Full, unfiltered access to ASL and the world

February 14, 2016

whyisign(Reposted from my Facebook page, February 13, 2016)

My (deaf) daughters and I went out for dinner, and my four-year-old asked me why it rained. My oldest, eight years old, started explaining, but the younger interrupted and said, “My friend says it’s because God cries.” I said, “That could be true, too.” We all laughed and came up with different reasons (God sneezing, birds spitting, etc.) — all very silly and cute.

That led to a conversation about why it was cold outside, and how countries below the equator had opposite seasons. I described how the earth rotates daily and around the sun (thank goodness for ASL, because it helped them understand immediately) and how this related to why we count 24 hours and 365 days. I also showed them a few videos off the Internet showing the solar system and all that stuff. 

At that moment, it hit me: how lucky are we?! My girls and I have full access to communication at home and at school/work. I had that growing up, too. I can’t imagine how it would be if we didn’t have this full, unfiltered access to ASL, and subsequently, the world. We *never* have frustrations in communication with each other — not even for the most complex of topics.

That’s why it’s so important for parents like Cam (see previous post) to share their stories. I’m so grateful to Stacey Abrams for creating the Why I Sign page, and even more grateful to all the parents and family members who have responded overwhelmingly to that page. Teach deaf children to speak if it’s really important to you, but never, ever, ever at the expense of sign language or the child. I speak from experience, and so do my children. ‪#‎whyisign‬

Filed Under: Blog, Childhood, Culture, Deaf Community, Humanity, Language, Parenting

Deaf Life Magazine Person of the Month

May 14, 2015

How awesome. At the risk of tooting my own horn (does it make a difference if I don’t hear the horn?), I learned that I had been chosen as Deaf Life Magazine’s Person of the Month for May 2015. It’s a bit startling to open up a magazine and see your face spanning the entire page. When I showed my kids the magazine, their faces lit up and they said, “Mama’s in the newspaper!” Close enough.

Filed Under: Blog, Culture, Deaf-Owned Businesses, Media

Speech given at a high school in 2015

April 1, 2015

The following is a speech I gave at a public high school’s world languages ceremony in 2015. Read the article I wrote about this experience.

Language, as we know firsthand, is at the very heart of every civilization, and has been ever since the beginning of humankind. Whether it be gestures or full-blown language, language has endured changes, evolution, abuse and even death, or linguicide — and nowhere is that more evident than in signed languages.

Allow me to back up a bit and give you a bit of background. I am second-generation Deaf, which means my parents are also deaf. My husband is third-generation, so that means our four deaf children are fourth generations — and we have over 50 deaf relatives on both sides of the family in terms of cousins, uncles and aunts, grandparents and lots of other relatives I probably don’t want to meet. That translates to a long history of using sign language in our family, dating back to the early 1900s. In essence, we’ve had sign language for over a hundred years. As Deaf people, we recognize the immense value of language, and being able to connect with each other through words, spoken or signed.

Today, American Sign Language, ASL, like many other languages, is recognized on so many levels. It’s one of the fastest-growing languages in the U.S., and is believed to be the third most used language in the U.S. Sounds good, right?

Well, let me give you a bit of history. Although sign language has been around since primitive times, and the earliest recorded drawing of the fingerspelled alphabet dates back to the 1500s, it wasn’t until the 1960s that Dr. William Stokoe, a hearing man who wasn’t very fluent in sign language, did research that proved ASL was a bona fide language, separate from English.

I remember growing up telling people, and even writing in my research papers for school, that ASL was broken English, that it was abbreviated English. I can’t believe I actually said that, because this was during the 1980s and early 1990s. ASL research already existed. Why didn’t anyone tell me otherwise? Why was I never taught that ASL had its own rich vocabulary, syntax and other properties?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because for centuries, sign language has been looked upon as a language for animals, as primitive, as unsavory, and any other host of adjectives. This primarily has to do with the notion that spoken language is superior. This is only natural; anything different from us is considered strange, funny, fascinating, or even beautiful. We all experience xenophobia to different degrees. That’s why learning new languages is so important, so that we can learn about other cultures, other peoples, and each other.

The problem is that signed language is often not considered another language. Rather, people mistakenly believe it’s a basic form of gesturing, and a direct representation of English on the hands. And that couldn’t be further from the truth.

As students of language yourself, you know how challenging grammar in other languages can be. This is equally true for sign language, whether it’s American Sign Language or French Sign Language or any other signed language. As an aside, sign language isn’t universal, if you were wondering.

So, back to why nobody told me ASL was a stand-alone, distinct language from English. . . there is a long history behind this, and it involves Alexander Graham Bell. Yeah, that one. The same guy who invented our telephone, or rather, he was the first to claim the patent. It’s now known that he wasn’t actually the first inventor, but he got the patent first.

Bell was the son of a deaf mother, and is said to have been very fluent in sign language. He later married a deaf woman, who did not sign. Nobody really knows why, but Bell became very adamant that sign language was not the way go. He became a steadfast proponent of banishing sign language from all education. He also believed that deaf people should not marry, and actually was a huge supporter of eugenics, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization in order to create a superior society. He even served as president of the National Eugenics Society.

Many people find that astonishing, and I do, too. How could someone who signed fluently, had deaf relatives and was such a brilliant man have such warped perspectives? Even if times were different back then, it’s still shocking.

Bell had a pivotal role in something that has had major ripple effects to this day. He was one of 164 delegates to the 1880 International Congress on Education of the Deaf, which was held in Milan, Italy. At this conference, it was voted that sign language would be banned from education in favor of teaching deaf children to speak. Out of the 164 delegates, guess how many were deaf? Only one.

So, as a result of this ban, Deaf teachers and other deaf professionals lost their jobs if they could not speak. Deaf children were raised without access to sign language, often being punished if they even as much moved their fingers, and this lack of access caused great delays in language development, in later-life opportunities and much more. The effects are being felt even today, 135 years later — all because of the notion that spoken language is superior to signed language.

Around the country, and in many other countries, deaf schools — which are not the stereotypical institutions you think of where you “abandon” people with disabilities or mental illnesses; they’re actually beautiful, flourishing places where culture, language and tradition are preserved from generation to generation — are closing down for many reasons, but especially because of the perceived cost. More and more school districts are favoring mainstreaming because they think it saves money, when in reality, it causes a lot more harm for so many children in terms of language access. I’m not saying mainstreaming is bad; it’s not always bad. It worked for me, but I wish I knew back then what I know today.

There is also a massive spoken language — in other words, no signs — movement underway around the nation. More and more doctors are urging parents to shun sign language and to focus on spoken language. Spoken language does work for some, but not for all. What happens is that in 20 years, many of these deaf babies raised without sign language, come to the deaf community with anger, frustration and struggles because they had limited language access. This has happened time after time, and despite the most massive efforts, signed language has persisted.

