Why Not For Kids, Too?

August 8, 2007

rallyThis article originally appeared at i711.com.

An Alton Telegraph (Illinois) article reads in part:

Springfield, Ill. (AP) – About 100 deaf citizens carried placards and used their hands to talk at a silent rally in the State Capitol aimed at supporting legislation that would affect the deaf.

The demonstrators came from all over the state to…testify before an Illinois House committee and meet with Gov. James R. Thompson.

The Human Resources committee then voted 18 to 1 in favor of a proposal to provide communication devices for the deaf in at least one emergency facility in communities with more than 10,000 residents.

I don’t quite remember my first rally, but I do remember Mom sitting me down and talking with me about how we could make our home safer in the event of a fire or other emergencies. Back then, we were too poor to own a TTY, so we had to rely on alternate methods. The next day, a group of deaf people gathered to make signs and flyers; I colored the fireman’s hat on my sign a bright red. Then we went to the state capitol. I remember meeting with Governor Thompson in his office and being in awe of how tall and friendly he was. I was only three years old; Mom was 25. The rally and governor’s meeting were crucial lessons for me.

Today, nearly 30 years later, I continue to believe in the value of children participating in peaceful rallies and demonstrations. As a result of that early exposure – and many other rallies or demonstrations – I developed a lifelong interest in advocacy. I stay active with both state-level and national-level associations serving deaf people not because it’s a “cool” thing to do, but because it’s the only way we can ensure our rights.

There was recently some discussion recently among bloggers and vloggers about whether children should be involved in demonstrations or protests. This dialogue emerged from an incident during the A.G. Bell conference in Virginia last July. A group of people, including an A.G. Bell member, passed out flyers at the conference site promoting the teaching of sign language to deaf babies. The Marriott hotel manager, Jenny Botero, was captured on video trying to take flyers away from one of the people. Botero also grabbed paper from a frightened deaf eight-year-old daughter of a deaf woman, though this wasn’t captured on video. The girl’s mother was understandably furious. One blogger questioned the mother’s judgment and integrity in having her daughter participate, yet never once questioned Botero’s integrity. Regardless of the circumstances, no adult should ever try to intimidate an eight-year-old – or any child – into doing anything to further a cause.

When I read the blogger’s article and people’s comments agreeing that children shouldn’t be involved in events like this, I was saddened. The deaf community is now beginning to associate the word “protest” – or other forms of activism – as aggressive, dangerous and harmful. And this association has serious consequences.

I certainly don’t support dangerous tactics, regardless of results. Not all activism include dramatic events like what sometimes happened during the Gallaudet protests or even the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I should, however, point out that many of the children who were involved with the Deaf President Now protest are now adults, even parents, who have become even more cognizant of the importance of advocating for issues important to them. Many of them have become outstanding community leaders in individual ways. I was 13 when DPN happened, and the protest certainly left its mark on me. It didn’t teach me that we had to resort to violent methods. The protest taught me that deaf people like me were just like anyone else who deserved equal respect and access, and that we could play smart in order to get what we wanted, or rather, needed. It’s still that simple today.

So, to bring the kids or not? Again, it’s simple: the parent has the responsibility of gauging the safety level of each event, whether a rally, demonstration or a protest. The parent also has a responsibility in developing a safety plan should things go terribly wrong – whether at the hands of the protestors or the police or management. And the parent also has the right to decide if a child should be involved or not. Let’s be real: there’s a degree of risk in everything we do, from carrying signs at an event to riding a car (anyone want to compare the likelihood of dying in a car accident to being hurt during a demonstration?).

Besides, any responsible parent would do what my mother did: sit with the children, talk about the issues at hand in as neutral and factual a manner as possible, and then explain why the event is taking place. Then the parent could ask if the children want to be involved or not. Safety should always be a priority, but so should education and awareness.

Even though my first rally was three decades ago, I find myself advocating for the same issues we did back then, which was pre-Americans with Disabilities Act, pre-captioning, pre-Internet, and pre-everything: equality. And if it takes another 30 years of peaceful demonstrations and rallies to achieve equality, so be it. Our children should not face inequality at any time, so what better way to educate them than to include them?

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

Filed Under: Childhood, Community resources, Culture, Deaf education, Media, Politics

Sharing Our Good News – The Right Way

July 17, 2006

This article originally appeared at i711.com.

