Empowerment and Perception

Empowerment.

It's a word that means differently to different people but universally it means enabling themselves the power of choice on their ability to gain their freedom, acquire knowledge, acquire wealth, and even build self esteem and confidence. There are many sides to every perspective on who is taking advantage of who when it comes to obtaining empowerment or losing it. What I have to say here may make some people feel uncomfortable but it is my kind of truth I'd like to speak about though it's not to be construed as an absolute truth but a general truth. Offering a different perspective is good. There is no monopoly here on "empowerment" or truth but just my version.

Let's look at Trudy Suggs' presentation on "Deaf Disempowerment."

Before going further I recognize the fact that there are horrible interpreters, interpreters who are a god-send and those who fall in between depending on the circumstances.  The hope is to have the very best and highly professional interpreters but that is not always the case, sadly, but the United States is experiencing a national shortage on interpreters.  Here I'm offering a bit of constructive opinion regarding Trudy Suggs' "Deaf Disempowerment." Namely it's about true independence versus quasi-independence when it comes to communication choices and how some people deal with them. Sometimes the answer to a difficult or problematic solution can be easily solved. Other times it requires serious intervention and awareness building.

In Trudy Suggs' piece she discussed two kinds of disempowerment: situational disempowerment and economic disempowerment. What I'm about to explain in my blog will show you a simple way to reverse a certain disempowerment scenario into your advantage. You can still have control over certain things in life and not feel helpless in the communication department. Empowerment means you've come to realized certain things about a situation and advantageously learned to move forward independently benefiting yourself as a result. Suggs suggested that people do take advantage of deaf people, and that's true in many instances as in the case of interpreters taking advantage of deaf people by making money off of them. She provided a few examples of that in her piece. But in order to be honest people need to realize that deaf people do take advantage of hearing people. In this case taking advantage of sign language interpreters for their own gain whether it's social, financial, medical or what have you at no cost to deaf people in most cases.

Trudy Suggs explained that she live in a town of 23,000 people with 250 to 300 deaf people (I am assuming they are all culturally deaf people) which represents about 1.3% of the town's population.  A town that is 7 times more populated than the "national average" on the ratio of culturally deaf people to hearing people which is estimated to be about 0.2%of the U.S. population. In Rochester, New York, for example, it has a much higher density of deaf and hard of hearing people. The number of deaf and hard of hearing people make up 3.7 percent (about 40,000) of the Rochester area's 1.1 million people (more here on deaf/hh population). Although no exact figures on the number of culturally deaf people who rely exclusively on sign language to communicate as their preferred mode of communication.  In Suggs' town with 7 times more culturally deaf people one would certainly expect better interpreters.  Interpreters who should be readily available at a moments notice, 24/7. Interpreters who are expected to hold a higher standard of professionalism in a town that have a lot of deaf people. Interpreters' reputations are at stake. If an interpeter fumbles then word gets around within the tightly knit deaf community like a bad gossip.

Let's consider for a moment the fact that there are more deaf and hard of hearing people in the United States that do not sign or know sign language than there are those who do sign (about 50 to 1 ratio or 30 million deaf/hh to 600,000 culturally deaf people). Or for those with more severe hearing loss you have people with severe to profound hearing loss numbering probably about 3 million or so. That would leave you with 1 out every 5 deaf people who know and use sign language.

Trudy Suggs described a story between about herself, her interpreter and a receptionist while waiting in a lobby for her orthopedic doctor for her son's check-up:

After about 45 minutes of waiting in the lobby—very unusual for a town of this size—I asked the receptionist about the severe delay. The receptionist never once looked up from her computer, saying that the doctor was backed up. I asked if we could see the doctor since my children were restless, hungry and my son, in a body cast from chest to toe, needed his medicine—which was at home. She said no. I said, “Could you please speak to the doctor or nurse?” She replied, “Oh, no, I can’t do that,” and I repeated my request. She adamantly refused. 