With my four children — who are ages 7, 6, almost 5 and 3.5 — I saw firsthand just how naturally their language developed. They began babbling in sign language at maybe three months, and then began making words when they were six months old. It didn’t change with each child; each child hit the same language milestones in their first year of life. I have many examples that support how bilingualism is really beneficial.

When my oldest was 17 months old, she told me about a dream she had about a wolf inside a pumpkin. I was astounded, because that was from a children’s book we had read a few days before. For her to be able to describe such an abstract concept — dreams — and be so detailed in what it was about was just mind-blowing. Yet, because she was not yet fluent in English at that age, she would have been incorrectly perceived as language-delayed. Today, she’s seven and reading and writing at two grades above level. My other children are the same; all are above grade level for language in both ASL and English. This is no surprise for those who are familiar with bilingualism with any two languages; bilingualism has consistently shown to help young children acquire languages and get ahead in many areas.

With the proliferation of sign language classes and programs around the country, it’s sadly ironic that more and more deaf people — specifically children — are being denied access to sign language, which is their natural language. All this stems from the mistaken notion that one language is superior to another. Signed languages are not the only victims of this, though. This is also happening with many other languages in the United States, all because of the belief that English should be the only language.

And this, my friends, is exactly why language access is so crucial for any child, deaf or hearing. Unfortunately, because being deaf is still looked upon as a disability instead of a linguistic minority or cultural minority, millions of children around the world are being denied sign language. We must cease the belief that any one language is superior to another, like English being superior to Spanish.

So, what does this have to do with you? Why should you care? The answer is simple. You are given the privilege of choosing to study one language, any language and making yourself bilingual or even multilingual. And you can do this using your natural language. This same privilege needs to be given to deaf children, just like I was given that privilege. There are many ways you can do this as a world language student.

Say you’re learning Italian or French, and you go to Italy or France and run into a deaf child. What would you do? Or maybe you have a deaf child yourself someday. How would you respond? May I suggest that as you study your language of choice, you also learn the sign language of that country? Learn about sign language, learn about the glorious culture of Deaf people not only in America, but in other countries as well, and help promote the fact that signed language is as important as your language of choice. By ensuring that signed language persists despite blatant modern-day efforts to abolish it and misconceptions, you are helping bring language access to every deaf person out there. Linguicide is not acceptable for any language, and one way to combat this is as you continue to study languages, embrace their peoples, histories and cultures, and celebrate all that the language stands for.

Thank you for allowing me to share the importance of preserving any and all languages without oppression or notions of superiority. Congratulations on this wonderful journey you have embarked on into world language learning.

This presentation can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Filed Under: Culture, Deaf Community, History, Humanity, Language, Politics, Stereotypes

Open letter to Jason Curry, sComm CEO

March 30, 2015

(To learn more about this open letter, go here.)

March 30, 2015

Mr. Curry:

Thank you for the video you released on Friday, March 27, clarifying sComm’s position on having the UbiDuo replace interpreters specifically in child abuse cases.

My goal is to ensure that accurate information is shared with everyone, deaf or hearing, and that nobody has any communication options forced upon him or her. I would like to invite sComm to share in this goal.

However, many of the comments on the sComm Facebook page have been deleted, including several I posted, such as this one:IMG_6636 2

I would like to understand why they were deleted. A tough part of any business is dealing with customer feedback, positive or negative. Deleting messages can be counterproductive, and implies that sComm does not welcome feedback from the very community it serves.

Additionally, there seems to be quite a history of sComm’s position on “replacing” interpreters with the UbiDuo and the continued implication that deaf and hard of hearing people cannot function independently; this dates back to at least January 2012, as shown in this YouTube video at around the three-minute mark where you are shown typing “deaf and hard of hearing people have to go everywhere with an interpreter” to a reporter.

Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 10.14.32 AM

I also have numerous other screenshots, submitted by people, showing similar messages made by sComm representatives and/or you.

While I won’t repeat the long list of issues and suggestions mentioned on my Facebook page or website, I would like to invite you to release an official statement stating sComm’s position on interpreters as a valuable communication tool (or even necessity). I would also like to invite you to share sComm’s updated marketing strategy and how the UbiDuo will be illustrated as one of many options, rather than the only option, available to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Please note I am not including deafblind people here, as many have told me that the UbiDuo is inaccessible to them. I also encourage sComm to add a statement to its website clearly stating that the UbiDuo should never be considered a replacement for those who prefer to work with interpreters.

Furthermore, I would like to know if sComm intends to take down the Communiphobia video and all other videos and posts that demean American Sign Language and interpreters indirectly or directly. Finally, I welcome an apology from sComm, and you personally, to the deaf and interpreting communities for the insurmountable harm and countless misconceptions that sComm has created, and sComm’s commitment to remedying this.

From a deaf business owner to another, I implore you to please remember that whether we like it or not, any message you share with your clients will have an indirect, and direct, effect on each and every member of the deaf community, including my four children and me. People like you and me are shaping their futures, and it’s crucial that we do this correctly and respectfully.

I look forward to positive changes.

Sincerely,

Trudy Suggs

Filed Under: Business, Community resources, Culture, Deaf Community, Deaf-Owned Businesses, Humanity, Stereotypes

Remembering Chuck Baird (1947-2012)

February 22, 2015

I first met Chuck Baird when I was 10. My parents took me to see King of Hearts, a magnificent production by the National Theatre of the Deaf. To this day, it’s the only theatrical production I ever really enjoyed. After the show, Chuck came out to mingle with the audience. I remember him as being gregarious; he didn’t talk down to me, and I walked away in awe of his sincerity.

Fifteen years later, I went with friends to the annual International Center on Deafness festival in Chicago. By then, I had become aware of Chuck’s notoriety as an artist, and was a bit star-struck when a friend introduced us. I told him of how we met nearly two decades before. He told me later that it was at that moment that he knew that we were meant to be soul friends.

Today, 30 years after I first met Chuck and three years after his passing, I think about him often. We became extremely close in the years after our second meeting, and I came to know him not as Chuck the deaf artist, but as someone who constantly found himself at odds with his own world views, beliefs, and values. He and I were kindred spirits, and he helped bring me out of a dark time. I took to calling him my heart savior, because he helped heal my heart with his wisdom and belief in me.

We saw each other frequently, usually at deaf events, and we were inseparable when together. We met up in Kentucky, California, Missouri, New York, Louisiana, Washington, D.C., Connecticut, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and so many other places. He was fiercely loyal to me as I was to him, and showed that in so many ways when we visited.

As I became busier, having four children in four years, and as he relocated to Austin, Texas, we didn’t talk as often. Still, we continued to meet up from time to time. A month after I had my first child, Chuck made a detour from a stay in South Dakota to see me during the 2008 Clerc Classic tournament in Minnesota. As always, it was like no time had gone by. We talked nonstop, and I remember him looking at my daughter in awe, a child who was an extension of me.