As I sat in a hotel room a few weeks ago, I saw a commercial for Aleve, which is used primarily to ease arthritis pain. Interpreter Andrea Heisler of Tempe, Ariz., signed and spoke onscreen. The written transcript for this commercial on Aleve’s Web site reads:

“Andrea Heisler: I facilitate communication between two people who can’t normally communicate. A few years ago I started having joint pain in my wrist and in my elbow. I would avoid certain signs, like ‘last night’ would hurt my wrist.

I took some Aleve. That really took away my joint pain. Aleve helped me keep working.”

However, the words actually spoken are:

“My name is Andrea Heisler, and this is my story.

I facilitate communication between two people who can’t normally communicate. I started having joint pain in my wrist. I would avoid certain signs, like ‘last night’ would hurt my wrist.

I took some Aleve. I could actually move my wrist. The one cool thing about my job is that everyone is always happy to see me. Aleve worked great.”

My first reaction was about the choice to speak while signing. Her signing was choppy because she chose to try and use two languages at once; I became fixated on lipreading the unsigned words. Had there been a voice-over or even captions, Heisler could have done a better job with her signing.

But what bothered me more was this particular part of the commercial: “…between two people who can’t normally communicate.” (Emphasis mine.)

What is normal communication? Who decides what is “normal”? In my house, people who speak aren’t normal, given that we’re all deaf. In your house, it might be people who don’t speak Spanish. In another household, it might be people who don’t speak English. Did Heisler say this because, regardless of all the advances deaf people have made, we’re still viewed as abnormal communicators?

In search of possible answers, I conducted an informal poll; readers of my columns know that my polls are hardly scientific. Still, the responses give me a good idea of what people across the country — deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people from all walks of life — think. The majority agreed that it was a wonderful step that Aleve had taken in being inclusive and reaching out to ASL users. After all, the more exposure ASL gets, the more the language becomes accepted among non-users.

With that said, almost all of the people I surveyed also agreed that the words, “can’t normally communicate” was a biased and inappropriate comment, no matter how the sentence was presented. Even if it’s just semantics, commercials have a powerful effect upon viewers. People who watch this advertisement will subconsciously register that interpreters work with people who “can’t normally communicate.”

When I contacted Heisler, her response was, “I visited i711.com and have to reconsider consenting to an interview. I am unable to contribute comments that would appear as content designed to attract people to a competing relay provider. In addition, due to my contract with Bayer, I would need official word from the marketing agent before providing comment.”

Fine. I e-mailed Aleve through its Web site, and got a response from the public relations agency handling Aleve’s “Good News” campaign. “Andrea came to us through market research that was being conducted in the Phoenix area,” Rebecca Zeitler of HealthSTAR Public Relations said in an e-mail. “We were searching for people with arthritis and joint pain to talk about their experience. Andrea answered that ‘call’ if you will and it was through interviews and the submission of her story that we selected her for the ad campaign.”

Zeitler also responded to my inquiry of whether Aleve or Heisler had written the script, writing, “The words [Heisler] uses in the commercial are her own.”

I then sent e-mail to Heisler asking for the reasoning behind the “cannot normally communicate” line. She didn’t respond before this article went to print.

I was disappointed to learn that the script had been written by Heisler herself. Here’s why. Companies are usually quick to capitalize upon the “deaf” or “ASL” angle, thinking it’s a fun, innovative approach. In doing so, their ignorance often emerges — which is understandable (but not excusable). However, that wasn’t the case with this commercial. Many of my friends in the Phoenix area say Heisler is one of the best interpreters around; I believe that, given my friends’ high standards. And that’s why Heisler’s choice of words disappoints me so much.

The bottom line is, when someone chooses to do a commercial, that person inevitably becomes a spokesperson for the community s/he portrays, like it or not. That’s where the right attitude comes in — especially as an interpreter facilitating communication.

It’s too bad that Heisler chose to portray her career in an overly altruistic sense. Heisler, who is certified with the Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf, could have used better wording, such as “I facilitate communication between two people who use different languages,” or something along these lines. I think this commercial was a cute idea, but it could have — and should have — been more positive.

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

Filed Under: Culture, i711.com, Media, Politics

Certify This!

August 18, 2005

This article originally appeared at i711.com.

Nowadays, teaching American Sign Language has taken on more prestige than back when it was volunteer-taught, and standards have been raised – albeit slowly – in teaching the language. This is largely due to the increased research, training and understanding of the complexities of ASL and its impact as a stand-alone language.

American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA), a terrific organization, has worked diligently to promote the field of teaching ASL as an esteemed, authentic career choice by offering various resources and certification for its members. Out of 710 members, just a little over 350 members are certified, according to ASLTA officers. That’s a pretty good number – or is it?

