spanish, I should follow the etiquette of my audience by using their language and culture if I am fluent? And if I am not fluent or knowledgeable about their culture, then I would use an interpreter?
Tim Riker
Not quite the same thing, Tim. This was a Senate health hearing, not a business sale or future transaction. Yours were about elevating ASL. The Senate members have nothing to gain from this "sale" other that to hear both sides of the aisles about the AB2072 bill. They were making a decision on behalf of the people of California. What was missed in all this in my blog was the irony of trying to elevate the "wonderful language of ASL" and instead it took a Deaf guy to use his voice to point that out...and without signing, too.
I don't see it using voice in this situaton made much of an impression on the Senate committee members. They simply wanted to hear the people's opinion whether it's done by voice or by signing. They already *KNOW* that deaf people can talk, evidently, even before you, Tim, showed up. What they were really interested in was to hear their side of the story and whether they supported or not the AB2072 bill.
So, this whole "making a sale pitch" via using the "right language" doesn't make any sense here. The message would not have been lost if a person used his voice or signed. That's the main gist of it all.
There was no real "strategy" in using your voice, Tim, in furthering the ASL agenda. Rather, it highlighted just how important for a deaf person to use his voice instead.
Mike,
Are you Candy? No.
Did you answer any of my questions to Candy? No.
Tim Riker
Mike,
The point of my testimony to the Senate Health Committee was to talk about the bill and how to make it better. Senator Polanco talked about the bill, I talked about the bill, and Sheri Farinha talked about the bill.
I made it clear during my testimony that the bill could be improved for the best interest of Deaf children and their parents. The problem with the original bill was that it was very one-sided and would not have provided parents with all of them information they need. I was suggesting to the Senators how to make the policy better.
I discussed this with the core committee and got their support to use my voice. Because of time constraints, I wanted to communicate directly to the Senators who would have made the amendments or vote based on our testimony. Everyone who testified did a great job as we got some of the things we wanted to see amended.
I don't know what happened to you in the past and what choices you made. You should deal with your own issues and perhaps apologize for whatever you did. Don't try to pull me into your own issues or past mistakes.
Tim Riker
Let's not get all snotty now, Tim. I offered my opinion on what you said. Candy will come along soon enough to respond. This is an open dialogue where people can jump in an opine.
As for your comment:
"I don't know what happened to you in the past and what choices you made. You should deal with your own issues and perhaps apologize for whatever you did. Don't try to pull me into your own issues or past mistakes."
Deal with my own issues? Apologize for whatever I did? Past mistakes? And all of sudden you throw out these deflections? What you just did is called a "Red Herring." No past mistakes of mine if it's about my voice or signing. Like Dr. Brueggemann famously said, "Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it!
I don't have issues, you might, but I'm a pretty open guy here.
Mike,
Then why is it such a big deal that you had to write a blog about me using my voice if you don't have any issues with it?
You called me a hypocrite? Why? Because I used my voice instead of ASL with permission from the core committee and speaking to an audience that doesn't use ASL to communicate?
You said I practiced linguicism yet I advocated for ASL even though I used my voice? How is that a correct application of linguicism? That's because it's not. I love and cherish and use ASL, especially when I'm speaking with Deaf people or to a Deaf audience.
You expect a lot people to be complaining about me using my voice but instead most of them are supporting my decision? They're saying it's a cultural and language decision based on the audience I'm speaking to. You ask for my reasons then you dismiss my reasons because they don't fit what you hoped I would say?
You want payback for some reason. I think that's why. Perhaps some people hurt you and you just can't forget it. But I have nothing against you. You have a lot of issues with me, but I don't even know you. I have never met you. All I know is you want to tear me down. So of course you have issues. Otherwise, you would not have written so vehemently about me and aired your dirty laundry.
Tim Riker
Riker..
The answer to all of your questions are, as long as there is an interpreter available that can voice and sign, a deaf person is allowed to use whatever communication preference he/she wants to (voice or sign.) It's not about "the situation", but rather a person's preference.
