When extremism goes after their own sign language interpreters

AFA and others have been demonizing interpreters hired by A.G. Bell while others have produced names and pictures of them. Never mind that Professional Interpreters are bound by a code of professional conduct to provide equal access, remain neutral, and keep confidential, no matter who the clients are. But for any sign language interpreters to show up at the July 18 - 20, 2013 A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium in Los Angeles was met, ironically, with outrage by extremist adherents. Damned if you do produce an interpreter, damned if you don't and not provide that all important communication access.  Interpreters who were hired at the A.G. Bell LSLS Symposium get called as "traitors" and other name bashing. Rick P. and few others on the Facebook discussion were the only few sane, common sense people on board contributing to the discussion.

Folks, as a CODA, a husband of a Deaf woman, an interpreter and a colleague of Mr. LoParo, I can tell you Bob is neither a traitor nor a supporter of AGB. He was there to provide communication access - period. Think about it. If he wasn't there, how would you know what they were really saying? If you depended on his work to know what was being said, then you know he wasn't the message, he was only the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. Many of us interpret in situations we don't really like. Just because an interpreter takes a job it doesn't mean we support any particular side. In fact, if we did, we shouldn't take the job. I'm sure Bob knew that taking the job would be difficult. I'm also sure he felt that the Deaf people who were there to protest had a right to know what was being said and that's probably why he took the job.

Jen P. interjects:

I am stunned by this witch hunt. I hope you all realize what you are saying when you say you expect interpreters to serve only those with whom they agree. Be very careful what you wish for. We live and act in a political world. We interpret in a neutral one.

Rick P. continues on his with his explanation shedding a bit more light on the misplaced mock outrage.

The reality in this situation is that Mr. LoParo was not paid directly by AGBell. He worked for an interpreting agency that was providing interpreters at the request of the conference. It seems like interpreters are in a no-win situation with this. We see what has happened with Mr. LoParo in this posting. I'm curious what would have happened if no interpreters accepted the job. Would we then be accused of being audist and on AGBell's "side" because there was a lack of communication access? Would we then be accused of intentionally keeping the Deaf community "in the dark"? Personally, I encourage our communities to have a discussion about the situation. I would also warn that some people on this thread are getting close to the legal definition of slander. I would also warn that we are "dividing and conquering" ourselves which plays right into the hands of the oppressor.

And that has been the biggest problem among culturally deaf rabid adherents when it comes to their own "dividing and conquering" within their own culturally deaf community.

Deborah M. makes a salient point on communication access and knowing what's going on at the convention.

I'm just saying that there could be situations where having an interpreter there at AGBell could be good for the Deaf community.

Rather than to attack interpreters for accepting an interpreting job at AG Bell, use them for the benefit of learning and meeting people in the effort to learn from each other the people at the symposium. Rick Pope made an observation about the AFA who was there.

Reading Ms. Jordan's account of the situation at the Omni hotel, it becomes clear that the AFA leader herself was using an interpreter for communication access that ensured her First Amendment rights. She clearly redirected people who were inappropriately trying to interpret.

"Ruthie made it clear that there were ASL certified and qualified interpreters at the rally and at no point should the security or police utilize AG Bell staff members as interpreters."

So, I have to wonder why an interpreter is catching hell from AFA supporters when the interpreter was requested by the AFA leadership. As for the comments about Mr. LoParo's "stone face", he was interpreting in a situation that could have or did involve law enforcement. If Mr. LoParo had greeted people with hugs and other behaviors that are common in the Deaf world, it could have given the impression that he was not impartial. This could have given the AGBers reason to remove him from the situation (I've seen it happen) thus negatively affecting communication access for the ASL-using protestors. Even by the AFA accounts on the website, Mr. LoParo behaved professionally and ensured the AFA leadership had meaningful access to their Constitutional rights. Why, then, is he being excoriated without any comment from the very consumers of his services?

Jen P. offered her perspective as an interpreter who attended a previous AG Bell conference.

