Proof when voice is more effective than signing....

Or is it?

Well, one person was the Chapter president (Sacramento) of California Association of the Deaf, an organization who pride themselves their strong heritage on using ASL, used his voice instead at a California Senate Health Hearing discussing the AB2072 bill in a roomful of culturally deaf people which would make Alexander G. Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, John Tracy Clinic, Oberkotter Foundation and all of the oral/aural schools around the United States quite proud.




Sign language interpreters were at the hearing to help interpret both voice and sign language.  Yet it's perfectly alright to use your voice, even at Gallaudet University, CSUN, or elsewhere as long as there are interpreters and/or CART services available so that everyone, deaf, hard of hearing and/or hearing can understand what's being said. Tim Riker, former chapter president of CAD, made it perfectly clear on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing that using his voice was wholly acceptable finding it preferable and more effective than signing.  Although one cannot avoid noticing the total irony coming from a chapter president of an organization that exclusively use sign language.

It was perfectly clear that using my voice at Gallaudet University's blog/vlog conference with interpreters and real time captioners available for the audience and for those watching over the internet (it was a live taping) was more effective for me than signing. It was simply due to my preference and communication ease. I discussed one of the topic surrounding the use of technology on whether ASL is in danger of disappearing.




It was perfectly clear when a Gallaudet University Board of Trustee member, Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, used her voice at a Gallaudet University graduation commencement speech was an effective use of her communication preference to the graduating class of 2006  with an inspirational speech but you need to know the true story of why she had to use her voice before you get angry first.

It was perfectly clear that John Fortius, an oral person who does not know sign language, who used his voice at the California Senate Health Hearing was an effective and efficient way of communicating to the assembly members.  Even though, ironically enough, the former chapter president of CAD criticized John (it appears he was talking about John) for having "unintelligible" speech.  Even though there is a complete transcript of John Fortias' speech and that sign language interpreters were clearly interpreting in ASL what John said for the deaf audience in attendance at the Senate Health Hearing.





Thank you, Tim Riker, former California chapter president of Sacramento CAD. Thank you, John Fortias. Thank you Dr. Brenda Brueggemann.

Whatever mode of communication you find most effective and efficient is what really counts.

Using your voice at Gallaudet University and elsewhere is OK

There were several instances of a protest supporter, student, faculty or alumnus who used his/her voice (without signing) in front of hearing, deaf, and  hard of hearing audience. Most of these people who used their voice instead of signing were either deaf or hard of hearing at places like Gallaudet University and the Senate Health Hearing in California on the AB2072 bill. In all cases there were sign language interpreters available and in some cases included voice interpreter and real time captioner.  This is about respecting communication preferences of deaf and hard of hearing people. A preference that they feel most comfortable in. Due to certain circumstances sometimes voice had to be used instead of signing.

Before I get started I want to remind people that Gallaudet University is a true, bi-lingual institute. I would like to think students attending Gallaudet University are not linguistically disabled in the English language, especially towards the end of their undergraduate career with a strengthened English competency and literacy.   I see both the English language (spoken or written) and sign language as equally supported on campus. Both ASL and the spoken English language deserve equal respect in the cases I'm about to present.

Secondly, I must remind people that president Hurtwitz of Gallaudet University re-iterated a key point that ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people. There were no restrictions or specificity against the use of Cued Speech, oral-auditory methods, SEE, PSE, AVT, note takers, CART, captioning, texting, voice to text, use of hearing aids and cochlear implants to help communicate and listen, and so on. Nor did ICED specify or condemn for using one form of communication method over another. Nothing was said about which form of communication MUST be used but rather that all forms of communication MUST be accepted and respected.

Did you get that?

Thirdly, as a side note, most students on campus do not sign in "pure ASL" but instead mouth the words while signing almost or completely in English word order like a PSE or signed English format. Some do sign and use their voice at the same time like former interim president Robert Davila of Gallaudet University as you can see (and hear) in the video below at time stamp from 1:13 to 2:01. Also note in the video on how deaf/hh people sign and mouths the words at the same time and oftentimes in English order. Pure ASL? Not really.



Moving on.

 

The first notable so called "scandal" that I'm aware of took place at Gallaudet University in 2006. Dr. Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf, was the Commencement Speaker for Gallaudet University's graduating class of 2006.  She used her own voice instead of sign language.

 

 

 

She was at the time the interim Acting Chair of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees. She was essentially pushed to take over Celia May Baldwin's position after she suddenly resigned claiming threats were made against her by some nutty pro-DPN2 protesters.  After the 2006 Gallaudet University graduation ceremony Dr. Brueggemann was wrongly attacked for using her voice.  The attackers simply did not see the bigger picture the reason why she had to use her voice in the first place as explained to me by Bruggemann in her email to me in 2010.