Chuck was truly a Renaissance man. He was also the perfect example of a starving, temperamental artist — always on the hunt for the next paycheck, the next place to live. That sometimes was frustrating for me, because I knew intimately his amazing talents and his mind-blowing brilliance. He was and is revered as an artist, yet he never made the money he deserved. We spent hours talking about this, along with our life experiences, Deaf history, philosophy, God, friends, books, and everything else under the sun. He gave me so many beautiful things: a book about covered bridges, a leather journal, his artwork, jewelry like a necklace with shapes resembling the ASL sign for “communicate,” and best of all, his time.

When Chuck told me he had cancer, I was heartbroken. I felt helpless because I was so far away, and pregnant yet again. As his time came closer, we became more spiritually connected, even though we didn’t talk often. He and I agreed that he would mail me all of my letters back to me, so I could read the many handwritten letters we had exchanged. I read each letter and cried and laughed at how raw and honest we had been with each other. I then destroyed them, as Chuck and I had agreed.

Chuck, or CCB as I always called him, became increasingly religious as he neared the end. He told me about how one night during of his many visits to the hospital, he was in bed praying. He said he began singing, imagining angels around him as he sang. “I didn’t care if anyone heard me or my deaf voice at the time. I just sang, and felt so incredibly connected to God,” he said. The radiance from his face as he told me this story gave me chills.

The last time I saw him was exactly a month before he died. We chatted for two hours via video as he ate soup and fiddled with the baseball cap he had on. Even though I had seen him a few times, it was still always a shock to see how thin he had gotten. I experienced so much joy that night, even as bittersweet as it was. I somehow knew this would be our last face-to-face conversation, but didn’t dare say it.

An e-mail he sent me immediately after our conversation contained his last words to me: “I loved and enjoyed our chat tonight. Love you in peace thru Christ, my true friend. ccb.”

I was among the first to learn of his death on the morning of February 10, 2012. I had slept fitfully all night, knowing he was going to leave us any minute. I sat up in bed, numbed by the text message I had just read. I knew a great spirit had left us, one who was often underappreciated yet was incredibly beloved. A mutual close friend warned me that people would come out of the woodwork once he passed away, and he was right. So many articles, posts and emails were shared about his “greatness” — mostly in reference to his acting and art. All I kept wanting to say was, “But you don’t know how he was so much more than his art. He was a tormented soul who found joy in the littlest things and had so much love for the mind, the soul and God.” It’s taken me this long to even feel comfortable talking about how extraordinary Chuck was.

Chuck Baird with Trudy SuggsWhen I think of Chuck, I remember how he had the chubbiest fingers and how I took pleasure in watching them create masterfully crafted words and art. I think of how we squabbled often, but always quickly soothing the other. I think of how I scolded him for being so tactless — he once said, when I showed him a picture right after the birth of my second child, “Oh my gosh, you look fat!” I think about how he got annoyed with me for being bossy, especially when I lectured him about his weight; our annoyances certainly went both ways. I think about how he had such a passionate spirit. I think about how shockingly salt-and-pepper his hair was and how his beard became the same. I think about how we always laughed at the littlest things.

Mostly, I think about how Chuck showed me what a deep, true friendship is: full of ups and downs, exasperation, delight, wonder, and love all coming together to create a marvelous connection. He was, and is, my heart savior — something that I can never repay him for.

Happy birthday, CCB.

Copyrighted material, used by permission. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Filed Under: Culture, De'VIA, Deaf Community, History, Notable People

Getting to the Heart of the Matter

December 18, 2014

I first saw the term DEAF-HEART at an interpreting conference back in the early 2000s. There was a heated discussion in a workshop, and an interpreter stood on stage saying how important it was to have DEAF HEART—she signed “deaf” over the heart. My friend, a top-level interpreter, quickly looked at me to see how I reacted. I naturally was caught off-guard by that sign and turned to her, saying, “What the…?” She giggled at my reaction, and said, “Yeah, I know. A new phrase that’s catching on.”

I had a sick feeling in my stomach, although I didn’t understand quite what bothered me so much about the phrase. It didn’t help that the newly certified interpreter on stage was not yet fluent in American Sign Language. Later that day, I chatted with other deaf people at the conference and discovered that I wasn’t the only one bothered by this phrase.

Fast forward to the 2013 Street Leverage event in Atlanta, where this term seemed to be all the rage. Even Deaf presenters stood onstage and talked about what DEAF-HEART meant. I wanted to write about this phrase then, but I still hadn’t quite pinpointed why it was such an abrasive phrase to me. Over time, I talked to many people: interpreters, Deaf people, CDIs, and everyone else in between. The same messages kept emerging: they, too, didn’t like the phrase but weren’t sure why. The select few (all hearing) who did like the phrase said the phrase made them feel like they belonged to the Deaf community.

Let’s explore the history of this phrase. While there’s no hard evidence of exactly when DEAF-HEART began being used, the phrase has been around at least 15 years, based on the first time I saw it. I spoke with Lewis Merkin, CDI, who said he and a group (including CDIs Jimmy Beldon, Alisha Bronk, Janis Cole, Kristin Lund, and Priscilla Moyers) had met in December 2008 as part of a Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) Deaf Members in Leadership committee meeting. As reported in the Spring 2009 issue of the RID VIEWS:

The best approach to reminding members of the value of an “of Deaf” perspective is to create an atmosphere where this occurs naturally. We discussed “Deaf Heart” [sic] concepts (ASL, visually accessible information, collectivism vs. individualism, culture, history, CODA input, etc.) and looked at how this can be incorporated (at the 2009 RID National Conference, collaborating with NAD, CIT and ASLTA to incorporate allies principles into interpreter training program curricula, revisit the wording of RID’s strategic challenges, etc.).

In that same issue, Bronk wrote in “Interpreters: Gatekeepers for the Deaf Interpreter Community”:

We should all be open to sharing our experiences, frustrations and joys of our work in an effort to improve ourselves and our field. We know that deaf and hearing interpreters, working in teams, can provide the best service to many Deaf community members, enhance all of our skills, and bring what the Deaf community calls “Deaf-heart” [sic] back into our field.

Merkin told me, “I know when we were talking about it, it was to find a way of explaining what we considered positive traits. How it’s been co-opted is another story.”

I continue to be uncomfortable with it for a number of reasons, and I continue to be surprised by how many people have expressed their discomfort with this phrase but are hesitant to share their discomfort for fear of backlash.

With the interpreting field becoming much more professionalized—not a bad thing, in any way—I find that more and more interpreters are trying to use different labels, including “having DEAF-HEART.” John, a friend I shared this article with said it best: “Without having the lived experience of being deaf, you may be able to identify various factors and experiences deaf people have on an intellectual level, but at the end of the day, you don’t have that personal experience.” This is true even for those who are hearing and have Deaf family members; while they may see the good and bad experiences of being a Deaf person, they don’t experience it firsthand.

