Reclaiming our dignity and equality

This issue has been bothering me for a while. In fact, I blogged about it on my private blog last week and just now decided to bring the topic over here. I work in a school for the Deaf, in a position that has frequent, direct student contact. The mission and values of the school purportedly provide a safe, fully accessible place for all of our students and all of our staff. But that isn’t completely the case.

To me, full access means not using voices on campus when everyone else around you is capable of carrying on a conversation in signs. Yes, this includes simultaneous communication or “simcom,” which is to voice and sign at the same time. This may seem extreme or radical to some of you, but it’s not about “my way or the highway” at all. There are studies documenting the following when simcom is used:

*Signs are dropped
*Signs look unnatural
*It is harder for deaf people to understand, no matter how good their English, lipreading, or voicing skills are.
*Conversations happen quickly and deaf people miss out because they’re turning their heads and don’t see what was said because the hearing person(s) didn’t bother to wait.

Because of these factors, hearing people are in control of communication and information in a way that deaf people are not when the hearing people simcom.

I would like to posit the idea that simcom is a form of disrespect, even if it is unintentional. This is how I feel when people at work simcom even if everyone else present can sign. I feel disrespected because my understanding what is being said is apparently less important than that of the hearing people. I deeply resent the loss of access when this happens. I feel like hearing people must think it’s harder to communicate with me. It’s apparently easier to call someone’s name than to have someone else get my attention. That, in turn, makes me feel like I must be a burden to hearing people. I wonder why we adults don't get the same respect our students get in terms of signs only. Are we less important than our students? Are our access needs less important? Furthermore, I question their commitment and acceptance of Deaf culture and Deaf people because they are not willing to fully immerse themselves in the language and culture while they are at work. It also makes me wonder how comfortable they are signing. If they were comfortable signing, they wouldn’t need their voices, would they?

To hearing people reading this, I ask you to consider this: Do you use your voice when you are around deaf people? If so, please consider why you do that. Is it necessary because some people don’t sign or maybe because you are an interpreter and part of your job is to voice what is being signed? Do you do it with other people who can sign in front of deaf people? If so, why? How do you think this helps your relationship with your deaf clients/coworkers? (Slight tangent here - one of my pet peeves is team interpreters who chat with each other in voice when I’m standing or sitting right there. To me, that is the height of rudeness.) Back to the point - please take the time to consider your choices of when to use your voice and when not to. I have worked with some wonderful hearing people that I love to death, so please don’t feel like I hate you guys. I just want you to consider whether or not you are behaving in culturally appropriate ways and showing appropriate respect to us. And if you are, THANK YOU! If you aren’t, I hope you’ll change and encourage other hearing people around you to change too. *smile*

Here are a few situations that have occurred recently at work and they have made me wonder.
Situation 1: For example, one woman called another by voice to get her attention during a meeting recently. Why was that necessary? That deprived both hearing people of an opportunity to practice culturally appropriate means of getting attention. It also made me feel like “Gee. Is it THAT hard to get my attention?”
Situation 2: Another time a large group of colleagues went out to lunch. 5 hearing people and 6 deaf people were sitting at a long table. (I do love my worksite because hearing and deaf people mingle freely and often eat together). Three hearing people sat at one end and they were simcomming through the entire lunch. Some deaf people turned to join the conversation, realized there was simcomming, and turned away to join another conversation. I was one of them and I turned away, because simcomming gave me the impression they were signing just to be polite but they preferred to use their voices. Their voices became a wall dividing us, and that was unnecessary. The other two hearing people kept their voices off and they were part of many different conversations going on at the table, which is the way it should be.
Situation 3: Simcomming can be bad professionally because it becomes a question of access to information that we all need in order to do our jobs. Recently there were 6 hearing people out of 9 present at a meeting and I missed out on a lot because they were going so quickly and not waiting for all of us to turn our heads to follow the flow of conversation.
Yes, when my coworkers use their voices, they tend to simcom... which is a step above voicing only. But adding signs does NOT make using their voices okay, period.