I finally said, “Could you please look at me?” She looked at the interpreter, and I said, “No, at me.” Once she did, I asked, “Could you please offer a resolution? We’ve been here an hour.” At that very moment, my baby began crying, and the receptionist finally realized the extent of my situation. A nurse came out who was far more courteous and apologetic. After we talked about the delay, I asked how I could make a complaint about the receptionist. 

A few thoughts come to mind.

You have a receptionist who is not familiar with deaf culture etiquette such as looking directly at the deaf person and not the interpreter. Most hearing people are simply not familiar on how to deal with a deaf person with their interpeter in tow. And then you have a situation where a deaf person is either seen as the "third person" or the interpreter as the third person. It becomes a perception issue not mention a certain amount of ignorance and unfamiliarity at play here,too.

Trudy then go on a spiel about "disempowerment" because she wasn't treated adequately by her interpreter and was seen as a "third person" by the receptionist and was not given the opportunity to be seen as an equal.

Let's change the picture here. Like the one below here.

Suppose at the receptionist desk sits a face to face communication device unit called the UbiDuo ready to be used by any deaf person who can use it to converse in real time with the receptionist. The unit is already assembled and ready to go by simply turning it on No third person is involved. Eye contact is easily done because the conversation is now between two individuals, a hearing person and a deaf person. The UbiDuo is a wireless communication technology that allow real time typed conversations between two people facing each other. Just like having two people talking or signing to each other face to face, uninterrupted with more meaningful eye contact, and done directly without feeling like a third person. No worry about having an interpreter carry YOUR conversations for you.

That's true empowerment.

Having the ability to carry a conversation with a hearing person using the UbiDuo, for example, where conversations can be done privately and directly is an example of empowerment. The chance for misunderstanding decreases because words are typed word for word with the UbiDuo. Conversations done in real time seeing what the other person is typing while responding at same time. Just like talking to each other. Just like signing to each other. No worry about the "lack of signing fluency" from interpreters. Face to face conversations take place fluidly.

A deaf person can have a choice between using an interpreter or a face to face communication device such as the UbiDuo. It is there for the taking. You have that choice. That's true empowerment.

Vice president Biden mocks sign language!!

Um, no, he didn't do it to mock or make fun of sign language but did it as part of his joke about how his sign language interpreter may soon suffer from tendonitis with his excessive babbling. Even the interpreter laughed at his joke. He imitated a signing movement to go with his joke. Mocked sign language itself? Not really.
This is what Biden said:

"I have more to say, but I am saying too much already because these guys get me going... and you're gonna have trouble translating all this! The poor lady, she's gonna have tendonitis by the time she finishes this."

NAD, NAACP or any other organizations won't even bother with this one so don't expect any chastising from them towards Biden.  Some people simply need to calm down over this one. Nothing worth getting your panties in a bunch or have your blood pressure burst an vein in your forehead with more of. this faux outrage. 

ADDENDUM: One more time, folks, people need to stop with the faux outrage about Biden's signing. The sign language interpreter was obviously enjoying Biden's humor and no embarrassment at all on her part. Really, the whole thing is a non-issue except for the most limp-wristed, sensitive folks out there.

Cringetastic? Star Jones whispers into Marlee Matlin's ear.

There's a short article in Mediaite with a video showing Star Jones whispering to Marlee Matlin which turned out to be quite an embarrassing moment for Star Jones. But I don't see it as "cringetastic" as some other people might feel. I'd say that the communication was so effective in this Celebrity Apprentice show in Marlee's ASAP team with the help of her signing interpreter that people generally would forget that Marlee Matlin is deaf. Only because people were able to talk and communicate with her without any problems. I look at this as a success that Star Jones actually forgot that Marlee is deaf only because communication was quite effective and that everybody was able to contribute easily.

"Not 'terp' enough" - when interpreters discriminate and demean lower ranking learners

This is something I hadn't considered or even thought it existed but apparently it does according to one person detailing the encounters at a sign language interpreter conference. It's when some ASL/sign language interpreters look down upon those not at their level of skill saying how they are not deserving to receive CEU points. Sort of like the old "you're not Deaf enough" kind of thing in an off skewed way.

