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.
Yes, discrimination (and even oppression! keep reading) occurs everywhere, even at Gallaudet University by some of their own deaf and hard of hearing people whether coming from students, faculty or the staff. Discrimination is probably more pronounced against hard of hearing students than not for reasons that will be made clear below. Discrimination can happen consciously or subconsciously as in the recent McCaskill case but for an entirely different reason.
What brought me to this discrimination problem was an old Buff and Blue article "This is Gallaudet" electronically printed two and half years ago. I noticed a comment left by a parent of a hard of hearing son that made me think.
My son is a HOH rural- always mainstreamed-student. No ASL ever offered. The last thing he needs is another place he won’t be accepted without “conditions”.
At least he knows what he is up against at a “hearing school”. Was so hopeful that this college could be a welcome break from discrimination for being who he is. I am so disappointed that “adults” act in this manner- especially ones who have been horribly discriminated against as he has been. He has worked so incredibly hard- zero possibility of being torn apart in DC.
What prompted this response was due in part of the article's coverage on "Deaf Zone" or "Deaf Space" which are essentially designated signing only zones on campus, no voice allowed. A clear act of discrimination good intention aside.
Let's step back a moment here.
One reason why I attended Gallaudet University (1988 - 1991) was to learn sign language and be around deaf/hh students who are like myself, a hard of hearing person whose identity is through speaking and listening while growing up and continuing through adulthood. I met my goal and made many friends who are hoh just like me. Just as well, I made friends who are culturally deaf who grew up with a deaf family or grew up signing. I was not about to lose my identity as a hard of hearing person who grew up loving to listen and speak once I stepped inside the "golden gates" of Gallaudet University. No. My goal was to learn about Gallaudet University, the students and faculty there, the signing environment, the deaf culture, improve my signing and to finish my degree as quickly as possible which I did in 3 years time. I gained a language and a new perspective but that doesn't mean I had to change my own identity that I've always been comfortable with. My preferred mode of communication is and will always be speaking and listening in my own native English language with the help of my hearing aid. If I'm around deaf people who know sign language, I'll sign. Not a problem. If I want to do a presentation and there are interpreters and/or real time captioners available, I'll use my voice to do the presentation. Not a problem since the message wouldn't be lost on the deaf, hard of hearing and hearing audience whose own mode of communication preferences and comfort zones vary from one person to another. They can either listen to my presentation and get supplementary help with the live captioning at the same time. Or combine those with the interpreter signing. Or rely on just the captioning part alone for those who are weak with sign language and cannot hear/understand well the spoken words. Or preferably rely on the interpreter as their preferred communication access. Everybody gets accommodated. Everybody wins!
This "Deaf Space" concept might sound great at the surface but poking deeper into it presents potentially deeper problems depending on who you ask.
(Chris) Heuer stated that “there is one specific attitude that needs to change. If a non-signer is willing to learn sign, hands off! Let them learn in freedom. Help them. Include them. Make them a part of the community pride. If we exclude them, where else will they learn sign? How can we expect them to sign if we never interact with them?”
“ASL is an official language like English, and it cannot be mastered overnight. We can’t force everyone to sign outside of the academic buildings and in private, like the dorms and the cafeterias. Imagine telling deaf people at a hearing school (or even oral schools back in the days) that they could not use their native language, sign language, to communicate. Would they like that? No. Now imagine telling hearing people not to talk — which is their native mode of communication — outside of the classroom,” said a hard-of-hearing student who chose to stay anonymous.
Exactly, which is why trying to enforce these "Deaf Zones" would be fruitless and even counter-productive depending on where these zones would be and who they are targeted for. In the same article Amanda Koski, a hearing student at Gallaudet University, commented:
Amanda Koski on said:
I agree with Sara 100%! Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle. The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful! To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now?
Here is the thing.
Native language through talking/listening isn't just for hearing people only but for hard of hearing people who grew up with English as their native language and are comfortable with it. That's key. They must be comfortable with it. There are hard of hearing students who are comfortable talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students, faculty or even staff or even among other hard of hearing people who can or prefer to speak and listen. It is a part of their identity, too. It doesn't do anybody any good to try and suppress or constrain their identities.