Meanwhile, I do also completely understand the reason and "right" for using ASL more and "better" --especially at places like Gallaudet. My ASL is only about half-good right now--not even as good as my German probably. But I can have conversations. I did so all the time as Board Chair with King and other Gu administrators directly on VRS (not using interpreters). I get by. 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....

If only the attackers knew about the little known history of why Dr. Brueggemann used her voice then they would not have screeched themselves into an apoplectic fit.   Instead, they get eggs on their faces just like Random Thoughts and Musings by moi blog who got everything wrong about Dr. Brueggemann's reason to use her voice that day.

Feeling silly right about now, don't you?

Let's keep an open mind here, folks.  Signers have a different level of fluency and visual reception/recognition. Not all deaf or hard of hearing people know sign language.

Dr. Brueggemann gave me a poignant but funny message in her email to me to share with everybody:

"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.

Yeah, me, too.

The second "scandal" occurred around November of 2009 when a hearing doctoral candidate at Gallaudet University presented a dissertation defense in spoken English rather than ASL to a diverse audience of deaf, hard of hearing and hearing students as well as professors. Gallaudet University provided ASL interpreters. That "scandal" was short-lived, too.  Not much details other than it happened. Although I do admit this has nothing to do with a deaf or hard of hearing person but it was the idea that a doctoral candidate was allowed to use his own voice to speak in his dissertation defense at Gallaudet University.

Then we have an 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. I'm sure I was the FIRST to ever do so.

I received a few funny looks from my peers and a few of the EDU professors but It was a success...

-Bobby W.

Bobby W, where are you? Are you deaf, hh or hearing?

Next, of course, you have another Gallaudet University alumnus, which would me, who used his voice to speak at an audience at Gallaudet University's first ever vlogging/blogging conference in 2007.  I was one several panel members at that vlogging/blogging conference.  It was streamed in live in front of an internet audience and those physically present. Most people, I think, were quite receptive of my decision to use my voice based on the comments I received compared to Dr. Brueggemann's who probably got more people their panties in a bunch.  I don't think mine counted as a "scandal" by any stretch of the imagination.

And then we had this culturally deaf guy who was the Sacramento chapter president of CAD used his voice at the Senate Health Hearing in California in a room full of culturally deaf people which easily outnumbered the number of hearing people present. It's not a scandal if a deaf person choose to use his or her voice to speak or use sign language. The deaf and hard of hearing community support those who have a different but preferred mode of communicating.  You can find the original video of Tim Riker and others at the Senate Health Hearing in here.  




But the real eye-brow raiser was when Tim Riker criticized another oral deaf person, John Fortias, for having "unintelligible speech. " The sad thing is that the "unintelligible speech" claim is not true at all. John's speech is intelligible as evidenced in a transcript and by the interpreters in both videos (see above and below). It is quite evident that a sign language interpreter could understand John's speech as evidenced in the video below (video source).



The message?

If you're deaf or hard of hearing, whether you wear hearing aids, cochlear implants or none at all, it is alright to use your voice to speak in a public setting as long as other modes of communication are accessible to those who cannot hear, have trouble understanding the spoken word or unable to understand a different language such as ASL.  Let's hope students and faculty members at Gallaudet University will not shame students for using their voice as a choice.  After all, Gallaudet University is a bi-lingual institute.  Don't let people bully or chide for your preferred communication choices.

The meaning of "organic."

The "organic" word is hippy! Cool! Naturrral! Or with the more provocatively French you could say "Au naturel!" For a deaf or hard of hearing person not to do anything with hearing aids and cochlear implants one could try and claim as being the "organic" wholesome deaf person.

Sure. If you believe in that.

Although I do have my "organic" moments whenever I take a shower.  Even going for swim at a remote swimming hole and go "au naturel" within the volcanic bedrock deep in the territory of Oregon could constitute as an "organic" wholesome moment.  Make that pretty darned wholesome moment. Even singing some songs as you hike the trails would be an "organic" moment because it comes naturally to use your voice. Even if you're tone deaf. Nothing more "organic" than using your voice and scream "Hello" and hear the "organic" echos reverberate off the canyon walls.

Just because one action, belief or way of doing is considered as "organic" or "wholesome" doesn't necessarily mean it's natural. Having an "organic" moment by running nekkid through the city streets in broad daylight with your dingleberries bouncing like leather Hacky Sacks will certainly earn you a trip to the nearest asylum. So, is using your voice to yell "fire" in the most shrieking "organic" way will certainly be a guaranteed way to get yourself arrested.

