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.

Why "Deaf" (big D) for all with hearing loss won't work

I want to add more on what I wrote earlier in my blog about what Don Grushkin said previously about changing the definition of the word "Deaf" with a capitalized letter 'd' to be reserved for all people with hearing loss, deaf and hard of hearing. I want to explain to the readers (and to Don Grushkin and everybody in his Deafhood Foundation circle) why this new definition of his will not work.

First off the definition of "Deaf" with the capitalized 'd' was made popular with the help of Padden and Humphries. The newly defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. They ran with it without even looking back. The d/D hole has already been dug and will continue grow and be divisive.

Who to blame? Well, we all know who.

Secondly, in the Google search you have nearly 15,000 searches that cover the meaning and definition of "D"eaf or "big D." You have About.com explaining the big 'D' and small 'd' in d/Deaf. You have Wikipedia doing the same thing. You have medical journals that discuss culturally deaf people and using the "big D" to explain the meaning of "Deaf."  In an ASL lesson website it explains the big 'D' and little 'd' in d/Deaf.  In other countries they recognize the big 'D' in Deaf on what it supposed to mean. It has entered in the glossary of disability groups or organizations.  Captioning services explain to people on the meaning of "D"eaf.  That definition is ensconced in the Federal government such as NIH.  And the examples go on and on.

The hole continues to go deeper and bigger.

The divisiveness will continue.

That strategy is no good to try and move the goal post in the hope it'll help the Deafhood Foundation or for any "Deafhood" followers with a capital "D" (as opposed to "deafhood") to try and get the new "Deaf" word out as to mean all inclusive for anybody with a hearing loss. That effort was tried once before in CAD who got caught with their pants down for violating the 501(c)(3) laws in their secretive attempt to change their own bylaws that went unnoticed for almost 6 years on inserting the word "D"eafhood.

The old CAD Bylaws in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "Deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3 Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

It wasn't an alternative or an option on the Deafhood requirement part because the word "shall" is a legally binding word and must be followed. No room there.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a captioned video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.

Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years.

But still left behind the "big D" Deaf in their bylaws language. Barry Sewell in his captioned video asked why it was left in without any definition or explanation for the "big D" Deaf.

Don't forget that important bit of history of subterfuge.

Bottom line, the "big D" and "little d" are already well ensconced into the collective minds of culturally deaf people.   They already developed manual signs to distinguish themselves from deaf people and that's simply a hole already dug, Don Grushkin.

Picture source. Left: Judy Gough; and Far Right: Ella Mae Lentz - board members of Deafhood Foundation. 

Don Grushkin on what you said about the d/D as being divisive.

I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.

I agree, it's divisive. It's ego driven but the hole has already been dug and it continues to be dug. And to try and change the meaning (moving the goal post) of the word "Deaf" (big D) to the advantage of Deafhood Foundation, CAD bylaws or for Deafhood followers in the effort to try and capture a much larger deaf and hard of hearing population and appear neutral about it will not work. You have 30 years of the "big D" and "little d" definitions working against you.

Good luck on undoing all that.
 

New CAD by-laws continues to discriminate and profile?

Without much fanfare or notice to the public the California Association of the Deaf  (a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, incorporated in the State of California) managed to slip in their newly updated and redacted CAD bylaws dated August 13, 2011.  The old CAD Bylaws (link is no good but I do have a copy if you want to look at it) in July 2005 was peppered with terms like "deafhood" in place of "deaf" and "hard of hearing" and had a language written in such a way that supported profiling such as in Section 25.3 (see archived bylaws here) mentioning "Deafhood" as a requirement for running for office in the CAD organization.

Section 25.3  Nominations for office shall be those who are part of the Deafhood, a California resident and be active Association member for at least two years.

Back in October 2009, Barry Sewell produced a video expressing concerns regarding what it appears to be profiling and discriminatory practices favoring "Deafhood" proponents or adherents.  Comparing the old from the new by-laws, one can see how much of the language and terms used were redacted. This change could be credited to Mr. Sewell for sending a letter to the California Department of Justice expressing concerns that the 2005 CAD bylaws are discriminatory that practices profiling. It took CAD 2 years to correct the language used in their by-laws noting the fact it had that discriminatory language in place for over 6 years. And because of that change Barry produced a video thanking CAD for the revision.  CAD may have changed its language in the new by-laws because of the recommendation from the California Department of Justice or from somewhere else. It doesn't matter. What matters is that CAD made the effort to correct a past mistake, however.

The new CAD by-laws appears to favor culturally deaf people, again, only because the term "Deaf" (upper case "D") is not defined and there are profiling and discrimination questions as well.  The term "Deaf" is used almost exclusively throughout the new by-laws.

For example:

Section 2.1 PURPOSE
The mission and advocacy of California Association of the Deaf is the promotion, preservation and protection of the civil rights, social, cultural, health, educational and economic well-being of the Deaf.

Section 3.1 MEMBERSHIP, DUES, AND TERMS
The Association is a membership organization with members having either voting or non-voting privileges and shall be open to all subgroups within the Deaf Community without discrimination as per Article II, Section 2.1 Purpose.

Section 3.3 HONORARY
Persons eminent for distinguished services to the Deaf may be made honorary members of the Association. They shall be entitled to all privileges of the Association.

Section 7.1.10: Communications/PR Committee
Communications/PR Committee shall support Association purposes with informational activities and increase public awareness of Deaf issues; inform members, as well as the general public, of developments in legislation and administration programs; promote communication and coordination between other organizations affecting Deaf issues; and work with Public Policy Committee on any announcements pertaining to advocacy issues. Shall also work to ensure that Deaf individuals living throughout California who may not know about the Association become familiar with who we are and what we do so that they may consider becoming a member and participating in the various activities that are offered.