Certification includes, in order of rank: provisional, qualified and professional (for more details, see www.aslta.org). The requirements for each category are actually quite fair — if you teach on a full- time basis. It’s my suspicion that the majority of ASL instructors in the nation do not teach full-time; rather, they’re adjunct faculty at colleges and universities or in community education programs. I’m one of them. And I’ve heard story after story from many other people who let their ASLTA memberships lapse for that very reason: they, as part-time teachers, weren’t able to achieve certification beyond provisional because the opportunities just aren’t there for them to meet the requirements.

The facts are simple. If you aren’t able to find enough ASL-related teaching or training gigs as a part-time teacher, you’re screwed. It doesn’t matter if ASLTA’s certification systems are in accordance with other foreign language certifications or systems; ASL, unfortunately, has not yet achieved equal standing in the community in many states. Teaching opportunities aren’t quite as widespread as, say, Spanish classes.

It’s a Catch-22 situation: there are plenty of qualified (and that’s the key word, qualified) ASL instructors who can’t find teaching opportunities due to various reasons — location, the lack of full-time positions in their areas, positions requiring them to teach full-time when they’re only available part-time, etc. Therefore, they’re unable to get or maintain their ASLTA certifications. Keep in mind that many teaching positions require ASLTA certification. So part-timers who can’t get certification are once again out of luck.

Is this really fair? Aren’t we losing qualified instructors this way? And hurting the profession’s evolution as a consequence?

I strongly believe that ASLTA’s numbers will grow by leaps and bounds — and ASL teaching as a profession will gain credibility — if they add a new certification category for part-time instructors. This category would continue to uphold ASLTA’s high standards of professionalism, but acknowledge the limited opportunities that part-time instructors face.

In fact, about a year ago, I e-mailed President Leslie Greer about this possibility. She asked me to write a formal letter that she’d share with the board. Excerpts of my Sept. 10, 2004 letter are below:

…for part-time or adjunct teachers like myself who want to continue promoting the teaching of ASL as a profession, [meeting the hours required] is difficult… I have discovered that many individuals have not pursued their certifications for this reason, and that they in turn decide not to pursue membership of ASLTA.

…The professional development requirements are of no problem for most part- time teachers. It is the teaching requirements that others and I find to be an obstacle.

In addition to my being employed full-time in a profession that is not in the field of ASL teaching, another obstacle preventing me from being able to meet the required hours of teaching is that I live in a rural area… and most of the teaching positions are already “taken” by other long-time ASL teachers or residents of the area. Even if I tutor on a regular basis, that would only amount to maybe five hours a month at the most. I provide workshops nationally on an occasional basis, usually three to four times a year. This is not enough for the requirements of each level beyond provisional. These obstacles are true for many other part-time teachers…

I would like to request that ASLTA consider forming a new category for those who are very much in need and want of ASLTA certification, yet do not want to be forced to work full-time and/or sacrifice their current professions in order to maintain the certification. A new category or categories for part-time ASL teachers would create a new wave of membership, and in turn maintain the professionalism so needed in the teaching profession.

I never heard back on this matter; I have no idea if this was shared with the board or not. I personally know of more than a hundred teachers, both non- members and members of ASLTA, who agree with me on this matter. We recognize the sheer importance of maintaining high standards for the profession of teaching ASL. With these standards, ASL will gain even more respect and prestige that still hasn’t quite been achieved in many schools or places.

With ASLTA’s drastic drop in membership from over 1,000 during the 1990s to only 750 today, this addition of a new category would help membership and ensure that professional standards are maintained for all ASL teachers, part-time or full-time.

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

Filed Under: Community resources, i711.com, Language, Politics

ON HAND: Bigotry at its best (worst)

September 2, 2003

This originally appeared in The Tactile Mind Weekly in Trudy’s ON HAND column.

If you’d like to see bigotry at its best (worst), take a look at this: http://www.wfdnews.org/discuss/view.php?type=8&subid=113 (Note: This link has expired.)

I couldn’t even read through all of the postings in one sitting. Many of the postings are written by a person who says he (assuming it’s a he) studied Deaf culture for two years, in addition to having worked as a relay operator. He mocks the way deaf people’s voices sound and their language skills. He also talks about how Deaf people are not part of a culture, “but rather a band of disabled people that decided they should make a giant [expletive] club to boost their egos and make themselves look important.”