I remember when I first understood this. Ironically, it was a hearing person who taught me this—a straight, white male who people love to hate: a police officer. Ken and I were co-teaching a course at the Illinois State Police Academy after two deaf men had been killed by police within a month’s span back in 1996. A high-ranking Illinois State Police administrator, Ken happened to be my graduate school notetaker and became a trusted ally and friend. We naturally joined forces, with our work leading to a statewide curriculum addressing how police should communicate with deaf people.

During a class, Ken asked the 60 cadets, “How many of you had met a deaf person before today?” Only five or six raised their hands, which surprised even me. He then asked me, “Trudy, how many times this morning did you have to tell someone you were deaf?” I mentally did the calculations, and said, “Five or six times.” It was only 10:00 a.m. when I gave that answer, and I suddenly understood just how much being Deaf shaped my life experiences, even for simple tasks such as getting gas or buying food.

This illustrates exactly why no matter how “Deaf” a hearing person may be or feel, that person will never have firsthand knowledge of the tension or even fear we have when we are in a situation involving communication. They can empathize, of course, but it’s a completely different experience when you’re actually living 24 hours a day as a Deaf person.

Another reason I bristle at DEAF-HEART is that it seems as if this is yet another way to try and gain entrance to the core of our community. Can you imagine telling someone, “That [white American] interpreter has ASIAN-HEART”? While it obviously is meant to be complimentary, it’s really not.

This is the crux of the problem for me: how interpreters consistently and continuously try to be as integrated into the Deaf community as they possibly can be. I can’t count how many times an interpreter or ASL student has excitedly said to me, “Wow! That person thought I was Deaf or had Deaf parents!” as if this was the highest praise available. And of course there are those who say, “That interpreter really does have a DEAF-HEART.” To me, this is an example of cultural appropriation—even if unintentional. I also recognize that many Deaf people promote this phrase without understanding the weight it holds. One Deaf interpreter said, “DEAF-HEART is like branding. By gaining this label, you’re branded ‘in’ with Deaf people.”

John, my friend, added, “To me, DEAF-HEART has a negative connotation because it implies that one does ‘goodwill.’ We do not need their goodwill, we need them to respect us and treat us equally.  That’s it. Why isn’t having our respect enough?  Why do we need to reward hearing people, who represent the majority, by giving them a name like DEAF-HEART when they are supposed to respect our culture and language, anyway?”

Yet it seems many hearing interpreters and deaf people have become enamored with the idea that it is necessary to be as Deaf as possible to be accepted in the Deaf community. This is not appropriate, nor true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an outsider who supports the Deaf community. You may ask, “But what about trust? How can we gain Deaf people’s trust?”

Ah, but there’s a word for this: ally. I think this word is so much more powerful than DEAF-HEART. Ally has been in use for years, and for good reason; most dictionaries define it as coming together for a common cause or purpose and in mutual respect.

One can be an ally and have access to the community by practicing that word’s meaning to the highest standards possible. John added, “To be a true ally, people have to practice humility, which means they do not tell Deaf people they have gotten our respect or share the praises they get from us. Humility and respect are what makes them true allies.”

Exactly. And that’s why I will always choose to work with someone who is sincerely an ally rather than someone who supposedly has DEAF-HEART, because to me, a genuine ally means someone who actually works with you to make something happen, shows respect, and understands better than anyone else that this is your experience.

Copyrighted material, used by permission. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Filed Under: Culture, Deaf Community, Interpreting, Language, Stereotypes

To Lead or Not to Lead? Sharing Power in the Field of Interpreting

May 7, 2014

This article originally appeared in the spring/summer 2014 issue of the RID VIEWS (Volume 31, Issue 2).

View it as a PDF file: Suggs-Bowen_Article.pdf

By Doug Bowen-Bailey, CI/CT, and Trudy Suggs, CDI

In the field of interpreting, a critical question is how to share power in leadership. While interpreters might often think of this at the organizational level, they also need to see this power-sharing method in daily practice.

As certified interpreters, we have worked together on many projects. We are also both passionate about language, both written and signed. In our partnership, we frequently have had to navigate ways to share power as a hearing person and a deaf person. Our work, however, often focuses on much broader issues than linguistics.

One such example of power-sharing becoming an issue emerged during a video project where we worked with a hearing project manager in creating an ASL version of an English-based curriculum. The project manager did not sign and was relatively new to the deaf community, although he had worked on other deaf community projects in the past. He had tremendously good intentions and was very committed to access. Yet at the beginning of this collaboration, he frequently communicated via telephone with Doug on project details, and Doug would then let Trudy know of the conversations. The conversations were rarely long or substantive, but they put Doug in the role of gatekeeper. As a result, Trudy responded to ideas rather than helping to create them, a significant shift since it was Trudy who had initially advocated for Doug’s involvement in this project.

After a few times, Trudy expressed a bit of concern about this process. Doug agreed, especially since he had also noted this pattern. Together, they determined that using a text-based online meeting platform would allow everyone to have equal access (with the added benefit of having a transcript for notes). Also discussed was who should propose this idea to the project manager; we decided that Doug should do it because, as a hearing person, there was less risk that he would be perceived negatively for challenging a hearing norm. Doug then offered this alternative to the project manager, pointing out the barriers created by the phone calls. The project manager quickly agreed, and the text chat turned out to be very successful in allowing all parties to more fully contribute.

Such instances often are so subtle that they don’t appear as clear delineations of power, but over time, they can become leadership challenges. In exploring such daily opportunities for sharing power, a better understanding of leadership can be achieved. We don’t intend to lift up our choices as the ideal model; however, there are principles in how we responded that may be helpful. The steps in that process consisted of:

  • Understanding the power of gatekeeping
  • Committing to shared decision-making
  • Analyzing the dynamics of power and risk
  • Creating a joint plan of action

Understanding the Power of Gatekeeping

It is important to look at the function and power of gatekeeping. In this example, gatekeeper meant being in a position to allow access to a system or institution. Initially, Trudy was the gatekeeper for Doug by advocating for his involvement in the project. However, in American dominant hearing culture, society is much more comfortable with hearing people in the role of gatekeeper. Whether rooted in audism, or in the ease that many find in communicating through spoken English, or a combination of both, Doug quickly became the gatekeeper.

In an August 2014 interview, Jimmy Beldon identified in the dynamics of opportunities for hearing and deaf interpreters:

…sometimes CDIs will see doors open and invite a hearing interpreter to work — in a team. But then the hearing interpreter walks ahead and goes through the door alone, leaving the CDI behind. When the hearing interpreter enters alone, it means that interpreter starts building a relationship with people and with clients while also building skills. As typically is the case, when people build skills, they naturally become leaders and accept leadership roles.