Deaf community is so diverse, the ASL signing community is only a small fraction of that diverse deaf community.
It should NOT be an issue as long as there is an interpreter present to do the signing or voicing.
We're talking about respecting diversity.
In retrospect, in your situation, if you wanted to promote ASL, using ASL would be a better choice. However, it does not mean you were wrong to speak. You weren't.
Neither was Mike.
Neither was Dr. Brueggemann.
Riker, seriously, the only ones that really have issues about this are the ones that have the most extreme views about ASL. The majority of deaf people within the deaf culture are not ASL purist and because of that, the majority do not follow this "unspoken rule."
Riker..
It is clear that the ASL extremist are big hypocrites and I do have to agree with Mike here. In certain parts of the country that happens more than others and I have seen it with my own eyes. The core group of people you have consulted would be the first to criticize someone if they spoke instead of signing. But, one of their own? nah.
Ask yourself this question:
Why did you need to ask these core committee for permission?
That action on your part speaks volume.
Interesting. Where did I call you a hypocrite? I didn't. Selective reading are you? I discussed the irony of the whole thing, not about calling you a hypocrite.
Read again a bit more closely next time.
As for your comments here:
"You want payback for some reason. I think that's why. Perhaps some people hurt you and you just can't forget it. But I have nothing against you. You have a lot of issues with me, but I don't even know you. I have never met you. All I know is you want to tear me down. So of course you have issues. Otherwise, you would not have written so vehemently about me and aired your dirty laundry."
Funny little conspiracy thing you got going. Payback? How did people "hurt" me? Kind of interesting in how all of sudden you're playing armchair psychologist.
I have no issues regarding communication choices. I've stated for the longest time, as long as parents can make an informed decision regarding their deaf/hh child then I'm fine with it.
Don't get upset if others view differently or have an opinion regarding your use of your voice. I said already I supported your use of your voice however given the ironic situation. And again, I've stated that the message would not be lost if one chooses signing over speaking with one's voice if there are professional interpreters present.
Missed this one.
Aired dirty laundry? Yours? Exactly what would that "dirty laundry" be that I aired?
Mike says in his blog above that I refused to use ASL. That was not the case. I was willing to do either ASL or spoken English and the core committee supported my decision to do spoken English. I think he and other commenters could chose their words more carefully especially when assuming my thoughts or reasons for doing something. That's something only I can say.
He also said that I chose to use voice to sound more "intelligent" or "educated". That was not the reason either-- again assuming. I wanted to communicate directly with the committee. I sound intelligent and educated regardless of which language I use, but it's all about the language of the audience. To believe that one chooses a language because it makes him seem more superior is what audists do and is called linguicism. ASL is not an inferior language but one that is equal to spoken languages.
Mike seems upset about this scenario below which applies to him and is using my situation in hopes that it will justify or marginalize the mistake he made. I'm sorry, it's not going to work:
"Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well."
Now I don't know exactly what happened because I was not there, but if a mistake was made, the most logical thing to do is to apologize.
I know I'm sorry that Mike twisted what I did to make an invalid point. I'm sure the community knows what his blog is really worth.
Tim Riker
Candy,
You still didn't answer my questions directly like I asked.
Can you re-read my questions and answer each of them directly?
Tim Riker
not to interrupt this little bashing festival which has thoroughly grossed me out but id like to point out:
mike u did type this in your blog entry
"Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?"
seems a bit like a rhetorical question don't it?
but if it was sincere - it seems tim has replied with a resounding NO it is NOT HYPOCRISY
re: ASL extremists (dang u candy for still spouting that b.s. but i UNDERSTAND why u r but seriously where are these militant ASL extremists and what is the worst they have ever done besides get all pissy at marlee for using her voice to an all Hearing audience during a time constraint setting hmmmm - why did they get all mad if it wasnt directed to a Deaf audience hmmmm what cultural rules did she break hmmmm - yes this is my rhetorical moment)
seriously - there are NO extremists - there are just really annoying folks with extreme RHETORIC but not extreme actions (except perhaps those who actively FORBID children from signing - u know that extreme position call oral / aural only. come on girl - if u r gonna start slattering around that extremist title u gotta go to both ends of the bell curve right?)