There’s plenty more where this came from at the site (which is, oddly enough, hosted by the World Federation of the Deaf). Of course, some of the postings seemed almost too combative for the sole purpose of pissing people off. Even so, the postings struck a few chords in me. Sometimes, because I live so deeply within the deaf community, I forget just how many people still look down on deaf people, and how there’s still a lot of resistance to the idea of a culture or the idea that ASL is a language.

On that note, NBC Nightly News recently rebroadcast an interview with Martin Luther King, Jr., conducted four years after his “I have a dream” speech. In that interview, a resigned King said that he was facing old reality and didn’t have as much hope as he did during the landmark speech. Even though the hope still was in him, King said (and I’m paraphrasing here), he realized it was easier to integrate a bus than a country. As I watched King, I was reminded of how much hope and pride I was filled with as a 13-year-old during the Deaf President Now movement.

Now, more than 15 years after DPN, America has seen a lot of changes–necessary, valuable, life-altering changes. Yet bigotry, discrimination, and ignorance are very much around. And that still hurts.

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

Filed Under: Childhood, Culture, Language, Politics

Editorial: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

January 1, 2002

Originally appeared in Silent News, January 2002.

Well, deaf schools are taking yet more blows from the press. I’ve been following the series published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about sexual abuse at residential schools for the deaf nationally. Some of them I read in depth; others I skimmed through. I think a lot of them were over-kill – repeating the same points over and over.

Yet, I can’t help but marvel at how adept school superintendents are at sweeping issues under the rug. I understand why they do this: they don’t want bad publicity for what, usually, is otherwise a good and well-run school; they don’t want parents worrying about their kids; and so on.

You know what? Too bad for the superintendents. Parents must worry about their kids. Here’s what happens when they don’t: recently a friend of mine who works as a houseparent at a deaf school told me about how he took one of the students home for Thanksgiving. The friend, “Jeff,” said that the student had nobody come to pick him up for the holidays, and since the school was closed, Jeff took him home.

I applaud Jeff for stepping in and fulfilling an important role in the student: one of a caring person. Yet, the risks Jeff took in taking the student home were high. The student could’ve easily accused Jeff of molestation, abuse, or a number of any other violations. Even so, the more important question is: where was the student’s family? Where were his guardians? This is why deaf schools often play an important role in the development of deaf children’s lives. And this is why superintendents cannot fool themselves into believing incidents, even minor ones, are not of grave concern.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident at a large and well-attended deaf school where a junior high student brought a loaded gun to school. Media coverage of this incident was sparse; only a local TV station picked it up. I assigned a writer to report on this incident after four separate individuals tipped me off to it. The writer had difficulty getting any information on the situation, and the superintendent’s office did not call the writer back. However, the superintendent did have one of my sources (a teacher at the school) contact me to ask me not to print the story because it would generate negative publicity and that parents would be upset. I also got the impression that the teacher’s job was at stake.

Rather than simply saying that the school was not at liberty to discuss the alleged incident, the superintendent chose to cower behind methods of intimidation and use other people to ask us not to print the story.

While the incident is more complicated than what I write here, my knee-jerk reaction was to say to the superintendent, “Too bad!” I am a strong supporter of residential schools for deaf students. Yet, I will never support the hiding of information about gross violations of other people’s safety, especially in schools. I also will not support the concealment of information for the sake of “positive publicity.”

Just because an incident took place at a residential school does not mean it is limited to that school. When I was in high school – a public school with 1,800 students, 80 deaf – a student brought a handgun to school. It was a few hours before someone tipped off a teacher and the boy got a few days of out-of-school suspension (this took place many years before the Columbine shootings). Oh, yeah, the kid was deaf. Does this mean that deaf programs at hearing high schools should be blamed for everything? Of course not.

What about all the shootings at hearing schools across the nation? Columbine, for one. Does this mean hearing schools must be blamed for the shootings? No.

How about the long history of sexual molestation, harassment, and rape at hearing schools across the nation? By coincidence – as I was thinking about this topic – I happened to stumble across a based-on-a-true-story movie today on the Lifetime Channel with Michael Gross playing Dr. Gordon Powell, a school principal who had a history of molesting female troubled students. Does this mean the problem is rampant at hearing schools and they must all be closed down?

Of course not. Problems are rampant in every situation, and certainly the strong presence of these problems at schools – residential or public – must be investigated and stopped immediately. It might seem much more dramatic in deaf communities across the nation because of the close-knit nature and because of the “recognition factor” – everyone knows everyone. But it doesn’t mean deaf people, schools, or organizations should be held to any different standards, whether better or worse standards, from those that exist for hearing schools. The problems are real. Yet, they shouldn’t be cause for closure of schools, as some anti-residential school advocates have been proclaiming for years.