Such a pattern leads to a power imbalance. Fortunately, we were able to recognize this dynamic in that particular project and managed it in a way that did not leave either of us behind. In fact, for certain projects, it has been critical for Trudy serve as gatekeeper. For example, we have needed to recruit talent who are Deaf and fluent in ASL. Her understanding of and relationships within the Deaf community make her much more effective in this role than Doug can be.

Valuing the Wisdom of the Deaf Experience

A common approach to making decisions about deaf people is to simply exclude them and determine, based on various altruistic and systematic values, what is “best” for them. As discussed in Trudy’s Deaf Disempowerment and Today’s Interpreter presentation for Street Leverage, disempowerment is the taking away of power. She shares examples of how everyday disempowerment happens at minuscule, yet influential, levels. This, in turn, creates a cycle of situational disempowerment and economic disempowerment — thereby continuing the (unintentional and intentional) oppression of deaf people in every facet of their lives.

In the aforementioned project, Doug’s moving into the gatekeeper role certainly could have had economic consequences. If Doug had ignored or minimized Trudy’s concerns, he could have gone on to build relationships that led to further projects for him while leaving Trudy behind, creating economic and situational disempowerment.

In her StreetLeverage presentation, Trudy pointed out some other approaches:

By refusing to control situations, by deferring to the deaf person whenever appropriate, by allowing the consumers to control the situation, and by ensuring that you don’t speak on behalf of the entire deaf community especially if you’re hearing—you can take steps towards ensuring that deaf people retain their power while you do your job. (Suggs, 2012b)

The idea of hearing people deferring to deaf people is not done out of pity or patronization. The justification for it is not that deaf people have experienced oppression, so therefore hearing interpreters should simply back off. Rather, it comes from a valuing of the wisdom that comes from Deaf epistemology, which is defined as “the nature and extent of the knowledge that deaf individuals acquire growing up in a society that relies primarily on audition to navigate life” (Hauser et al., 2010, p. 486).   In other words, the experience of being deaf in a hearing world provides insights that hearing interpreters can’t have access to unless they are open to following deaf people’s lead.

Another deaf-hearing team experience showcases this deference as a key step. Nic Zapko and Patty Gordon are the creators of StoryBlend, an immersion experience that uses theater to build ASL and interpreting skills. Nic, who is deaf, and Patty, who is hearing, have noticed a consistent dynamic in the process as it moves from the first to the second week. Initially, all interactions are in ASL. By the second week, participants begin to work on translating ASL into English. At some point, the atmosphere shifts from being Deaf-centric to hearing-centric. Nic was the first to notice this; in fact, Patty states that she often doesn’t see or sense it until Nic points it out. She has learned to defer to Nic’s identification of the shift so that it can be addressed for the benefit of all involved with StoryBlend.

Analyzing the Dynamics of Power and Risk

In identifying issues related to leadership and power-sharing, the next step is to make an assessment of the dynamics of power and risk. Valuing the wisdom of and deferring to the leadership of deaf people does not mean that hearing interpreters can, or should, simply step back from taking action or responsibility. In some situations, a deaf person may provide the insight and leadership, but it may be too risky to be the point person in carrying out an action. Consequently, a hearing interpreter may serve that purpose as an ally. This does not mean that the deaf person is giving up power to someone with privilege. Rather, taking an honest assessment of the dynamics of the situation helps figure out the best way to address how to achieve an objective with the least risk.

In the initial example with the project manager, we determined that Doug had less to risk in challenging the hearing norm of phone conversations. One of the ironies of hearing privilege is that hearing people can often bring forward the exact same critique of a situation and be perceived as insightful, whereas a deaf person may be perceived as militant, divisive, or angry.   Trudy shared an example of this labeling in another StreetLeverage presentation (Suggs, 2012a). In that situation, the deaf people involved were simply sharing experiences, yet they were perceived as venting, divisive and angry. (It’s also important to note that anger can be a legitimate response to experiences of oppression and using such labels can be expressions of privilege.)

The dynamics of audism often means the risk can be even more subtle. To use a non-interpreting example, Oprah Winfrey was denied access to a store in Paris. She felt that she had been discriminated against because she was black. The store claimed that they were setting up for a private party and couldn’t let her in. Tim Wise suggests that the reason doesn’t matter. What is more significant is that “Oprah Winfrey, with all her money, all her power, and all her influence, still had to wonder, even if only for a moment, whether her race had trumped all that in the eyes of another person” (Wise, 2008, p. 72). Deaf people frequently have similar thoughts and experiences when encountering systems and institutions that favor the ability to hear, or hearing privilege. No matter how competent or powerful those individuals are, the risk of encountering doubt and insecurity is simply a part of living in a hearing-dominated society.

In this context, there may be situations where it seems too risky for a deaf person to be the lead, such as a deaf-hearing interpreting team. If a CDI brings forward a concern to an agency, the agency may view the deaf interpreter as the problem, choosing in the future to hire only hearing interpreters because they are perceived as safe. In addition, while being deaf in a hearing world can provide wisdom and insight, it also can be exhausting. At times, it makes sense for hearing interpreters to serve as allies in taking action. Yet, this is not a decision that hearing interpreters should make without deferring to the deaf interpreters.

Creating a Joint Plan of Action

If the team decides that the hearing interpreter is to take the lead, this should always be part of a joint plan. With the project manager, it made sense for Doug to raise the concern, but it didn’t mean that he acted on his own or that Trudy somehow ceded power to a privileged white, male, hearing interpreter. While in many respects, Trudy provided the leadership in the situation with insight into what was taking place and how to address the situation, Doug still could share his perspectives.

After an action is carried out, it is vital to evaluate the consequences. Throughout the project and even today, we continued to have conversations about the dynamics of interactions. Such a sharing of power is not something can simply be checked off a list. It is a continuing process.

Although such a process can consume energy and requires commitment, the upside is that sharing power does not have to be a zero-sum equation. Deaf people exercising their power do not diminish hearing interpreters’ power. Working together to create a plan of action that takes into account the value of deaf people’s experiences and the dynamics of a situation can be of benefit to all involved.

Beldon, in his interview, ended with an encouraging point in thinking about deaf-hearing interpreting teams:

Hearing interpreters have to help, serve as allies, and promote CDIs as team members. Share the message that it will ensure equivalent messages. It’s about deaf people’s language. Hearing interpreters can do their thing, and let the CDIs do theirs. It’s beautiful.

Deaf and hearing people working together in everyday situations to share leadership and power is just as beautiful, and well worth the energy to make it happen.

References

Beldon, J. (2014, Spring/Summer). Opening the door to CDI leadership. VIEWS. (no page number)

Hauser, P., O’Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A., and Thew, D. (2010). Deaf epistemology: Deafhood and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154(5), 486-492.

Suggs, T. (2012a, August 7). A deaf perspective: Cultural respect in sign language interpreting. Retrieved from http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/08/a-deaf-perspective- cultural-respect-in-sign-language-interpreting

Suggs, T. (2012b, December 11). Deaf disempowerment and today’s interpreter. Retrieved from http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter

Wise, T. (2008). White like me: Reflections on race from a privileged son. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press.

