When extremism goes after their own sign language interpreters

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

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

Jen P. interjects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reward of unimpeded communication on the Appalachian Trail

Emma Curry is the mother of Jason Curry, CEO and co-founder of sComm, shared her thoughts with Jason and many other people in an email about Julio Rodriguez who is currently hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

On Facebook, Jason has been following the "posts" of a young man who is deaf who lives in Florida.   This young man decided to WALK the Appalachian Trail this summer from Florida to Maine.  His name is Julio Rodriguez.  As Jason watched the "posts" and saw that Julio was truly walking "alone" and missing the broad experience and fun of talking to people along the way -- Jason contacted Julio.  Jason offered to send Julio a loaner UbiDuo for the rest of his walk.   Julio was in a little tiny town.  He went to 5 businesses and asked them if they would allow an overnight mail shipment to come to their business.   4 of them refused.  The 5th one - a little tiny cafe owned by the man that Julio wrote his note to -- said:  "Sure,."   This is a picture of what happened the very afternoon that Julio picked up the UbiDuo.  

Another man -- who is hearing -- walked into the little cafe.  This man was clearly walking the trail also.  Julio started talking to him on the UbiDuo.   They decided to camp together that night and talked for 2 hours on the UbiDuo.

Now Julio is talking to lots of people that he is meeting along the Appalachian Trail.  Changed his entire trip - ultimately will change his life!!!!   He has now asked Jason if he might sell the Ubi in the South.  His Facebook posts are being read all over the United States.........

This story does make me have tears.   Takes lots of courage to be deaf......and often be isolated from everyone around you who is hearing.......but to see the difference that this Ubi makes in anyone's life brings me up straight in my seat with thankfulness.  A great device.   Good for David.   Good for Jason.

A summary of one of Julio's private texts to Jason said this:           

"So many of us who are deaf didn't even realize how hard we were making it on our lives by not taking advantage of this new tool."       

That's the difference between choosing pen and paper, gesturing, and/or lip-reading in the effort to try and get the full interactive and unimpeded communication with a hearing person that will ultimately fail each and every time. This sleek next generation UbiDuo solves that. No bluffing. No guessing. No embarrassment. Just real time conversation in a language that both people can understand and enjoy in a face to face communication environment. It's the exact same communication environment seen between two deaf persons signing to each other or two hearing persons talking to each other. But what about between a deaf and hearing person? The UbiDuo offers that real time communication environment between deaf and hearing persons.

If you have any questions about Julio Rodriguez hiking the Appalachian Trail or using the UbiDuo  please visit his personal Facebook page and ask. I'm sure he's more than happy to answer your questions.

A win-win-win situation

For any organization that serve the deaf and hard of hearing population as well as for parents of deaf and hard of hearing children should take every effort to accommodate the potentially wide ranging communication access needs for an audience with deaf, hard of hearing, culturally deaf and hearing people when doing live presentations.

The concept and idea are quite simple. Three things are needed at the same time.

1) Real time captioner where the spoken words can be displayed visually for the audience.
2) Sign language interpreter.
3) Voice interpreter.

Using that prescription it wouldn't matter if the people in the audience or the speakers are deaf, hard of hearing, culturally deaf or hearing, communication access wouldn't be missed by anyone. This is how you "walk the walk" instead of talking out of the sides of your mouth.

Using the three communication access points satisfy 6 different possible outcomes for people who are:

1) Culturally deaf people who rely exclusively on sign language can take advantage of sign language interpreters.
2) Hard of hearing and deaf people who are not native signers can get assistance from captioning to help supplement their weak signing skill.
3) Hard of hearing and deaf people who can hear well with their hearing aids or cochlear implants and sign well can take advantage of either voice interpreter, captioning and/or sign language interpreter to help fill all of their communication gaps.
4) Hard of hearing people who can hear well and understand the spoken words well but do not know sign language can take advantage of voice interpreters and captioning.
5) Deaf people who do not know sign language or cannot hear well to understand the spoken words can take advantage of captioning.
6) Hearing people who do not know sign language can take advantage of voice interpreters and, if they need to, captioning.


If you're a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that caters to deaf and hearing people, and even hearing people such as parents of deaf and hard of hearing children would be wise to use take advantage of all three communication access points if you plan to do presentations at a workshop, training session, or at a convention where the public is invited. It just make smart sense to do this because no one would be left out of the communication loop. No one would feel discriminated or left out. Everybody can participate and be a part of the larger discussion. Catering to only a specific group of people with hearing loss or cultural identity helps no one when the bigger picture is to help everybody understand deafness-related issues and concerns. 

A Dine and Sign TV Internet Show

Here's an interesting and fun show to watch called "Dine and Sign." A humorous show between a hearing son named Alex and his deaf father having some insightful and funny discussions done in sign language. There are now 35 episodes or almost 3 hours worth of shows beginning on September 26, 2011 broadcasted by Podsmiths Internet Televsion on YouTube. Since then the show has slowly gained a following.  If you want to talk and interact with the Dine and Sign please visit their Facebook page.

What makes this show fun and easy to watch is the accessibility they provide. Each show comes with captioning, signing, and a voice-over for each of the two father and son duo sparring lightheartedly with each other over a variety of topics. With a combination of communication access available it can reach a much broader audience than just the signing community. If you ever want to see what the interaction is like between a deaf father and hearing son then come and watch their first episode and catch up with the rest of their shows at your convenience. Dine and Sign, not exactly a three course meal but satisfying.


Episode one: What's the problem with long hair?

Post Office Worker and Communication Access

Here's a story about a deaf man who communicates in various ways with his customers. Sometimes with his hands. Sometimes with a binder that explains to his customers on what they need to do. Or the use of a technology that makes communication easier. Check out the article and video!