Gathering time/space at StreetLeverage Live! in Atlanta

[Stephanie Feyne]

Brandon Arthur made us an offer.

He said if those of us who are attending StreetLeverage Live! in Atlanta (April 26-28) wish to get together to discuss issues he will make event space available during the lunch hours on Saturday and Sunday.

If that is what people want let us please confirm with each other first, 

then we can confirm with Brandon at

bra...@streetleverage.com

so he can make plans for it. 

Here is the website for info and registration.

http://www.streetleverage.com/live/

Stephanie

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Dan Parvaz <dpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Who-all is coming to StreetLeverage Live? Surely we can carve out a little time to have this discussion, uh, live. 

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Austin Kocher <acko...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm trying to think about how to respect the volume of your response. Your enthusiasm leaves me in a rather submissive state - something like the feeling after the end of a fireworks finale. I'm not sure I have much to say. Maybe I'm just not well-equipped to decide who counts as Deaf and who doesn't.

Sincerely,

Austin

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Terri Hayes <asl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi. - put an addendum to the subject line to give this a different
focus than the simultaneously occuring considerations of the MAL
frustations.

I'm back.
I just took a nice drive - about 3 hours worth - to try to figure out
how to clarify some of the things I wanted to say.. It all gets all
confusing - because there are so many confounding factors to
consider...
but - because I do so enjoy a good discussion - I'm gonna have a go
please argue - nothing like a good argument (that being friendly but
firm disagreement to which  neither side will (or need to) yield - the
banter helps clarify just exactly what one really thinks.

and so - fair warning - this might meader - because I'm hoping to
point out some of the many confounding factors that, it seems to me,
you are (at least in part) conveniently overlooking. (smile)

>>>Since we are having honest discussion, i have to share something that has become increasingly problematic. It concerns the imaginary differences between Deaf and hearing,

please note - that above is what I'm thinking about

>>and the fellow graduate students and professors who I'm working with who are Deaf, hearing and otherwise are getting exhausted with this, too. I think even though it's an important strategy at times to point out meaningful differences, we have come to view virtually everything within the dualist framework of deaf and hearing, and ended up with an unnecessarily simplistic analytic framework.

and this second - is just a refresher so you have a reference to what
I'm in whole - responding to.
So here is goes:
There are *no*  imaginary  differences between Deaf and hearing...
excepting that - as I said before, the more a Deaf person(s) become
fluent in English, the more they surround themselves with hearing, the
more they become comfortable (shall we say fluent) in functioning in
the hearing world - the less they are (functionally.. not technically)
Deaf... and the more that in *that* population of Deaf there are
indeed no "real" differences between Deaf and hearing. So in this, you
are right - you and your peers, Deaf or hearing - are made
fundamentally of the same stuff - and you even share a culture
(academia) which superimposes most if not all of the respective
"hearing" (is there a "hearing" culture beyond ignorance and
assumption of priviledge?) and Deaf cultures (that being that there is
a culture that exists in the linguistically/socially/Hearing-none Deaf
- and a culture of a different quality perhaps in the
linguistically/socially Hearing-none (or some) - English bilingual
(marginal at times - but then - where is the tipping point?)
D/deaf)...

The problem is that there are many different little bits of cultural
potential standing in each of the fractured bits of what is commonly
referred to as one giant Deaf community.
and in SOME of those bits of Deaf... there is a culture (and a
paradigm and a social context, and a physical brain different
processing) completely separate and different from anything the
hearing world can imagine. It is fact - that Some Deaf people - are
not like hearing people... They fake it well - but they are not the
same... and when we assume they are - they are hurt by that... (as are
we). It is oppressive - we are expecting them to respond to situations
in the same way that we (Deaf or hearing we) do - and they dont. And
they are punished for it - with labels, with lock-ups... with
restraint or disregard.

and rather like Bill Moody recently held up and pointed at...
those fish - are not likely to be investigating the presence of water.