I worked at the AGB Conference in Milwaukee in 2008, as an ASL interpreter and as an oral interpreter. I shall not discuss assignment specifics due to confidentiality. I am, however, compelled to say that AG Bell conferences are gathering places for a diverse assemblage of people, many of whom are deaf and, through no fault of their own, grew up deprived of access to a natural, visual language. Every last one of these individuals has the right to attend this or any other event, the right to discuss educational, social, linguistic and medical concerns with others who also face the same issues. They have the right to access language and information and the right to the interpreting or captioning services of their choosing. All of the attendees had an opportunity during the conference to either use or to see ASL interpreters at work. I am proud of the service I provided for these deaf individuals. I did not make the decision to work at this conference lightly or easily or without a lot of reflective and deliberate thought. Nobody has the right or authority to tell me which deaf people are (or ARE NOT) worthy of interpreting services, or in which contexts they may be served. The interpreters at these conferences are not conspirators with the enemy. They are not oralists or audists. They are performing the same professional, confidential and impartial services they provide to anyone else in the deaf/Deaf communities. You want to find out what happens if interpreters stop interpreting AG Bell conferences? It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but why stop there? Should VRS interpreters disconnect a call every time someone makes a comment in a phone conversation that is oppressive, hateful, rude, illegal, or distasteful? Do deaf people not have the human right to make their own mistakes, to deceive and be deceived, to have views that lie outside the mainstream? Should hearing interpreters decide who has the right to services based on a person’s religion, race, sexual orientation, political views, affiliations and memberships? Be careful of what you wish for. And please cease and desist with this intolerable and defamatory witch hunt. All of your energies are much better spent against your enemies than against your allies.

She further re-iterates the danger of blacklisting and choosing for the interpreters based on an ideological condition.

Patti, if one truly believes that the conference attendees have the right to equal access, it follows (for me) that as a professional, if I am qualified for the work and able to execute my duties with impartiality, then I need not recuse myself. I am not supporting an organization or an "ism". I am serving people. Actual people, not abstract stereotypes or cultural villains. The thinking on this thread has been very black and white. This setting is approved for interpreters, this setting is bad. This interpreter is good. This one is blacklisted. It is this kind of black and white thinking that rules the AG Bell roost. Signing is bad and talking is good. Activism can be polluted by extremism. I am not an AG Bell supporter. I support open communication between deaf and hearing people. I will not be intimidated by extremist thinking into believing that somebody else should do the work that I believe should be done and done well. It's not a great analogy, but some lawyers defend criminals because they believe in citizens rights to a fair defense. I believe in communication access. My conscience is clear.

The latest FB discussion is an interesting read on how extremism can get out of control. It's also an example of a slippery slope in action in the attempt to try and control interpreters on who they should or should not interpret for purely on ideological and selfish motives. And at the same time fall prey to their own paranoia. A move that would guarantee shooting oneself in the foot each and every time.

"Deafhood," AFA, and CAD linked as "Extremist Groups" in Wikipedia?

There must be a joke in there somewhere. The name "Deafhood" was found in a Wikipedia entry under the listed "Extremist Groups" category as seen in the United States section along with other notable organizations like Church of Scientology, Earth First!, and Aryan Nation. Not only that but AFA and CAD were also found under that list, too. Here's a screen capture of that Wikipedia entry.

BTW, do you take much stock into Wikipedia nowadays?

Yet, when you click on the "Deafhood" it links to it's own Wikipedia entry on "Deafhood." And I couldn't help but noticed this entry.

Numerous deaf and hearing people view 'deafhood' as a closed society, largely due to long history of rejections against those who do not practice and use pure ASL (American Sign Language). Those who did not practice pure ASL were generally rejected by people who practice deafhood theory. For instance, numerous deaf people were categorized as 'deafless' because they were not deaf enough therefore they were rejected from the deafhood community. Numerous deaf individuals that choose to wear cochlear implants, hearing aids and use different communication methods / devices were also rejected by the deafhood community. The general deaf community sees deafhood as an extremist group.

Again, here's a screen capture of that entry, too.

Interesting. I'm sure entries will change again and again and again and again and again and again....ad nauseum.

Disclaimer: I am only reporting this as I just found out about it. Somebody created these Wikipedia entries and not I.

Breaking: Deaf Hate Speech Found

Unbelievable! Here are some perpetrators of hate speech found on the internet that deserves our attention but before I go further with this damning expose' here's USAToday on an article about hate speech and how it is difficult to police and define.