While as a student at Gallaudet University I've even requested several times, in their own private offices and elsewhere, for a hearing instructor or a staff member to not sign but simply speak which made conversations so much easier and faster. I have that right to request that kind of accommodation if I feel that signing simply "gets in the way." All hard of hearing students want are better accommodations to go with their education at Gallaudet University like access to CART, note-takers, voice-interpreters, and so on like they would expect the same kind of accommodations at any other universities. This is so students won't be constrained completely in ASL only with no other accommodations to help fill the missing communication gap for those new or struggling with sign language. Eventually they will catch up. They like to be able to understand, get the full communication access, and participate just like everybody else. Understanding only a third or half of what was signed doesn't help anybody's education.
Next is Jonathan Beattyon, a hard of hearing student, who expressed himself well about the problems hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University facing prejudice and discrimination against them.
Jonathan Beattyon November 29, 2010 at 3:12 PM said:
Terrific. Some of the points here are points I make on a daily basis; specifically, the point about the new students not being told about the so-called darker side of Deaf culture. I have found the culture here to be somewhat exclusionary at times.
I’ll explain myself: I’m hard-of-hearing and have been since birth. However, I “fit in” in the hearing world well. Face-to-face communication is easy enough for me (even though using the phone is painfully difficult with some voices) that I did not *have* to come to Gallaudet. However, I’ve had good experiences with the Academic Bowl, having come to Nationals three times. I was always met with respect and patience, even though during the competition I used a voice interpreter. I came to Gallaudet as a new signer (in the summer program as well) expecting similar treatment.
Ha! I was wrong.
In only the third day of the New Signers’ Program, my table at lunch was approached by a proud Deaf girl who proceeded to tell us (with a good friend of mine translating for my benefit, of course) that Gallaudet was a Deaf university and that we should only sign while on campus. Those competent in ASL at the table were sim-comming, but two of us were just speaking. At that point, I knew letters, numbers, and days of the week, along with a smattereing of other useful signs (“right”, “wrong”, “day”, “morning”, etc) so I was not pleased at being told that my language skills were not good enough to be allowed to express myself.
I am also offended that it’s somehow right for people to criticize my signing skills just because they are Deaf. It’s well-accepted on campus and seen as being just a sign of “Deaf bluntness”. I’m sick of it; I do make an effort to improve my signing skills, but what if I were to laugh at a Deaf person trying to order food at McDonald’s: “Your speaking is awful. You should practice more.” That would be completely unacceptable.
The argument from tradition is a very, very poor one. Something is not good just because that’s how it’s traditionally been done. Some examples of “cultural traditions” here that I have come to abhor:
1. The cultural policy on phones. I personally do not have voice on my phone (when I use the phone, I prefer to do so on Skype with my amplified headphones and equalizer). That being said, if someone wants to use the phone, let them. Is it right to sit at the table with Deaf people and speak on the phone? No, and for the same reason that it would be inappropriate for me to greet a phone call from my friend Hans with “Tag, Hans! Wie geht’s?” and proceed to rattle off in German while surrounded by English-speaking hearing people.
2. The repression of simultaneous communication. Yes, I said it. The point is communication; when you get stuck in the game of being prideful in something just because it’s part of *your* culture, you’re playing the same stupid games oppressive people have always played. I’d like to be able to understand lectures and be able to participate. For the same reasons that Deaf students in mainstream schools do not typically participate in classes (linguistic processing is slow with or without the interpreter) I find it difficult to participate in a class when, by the time I understand what was signed, the conversation has already moved on. I do not think deaf people should be encouraged to sim-com if they’re not comfortable with it, not at all. However, I must say that I’m always appreciative when someone notices my poor signing skills and sim-coms for my benefit.
3. The oppression of signs with “No, that’s English”; a lot of people on campus sign with an English structure anyway. That’s what happens in bilingual environments. It is very rare to see two languages side-by-side without “contamination”; Deaf English typically is missing things like articles, plurals, etc while Hearing ASL can contain signs which are, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary in a sign language. This occurs even when the people in question are fluent in both languages. There is a line between comfortable language and formal language; “Pidgin Signed English” is that line for a *lot* of students of all backgrounds.
And with all due respect to President Hurwitz, I must say I disagree strongly with this comment:
“And no, this is not about stifling speech or marginalizing those whose signing skills are undeveloped. Rather, it’s about respect, courtesy, tradition and harmony.”