My daughter needs to keep up her skills as a terp so she went to a convention. I took the opportunity and went with. Looked forward to having a good time and did and learned a lot.

Met people there from top scale terps to students to be. Some retained their professional persona at all times, others were kick-back and T shirted. My daughter forced me into a sports jacket, slacks and tie. Some signers made me dizzy and others were so unskilled they did not know the difference between "late" and "later." Bought a couple of DVD's on ASL.

Many arrived as early as possible, stayed as long as they could to get as much as possible, and darted to the next conference room. Those typically were dressed more relaxed. Those who dressed professionally tended to arrive on time and leave shortly after they received confirmation they had attended the class.

Confirmation consisted of a small bar code pasted next to the class you had attended during that time frame. Everyone ran up after class and got one and so did I.

A significant number made it plain, they were there for the bar code. They arrived at the last possible moment and left as soon as they got one. A couple even made it clear in the foyer they were taking the classes easiest for themselves. Seen as there was no test and you got a bar code whether you challenged yourself or not I found this particularly odd.

It was from this group the complaints came.

The argument was, "We are here to get CEU's so we can maintain our standing as terps and maintain our payscale." Or, "We are here so we can upgrade our payscale and charge more for our services." Continuing with, "Students should not be allowed bar codes even to show they attended these classes -- because we have put in our time, students have not, and it is how we earn our money."

I felt this was pretty petty as students cannot get CEU's whether they have the bar code or not. All it can do for them is show they attended. And that is all they have to show they did.

When I pointed out I wanted my little bar code too even though I am not a "terp in training" I was given the info that I was just a visitor and didn't even belong there in the first place.

I went ahead and got my bar codes any way. All told the trip, hotel, and convention fees cost me over $1,500. I felt I deserved something to show I had been in attendance.

And it is nice to know there is one more place in the world I do not belong.

Here I thought I'd used them all up already.

CEU stands for Continuing Education Units or learning points in case you're wondering. But note the bolded portion in the above. That convention was open to anyone and no prerequisite was required for attendance or to get the coveted CEU points for attending one. That convention is by no means cheap and comes with a hefty price tag just to attend one.

Aside from the convention points of view, I could imagine that there are some snotty ASL interpreters out there with the attitude that they won't associate with those who are "not at their level" when it comes to ASL skill level. And that they wouldn't dare associate themselves with. I wonder if it is a common attitude in the world of certified ASL/Sign Language interpreters? And they have nothing to do anything or anyone as long as they get their money? Is it really that bad out there? Does this "not 'terp' enough" exist at all? Have some them become so corrupted with their $35, $50, $70, $100 dollars an hour fees?

This brings up another question. Do the high fees set the stage to discourage people from hiring expensive interpreters? One unknown person made this comment in a blog "Anonymous Deaf Law Student":

You can argue that requiring professionals to pay for interpreters will not lead to discrimination because of an oath all you want, but the fact is it will. I am a practicing attorney. Our office just handled its first deaf bankruptcy and now we are being charged with the interpreter’s bill. I can tell you, it will be the last deaf anything we do. I’m not saying we want to discriminate, I’m saying that we are running a business here and we are not seeing the profits we want from this last client. Not only was the case overall more difficult because of the communication problem, but now it is costing us extra in fees. So, we have a hundred different reasons not to take someone’s case, and now we have one more.

All the more reason to hope that technology in itself will one day help alleviate this problematic case of getting billed too much for interpreting services. We already saw what happened with the whole VRS mess. Greed has a way of doing that. Though it'd be great to have real time sign language recognition avatar-like interpeter that recognizes voice and sign language. That might be a awhile but with technology comes with creative solutions. It is a fact that private businesses are there to make money, not go out of business. Technology is the key to help level the playing field so that everybody benefits.