Copyrighted material, used by permission. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the authors.

Filed Under: Community resources, Culture, Deaf Community, Humanity, Interpreting, Politics, RID, Stereotypes

Beyond Face Value

February 20, 2014

I was a latecomer to Facebook. I created an account in 2007, but didn’t really use it until 2009. I had just given birth to my third child, who had a rough start and I was often up late worrying about him. To pass time in the wee hours, I spent hours poring through people’s Facebook pages and photographs.

Over time, Facebook became a key social media tool for my company. When one of my presentations went viral on the Internet, I started getting hundreds of friend requests from people I had never heard of. I decided to create a public page, so that people could follow my work if they wanted to—and I didn’t have to hurt anyone’s feelings by not accepting their friend requests.

I’m not going to repeat what many others have written about how Facebook took up their time, took them away from their children, and so on. Even so, the temptation to check the latest statuses was strong, and I started to see how Facebook really ate up time I could use for other things.

At that time, I lived in a small town. Everyone used Facebook to communicate, and this had its drawbacks: people would air conflicts online and use pictures or posts against each other both online and in person. Several times, I posted blanket statements that weren’t directed at any single person, and was quickly accused of talking about specific people in town. After repeated incidents of rumors running amok because of something I posted online, I didn’t feel good about Facebook anymore. I also didn’t like how the privacy settings weren’t really private. My husband, who has no interest in Facebook, suggested that I close my account. I agreed, and in early October, I started unfriending people in preparation for the account deactivation, reasoning that if I whittled down my friends list to zero, I could then be more selective once I reactivated my account someday.

The response was astounding. In late October, I had just presented a workshop in New York City, and was at LaGuardia Airport waiting to board my flight home. While waiting, I posted a message explaining that I was planning to deactivate my account, but people could find me on my other accounts. A few minutes later, I got a furious message from someone who lived in the same town, very upset I had unfriended him. His over-the-top email told of how I was unwelcome in some of the local Facebook groups, and that I wasn’t liked in town at all.

I burst into tears reading his message. People sitting next to me looked at me, startled at this sudden reaction. I was blown away by his email, and how it was so personal when my actions were not directed at anyone in particular—rather, it was an attempt to safeguard my family’s privacy. I posted another message, clarifying that I was shutting down my account and that it was nothing personal against anyone. After all, if people really wanted to stay updated on my doings, they could view my photos on Instagram, follow me on Twitter, “like” my public page, and visit my websites.

Since then, it’s been a marvelous experience, albeit a bit of a sociological experiment. I’ve received quite a few messages asking if I was okay and why I had shut down my Facebook account. The interesting thing was that these messages came about several months after deactivation. I also got a couple of messages from friends who were upset with me for allegedly blocking them. Once I explained that I had simply closed my account, they were virtually red-faced, apologizing for jumping to conclusions. It fascinated me that they were quick to assume instead of learning the facts first. I also found my family excluded from many local events, mainly because people forgot I wasn’t on Facebook anymore and didn’t have access to their invitations.

Still, something interesting started to happen. I started getting messages from friends who genuinely wanted to know how I was. They asked how my children were. They asked about my work. I was thrilled, because now I could have a meaningful email or even video conversation with them instead of quick soundbites here and there. I felt comforted that they took time out to check in on me, that I actually meant something to them.

Will I ever go back on Facebook? Sure, although technically, I never left—I still have my professional pages. When I do reactivate my account, I’m certainly going to be a lot more selective in who I allow in on my friends list. I don’t like being overwhelmed by messages coming at me from all directions, as if I were at a party saying hi in passing to 50 people and having in-depth conversations with none. I much prefer building, and nurturing, relationships with people, even if I don’t know them that well.

And that is the takeaway, for me, from this whole experience: that we all need to start reaching out to each other outside of social media. It’s so easy to feel like a social media minion, one of thousands and even millions of people on Facebook. Today, send an email or text to someone (or even call), and ask how that person is. It doesn’t have to be a long message; simply a, “Hey, how you doing?” will go a long way.

Copyrighted material, used by permission. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Filed Under: Community resources, Culture, Humanity, Media

Preserving Deaf History in Wax: Don Baer

December 18, 2013

screenshot of Deafwax.comAs I entered the small exhibition area, I  jumped in fright. To my right, there was a person blankly staring at me. Don Baer laughed as I did a double take; I realized (slowly) that it was actually a wax figure of William “Dummy” Hoy that Don had created. The first thing I thought after I looked at the wax figure, “Wow, Hoy was really short.” Even though I had known Hoy was only 5’4”, I was amazed at how much taller I was than him. What was even more remarkable was how I felt as if I could reach out and start signing to Hoy right there and then. That was, and is, the best aspect of Don’s work in creating realistic wax figures: he helped bring Deaf history alive.

When I was Silent News editor in chief, the first public event I attended was the 2000 Deaf Expo in Long Beach, Calif. Everyone there told me I had to see Don’s wax exhibition at the exposition. As I introduced myself to Don, who was also small in stature, he lit up and named a few mutual friends. His wonderful passion set the tone for the tour, and we chatted endlessly as he guided me through the packed exhibition area. I gawked at how realistic the wax figures were, and marveled at Hoy, Juliette Gordon Low, Thomas Gallaudet, Alice Cogswell, and Laurent Clerc. Seeing the figures made my cherished heritage come alive for me. It was obvious from looking at Don’s face, as people continuously marveled at the authentic-looking figures, that their awe was the best part of his hard work.

In a June 2001 Silent News article by Glenn Lockhart, Baer said renowned sculptor Douglas Tilden heavily influenced his work. The article also reported that each sculpture’s process averaged three months of work and over $1,000 on average:

A clay sculpture that serves as a frame for the head is done following dimensions gleaned from the photographs, then a plaster mold is made from it. After the mold has set, it is then emptied of clay and filled with hot wax. After adding glass eyes and hair, some refinement sculpting brings sharp definition to the facial features and a coat of oil glazes the wax, giving it that realistic sheen. A trip to thrift stores to costume the waxen beings is the final touch.

When I learned last week that Don had passed away on Dec. 10 from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis — also known as Lou Gehring’s disease —  I was, of course, saddened. I have no idea if he would have remembered our visit, but the work he took on left a lasting impact on many people, including me. I hope his work continues to bring history alive for future generations.

Don’s work can be viewed at www.deafwax.com (link is no longer active). 

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the express written consent of the author.

Filed Under: Culture, Deaf-Owned Businesses, History, Notable People, Silent News

Questions emerge about Deaf News Today and its owner

November 14, 2013

During the 2013 Deaflympics held in Sofia, Bulgaria, last July, the USA Deaf Sports Federation (USADSF) began receiving reports alleging Deaf News Today (DNT) was plagiarizing articles, photographs and tweets from the USADSF media team. The team, comprised of volunteer writers, editors, photographers and videographers, posted materials on Facebook, Twitter, and the USADSF website. DNT initially reposted the materials, but didn’t directly link to the USADSF website. Rather, DNT pointed all visitors to its own website. It was only after the reader clicked on another link at the DNT website that the original source was revealed.