I don’t care what it’s about. I am more concerned with what it DOES. These policies DO stifle speech and they DO marginalize those whose signing skills are underdeveloped. Your intentions are irrelevant.
Their intentions are indeed irrelevant (i.e. the making of "Deaf Space") when you still have those kinds of problems discrimination against hard of hearing (and hearing) students whose identities are quite diametrically different than those who grew up signing in a deaf family. Discrimination is alive and well on campus of Gallaudet University. It's certainly not harmony in the making if new hard of hearing students come on campus, new to signing or have rudimentary signing skills become shocked at the pervasiveness of how some deaf people treat them according to their speaking/listening and/or signing abilities.
“We all know and accept that Gallaudet is a bilingual university. Communication here happens through American Sign Language (ASL) and English. While the expectation that everyone on campus becomes fluent in both languages within a reasonable amount of time, the reality is that some people, however diligent, take longer to master one or the other language.”
And if you don't like the idea of people using SimCom then consider former interim president Robert Davila who used his voice and signed at the same time for those who were never aware of it. You can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:15 to 2:01 with president Davila using his voice while signing in sign supported English. Also note in the video deaf/hh people signing and mouthing the words at the same time, oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really. Signed English, sign-supported English or PSE? Sure. Question: How does president Hurwitz sign?
From the NTID page "Raising and Educating a Deaf Child" Mark Marschark of NTID (author of Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students) responded to a question "Can you tell me what the story is on sign-supported English?" (note the highlighted yellow bold words below) which I think is something that seriously need to be discussed, explored, researched and studied more:
I know, I know, everyone says that sign-supported English (SSE) and simultaneous communication (SimCom) – both involving speech and sign at the same time – are bad. On the theoretical/political side, people point out that neither is truly a language unto itself, and argue that they therefore are “inappropriate.” Empirically, people point to two studies, both done over 20 years ago, which found that several teachers and parents of young deaf children said more than appeared on their hands (by anywhere from 20 to 50%). The sign abilities of those parents and teachers were never examined, however, and some people are extremely good at SSE (or whatever language) and SimCom. Research over the past 30 years has shown that when teachers are highly skilled at SSE or SimCom, students learn just as much or more than with ASL from a teacher, interpreting, or spoken language alone. In our own work, we’ve recently have found the same thing, as deaf college students learned exactly the same amount when they had teachers using SimCom, voice-off ASL, or utilizing interpreters.Importantly, these were skilled teachers of the deaf, who had been using SimCom for many years with classes that included oral students, ASL students, and everything in between. Although it frequently is not discussed (at least in public) many deaf students request teachers to use SimCom and ask interpreters to include “English on the lips.” It seems likely that SimCom would be particularly beneficial for children with cochlear implants, who generally do not receive auditory input as clear as that received by hearing children.
Unfortunately, the unearned stigma associated with SSE/SimCom seems to have prevented anyone from doing the appropriate study. Meanwhile, both are used effectively in many classrooms, even if students use a natural sign language or spoken language in other settings. What is essential is that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have early access to fluent language. That usually is difficult with spoken language alone and most parents are not fluent in sign. So, SimCom/SSE might be helpful in ensuring communication for new-signing parents, but this DOES NOT mean that SimCOM/SSE can replace full access to a natural language (actually, there isn’t research one way or another). The issue clearly is more complex than we can deal with here.
I thank the math and physics professors and other professors I had while a student at Gallaudet University for speaking and signing at the same time, it'd made my early years at Gallaudet University easier to transition and be able to participate better.
Hard of hearing students at Gallaudet University who feel that they are being discriminated or even oppressed because of their native language (spoken English) as their primary or preferred mode of communication need to stand up against these internal prejudices and discrimination on campus by voicing their concerns. By doing so helps raise greater awareness of the problems that still persist on the campus of Gallaudet University. They just want to be accommodated like everybody else and be able to participate while in the process of learning and using sign language.
Can you spot the differences between these three videos? Maybe the irony? Before you complain, think first. Keep it clean...and nice. That's my only request.
The last video talks about this guy in a screenshot which can be found here.
Noelle produced a blog recently on calling out NAD for its association with a seemingly questionable organization who defaced a sign (although not permanently) by covering up the words on an AGBell plaque on the side of AGBell's building in D.C. last month. Noelle is re-iterating or pointing out that the image of an organization would be perceived negatively or even militant for its approach even though she supports the use of sign language.