Not because they are incapable of such investigation - but because..
quite simply - none of them have ever had any need to think of it. In
fact, they have other things far more pressing to think about... like
the ever present push and shove to learn to make sound with their
mouth and to learn to put "the" and "a" in the right place in a
sentence and to be able to somehow figure out how to read and write
English (whatever that is) as a coloquial communicative technique...
(based entirely in what hearing people think their spoken language
means - and without regard for the fact that the Deaf person has never
Heard it, has little if any "sense" of it, and is more often than not
bombarded by a deluge of vocabulary that would challenge many fully
functional hearing people (if the common vocabulary comprehension of
the general population can be a true measure of what hearing people
are capable of understanding - our current set of "educated adults"
are very much lacking in a robust and prolific set of vocabulary.)
These Deaf people MUST figure out how to survive these pressures -
because they do afterall live in our great United States - and they
must somehow figure out how to get money (job - in a hearing world -
with hearing people) and a place to live... survival.. with as little
interaction with hearing (and potentially dangerous legal or social
worker) interactions as possible... because interactions with those
people - are dangerous... misunderstandings occur - which invariably
end up in jail, hospitalizations, or well meaning hearing world
interventions.

So yes - the differences between Deaf and hearing - when collecting
professional and educated colleagues into one room - whether the ears
function one like the other or not - is moot. There is no appreciable
difference between Deaf and hearing there..
but there are Deaf out there... who are significantly different...

It would make a good book eh? - Hunting the D-Deaf person in the
context of contemporary society. (but then - like what's happening to
the definition of Deaf-heart - the capital D has been usurped from the
Deaf (who *are* different) and pasted proudly on the left chest over
the heart of the professional Deaf who believe they still know ASL....
and that is the mark of D
and yet - the language I see these professional captial D-Deaf people
use - is far and away - NOT ASL... its a signed langauge that much
more resembles English - in structure as well as vocabulary -
and yet its called ASL and they're called D-Deaf... and the people who
mark the real differences - are forgotten. (Yo-CODA people! - that
would in many cases be your parents - smile - you know - the ones who
dont understand the freaking sign language interpreters and go to the
doctor and come back more confused than they were when they left...
the ones of the Deaf community who were the reason you became
interpreters in the first place... cuz you couldn't stand to know that
so many Deaf - STILL dont understand...)
There is an entire population of Deaf people out there - who use a
different language than English... its different even than the "ASL"
thats being taught in programs all over the country - by Deaf teachers
- to hearing "baby" signers- interpreters to be... and for the most
part - few if anyone is even looking at that... or that particular
population.
That population is as invisible as it ever has been... (except to
those of us who can see it... and in most cases - thats CODA, and
Deaf-made interpreters... and should I be so bold - those with
Deaf-heart - few and far between)

ok - with that being said...
I agree - that the rhetoric from
>Deaf, hearing, and interpreter communities [who say] the same argument: being Deaf is totally different, we almost can't even define it...

is baloney.
The differences *can* be defined -
and to the point you propose - I do believe that
>the formation of Deaf identities is not beyond the scope of normal understanding.

but I assert that - the description of that identity formation is
firmly seated in the expectations of hearing identity formation. Deaf
(being human) surely go through all the same phases of development and
have specific or generalized expressions of their experience - but
pretty much anything you come up with as a descriptor is going to be
based on a comparision (same or different) of that and hearing.
and if you come up with same - "see! Deaf are same!" and if you come
up with Different...
how different? is that an individual aberation? a psychological issue
originating from the fact of Deafness? or the result of a language
impairment? or ?... (but interestingly - I dont think I've ever heard
it be said that the behavioral or developmental differences are just
because - that person is not fuctioning as a hearing person expects to
function.)

However you come up with it.. any significant differences in identity
formation or any comparison between Deaf and hearing are going to be
"medicalized" - because our social sciences do not yet see ASL (or any
other linguistically variant group actually) as being sufficient to
sustain a whole and healthy human being.

>>So the point isn't to eliminate the term deaf-heart but to put it into dialogue with other concepts, to bring people into dialogue rather than to isolate and marginalized.

I think you'd be better served to re-direct the social sciences away
from attempting to use vocabulary that originates in ASL as terms for
discussion - and try to figure out a way to make clear the significant
differences between the normalizing influences of being bilingual and
the natural segreationalization and marginalization of the Deaf who
are not able to acquire more than rudimentary bilingual ability.