But I'm sure speaking and using your voice constitute as an "organic wholesomeness" action. Something like the time when one deaf person decided to to speak at the Senate Health Hearing in California decided to go really "organic." The whole nine yards, vocal cords and all. After all, to speak and use one's voice is quite natural for many deaf and hard of hearing people. I don't think you can't get any more "organic" than that. Signing is also "organic," too.  The Native American Indians were doing their own "organic" stuff for a long time until a better, improved "organic" way of communicating stepped in.


I end my thoughts here with a captioned 1967 song called "Born to be Wild" by the Steppenwolf band. Crank up that volume and enjoy your "organic" moment whether by feeling it or by listening to it.

The Deaf Dr. Evil Plot......exposed!

Interesting to see the responses in Dianrez's recent blog. One thing I'll have to correct her is her assumption that my recent video was about saving face. Hardly. If she had bothered to pay close attention it was about the ridiculousness of assuming that my quote "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly" is meant that I'm somehow planning to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community like some people actually believed here, here, here and most recently today seen here, for example just to name a few. In fact, some people were already proposing these wild conspiracy theories at the very beginning that there were these "super-secret" meetings between me, Barry, Paotie, and whoever else. Before I even started doing the whole Dr. Evil routine quote.

That conspiratorial thinking probably started about more than two years ago when Barry first came on the blogging scene in 2008. So, if people were willing to believe some conspiratorial nonsense about us conspiring together for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, I decided to have some fun beginning in Paotie's blog in June 2008 doing the whole Dr. Evil act. And again here. I repeated that again probably 3 or 4 times in my blog as well. If people desperately wanted to believe in their own conspiracy theories about me and other Deaf, deaf, hh people getting together to conspire to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community, I decided to play along since they desperately wanted to believe in it anyway.

Get it? I hope you do, Dianrez.

Hence with all the recent conspiratorial nonsense thrown about at me as seen in my blog comments lately were probably manifested as a result of my Dr. Evil comment started over two years ago and have since floated throughout the minds of many Deaf readers up to today. Which is why I keep saying, "Remove those insipid thoughts of any lingering conspiracy theory about me. You'll sleep better at night." In other words, you'd be playing yourself for a fool to even suggest such that there is such a plot on taking down the Deaf community. It's just plain common sense.

And, Paotie, I know you're laughing already.

So, the big secret is out! Only that I didn't need to explain all this to you, Dianrez, since the very notion that I'm out to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community would have been absurd to you in the first place. Right? Yet, somehow I have the feeling you didn't quite understand all that simply because of the fact of you calling me out as "saving face" in my latest video vlog which was totally incorrect. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to this whole "Dr. Evil" scenario I played with the pinky finger in the lips thing on several occassions over the last few years but it's certainly not about saving face. It's about the ridiculousness of how some people actually believe in this whole conspiracy nonsense from the very beginning. Even some "leaders" fell for that nonsense, too. Sure. We expected that people would because they wanted to desperately believe in that.

About Barry and to help calm the nervous minds out there.

The first time I heard of Barry was back in early 2008 when he did his first blog. I enjoyed and liked his philosophy on many things, and so naturally I saw the things he said and agreed with many things on what he said. I think it was the fact that I publicly agreed with him in his blog comments did people began to speculate about us. And since people were already into this conspiratorial thinking mode that somehow we were in collusion on the planning for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, the DBC, AFA, Deafhood, and whatever-Deaf-organization-you-can-think-of! Sorry to disappoint you folks but that's pure bunk. Stop being so paranoid as I have said. We do have strong opinions about some of these Deaf organizations, the Deaf "leaders," their way of doing things, and differences in our philosophies, and so on. That pretty much sums it up. But just because we disagree strongly with other notable Deaf people doesn't mean we're out to destroy the Deaf community. That's pretty much common sense right there and I shouldn't even have to explain all this, either, incredibly so.

I decided to sign since I have discussed this before elsewhere on the ridiculousness of that assumption. I see paranoia and suspicion as an ongoing problem in some segments of the Deaf community. Just a tiny fraction, mind you, of those who are actively connected to the internet. This sort of paranoia could be seen in several articles on the AB2072 issue by invoking Godwin's Law along with eugenics and the Nazism labels in articles written by Deaf supporters of AB2072! I blogged about that saying it doesn't make any sense to use Nazi analogies and people shouldn't be using Nazi labels in such a way within the Deaf community. It reflects poorly on them in my opinion. And by pointing that out it's not attacking the Deaf community as some people are wont to believe but about how those articles reeked a sense of desperation.

I'm curious now. Exactly what was Dianrez's view of using Nazi analogies in those articles at the height of the AB2072 brouhaha? Did she at all speak up on that? She was strangely quiet about that over the past several months. Dianrez, was it appropriate to use those Nazi-labels, connotations and or implications in those AB2072 articles written up by Deaf people, even by the chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD in order to advance their cause?

Have a good night, folks. Sweet conspiratorial dreams.