Yes, I fully acknowledge the need to respect hearing people and to allow them to be hearing. I would never go so far as to forbid them to bring cell phones on campus or to say they couldn’t use the phone in private. And if a nonsigning parent wants to talk to them privately without a Deaf person present, who am I to insist that they use an interpreter? But they chose to work in this field when they have a plethora of career options available to them. I don’t get why they can’t keep their voices off at all times when they are around other staff members who sign too. They chose to be part of our world for part of the day. We have a right to expect them to integrate themselves into our norms and not to deny us access nor to show us disrespect.

The bottom line is that using their voices at all when everyone else is capable of signing is blatant disrespect in my book. It disenfranchises us and subtly cements “hearing power” in a way that we do not need, whether they intend to or not. Again, this may seem strong or extreme. But the issues here are access to information and the subliminal messages that using voice sends to us deafies. Voices OFF, please.

The Nature of Oppression

One situation at work has really rankled for a few years and it was recently resolved. Without going into specifics, we as a team were discussing whether or not we wanted to change one policy, and if so, how we would change it. Most of us wanted to change it in a certain way to reflect Deaf cultural norms and the change would be linguistically appropriate in ASL. One woman insisted that it had to be changed in a way that reflected hearing mores and values. She basically squashed all of us and I feel that the person in charge totally wimped out, letting her do it, even when we protested. I even tried to talk to the person in charge privately explaining why she should not allow this person to dictate this policy, only to be ordered to drop it.

This situation has now been resolved as of a couple of weeks ago, but it’s made me reflect on the nature of oppression, who does it, and who’s on the receiving end. Not only that, it’s made me think about how feeling oppressed can magnify issues.

Truth is, the policy change was not that big a deal for me. I happened to be doing it myself anyway, but it was a personal decision, and I was not going to criticize others for choosing differently. When it was brought up by someone else a few years ago, I supported it but it wasn’t a big issue for me. But because I was told straight out that I was wrong and because the administrator allowed one person to make the decision for all of us, in spite of many objections, it became a huge deal to me. In other words, because I experienced oppression, it heightened the issue for me and made it more important than it ever was before. Being squashed and dismissed like that was such a horrible feeling, one that shook me to the core of my being. It’s also one I will never forget and I think I may always find this topic a sensitive one from now on, when it wasn’t before. This could be a valuable insight on how disenfranchised minorities feel. H’m!

This situation proves that members of a minority group are not immune from oppressing others. The person who declared all of us wrong is an African-American, and I know she is sensitive to racism. The administrator who decided not to stand up for what was right is also a member of an ethnic minority. I'm not saying that all members of minorities oppress others, but it highlights something I believe is important. We are all capable of oppressing others, regardless of our membership in groups or our experiences.

This capacity for oppression that we apparently all have regardless of our experiences should make us pause and consider our words and actions carefully. It is one thing to disagree, but it is another to impose one’s opinion on others and to devalue others. To do so could end up making others hyper-sensitive about something and make unity even harder than it already is. This should be a valuable lesson for all of us, myself included, especially now with all the discussion about how fragmented our community is.

Update: Access, kindness, and cooperation

Mr. Sandman and MishkaZena commented on my previous entry about museum access, rightly pointing out that their saying that there was only one copy was unacceptable. I agree, and I had already mentally composed a letter saying very much what they said. Thank you, Mr. Sandman and MishkaZena, for your eloquently crafted arguments showing that the museum bears most of the burden, by far, for ensuring access for us. I absolutely agree that they need to ensure access and that we need to speak up in a courteous manner when we are denied acccess, yet we need to do our part by returning materials. That said, I think I'll get to that letter now so it goes out in tomorrow's post.

Access, kindness, and cooperation

The Golden Rule is always a good way to live our lives, but it is especially true when it comes to access issues. If we all did to others what we wanted others to do to us, the world would be a kinder place.

My point in spouting off about kindness and the Golden Rule, you ask? Well, I went to an once-in-a-lifetime exhibit today. The exhibit focused on one artist with a particular theme and had paintings on loan from museums and private collections all over the world. Audiotapes were available, but they were obviously useless to me. We asked about a printed transcript of the audiotape only to be told that someone had borrowed it and never brought it back, and that was their only copy. What a disappointment, because I will never again have the opportunity to see some of these paintings.