The bottom line is that parents and students have the right to know of every incident at school that endangers them or their friends. Superintendents and school officials cannot ever use intimidation or threaten lawsuits to protect their own reputations. Chances are, the information will come out anyway, and their reputation will be even worse for being dishonest.

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

Filed Under: Childhood, Deaf education, Parenting, Politics, Silent News

Wiser and more experienced, attorney hits campaign trail

October 1, 2000

Originally appeared in Silent News, October 2001.

Kelby Brick, an attorney who is deaf, is again running for a seat on the Greenbelt City Council in Maryland.

Brick ran for City Council two years ago but lost by fewer than 200 votes.

“As a deaf person, I understand the need to make all aspects of the government inclusive of all of its citizens. This means honoring, recognizing and meeting the needs and uniqueness of a diverse community,” Brick said.

Brick’s campaign kicked off with a non-partisan fundraiser co-hosted by Judy C. Stout, President of the Maryland Deaf and Hard of Hearing Democratic Club, and Gallaudet University President Dr. I. King Jordan.

“Two years ago, Kelby ran without any real organization or fundraising. He lost by fewer than 200 votes, so I knew that if he had support and funds, he had a very good chance to win,” Jordan said in an e-mail. “It will be a wonderful message to everyone, deaf and hearing, when he wins. Deaf people can do anything but hear!”

The fundraiser, which brought approximately 30 people, was only the beginning of Brick’s campaign. “Kelby has become more knowledgeable and has expanded his efforts to involve more people,” campaign manager Dan Brubaker said. “He’s also gotten more proficient with Greenbelt issues.”

The campaign team participated in Greenbelt’s Labor Day parade on Monday, Sept. 3, with Brick and his wife and son riding in a red convertible and approximately 15 campaign team members walking along while distributing flyers and throwing out campaign logo Frisbees, Brubaker said.

Brick, who originally hails from Pennsylvania, graduated from the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in 1989, and earned his bachelor’s degree in government from Gallaudet in 1993. It was at Gallaudet that Brick started his involvement in politics as Student Congress Speaker, among several other extracurricular activities. “Kelby was always an activist and a leader,” remembered Jordan. “He has those characteristics that many deaf people who were raised in homes where there were no communication barriers and there was confidence and self-esteem present. He’s bright and ambitious.”

After earning a law degree from Temple University, becoming the first deaf person to do so at the school, Brick moved back to Maryland. Prior to establishing his current private practice, Brick worked as legal counsel for the National Association of the Deaf’s Government Affairs department, and co-authored Legal Rights: The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People.

George Schroeder is one of the residents in Greenbelt who intends to vote for Brick. “I have always wanted to see a deaf person running for political office. I am very glad that a young deaf man like Kelby Brick wants to run.”

Schroeder said he was especially impressed with Brick’s commitment to specific issues. “Greenbelt is a fine city to live in. Still, more improvements are needed, e.g. more protected bike paths, better safety on the streets during the day and after dark, and reduced crime, especially auto-theft.”

Brick’s main focuses include education, safety, environment and Greenbelt’s city budget. “I intend to ensure that those issues are being addressed proactively. Greenbelt is a truly special town and its residents deserve a responsive council willing to face those issues head-on,” Brick said.

Stout feels Brick has a solid future. “He, by nature, is a bright young fellow on his way up. One has to be special with unique skills and the ‘know-hows’ to successfully win a political campaign and to be ready to represent his constituencies on the Greenbelt City Council,” she commented. “Kelby is ready to do it, and he will make us proud, showing the world that as a deaf person he happens to be, he can rise to the occasion just as good as anybody in the general mainstream, and do a heck of a good job with his political, then civic responsibilities.”

Brick said a few factors contribute to his commitment to Greenbelt: “Persistence, the desire for public service, and the support of my family, friends and others in the community.” He hopes to gain the vote of the estimated 3,500 deaf residents of Greenbelt, which is located about 15 minutes from Washington, D.C. “I am running against five incumbents, which makes it very difficult. But with the community’s support I am confident that the election results will be favorable,” he said.

Jordan agrees. “With work and perseverance, he’ll really go places.”

The Brick campaign has a website at www.kelbybrick.com.

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

Filed Under: Business, Politics, Silent News
« Previous Page

Tweets