Matt Hamill's Use of His Voice - a Controversy?

When is a controversy not a controversy if 30% of the people who voted in my recent poll asking if Matt Hamill's use of his voice was acceptable or not. Why do 30% of them find it controversial whenever Matt decides to use his voice to speak to hearing reporters (or hearing people in general) for the UFC 75 pre-fight taping? Although Matt did sign and talk at the same time in another pre-fight video during the UFC 75 fight show. Does that make it even more wrong that Matt shouldn't have signed and talked at the same time?

Did Ben incorrectly place me (or was he even talking about me as I wonder) as the controversy in his latest DeafDC blog about Hamill's UFC fight loss in his attempt to slam me personally only because I told people to "grow up" with their mentality towards other Deaf people who can use their voice to communicate.? The controversy should be about the 30% who found it unacceptable for Matt to use his voice. Does Ben have a grudge against me or what? Did he post this comment in my blog about that 30% poll survey?

We as a whole didn’t care that Hamill maybe could kind of speak. No one brought it up except for one guy. Matt knew some signs and went through the life as an underdog like us and that was good enough.

Ok. So he has an opinion. So what. Why should *I* be the controversy if I pointed it out to those 30% who find it controversial that Matt used his voice in the first place? Maybe it was because I didn't mince words and spoke my thoughts about this whole thing when I see that people who believed Matt ought to have been signing at all times regardless the hearing environment he's in?

Call it incredulous seeing the poll results. It was.

Or am I hearing that the "30%" result isn't large enough of a percentage to be deemed as a "controversy" in the first place? is that what I am hearing? Well, what is it then? I was somewhat surprised to see such a large result expecting perhaps 5 or even maybe 10% but 30%? C'mon now. Why are people so afraid of criticizing other deaf people for their rigid thinking? I''m glad that some 65% (there exists the other 5% who are not sure) didn't care if Matt used his voice or sign. Granted. Some deaf people are comfortable using their voice. Many are not and choose to sign exclusively. That is not a problem for me and many others. But for many, it is a problem if one decides or prefers to use his/her voice to communicate.

Now, if people really didn't care if Matt spoke or signed 30% of them wouldn't have voted "No" saying that speaking was *unacceptable*. If it didn't matter to them they would've voted "It doesn't matter since I'm not the overly sensitive type about deaf people talking." But alas, there exist overly sensitive Deaf people out there who are against other Deaf/deaf/hh people who can use their voice well to communicate to hearing people. Yet I see them as controversial in their own right and say that they need to grow up and get away from that Deaf militant mindset that signing is to be used at all times.

But wouldn't you think by now that many of Deaf people would have gotten over that mentality knowing there exist within the Deaf/deaf community a complete diversity of communication skills? Why should Deaf people MUST sign at all times in all hearing venues? What about in Deaf venues provided that there are interpreters and real time captioners available? Just like I did when I used my voice at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University earlier this year. I knew it would be a controversy but I didn't care and made my stand to make a point. Only a few deaf people at Gallaudet I know of did that very same thing when there were captioners and interpreters available did they choose to use their voice.

Matt can sign. Matt can speak. Does it really matter on how Matt chooses to use his voice in certain environments? Or does it, folks? Or do you prefer to hold to the rigid Deaf militant thinking that signing is the only optional communication mode by those who have the voicing skill to communicate to hearing people? How many times have you used your voice to communicate to a hearing person yet you voted "No" that Matt shouldn't have used his voice in his pre-fight tapings?

Right. And what does that make you?

Uh huh.

UPDATE: I wasn't sure if Ben was trying to slam me. He didn't. He explained it in DeafDC where I offered my sincerest apologies wondering if he was referring to me or not. Blame it on the coincidence of Ben's comment in my blog and in DeafDC that occurred on the same day covering the same subject.

UPDATE II: Jeff Carlson said it well as a guest blogger on Ridorlive (of all places) after seeing it on Deafread did I finally take a peak after one urged me to take a look and realized it was he who wrote that blog piece:

The key to see progression in our deaf community is encouraging rather than ripping them apart, using the term “unacceptable” to describe other people’s choice. That’s counterproductive. It’s almost too typical to see that in deaf community. It’s like a crab-theory in work. It’s time to move forward.

I'd say it's better to respect an adult's communication choice and by doing so can produce positive results. And to think if I hadn't put out that poll result and commented on it Jeff wouldn't have made his blog piece on that very same subject. Go figure.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.