The transcript could be MIA for a variety of reasons, including thoughtlessness or it was a honest and unintentional mistake. We will probably never know why, but this highlights how important cooperation is in our small community. We don't want to be in the position of denying any of our own people access to anything, do we? We need to be sure to thank museums for providing transcripts. We need to be sure to return said transcripts so others can delight in the same exhibit. We need to do whatever we can to work cooperatively and to ensure that we are not blocking access for anyone else.

P.S.: The exhibit was amazing otherwise and I'm glad I had the chance to experience this artist's works up close and personal. Still woulda loved to have had the transcript, tho'.

Access is a two-way street, m’dear.

Erin Himmelmann over at DeafDC.com wrote about a very frustrating experience where she went to a concert and the interpreters were placed too far away to watch them and the show at the same time. She has some type of vision limitation, which made that even more frustrating. Adam Duritz, the lead singer of the Counting Crows, refused to let the interpreters move closer because they “bother him.” He requests that at every show, so he is aware. After she objected, they turned down the lights even more on the interpreters... which just made things worse.

Erin argued that this was willful denial of access, she paid good money to see this, and she expects to get her money’s worth. All true and all are valid arguments. However, in the comments section, there are two brilliant gems that reframe the situation. Joseph Rainmound, who blogs at surdus.blogspot.com, wrote the following comments:

1. Or you could say that the interpreters are for the hearing singers so they can reach as wide an audience and make as much money as possible. One deaf girl is not paying his “bills” but she’s certainly paying for a ticket. *rolling eyes*

2. That’s why the access model doesn’t work. We need hearing people to start taking ownership of their own communication. I for one would like one of them to realize the interpreters are there so they can get their message across to all people - including but not limited to Deaf people. Without interpreters there’s individuals and populations the speaker wants to reach but can’t.

Rainmound brilliantly reframes the situation in a way that puts the onus on the hearing communicator by pointing out that to deny deaf people access, they are also denying themselves the opportunity to get their message out to as wide an audience as possible. This is the type of reframing we all need to be doing to get anywhere. I doff my cap to thee, Rainmound.

Erin’s article and all the comments can be found at: http://www.deafdc.com/blog/erin-himmelmann/2006-08-28/this-wasnt ignorancy/

To Be or Not To Be?

Anonymous, that is. DeafBlogLand is populated with writers/signers as well as readers/viewers who sometimes comment. Some of us citizens of DeafBlogLand have elected to publicly reveal our identities, while others of us have elected to pen our thoughts, reactions, and comments under pseudonyms. There has recently been some talk about whether or not pseudonyms are good for DeafBlogLand.

I have thought a lot about this question for various reasons. People who know me know that I have no problem with owning my opinions and perspective. I’m quite open about my beliefs and I do not hide my standpoint from others. When I first started blogging on my private blog, I chose to hide my identity because I work at a school for the Deaf. I did not want my comments to be used against me, and that would be unfair because my opinions and beliefs have absolutely no bearing on my job performance nor on my contacts with my students. But the risk was and still is there.

Over time, it became clear that some citizens of DeafBlogLand react to whatever writers and readers say based on who they are. Some perspectives were dismissed because they were held by a person who graduated from somewhere other than Gallaudet. Others were dismissed because they were held by someone who comes from Deaf parents. There are more examples. That took me by surprise and it gave me pause.

When I launched my public blog and allowed it to be syndicated, I had to make the decision all over again whether or not I wanted to reveal my identity. To make this decision, I had to look at why I was launching my public blog. I launched my public blog so I could contribute to the global discourse in the Deaf community, to respond to others, and to allow others to respond to me, whatever their opinion is on my contribution. I also wanted a blog separate from my private one since my private one is where I write about a wider variety of topics, and yes, I write there a lot more than I write here. I realized that if I revealed my identity, my contribution would be colored by who I am, who my friends are, who my family is, where I live, and where I work. That made the choice clear to me. Anonymity is the only way to go at this point if I want my thoughts to be taken at face value.