Instead of attacking and protesting a rival organization, they should be promoting ASL and the benefits of bilingualism at the local, state, and national level, and asking for it to be included in ALL communication modes in legislation.
Putting it into picture on what Noelle and many others are trying to say is this:
Whether it's SEE, ASL, PSE, or even cued speech, anything that helps with the visual aspect of communicating with a language is a pretty good start for kids with hearing loss. Of course, that probably depend on the amount of hearing loss if we're talking about those with mild versus severe/profound hearing loss.
What is really odd is how one person makes the claim that by "pushing" (e.g. making it personal by calling Gina "GAS" as in YouTube's "GAS in the flesh" subject line instead of calling by her proper name) against Gina would ensure that "unity" will somehow magically occur in the Deaf community. It is certainly surreal to suggest that "unity" would work by outing people by harassing them, making online threats or expose their physical or online identities. It wouldn't make any sense to say that "pushing" will work for the sake of "unity." Rather, I see all this "pushing" as an excise in grudge mongering and a bit of hate in the process. Nothing more. All it was is that ASLeslie found a video of Gina in Fookembug's YouTube channel that was 2 years old and decided to parade it around and expose Gina's physical identity. That was the goal. Even knowing after the fact that her employer was contacted in the effort to out Gina's identity and hoping to harm her employment. It was nothing more than an example of a bit of hate mongering by making it personal towards an individual he or she doesn't like. To say it any other way would be disingenuous and dishonest.
I've read Gina's blogs and saw no indication of her putting down the Deaf community or even ASL given the fact that she was born deaf and into a culturally deaf family. She is in fact a part of the Deaf community. I see her as having strong opinions on a variety of subjects or issues that can evoke strong feelings among many Deaf people (e.g. the AB2072 bill). Many confuse having a strong opinion on a particular Deaf-related topic as "putting down the Deaf community" whenever Gina opines or notes the discrepancies based on her observations as a culturally deaf person. Many Deaf people have agreed with her, many didn't.
The same goes for ASL.
I saw nothing of the sort from Gina of her "putting down ASL." In fact, even DonG admitted that he does tend to sign in English word order ("PSE") and not in the ASL sense which was Gina's point all along in one of her blog and nothing about putting ASL down. Instead she gave examples of why ASL is not ASL whenever people make the claim of signing in ASL. DonG is a perfect example of signing in English word order. So is my signing. And many others who in the same boat as we are. That's not putting down ASL or labeling but about making observations about ASL and those who sign.
For a person to make online claims without showing any examples of what Gina said or wrote does not strengthen an argument but rather it weakens a claim considerably. It makes the person look even more petty. And people will see that as nothing but hot air. All in all I say it's pretty odd and strange for those who say that by "pushing" others in order for them to "come clean" by twisting and lying will ensure "unity" in a Deaf community. I'm sure it won't. And it certainly won't help in the deaf and hard of hearing community either by any stretch of the imagination.
NAD as an organization provides a valuable service for deaf and hard of hearing people but there's a caveat here. It's not like I want to see NAD go away. No, nothing like that at all. They provide a valuable service such as advocating for more captioning service and so on yet they are seen as an organization that caters mostly to a specific group of people, culturally deaf people who signs in ASL (or at least when they think they sign in ASL but it's more of a mixed sign than not with strong English word order and format).
Some people tend to jump the gun and think I'm about advocating for the loss of "ASL" or the collapse of NAD and so forth. No. What I write are what I'm observing and provide talking points on those things. Just because my title says "The coming collapse of NAD" does not mean that I'm hoping it collapse. I made clear on the problems on what is NAD is facing and not about hoping for an eventual collapse.
Will NAD "collapse"? No. But certainly there are competitions out there and for people who feel they are not being well represented and will look elsewhere for support and the opportunity offer their contributions to the cause. The majority of people with hearing loss in the United States are not even a part of the deaf culture or have very little association with those culturally deaf organizations and/or culturally deaf people. Roughly 2% of the 36 million people with hearing loss are people who are considered to be culturally deaf. This is primarily the group that NAD caters mostly to seeing that their BODs are entirely made up of culturally deaf people and their interests mostly revolve around culturally deaf people and ASL, and how issues affect them. They essentially made their own "glass ceiling."