TIM - re: linguicism - it is the belief that one language is superior to another
yep u r bilingual and u have ever right to pick and chose which language u wanna use where and when especially when there are interpreters present to ensure everybody be in the know but....
the fact that u chose the dominant culture's language... well,....
im a might be worried that u may have 'brought into the system a bit"
i say this with love
dont think about mike
dont think about candy
dont think about anybody but ur own self and ask urself - was i valuing my people and my oppressed language or was a being a bit of a politikan???
and yes u r right - they (mike et al) totally BUST us more than THEM (the dominant culture) more often
and we - we my friend - BUST them (meaning our opponents down here in Deafville) more than we do THEM (the dominant culture folks)
so while i recognize that Mike has dragged this out and on and on... for probably all (or nearly all the wrong reasons) - his basic premise does have some merits
ASL is an UNDERUTILIZED, UNDER-recoginized, UNDER - valued, UNDER -understood language so when we get the chance to take it out into the light of day (ESPECIALLY WHEN WE R ARGUING ON HER BEHALF) it would be nice if we could use it
MUST BE?
HAVE TO DO?
Deaf CULTure EXTREMIST will shoot u down if ud Dont'do? -
nah
no
just a "would have been nice" thing
at the end of the day - if u feel at peace with ur choice - that is GRAND. cut out all the noise from what other folks are telling u or have told u. if u feel u did good - so be it
our choices should be because we have talked to our spirit and not because we think if we speak their language they will understand us better and accept our words more readily
that whole mind set gets us in plenty of trouble
that be a negative peace and ain't worthy of our pursuing it
Mike - oh my heavens how u love to blog (yep just saw u have a new one going.
Just wondering when u r gonna turn that critical eye towards oppressive systems???
i know, i know ain't alone. I know we all be wearing our magnifying glasses - just wish we could turn our gaze to the folks and systems with REAL power
maybe some day, eh?
peace
patti
Riker..
I answered all of you question except for the first one.
If you insist on answering for each, so be it...
"First, do you agree that Deaf culture is not the same as hearing culture and that ASL and English are separate, but equal languages?"
Not quite. Deaf culture and the world at large are somewhat similar and somewhat different. There is not a hearing culture, except in the minds of Deaf people, really. There are all kinds of culture within the world at large and some of them do resemble the deaf culture. As for ASL and English, clearly they both are separate. Equal? No, they're not, that is, if you and I have the same perception of what we are referring to in the word "Equal".
~~~~~~~
"Next, let's just say you're traveling to another country for business or political reasons. Your goal is to obtain a business contract to sell your products for the next 3 years. You want to make the best impression possible, so you would study that country's culture and business etiquette. The reason you do this is so you can be as respectful as possible while you're in their country, in their business. If you're already fluent in their language and knowledgeable about their culture, then you would communicate with them directly. Otherwise, you would use an interpreter who is bilingual bi-cultural. Do you agree that is what a rational person would do if they were making a business trip to another country?
That depends on the person. We're talking about preference and availability of resources, this is going to vary from individual to individual assuming all are fluent in that language and knowledgeable of their culture. What is rational to one person maybe different for another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next, if you're the President or representative of a business and you're speaking to your employees in a formal, public setting. You happen to be bilingual and bi-cultural, but you choose to communicate in a different language and different culture than your employees. Is that making the best possible impression on your employees who are the audience?
Again, that is the preference of the president of the company in conjunction of available resources. You need to understand that people have preference and typically those that are native in one language and fluent in another tend to speak in the language they are more comfortable in. Morale of a workplace isn't tied to what language the president of the company is articulating in. As long as the message is clearly understood, that is all that matters.
~~~~~~~~~
Finally, do you agree as a culturally Deaf person who is multilingual and multi-cultural, knowing ASL, English and Spanish, I should follow the etiquette of my audience by using their language and culture if I am fluent? And if I am not fluent or knowledgeable about their culture, then I would use an interpreter?
