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.

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*