Maybe a little shake up is in order here (*ahem*) but with all these recent nebulous, insinuating claims of "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crimes" on YouTube and in blogs are beginning to look like an attempt to sow dischord and distrust for those who simply have an opinion, no matter how disagreeable it may be. Perhaps to try and form a Deaf mob of some sort? Reminds me of villagers with pitchforks and torches rallying together to go after Frankenstein whose only fault was that he existed. The real hate being perpetrated was the villagers going after Frankenstein.

Use of such colorful words like "Deaf hate speech" or "Deaf hate crime" is the same classic example of using the words "avdism" or "avdist" as a weapon of choice as a way to try and shut up other people's own opinions, arguments, certain facts and such on various deaf/hh - related issues. This has lately been used in one popular deaf/hh forum in the name of "self preservation."

I rarely even bother to watch vlogs by Deaf people except this time someone gave me a heads up and I saw Lois' vlog (*hand waves at Lois*). Yes, I'm back. I am who I am. Diversity includes those who don't always necessarily agree with everything, too.

Also, as a clarification it was I who initiated the email to Tayler, the owner of Deafread and Deafvideo.TV, to discuss a few things and decided to come back after a lengthy absence on my own volition. Though I realized one funny thing between the both of us and how we have something in common and that we both were viciously called as an "avdist." Perhaps the real perpetrators of "Deaf hate speech" are those who like to lob words like "avdist," or charge them with "hate speech" or "hate crime" at Deaf/deaf people?

Here's what Tayler Mayer said about Deafvideo.TV in my blog comment:

The most bizarre thing I've seen is if someone disagrees with Deafhood, it's called *udism. I made a vlog and there's still people who don't understand.

And I've been called an *udist because I didn't feel the definition of *udism was clear enough to be enforced on DeafRead/DeafVIDEO.TV. I instead said it wouldn't be tolerated under the harassment rule. It's just harder to enforce something that's not clear. Never mind that wasn't enough for them folks.

The term *udism indeed has its merits, but it's been manipulated into a weapon only meant to hurt or intimidate others.

Was Tayler a victim, ironically so, of "hate speech" by some Deaf people and those those who disagreed with other people's opinions?

Since you’ve just discussed how some people attempted to shut others up by using the term oppression, then avdism, whenever there was criticism of DBC or AFA on DVTV, is the prohibition against Barry to vlog about DBC or AFA on DVTV still in effect?

Was I a victim of "hate speech" by certain Deaf people? Emotions ran high and people have used that as a justification and excuse to slap on the "hate crime" and/or "hate speech" charges? Isn't that one of the definition of a "hate speech" as well?

I hope you won't be disappointed that there is no new discovery on finding a "Deaf hate speech." And, no, I don't believe the people who lobbed the words "avdist" or "Deaf hate speech" and such at other Deaf or deaf/hh people committed any hate speech at all. I see them as having a strong opinion but to call it as a "hate crime" or "hate speech"? Isn't that going a bit too far, if not an irresponsible and reckless charge?

Something to chew on here.

DBC's credibility gap?

Here's the news on AG Bell giving out awards to people who made significant contributions to the hearing loss community that got some Deaf people freaking out over in Alldeaf land. The hatred for AG Bell is just dripping. So, that got me thinking and looking.

On March 1 and 2 there will be an EHDI (Early Hearing Detection Intervention) conference to take place in Chicago. And when I checked out the Exhibitors List I noticed that DBC (Deaf Bilingual Coalition) will have a booth there. So will AG Bell.

Hmmmm.

Now, about the DBC, it's not a surprise that they have a relationship with the AFA (Audism Free America with link via the DBC website) by going "on record as being supportive of AFA" as seen in Dianrez's blog. And the fact that John Egbert and others of DBC attended an AFA protest rally last year in April 2009 tells a bigger story about the DBC's own organization and the people who run it. The AFA is hardly separate from DBC's own organization and its ideology where both groups have specifically targeted AG Bell. DBC has yet to remain neutral in this regard and keep to their mission instead. But the leaders and members of DBC cannot even be kept separate from the AFA group when it comes to DBC's mission as an organization.

"For now, it was an honor to meet many bloggers that first came to my attention through DeafRead. Who could forget meeting in person: John Egbert, Insane Misha, Ella Lentz, David Eberwein, Ruthie Jordan, Aidan Mack, Sharon Duchesneau, Jehanne, Robin Polin, Candace McCullough, Tami Hossler, Patti Durr, Pinky Aiello, Star Greiser, and many others whose faces I recognized but didn't get their names."