Nope. There is no such rule. The person choose to articulate in ways that he/she prefers contingent on the availability of the resources at hand. What is important is the assurance that the message will be understood clearly by the audience.
There are etiquette to follow when doing business in other countries, and it has nothing to do with language, most of it is protocols based on their culture. As long as there are resources available, interpreters, anyone can speak in any language he/she wishes to.
Also, I polled a group of culturally deaf people once asking them how they would have felt if a culturally deaf person who spoke well, chose to speak rather than sign, the majority said it's up to the person, as long as there is an interpreter to translate it into ASL. There is no such thing as an unwritten/spoken rule, this is made up as they went along. It tend to be created by people who have very STRONG view of ASL's importance (that better Patti? "very strong view of ASL's importance" in lieu of "extremist").
Patti..
Bashing? hmm, I see it as heated discussion. Someone more sensitive than others?
Help me understand, point out the bashing. Seriously, I'm befuddled.
Patti,
I think there is some kind of hypocrisy at work there (not about Tim).
"ASL is an UNDERUTILIZED, UNDER-recoginized, UNDER - valued, UNDER -understood language so when we get the chance to take it out into the light of day"
And yet that day a Deaf person used his voice? So, it was a lost opportunity then?
Patti, I have NO regrets.
:)
"Hey, I like my voice!" I'm proud of it. It's unique, it's mine, I like it. I think I'll use it! - Dr. Brenda Brueggemann. Sept 1, 2010.
Tim, that was one of the many questions. You in fact did not sign that day. One of the questions I had was what was the strategy of not signing when the purpose was to try and elevate ASL. You already clarified it was not "refusing" per se but a decision instead. Just like mine was a decision to use my voice and not a refusal to sign at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet a few years back.
Tim, I did not say nor assumed you used your voice in order to look "intelligent" or "educated." Read what I wrote, I was asking questions whether that was the case. Read it again.
Also, how can I be upset with your scenarios? Did I not repeatedly say that I support your use of your voice? I just simply questioned the whole apparent disconnect in trying to elevate ASL in the Senate hearing but instead get a Deaf guy using his voice instead.
The most logical thing is to apologize? There is no need to apologize. Please do some research on my blog about that day. The whole idea behind that was about technology and communication. That day there were several interpreters, and a live captioner. My using the voice was to raise a valid point in the day and age of technology and communication that it increasingly allow greater communication access regardless of how one communicates. Apologize? My advice, do a little more research before you spout more nonsense.
Now, be careful in using ad hominem attacks because they do weaken any arguments and makes a person look more petulent than not. If you want to discuss it fine but leave out these personal jabs of yours.
Mike,
Patti is saying it was a missed opportunity to portray ASL. I did not use ASL. I agree with Patti it was a missed opportunity but you both were not there in every meeting with the Assembly Members and Senators where I used ASL. You were not there when I fought hard to give ASL equal representation.
Before the hearing, I was thinking about the Senators who had to vote. I thought about the ASL interpreters and whether I should communicate directly with them. I did not make my decision lightly. And I did not make it alone...
However, was it completely wrong for me speaking at the hearing? Did it make me a linguicist for speaking instead of signing? No it did not. That would be a misapplication of the word. The group supported me-- in fact they insisted I speak to show diversity and to show that the long held myths of ASL affecting speech needs to be shattered. Being fluent in both ASL and English is possible without needing oral education to do it. Why not give every child the opportunity to learn both languages?
The label linguicism needs to be applied correctly-- on the people who put ASL on a lower pedestal than English. The people who advocate for more resources and support for spoken English over ASL. The people who tell the lies and myths that scare parents away from ASL. The parents and schools which punish children who use ASL. They're the true linguicists.
If there's a choice, we need to be culturally sensitive about it. Think things through like I did and make a decision with support from the group. Don't write blogs or comments shooting these people down because we're all Deaf and we all need to stand by each other. We all want equality and respect from a society which treats us as inferior. We should not mimic their behavior but work together to change it.