Over the past few years notable people in the Deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people. According to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

What is obvious is that there are deaf people who may not know sign language, are not affiliated with Deaf culture, have other preferred means to communicate such as speaking, use Cued speech, or use Signing Exact English.

In the August 2011 CAD by-laws Policy and Procedures Guidelines it uses both terms "Deaf" and "hard of hearing" but offered no definitions or meanings for those terms. The only definition offered in the new CAD by-laws is "Deafhood."

PPG:1:2011 Definition of Deafhood:
The phrase “Deafhood” was coined by Paddy Ladd and was adopted by the membership of this Association in 2007. First posted as a counter to deafness, it describes the life-long process by which Deaf identity can be cultivated, maintained and deepened. It is a philosophical search for Deaf community and culture.

In the past CAD omitted the terms "deaf" and "hard of hearing" in favor of using the newly invented term "Deafhood" in their 2005 CAD by-laws. It was a term not found in an approved dictionary (e.g. Merriam-Webster). It was a term that could not be enforced should it get legally challenged because there is no legal definition.  In the new CAD by-laws update the upper case "D"eaf is used extensively throughout its by-laws language as the dominant term used.  This alone gives the appearance of profiling and discrimination that favors heavily culturally deaf people or Deaf people.  In my opinion, CAD needs to redact or revise their August 2011 by-laws and provide the proper definition or clarification for terms "Deaf," deaf, and" hard of hearing."  Not doing so will undoubtedly assure that the CAD by-laws will continue to favor heavily Deaf (culturally deaf) people. Even the CAD's Mission Statement as seen currently in their website,

The mission of the California Association of the Deaf is to protect the civil rights of the movement (empowerment) of Deafhood and promote the social (American Sign Language), cultural, health, educational, and economic well being of the Deaf (Californians) Community in the state of California.

is exactly the same one used in the old 2005 CAD by-laws but not used in current and new 2011 CAD by-laws with the exception that the old 2005 CAD bylaws use the term "hard of hearing" throughout. The new 2011 bylaws does not.

Seeing all this would make it appear that CAD is in an exclusive organization aimed at Deaf people rather than those who are not culturally affiliated (e.g. deaf, hard of hearing), those who do not know sign, or those who prefer to communicate by talking and listening and are comfortable in a hearing community. The California Association of the Deaf needs to re-think, again, their language as it is written currently in their by-laws so as to keep their credibility intact and be taken seriously once and for all.

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.

(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.

Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:

JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.

This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.

Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.

No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:

...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him

Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

Tim Riker, chapter president of CAD, respond to Kokonut Pundit

In my blog, "Use of voice is way, way better than ASL! ", Tim Riker, chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD, responded in my blog comment section on why he choose to use his voice at the AB2072 California Senate Health Hearing. I am putting his combined responses here for ease of reading for my readers and a forum for him and others to respond and discuss here. Although for now I am assuming this is him responding unless otherwise notified.

Tim Riker - I had discussed with the people involved with the CDNIAS coalition regarding whether I should speak or sign during the hearing. I had their support to speak. Both ASL and spoken English were at my disposal because of my bilingual education while growing up. The general rule is to first consider the main audience when selecting which language to use. Then if you are able to use that language directly and fluently then use it. If not, then use an interpreter. This applies to any situation and any language. When someone who is fluent in Spanish decides to speak English to a predominantly Spanish speaking audience, then of course that would be considered very offensive. My audience was predominantly English speaking and my choice was appropriate for that situation. Tim Riker.

And another response in the same blog comment section.

First, I want to make it clear that every language needs to be respected, whether it's American Sign Language (ASL), English, Spanish or some other language. To deny any language the equal respect it deserves is called linguicism. Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission. I don't see anyone pointing out that Assembly Member Tony Mendoza or any of the other Hispanic legislators spoke English rather than Spanish in the Capitol. If someone wrote an article celebrating that a Hispanic person chose to speak English rather than Spanish in a specific situation, wouldn't that be an insult to Hispanic people who speak Spanish? I want to note that I am multilingual and select the most appropriate language for each situation. My first languages are both ASL and English and I have my family who used ASL with me and my bilingual education at Maryland School for the Deaf to thank for having multiple languages at my disposal. The fact that I spoke English during the California Senate Health Hearing was because the primary audience I was speaking to were the Senators who voted on this bill-- all of whom speak English. However, the most comfortable language for me in most situations is and will always be ASL. I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him. There are many with that background who have done that and they were among those who fought the hardest against AB 2072. I believe having a strong foundation and immersion in two different languages provided me the versatility I needed for various settings. However, how well I speak does not define who I am or my success. I know many very gifted, educated and successful Deaf people who use ASL to communicate and they don't hear or speak at all. I have nothing but respect for them and their contributions. Tim Riker

He also responded in my blog "Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?"

I discussed whether I should speak English or use American Sign Language while testifying with the core committee. I had the support of the core committee. I think it's a general cultural rule if you're fluent in ASL but choose to speak English to a predominantly Deaf audience, it is offensive. In my case, even though there were many Deaf people watching, the main audience were the Senators on the Health Committee who ultimately had to vote on the bill. As a multilingual Deaf person, I spoke English with the support of other Deaf people because it was appropriate for me in that situation. By the way, please beware of Candy since I notice she will quote what other people say out of context. She did that earlier by quoting only a small part of my comment on another blog several months ago when I explained how audism and dysconscious audism in society creates a hierarchy. It's actually in every person's best interest to promote English and ASL bilingual education for every Deaf child so they can eventually choose for themselves which language they use for each situation. More importantly, when society is equally accepting of ASL, you will shatter this hierarchy which affects everyone regardless of how well they hear or speak. Tim Riker

Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?

I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

On linguicism:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).

Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?

Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.

Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.

What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.

ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?

ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!