What I have observed, and I'm not alone in this observation either, is this "glass ceiling" effect that NAD imposes on itself whose organization looks to be more specialized than inclusive. And nothing more beyond that. Jumping the gun about what I wrote doesn't help, folks.
To me, anybody that signs whether it's in SEE, PSE, mixed sign, ASL or what have you I see it as a language they are using to communicate. This is simply because of the fact that when people say they sign in "ASL" they are probably most likely signing outside of the recognized semantics, grammar, syntax, morphology, and phonology that defines specifically what ASL is about. Or in another word "pure" ASL, for the lack of a better word here. So, I don't feel the need nor the desire to analyze whether a person signing is in fact a language or not. He or she is communicating in his or her own special way of signing. For them, they consider their own signing as a language in its own right. I think it boils down to pride and arrogance to go around and say, "Your signing is a language. Yours is not. Yours is almost there. Yep, yours is definitely a language."
So, in retrospect there is nothing "speshul" about ASL in terms of whether its signing is considered to be a language or not. Rather an arrogant view to say which signing is the only acceptable "language." All of the various modes of signing are special in their own right and if people feel it's a language to them and how it benefits them with their daily communicating and learning, so be it. All the more power to them! And for the record, I'd say that SEE, for example, is a language. It's a visual language since it uses the complete English language in all of its grammar, semantics, syntax and meanings in a very accessible visual format.
My point is this. Any signing, I say it's a language in it's own right by those who use it for their own benefit. A visual language, that is. As for NAD, good luck to them. In the end, what counts are whether people with hearing loss feel that they are being cared for, catered to, or feel that they are getting the necessary support without the need for petty politics or favoritism. Whatever works, support them for that and you'll go farther than ever before.
Last night, I watched Dr. Jane K. Fernandes' presentation at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies. A little bit after she was introduced, she mentioned about the past ICED and how it recognized that the Milan resolution was in error. Then, she mentioned about respecting all languages and forms of communication. She mentioned that she was giving her presentation in honor of that respect for all forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies should be broadened to include the diverse deaf people outside of the standard ASL deaf signers in the Deaf culture. I am sure that this is familiar to all of you.
I thought that it was neat and nice that she remembered and recognized the importance of the respect for all languages and forms of communication that she decided to honor it with her presentation. Given that this happened in close proximity with Mr. Mike McConnell's and Candy's blog, I wanted to share this news.
Interesting development. I wrote my blog on April 4, 2011 and she gave her speech on April 7, 2011 on basically about diversity and respect for all communications and languages per the ICED recommendations.
It was a sad day to witness the beginning on the calling of deaf/hh people as "hoodless." I warned people in my blog 5 years ago about the dangers of judging people for what they "have" or "don't have" when it comes to "deafhood." Which was why many of us made the point of saying "Deafhood? No thanks" and joined the DNT Facebook for that very reason. We continue on with own our unique but deeply personal journey in life as people with hearing loss and how we identify ourselves as and whatever makes you happy. We recognize the value of diversity, and that we support and respect all forms of communication and language. We say "no thanks" to "deafhood" because we recognized right away it would lead to acts of discrimination and segregation. It has simply become a glorified ideology specifically and mainly for culturally deaf people, and nothing more. That's the problem. It's not really about for anybody with hearing loss. There's a certain sine qua non when it comes to "deafhood," believe it or not. We don't presume who has "deafhood" and who doesn't, and that was the trap we recognized at the very beginning. We prefer to move forward and not backward and instead would rather follow ICED recommendation to accept and respect all forms of communication and language whether combined or used alone be it PSE, ASL, SEE, cued speech, oral-aural, oral, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help with the communication, or plainly just do without them. We have respected those differences since day one even before ICED came out with their own recommendation.
I'm sad to say this but I continue to be correct on this.
I will continue to say "no thanks" and just simply accept you as for who you are, and not about what you are. That's a simple recipe for happiness.
Here's a video of a song that is signed using the ASL version versus the SEE/English (signed English word order) version. The music is "Do I" by Luke Bryan signed by Allyballybabe. Here is what she has to say between the two signed versions.
I wanted to show the differences between ASL and SEE/English. There is a HUGEEEE difference, and hopefully this helps to see that. SEE and English SL are NOT languages. ASL, however, IS a language! Enjoy!