When people challenge others to reveal themselves or argue that we should do away with anonymity, we need to consider whether or not DeafBlogLand provides a safe place to do that and whether or not thoughts are able to be taken at face value without judgement. Are we there yet? At this point, my answer is no, we are not. I would love to reveal who I am because I have nothing to hide and because openness is a healthy thing. But I believe that to do so, unfortunately, would diminish what this site can contribute to the dialogue right now. Don’t get me wrong. I admire those of you who have put your names and faces out there. Thank you.

So, Teeming Millions, what do YOU think? What is your perspective, and what are your arguments for or against anonymity in DeafBlogLand?

Steps Toward Unity?

Tonight found me in a lovely courtyard hangin' and chillin' with a remarkable group of diverse, fun, and fascinating women. After a while, our discussion turned to Deaf community issues, and we had a wonderful discussion on several topics.

We all agreed we've noticed the recent backlash against Deaf of Deaf, and some new insights on this phenomenon were uncovered for me tonight. Half of the women present have hearing parents and many of us were mainstreamed at one point or another during our academic career, so this is not a group of Deaf of Deaf women feeling victimized. I myself have no other Deaf people in my family.

Part of our discussion centered around DeafBlogLand and some issues that blogging has raised in our community. The backlash against Deaf of Deaf came up, and puzzlement was expressed. It was pointed out that there are some oral Deaf people that look down on signing Deaf people, some mainstreamed Deaf people that look down on Deaf-school Deaf, and so on, so why are people focusing on just one group? All of us need to quit putting others down, period. One gal expressed her belief that this is a result of the perception that Deaf of Deaf are privileged and better off than the rest of us. Another countered that she's only second generation Deaf and she grew up with so many horror stories from her parents telling them how hard they had it growing up - and she has felt their pain and experienced some of the same things with her own extended family. Yet another chimed in, saying she had heard all through her childhood how lucky she is to be at a school for the Deaf, because her parents who had hearing parents, were denied that experience. This is a crucial point, because most Deaf of Deaf are only second generation Deaf and/or they have a significant number of hearing people in their family, so they too experience frustration and communication barriers with family members. Someone commented that apparently people who are doing this bashing are the ones with issues, so they're obsessing about one group. It's sad that they are incapable of evolving past their anger and envy. Speaking for myself only, I know I went through a phase of envy and feeling like I was different from people with Deaf parents. But I evolved. I put that aside and took the time to get to know varying kinds of people as people. Now I don't feel that's an issue for me personally. Anyway, all of us agreed that blaming Deaf of Deaf is not going to solve anything. We need to focus on ceasing any and all attacks on people because they're different from ourselves, as I said (and discussed in length) in my "Elitism in Our World" post.

Singling one group out for censure and criticism is not going to help unify us. We need to all recognize that yes, some of us are small-minded enough to put down others simply because they do not share the same background we do - and that we all have a responsibility to put a stop to it when we catch ourselves doing it or when we witness others doing it.

Miscellanous Topics
We discussed so many things that it would be difficult to write down everything and include perspectives, but here is a partial list. We talked about what appropriate ways are to reach out and unify the community, including positive and negative examples we have seen recently in DeafBlogLand. I'm not going to get into specifics about that, but we are concerned and shared information. We shared stories about how Deaf people with hearing parents feel when we see our two worlds collide (parents meeting friends) and how weird it feels because we act and sign/communicate so differently with our parents and with our friends. We shared our frustration with the misunderstandings and mistruths being perpetuated about Deafhood by people who haven't read the book or attended workshops or have issues that need to be resolved or have a personal agenda, including the ridiculous idea that people with cochlear implants can't be part of Deafhood or of the Deaf community. One person offered an interesting perspective regarding the difference between hearing schools and Deaf schools. One intriguing discussion centered around simcomming and whether or not it shows respect for Deaf people. We opined on the Gally protest and what FSSA is up to. We also got into national politics, the FDA, a recent state law, and other non-Deaf-related topics too.

All in all, it was a fabulous outing with wonderful discourse and stimulating company! Kiss-fist you gals! I'm looking forward to the next Ladies' Night out!
Over and out to catch some Zs. *grin*