The first one come to mind which is the most famous in the lore of Gallaudet University is Dr. Brueggemann who used her voice at Gallaudet University's graduation ceremony. She was a last minute replacement for Celia May Baldwin after she resigned from her position because of threats against her by some nutty pro-DPN2 protesters. She was wrongfully scorned for her actions because people simply did not know the true story of why she spoke instead of signed at the May 12, 2006 graduation ceremony.
And had I had any time to actually prepare my remarks for the GU graduation last May, I probably would have signed them more or at least part of them. But I didn't have that prep time. I was dropped into the Acting Chair's position on May 10, to be exact--once CM Baldwin resigned. And I was handed the remarks she was supposed to deliver (already scripted) for graduation on May 12. In fact, they didn't even give me the script until the morning of May 12. And it still had her name at the top of it! So, using oral/spoken English, I could feel comfortable enough to develop a few of my own "touches" in the prepared script. But I sure couldn't do that trying to use ASL....Dr. Brueggemann received hell for using her voice at Gallaudet University, mostly from bloggers and those who contributed to the discussion about her. You can watch her commencement speech video starting at 45:15.
Next is Michael Chorost, a well known cochlear implantee born with a hearing loss, who spoke at Gallaudet University in March 21, 2007 yet no outrage for this guy although he did sign his introductory name.
View externally
Next is another (unknown) person named "Bobby W." who claimed to have used his voice in 2006 to defend his student teaching experience for his degree at Gallaudet University:
If it makes you feel any better at the height of the campus scandal in 2006 while I was defending my student teaching experience for my degree from Gallaudet in front of the Education Department. I also choose to use my voice to do so. I used ASL for the answering/question session but the actual defense I used my voice. Imagine defending an education degree from Gallaudet University orally. Im sure I was the FIRST to ever do so.And then, of course, myself when I used my voice while I was one of the several panel members at Gallaudet University's first ever vlogging/blogging conference in 2007 that was televised live in front of an internet audience and the audience that were physically present. Most people, I think, were quite receptive of my decision to use my voice compared to Dr. Brueggemann.
I received a few funny looks from my peers and a few of the EDU professors but It was a success...
-Bobby W.
In a space of about a year from 2006 to 2007 four different people who are deaf or hard of hearing used their voice in front of an audience on the campus of Gallaudet University as far as I know. Could it be a start of a trend? I'm sure there may have been a few more examples of that since then so does anybody know other deaf/hh people who did use their voice in front of an audience on the campus of Gallaudet University? And if so, how did people respond? Looking back, why did people respond differently to each of those four different people I just mentioned? Will the future see more people deciding to use their voice instead of signing as a choice?
UPDATE: I came across another individual ( a 1975 Gallaudet University alumnus) who did an oral defense at Alliant International University (and not at Gallaudet) as described in Gallaudet University's alumni news page. But note the irony on the study of the defense was about:
'75 - Joe McLaughlin passed the oral defense for his doctoral dissertation, "Sign Language Interpreter Shortage in California: Perceptions of Stakeholders," at Alliant International University in San Francisco, Calif. in January. McLaughlin received his Ed.D. degree in higher education in June.
8 comments:
Interesting article, thanks. For a deafened person, this is important history, and of course, many of us use our voices as much as possible, since we have acquired serious hearing loss and we are told to use our voices, so as not to lose enunciation, etc.
There are always choices for communications. Many of us encourage captioning (quality real time text) to reach as many in the audience as possible. Some use ASL, some do not, and voicing or not, captioning still helps so many.
Feel free to comment on our b also: ccacblog.wordpress.com, and join the ccac if you aalso support the ccac mission for inclusion of quality captioning universally for all.
Interesting when you said you saw it as an important history.
I believe the old adage, use it or lose it. Perhaps not lose it but you are less effective with it just as if you don't sign as often you are not as an effective signer in terms of fluidity and such. The same goes with speaking. That's why even hearing people (and deaf/hh, too) go to these toastmasters to practice their speaking ability in front of an audience.
You're one of many who pointed out this kind of double standard perpetuated at Gallaudet and beyond by folks who are deaf and hearing.
However, there are chances the "oral defense" made by Dr. MacLaughlin (sp) was actually signed. Defenses can be submitted in writing hence the obvious distinction made "written" or "oral" (spoken or signed or ... both). Alliant U. may or not have made this option available.
Not intending to go into semantics. Just wondering...
I was wondering about that as well. He signed while an interpreter did the oral part for him. Good point.
This is a bit off topic...
I noticed Michael Chorost's speaking isn't in sync with what the interpreter was signing. That's bad. The deaf are missing out a lot! Watch the captioning and watch the interpreter. It's sad.
The issue is signing and spoken speech are nevr synchonised,it's something to do with 'concepts' and 'grammar' lol It's exactly the same here in the UK you read subtitles/captions, and the sign and none are the same,the signs leave an awful lot of information OUT of conversations, it's 'general ideas' of what is being said more than details, I really hate that, hence I support more english and less deaf grammar. Purely in the interests of knowing what people really are saying. We know many deaf signers struggle with details.... as do most, but deaf a lot more. I prefer captions/titles and when I can, lip-read what is being said, I note titles miss things as well. They say it depends on how much information we need to know what is going on, some can fill in the blanks better than others. I think deafened do better than born deaf at this....
This is just me and you know how I stand with making use of all as well as accessibility.
I personally feel that if a person feels most comfortable talking and signing, good for them. If others dislike it, that's their issue.
Living in another metro-city, I was "forced" to adapt to the strong Deaf community's philosophy there. They expected the 1 person to accommodate the 100 people.
I've moved far away from that city and now I go against that philosophy. 1 person can go against 100 people and still be comfortable because it is that 1 person's own language preference not the other 100 people's preferred choice.
namaste
Its a sad day in Texas when im labeled an unknown but such is life...
I really dont understand this topic, Deaf/deaf/HoH who use their voices at Gallaudet. Actually let me change that deaf/HoH because I doubt a real bona' fide Deaf would do that, or so the argument would suggest.
As for the guy who received a doctorate for his work on , "Sign Language Interpreter Shortage in California: Perceptions of Stakeholders," Are they crazy?
Simple.... There is an interpreter shortage in California as there is in most every state of the Union and the stakeholders are madder than..."
Seriously, how much research did that take... ?
Bobby W. aka Lolypup
Post a Comment