Bring back to the table - an understanding that there are Deaf people
who cannot hear - and the fact that this often serves as the basis for
huge phenomenological and social differences between their experience
and that of the majority of the population (theirs compared with both
Deaf and hearing).
Bring some attention to the fact that there are Deaf out there - who
are not just "quiet hearing-like people"- but who are whole - and yet
they do not function (ah - how... you want to know *how* they fuction
differently...)... in the same way as their deaf (or hearing)
counterparts.

hmmm -
ok back to thinking
but if I figure it out - I get to publish it! (wink!)

Terri Hayes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Kocher" <acko...@gmail.com>
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [NIDG] Re: for whatever it's worth

> Lot's of good material, Terri.
>
> I'll make a general statement and then a specific statement. And we'll see how it goes. No ruffled feathers here. :) Just good ol' water cooler conversation.
>
> 1. The general statement.
>
> What I said in the third paragraph of my last email is the same response I would give to most of your text below. The basic argument is that viewing ASL or Deaf identity as something that functions beyond the scope of analysis is well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided.
>
> 2. The specific statement. And only because I want to give some substance to my general statement.
>
> "I dont think that too many natively fluent Deaf people are
> sitting around thinking about "provisional definitions" or anaylizing
> how they communicate or what they communicate about.."
>
> On the contrary, this is precisely the conversation I've been having for several years now with a variety of Deaf folks. Most people in general – Deaf, hearing, otherwise – don't participate in this kind of conversation. Who would want to? It takes up valuable time, requires lots of boring reading, and there's no immediate material gain. But I wholly disagree that this is a "Deaf" thing. What I'm trying to point out most clearly is that it is a huge mistake to take generalizable or more complex social tendencies and call them characteristics of the "Deaf" community. In fact, the great frustration is that this perception that ASL doesn't "lend itself to analysis" has two effects: 1) it continues to lead to internalized acceptance of English as more intellectual language, and 2) you (literally you, Terri - smile) end up making exactly the same argument that I hear from researchers and lay people who don't see ASL is worth their time. So there's the problem from my perspective. I think the way of dealing with the problem is to put the break on as soon as we find ourselves saying "I don't think Deaf people do X". When we start using an abstract or imaginary homogenous Deaf community to make our arguments for us, we've just performed precisely the same colonialist maneuver that we are trying to reject.
>
> So saying that you don't think Deaf people sit around and analyze their mode of communication says more about your everyday practices and social networks than it says about Deaf people. And that's not a bad thing at all! There no reason why you would sit around and have this conversation at an ASL happy hour. It's just something to realize, and then to turn it into something productive.
>
> All I can say is, I really enjoy this conversation. My single encouragement to everyone reading – however erudite this may sound – is to suggest that our commitment to our profession and to the Deaf community be matched by an eagerness to expand our frameworks of understanding. The texts that have helped me the most to this end include Judith Butler's Gender Trouble and maybe Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, to name two. They are much more interesting and relevant to our discussion on NIDG than almost any book on interpreting or "Deaf culture" that exists.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Austin Kocher
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Terri Hayes wrote:
>
> What makes having a working definition "so hearing"? Are Deaf people not capable of thinking analytically, or making provisional definitions? (Maybe the constant need to assert/invent Deaf and hearing differences is such a hearing thing to do. Smile.)
>
> Greetings Austin -
> let me try....
> What makes having a working definition "so hearing" is that hearing
> people who do not understand the reference seek to Label the reference
> in order to understand it.
> Understanding Deaf heart - (as I understand it) - is like
> understanding the signed adverb commonly referred to as "expert" but
> which in only rare situations actually means an equivalent reference
> for the word "expert"... or "don't mind" or "oops" - 2-2- over the
> head (which does not mean oops nearly as often as "dang - wasn't
> supposed to get caught doing that) - and that little bit of nuance
> tied inherently to the sign is the part that hearing people dont get
> when they learn to sign. Most signs, like most English (pick your
> language) utterances (word or phrasal) have nuance. When hearing
> people learn a sign - they learn a *word* (with ITS inherent nuance)
> and they expect Deaf people to carry the same deeper understanding of
> these references into their understanding of what we are saying.
> Likewise, when they see a sign, they understand their internalized
> *word* associated nuance with what the Deaf person is saying...