The DNT website is a no-frills news aggregator blog site featuring articles from news sources around the world, and boasts over 1 million page views and 12,000 Twitter followers.

The person behind Deaf News Today

By clicking on the “About” link, visitors learn that Stephen Goforth runs the website:

DNT (Deaf New Today) provides clear and concise news coverage about deaf-related issues. Former CNN anchor and current journalism professor Stephen Goforth started the site more than a decade ago. We are committed to follow [sic] the highest standards of journalism. The goal is to bring you objective news reports. We do not take sides, but try to present all the facts we have in our possession and let the readers decide for themselves. DNT avoids sources that are not authoritative and issues corrections whenever necessary (though this is a rarity).  If you do not see a story on DNT, it might be that the information has not been verified or the information does not rise to the level of reportable news. If you have questions or suggestions, feel free to write us at DeafNewsToday@gmail.com.  And thank you for visiting! We hope you are better informed and empowered by what you find here.

plnu faculty profileGoforth appears to have an impressive background, according to the Point Loma Nazarene University’s Department of Literature, Journalism and Modern Languages faculty page:

Stephen Goforth teaches multimedia journalism, news writing, reporting, and digital newsgathering. In order to help students better grasp the move toward digital communication, he authored a textbook titled Media Shift: Journalism in a Connected World. His website Media-Shift.com helps students and professionals stay abreast of changes and trends taking place in new media. He stepped into teaching after working more than seven years at CNN as a [sic] anchor, writer and producer, covering stories such as 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, sharing in the network’s Peabody Awards for Hurricane Katrina coverage and the tsunami disaster in South Asia.  Stephen maintains several news sites including ChristianNewsReport.com and DeafNewsToday.com, which is considered one of Deaf Culture’s most influential sources of information.  He launched his media career with his father, who owns three Christian-formatted radio stations in Mobile, Alabama.  Stephen went on to earn his Masters Degree [sic] in Journalism [sic] from The American University in Washington, DC. While in the nation’s capital, he anchored radio network news for Salem Radio Network and worked in a variety of TV positions covering Congress and the federal courts. Stephen combines provocative videos, intense discussion and the latest research to encourage students toward critical thinking about the media and its influence on American society. [Note: A few days after this story was posted, this biography was updated at the Point Loma website.]

According to the Peabody website, the George Foster Peabody Awards are the world’s oldest awards for media that recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by broadcasters, cable and eklybcasters, producing organizations, and individuals. To confirm the two Peabody Awards Goforth claims to have shared in, an email was sent to Peabody Awards Collection Archivist Mary L. Miller. She stated in a Nov. 4th email that CNN “did not win a Peabody for coverage of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami.” In fact, CNN has never received any Peabody awards for any tsunami event coverage; it is unclear how Goforth can share in an award that doesn’t exist.

goforth about meHowever, for CNN’s Hurricane Katrina Peabody Award (link no longer active), Miller explained, “When a program or series wins a Peabody Award, everyone who contributed to its creation does share in the award.” According to Miller, CNN submitted at least 12 programs and Goforth’s name is not on any of the entry forms. This could mean one of two things: Goforth’s role was so minor that it did not warrant a mention on the entry form, or he was not involved in any way.

Except for several self-promotional websites, including one at about.me/stephengoforth, Goforth has no published articles anywhere on the Internet aside from his “Media Shift” book. Almost all of the websites mentioning Goforth are either his own, or operated by his colleagues; Goforth has several blog sites, mostly Christian-focused or technology-focused.

There apparently also are no published works at the two universities at which he is known to have taught: the University of Mississippi and Point Loma Nazarene University. Efforts to verify his statement that he was a regional CNN news anchor and producer and an Associated Press editor were unsuccessful, although it was confirmed that he attended The American University and taught at the University of Mississippi. The College of Arts and Sciences Dean at Point Loma Nazarene University, Kathryn McConnell, also confirmed Goforth’s present employment at the university.

At Point Loma Nazarene University, for the Fall 2013 semester, Goforth teaches a yearbook workshop, television news writing, and media ethics and law. He is slated to teach two introductory journalism classes along with a college composition class and a yearbook workshop during the Spring 2014 semester.

Transparency: Goforth’s connection to the Deaf community

Goforth cites his website as “one of Deaf Culture’s [sic] most influential sources of information,” yet he seems to lack a direct connection to the Deaf community. While that may seem insignificant to the average reader, this is of paramount importance within the Deaf community.As is true for many other cultures, transparency is key in the Deaf community.  In the 1995 book, “Journey into the DEAF-WORLD” by Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan, the authors explain:

When members of the DEAF–WORLD meet, they introduce themselves and their companions. . . They give capsule life histories so that each can see how the others are connected to the DEAF– WORLD network. For unlike other cultures, Deaf culture is not associated with a single place, a “native land”; rather, it is a culture based on relationships among people for whom a number of places and associations may provide common ground. (p. 5)

Benjamin Bahan, Ph.D., a professor of Deaf studies at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., said, “Since Deaf culture is based on relationship-building, it often becomes necessary for one – especially if hearing – to explain how he or she gets to be involved in the deaf community. One also typically has to explain what role he or she has in the community: member, teacher, interpreter, visitor and so on.”

Although Goforth has declined to explain his involvement, an April 23, 2007 post at The Weekly Standard (link no longer available) offers a possible connection, referring to the 2006 Gallaudet protests:

“AS A JOURNALIST WORKING at CNN with friends who attended Gallaudet, I became aware of a lack of reputable information about the school and about Deaf Culture [sic]. That led me to start a website focused on news related to the deaf (deafnewstoday.com). Having closely followed the protests at Gallaudet, I was impressed with Charlotte Allen’s analysis. While some of it misplaces emphasis and elevates radical opinions to an undeserved level of importance, she nevertheless provides an excellent review and well-stated summary of the identity issues facing the deaf community.

STEPHEN GOFORTH
 Atlanta, Ga.”

Goforth was emailed on Aug. 5 and again on Aug. 11 about his background and his involvement with the Deaf community. He  responded on Aug. 16 with,  “I appreciate your reaching out and interest in the website, as well as sharing your background with me, but will decline the offer because making myself the center of attention would take the focus off of the news stories. To that end, if you see an inaccuracy in a story or have a story idea, please let me know.”

Goforth, whose DNT email address has the alias of “Neal Down,” did not respond to further requests. Even so, he apparently continues to advocate for the Deaf community. On Oct. 3, an uncaptioned video – which since has had captions added – was posted on the Voice of America website. Goforth left a comment:

by: Stephen Goforth from: San Diego
October 03, 2013 4:55 PM
Captions on the video would be good for your deaf readers–especially since the story is focused on the deaf community.