Many of the names seen in the Board of Directors and Members list on the DBC website are known to heavily dislike AGBell, even Brian Riley who helped write a letter for DBC used "fighting words" against AG Bell. It sure doesn't make them that much more credible, I can tell you that.

Here's another problem.

The DBC seems to lay claim on ownership of all deaf/hh babies by calling them as "Deaf babies" or "Deaf infants" with a capital "D" (see "Big D, small d") which denotes cultural deafness.

I. What is the Deaf Bilingual Coalition?

A. The Deaf Bilingual Coalition (DBC) is a community of Deaf and hearing people whose goals are to promote language acquisition, social justice, and quality education through the awareness of ASL and its excellence in cultivating the critical intellect of Deaf infants and young Deaf children.

B. The DBC’s mission is two-fold: We emphasize the importance of the social, emotional, linguistic, and cognitive aspects (of ASL and all natural sign languages) pertaining to early visual-language acquisition for all Deaf infants and young children; and to make the general public aware of the prevalence of misconceptions and misinformation that devalues ASL.

C. Since its inception, the DBC has empowered people to set up state chapters to research and explore early intervention programs, the Deaf education system, and to mentor hearing parents of Deaf babies to help equip them with critical information on language acquisition and development.

D. The DBC's original core committee was composed of volunteers who had all experienced bilingualism in their upbringing or been impacted by bilingual education. John Egbert of Minnesota founded the DBC in the summer of 2007.

Babies are born with a hearing loss. Babies are not born "Deaf" if from hearing parents. Maybe so for Deaf parents as they see their own baby as a Deaf baby but certainly not the case for hearing parents. DBC does not own these deaf/hh babies. It's the parents' decision, they decide and not DBC when it comes to their own babies and whether to call their baby a Deaf baby or not.

Next, I question whether DBC really does "mentor" hearing parents of "Deaf" babies. Do they get all pushy to try and somehow force their ideology onto unwitting hearing parents by making them aware? Or is it better to inform parents of deaf/hh babies by using positive examples of ASL rather than resort to conspiracy talks, continued negative remarks and darts and daggers aimed at AGBell whether implied or directly, and the continued bringing up old history rather than to look forward to the future in a positive way?

Having said that. You know what else I think? I think all hearing parents of deaf/hh babies should be informed of DBC's members and leaders past actions so that at least hearing parents can be fully informed about DBC's background and their ulterior agenda lurking in the background by continually attacking AG Bell in one form or another. AG Bell certainly doesn't do that by going after organizations by attacking them and use protesters as their pawns. AGBell has a mission to adhere to but they certainly do not attack ASL and certainly noticed past Deaf protests against them since 2007.

Since July 2007, another group affiliated with AFA has been staging demonstrations at AG Bell national conferences and state chapter meetings claiming that AG Bell is against sign language. In an effort to clarify its position on this issue, the AG Bell Board of Directors approved an official position statement on ASL which states, in part, “AG Bell acknowledges that a chosen approach depends on culture, family interests and desired communication outcome. AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child’s parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances…AG Bell does not believe that ASL should be prohibited or restricted as achoice, nor does AG Bell advocate against learning ASL as part of a child’s overall development if that is what the child’s parents desire.”

Regardless, AFA initiated this most recent demonstration at AG Bell headquarters and issued a call to action for supporters to demonstrate at oral/aural only programs in their local areas; in other words, to demonstrate at local pre-schools that offer a listening and spoken language educational approach for children who are deaf.

“This latest effort to target pre-schools and pre-school children I can only describe as unconscionable,” stated Graham. “To protest and criticize families who choose a particular communication and language approach is the height of intolerance.”

That way hearing parents can make an informed decision over a variety of issues and concerns, including any hidden agendas, if any. A good way to assess, for example, DBC's own credibility problem. Those on the outside may certainly see them as cry babies.

Next I can't help but wonder what are the odds that there'll be a protest by a bunch of Deaf people outside the conference to raise hackles about AG Bell just as they did over a year ago as noted in AG Bell's press release letter denouncing the protest? What are the odds that a protest will occur, if it ever, and that it'll have connections to AFA and, what else, the DBC organization just like before?

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? We'll see how it goes March 1 and 2 in a few weeks from now.

*Note: apologies to Cox and Forkum for the cry babies picture that was slightly modified.