Tim Riker
Tim, please understand. I don't use my blog to shoot down people just because they're Deaf. If there is something that needs to be questioned or investigated further I'll blog about it.
I already made clear that what you did was ironic while you were trying to elevate ASL but used your voice instead and from a Deaf person, too, who happens to be the chapter president of CAD. It doesn't matter what happened behind the scenes or get your support from CDNIAS on speaking at the meeting, what everbody saw that day is you, a Deaf person, who used your voice in order to elevate ASL. But in my opinion you perhaps have unwittingly lowered the value of ASL while elevating the use of voice over it, and on live streaming tv, too. That was my whole point about my blog as you can in my last paragraph of my blog.
candy - thank u for the "in lieu of"
yes me like like that much better and allows me to really hear what u got to say instead of my b.s. flare gun going of re: the extreme action of labeling folks extremists unjustly and inconsistently so i truly do thank u
re:MY (shame on me) use of the word "bashing" - i did re-read the above and i think i should have used "bantering" not "bashing"
why it grossed me out - is cuz it just seems beneath us - but im not 100% confident that i have contributed anything beyond bantering here so me kettle may be whistling too
toot toot
will see see
------
mike -
psssttt I was actually agreeing with ur "lost opportunity" point
not agreeing with ur motive for pointing it out but ur underlying premise
*gasp* yes i agreed with u
$hit - me becoming a conservative pundit????
yikes!
nope - not gonna happened - i only agreed with ya on that one element cuz there be some truth there so go have a happy dance and continue to shout out Brenda jo's mantra
it would be lovely to see u advocating for bilingual rights as robustly as u do on behalf of ur right to speak
i can always dream
-------
Tim -
im not calling u a practionare of linguicism - im just noting that the valuing of using English over having utilized ASL was a value choice. I understand ur reasons and i totally respect ur choice
it was all about ab 2072 and that is all about options
so u utilized urs in favor of the dominant culture's language. i aint trying to diss u at all
im just asking us to dig a little deeper as to why we do what we do and what "-ism" might be hanging out there
im all for personal choices, comfort zones, liberties rah rah rah but im also about equalities and asking ourselves to go a little bit further than we r used to and also to try to make the invisible more visible - hence it would have been cool if ya had but u didnt and it TOTALLY is not a big deal
just as when mike chose not to sign at gallaudet is not a BIG DEAL - just the kinda messed up state of our community today
so instead of preaching at u all - i might be best suited to ask meself - hope might i better utilize and celebrate ASL today instead of English, English, English
we gotta be the change we wanna see in the world (m. gandhi but with altered English by me)
peace
patti durr
patti wrote (in her comment to Tim Riker: "so u utilized urs [ASL] in favor of the dominant culture's language."
Tim Riker wrote:
"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."
Does Tim Riker live in Mexico?
Did an assembly-line of yellow shirted people process through the California Senate, with many signing in ASL to the Senators in opposition to AB 2072?
Did they offend the California Senators by using ASL?
What is the "dominant" language of the California Senate?
"Hearing" language?
Tim Riker also wrote: "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."
Is "Hispanic" a "hearing" group using the "dominant" language?
Is Tim Riker confused?
I am really behind trying to catch up on this so lively discussion. I might have missed some points. If I do, mea copula.
The reasoning that Mr. Tim Riker used to justify his using voice during the hearing does strongly remind me of the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I can see some validity in this approach. It has been used in many situations. However, there is a big but for me.
It also reminds me of the old times when the Black people had to dress, act and speak like the White people in order to participate in the White society, when the women had to dress, act and speak like the men in order to participate in the men’s world and when the Native Americans had to dress, act and speak like the English people in order to participate in the English society. We are already beyond these times and we do not need to feel that we are the children of the lesser god and that we have to dress, act and speak like the children of the greater god in order to enter its sphere. Is the Sacramento chapter of the California Association of the Deaf repeating the history? I surely hope not.
Given that I was never in their shoes, it could be very improper for me to make my personal judgment or even opinion. I will leave it that way.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Post a Comment