When searching for YouTube vids, be sure to take notice of if it is REALLY ASL, or if it's SEE/English that is mislabeled.. There are LOTS of SEE/English YouTubers out there. If you're wanting TRUE ASL, take caution..
Click on YouTube to get to her site containing the lyrics in English and in ASL gloss.
I agree. There is a stark difference. Just like that female astronaut who signed in PSE/SE/SEE (i.e. English word order) and certainly not in ASL. And thus no one can claim that first ASL was signed in outer space. Nearly 75% of those who answered my poll agreed that the female astronaut signed in an English word order format whether it's PSE, SEE, or SE. The point is that the majority saw the astronaut signed in English, not ASL which has a markedly different grammar and syntax than English. So, it's the signed English word order (whether it's PSE, SE, or SEE) that made into outer space. American Sign Language (ASL) never made it into outerspace but sign language did. So, don't call it ASL but sign language. It may be awhile til a true ASL signing astronaut will be seen from outer space. Meanwhile, let's celebrate the fact that sign language made its first debut in outer space in 2010!
Calling PSE or English order signing as ASL where Patti said that "ASL has even made it into outerspace" by a female astronaut signing inside a space ship to mother Earth?
But the astronaut is signing in Signed English (SE) but not in ASL according to Dianrez and Boutcher.
Yet SE, according to, um, experts say it's not a language, so it cannot be ASL though it falls under the same category as PSE and SEE as signing in English word order.
Right now it seems to me that most signers regularly use English word order in their signing as part of their visual language of communication rather than strictly in ASL. Perhaps those who took the survey poll might be confused as thinking their signing is in ASL but in reality uses more English word order (e.g. PSE, SE, SEE) than they care to admit and perhaps their signing actually fall under the category as either SE, SEE or even PSE? Perhaps like David or Don, for example?
People seriously need to make up their minds instead of making things up along the way in the effort to tout ASL as the all encompassing signing umbrella by those who sign in SE, PSE or even SEE just so they can put a few more notches on their ASL bedpost and call those signing as "ASL." All of sudden it appears we're seeing these incestuous relationships happening among many culturally deaf people in their exhaustive efforts to label just about any signing, part and parcel, as "ASL."
Here's a clue.
Just don't call any English word order signing as "ASL" if you're adamant of calling them as "not a language." Just call it sign language instead. Now, when you sign ask yourself, "Am I really signing strictly in ASL or am I just fooling myself here calling it as ASL?"
I've always recognized the diversity within the deaf and hard of hearing community and that no matter what their mode of communication is no one is belittled for their choices. None. Whether it's preferring to sign in SEE, SE, PSE, MCE, Rochester Method, speaking and listening (oral-auditory), cued speech, or even ASL. It is also about people who prefer their hearing aids, cochlear implants or none at all. And with diversity it is also about recognizing people's varying experiences and skills that shape their opinions and understanding in life with their hearing loss.
My experiences and skills do not invalidate other deaf and hard of hearing people's experiences and skill. But we do have opinions on a variety of issues and subjects. And we should simply respect people choices on how they wish to communicate as long as access to communication is there. Just as I provide captioning in all of my speaking videos with the goal of including captioning to all of my future signing videos or vlogs.
Isn't diversity a wonderful thing?
The quote "RELAX! This is diversity!" came from Bgmaron8. Check it out. And he's exactly right.
I suppose you remembered last year when a female astronaut became the first astronaut in space to sign back to Earth in a signed video message to the people of Earth? Review this video and tell me what you think is her mode of communication is like. Watch the video of her signing and then take a poll at the bottom on what you think her mode of communication is when it comes to signing.
If you're not sure on which mode of communication she may be using then click on one of the links below.
Let's ask ourselves honestly here. People are saying that ASL is on the rise. Sure, but to what extent compared to PSE or even SEE? Which ones of the signing format would be on the rise in a much bigger way? In short, which ones are the popular signing format used the most? Before I continue let's watch a video of an astronaut signing in space last year.
Now, is that astronaut signing in a SEE, PSE fashion or completely in ASL? (note: you will have to go to the original YouTube page to see the closed captioned part by clicking on the YouTube screen here).
Next, let's watch Gnarly Dorkette's video she made 2 years ago of her signing explaining CDI's role and requirement when it comes to English understanding and competency, PSE, SEE, and ASL.