Stephen Goforth

Interestingly, Goforth’s video at his own blog promoting his “Media Shift” book isn’t captioned, unless automatic captioning is turned on. However, automatic captions, such as those used in his video, are notoriously of poor quality. Videos on his other websites also aren’t captioned.

Not in it for the money

It is curious, then, why Goforth, a hearing person with seemingly no, or very limited, connection to the deaf community, wants to, as he described in an email, “try to help people know what’s going on in the deaf community because there is [sic] not a lot of places you can go to find stories.”

Lest anyone think he’s in this for the money, he was quick to clarify in an email to a deaf-focused media outlet, “By the way, I have never sold an ad on the site, I have never gotten a donation from it (despite the button on the site that allows donations) and have only get [sic] a few dollars every six months or so from third party Google ads. Implying that I’m trying to make money. . .is kind of laughable.”

dnt ad pricesIn addition to the Google ads, Goforth sells advertising space on the DNT website, as shown in this graphic taken from the DNT site on Aug. 19. Banner ads are available from $150 to $350 per month. The website also has a PayPal donation button. The information he reposts is freely and readily available through news feeds.

Furthermore, the DNT domain was purchased on Feb. 16, 2005, and the website only has articles dating back to 2007. There seems to be no clear evidence that DNT began in 2001 as Goforth claims. If the DNT website was indeed created in 2001, his claim that “there is [sic] not a lot of places you can go to find stories” is hardly accurate. In 2001, there were numerous publications specializing in deaf news, including Silent News, a community newspaper, and USA-L, an email news aggregator run by the late Phil Moos. There also were several other email news aggregators as far back as the 1990s.

site originationEven if 2005 is DNT’s actual start date as shown in his domain registration, there were multiple news outlets in 2005, including SIGNews, another community newspaper.

The Deaflympics coverage

When the USADSF media team, on location at the Deaflympics in Bulgaria, learned that their hard work was being reposted by DNT without direct credit, they were understandably unhappy. They were, after all, working on a volunteer basis.

DNT was taking USADSF content – articles and photographs – from the USADSF Facebook page and re-posting them on the DNT Facebook page and website.  Instead of just “sharing” the information – by making a single click on the SHARE button on the USADSF Facebook page, DNT was copying/pasting the photographs and contents onto the DNT Facebook page. The links didn’t point to the USADSF website; rather, they pointed back to the DNT website. It was only after arriving at the DNT website that a link to the USADSF site was seen. By one USADSF media team member’s account, there were at least 48 instances of taken information from both the USADSF Facebook page and USADSF website, all with no direct link to the USADSF website.

DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7

A similar pattern was followed with the USADSF Twitter feed. Instead of simply retweeting USADSF’s posts – where USADSF would be clearly identified as the original source – DNT duplicated the message in its own account with direct links to the DNT site. Again, it was only when a visitor clicked through to the DNT site, and then clicked again on yet another link, that the original USADSF source finally appeared.

This was at best misleading, and at worst, plagiarism and copyright violation. When confronted by USADSF, Goforth claimed that since USADSF was a non-profit entity, he was in fact helping them by using their “promotional materials.” In numerous emails with the media team, Goforth – whose emails seemed condescending at times – responded that he had done nothing wrong. He also stated that he had contacted USADSF prior to the Deaflympics to ask where he could find their news updates. USADSF responded to his inquiry and said that the information would be on the USADSF website, Facebook page and Twitter account. There was no further communication until USADSF contacted him during the Deaflympics.  Additionally, USADSF never gave Goforth explicit or implicit permission to copy and paste the articles and photos to his own sites.

Goforth also wrote, “I created the site and maintained it for a decade to try to help people know what’s going on in the deaf community because there is [sic] not a lot of places you can go to find stories. I suppose it would make you feel better if you could dismiss this as some sort of financial scheme. But it seems to be mostly my misunderstanding your purposes. And my experiences simply don’t line up with what you believe is typical.  However, since my goal was to help and not hurt, I’ve taken everything down about Deaflympics and will avoid the subject in the future.”

Some may argue that since Goforth did have a link, albeit buried, on his website to USADSF’s original content, he was not violating copyright. While clicking “share” on Facebook is allowed as a sharing technique (covered by Facebook’s terms of usage, and supported by the fact that “shares” on Facebook lead back to the original source), any copying and pasting onto individual Facebook pages or external sites is a copyright violation. Copyright law is something that a journalism professor teaching media ethics and law would likely be familiar with and discuss in class.

bisondancenov9Articles, photographs and videos from some of the larger “mainstream” media sources, such as ESPN, are credited clearly on the DNT website. Yet Goforth, a media ethics and law professor, continues to repost content from other sources at DNT, without clear attribution to the original source. For example, on Nov. 9, DNT posted a video of “The Bison Dance.” Even after one clicks on the video, it is not clear who originally created this video. It is only when one goes directly to the YouTube site that the original source is identified: Gallaudet University’s athletics department.

Current status

Numerous emails from various individuals to Point Loma Nazarene University’s dean and provost have gone mostly unanswered. As of press time, DNT has 12,906 followers on Twitter, 3,721 likes on Facebook, and 1,250,243 page views on the DNT website.

– Robert Weinstock, Bill Millios, Tara Schupner Congdon, and Rosa Ramirez contributed to this article.

curlicue_sm

My thoughts on the DNT story

I had never heard of Deaf News Today (DNT) until the 2013 Deaflympics. Although I have no affiliation with the USADSF media team, I was perplexed anyone would do this to USADSF, so I went to check the DNT website out. I figured this was simply a case of misguided hearing people trying to either help and/or profit from deaf people. Now, especially with the claim of receiving the Peabody Award for the tsunami coverage proven false, I’m left with even more questions:

  1. Privacy concerns aside, why is Goforth so resistant to talking about his cultural ties to the deaf community?
  2. Why is he running Deaf News Today if he’s not in it for the money as he says? Altruism?
  3. Why are there so many discrepancies between his claims about who he is, what he’s done, and what is verifiable?
  4. Why does DNT claim to have been around since 2001, when the evidence shows Deaf News Today has been registered only since 2005?
  5. Why is a professor of journalism violating the very principles he is presumably teaching?
  6. Why are there no articles or videos by Goforth anywhere online from his time with CNN and Associated Press?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I don’t know why Goforth isn’t being accountable or transparent. It’s not for lack of opportunity; I have offered him at least two opportunities to tell his side. I’m hoping there is a simple explanation to all this. Joining, or at least allying with, a community should come with an inherent respect for that community’s traditions and cultural norms. I continue to invite Goforth to offer an explanation for the discrepancies in his biographies and on the DNT website.

Filed Under: Business, Community resources, Culture, Language, Media, Silent News
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Tweets