Now, is her signing done in an ASL, PSE or SEE format?(note, click on the YouTube video to see her transcript of her signing).
Next, let's watch a video of a person demonstrating the four different ways of signing the same Billy Goat story using SEE, Signed English, PSE and ASL so you can see the evolving differences where it goes from following in English word order and grammar to a completely different grammar structure in ASL.
Now, having seen all the videos, which I hope you sincerely did watch and review them all, what would you consider the astronaut's signed input be like? And ask yourself if her signing accurately portrays how most signers tend to sign in. And, if so, then wouldn't her signing format be the one that's on the rise and be deserved special recognition?
If you call the astronaut's mode of signing as PSE then you cannot call the astronaut's signing as "ASL," right? But if you call her signing as "ASL" then it goes against conventional wisdom according to the Billy Gruff story signing examples because her signing was done in English word order and grammar.
So, which ones is it that's on the rise when it comes to signing?
If you know a thing about naval history or two you'd probably might recognize this slightly changed phrase "Damn the ASL, Full speed ahead!" as borrowed from one of the famous and well known naval quotes. And if you look at the bolded italics below it's exactly what I've been doing lately as seen in my latest vlog in response to a deaf professor's rant against a deaf female blogger as I continue to steam full speed ahead on being who I am regardless of the "mines" around me.
"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!"
Admiral David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870). Aboard Hartford, Farragut entered Mobile Bay, Alabama, 5 August 1864, in two columns, with armored monitors leading and a fleet of wooden ships following. When the lead monitor Tecumseh was demolished by a mine, the wooden ship Brooklyn stopped, and the line drifted in confusion toward Fort Morgan. As disaster seemed imminent, Farragut gave the orders embodied by these famous words. He swung his own ship clear and headed across the mines, which failed to explode. The fleet followed and anchored above the forts, which, now isolated, surrendered one by one. The torpedoes to which Farragut and his contemporaries referred would today be described as tethered mines.
[Hearn, Chester G. Admiral David Glasgow Farragut: The Civil War Years. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1988): 263-265. According to the book by Admiral Farragut's son, The Life of David Glasgow Farragut, First Admiral of the United States Navy, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1879), pages 416-417, Admiral Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells! Captain Crayton, go ahead! Joucett, full speed!"]
I've not changed in who I am. I have used my voice in the past at Gallaudet University's blog/vlog conference and I will continue to do so into the future whether it'd be on YouTube, my blog or in DVTV. And "Damn the ASL" as I continue to sign in PSE or ASL or a mix of both. No shame in how I communicate. I acknowledge my own English language upbringing, my use of my voice, my hearing aid, and even my way of signing. So, full speed ahead! Those mines are duds!
My discussion in DVTV continues on the issues between PSE and ASL. It's not that I'm discounting ASL but rather questioning the fact whether deaf/hh people who know signing actually sign in PSE rather than in purely in ASL. And seeing the irony of how some people proclaim to be ASL signers but sign rather obviously in a PSE or PSE/ASL format instead. There is no shame in signing and acknowledging the use of PSE over ASL. There are people who have a preference and reason to sign in PSE rather than ASL and vice versa. No shame in that. Just as there is no shame for me to use my voice in expressing my opinions in YouTube provided that I includes captions so that my videos are accessible to most people, deaf or not.
DVTV will allow my recent video to stay on and I'm thankful to Tayler for allowing that. I have not broken any rules and according to the R-List the goal is for a full and healthy discourse that are accessible for deaf and hard of hearing community users.
We at DeafVIDEO.TV are committed to increasing the accessibility of information for Deaf and Hard of Hearing community users and look forward to a positive and thriving exchange of views in a respectful and safe manner.
Tayler has been doing the right thing in DVTV on helping to try and keep dialogues in a respectful and safe manner.
Last year was my first year at Gallaudet and I had a huge struggle with ASL. Not only to move far away from home and become completely independent, also experiencing my first year in college, and then being told that my identity as a hearing person was wrong. That I couldn’t express my identity on campus as a hearing individual (ex: talking on the phone or talking with other hearing students), that was really hard for me to handle.
The Student Collation [sic] has really helped me this year and it has given me an opportunity to have some peer-to-peer support which has been wonderful!
To go back to “hearing space”. My question is Why? Why can’t we just be tolerant? It all starts with us teaching tolerance. Why not start now?