> Thats a slight misunderstanding right there... a teeny tiny - "you
> didn't really understand what I said" - and "I didn't really
> understand what you said"... but we both THINK we understood
> perfectly! Hearing person understanding the words they've assigned to
> the sign and Deaf person understanding what they un-consciously hold
> the signs to mean.
>
> I think Stephanie brought it clearly to me when she asked:
> do we really think that "deaf heart" on the part of interpreters is codified in the greater Deaf community
> well - codified... I dont know about that, but I'm thinking now that
> Deaf-heart is a SIGN... its a piece of vocabulary like "nice"... or
> "good" (good looking, good tasting, good personality, good... how do
> you quantify "good"?)...
> and perhaps thats why we've not been able to "define" it - because It
> is not a thing - but a quality. A linguistically referenced quality.
> - and yes, I've seen it used all over the country... but interstingly
> -not as much here in Rochester NY (where with the population of Deaf
> and signing hearing -  you'd expect it to be perhaps more prevalent..
> unless its absence is a noteation on the absense of Deaf heart in the
> hearing population that share's this space with the Deaf... (hmm but
> then agant - this would not surprise me at all)).
>
> So when I see Deaf-heart in sign (complete with context) I understand
> Deaf heart like I understand this signed language - in a Non-English
> part of my self - in my language comprehension place...and because its
> being used in speech, I have visual/emotional reference to the context
> actions of the person being so referenced... (I"m trying to remember
> if any Deaf have sat around and talked *about* Deaf heart - without an
> actual example there in front of them of Deaf heart *being*... and I
> cannot think of any. Seems to me, for the Deaf who use this piece of
> vocabulary - it is used adverbally - in the same way that the sign
> commonly called "expert" (but more rightly labeled "really good at
> [doing] that") is used... Its not "about" someone after the fact.. its
> about someone there and then and talks about a quality of
> person/presence...
>
> On the topic of what Deaf people may or may not be capable of - yes,
> Deaf people (those more intellectually flexible - just like hearing
> people - likewise only those more intellectually flexible) are
> certainly
> capable of thinking analytically, or making provisional definitions
> but ... I think the question is - Would Deaf people - if given ASL as
> a language without the contamination of English (and its very
> analytical and definition driven sense of propriety) - would Deaf
> people using ASL as a language CARE about analyzing and or making
> provisional definitions...
> my suspicion would be - yes and no. (smile)
> no - because no, ASL does not function in its communicative goals in
> the same way English does and its culture is quite different from the
> culture that wraps itself around and is derived out of spoken English.
> So no, I dont think Deaf would sit around with their signed language
> and do the same kind of science driven analysis and picking up and
> picking apart that Hearing people (or Deaf people using the thinking
> patterns of Spoken English) do.
> but yes - I do think that ASL possibly far exceeds English in the
> ability to establish "provisional definitons"... because that's
> exaclty what it does when it needs to generate vocabulary necessary
> for conversation. ASL does not seek signs that can be re-represented
> in spoken English - it (the langauge) seeks to generate the
> comprehension of thing/intent... and it really doesn't care much how
> it gets the listener there - as long as they get there - and can then
> get on with things...
> It also does not care if it never uses that particular provisional
> defintion again.. might not work as well in the next scenario - so
> re-use is more rare - and if something provisional is reused - that's
> the mark of a new sign being developed... a provisional becoming
> stable referent.
> but no - I dont think that too many natively fluent Deaf people are
> sitting around thinking about "provisional definitions" or anaylizing
> how they communicate or what they communicate about... or whether what
> they just signed should be kept and formalized for the next time...
> thats the handy thing about language - when its used for communcation,
> those things just happen and there's not much thought needed for it.
>
> So coming back to restate the point - yes - Deaf are capable of
> analyzing and defining and science-like thinking.. but I dont believe
> the Langauge holds those capabilities very high in its priorities...
> If you want hearing behaviors from Deaf people - you have to make them
> pretty hearing before you'll be satisifed with their results. (and if
> they're not functioning hearing enough - thats when you get the "low
> language" statement... because the person is not using enough English
> words to satify the comprehension of the English driven listener...
> therefore - they must be lacking in much more than English fluency)...
>
> and if you want to see what Deaf Science would look like/yield - you'd
> have to let some Deaf people be non-bilingual (non-english
> contaminated)... in order to allow their language to begin to express
> itself in the science that that language would find intersting.
> Thats one of the things we lose when we lose a langauge... the ability
> to see how that language prioritizes and expresses those priorities...
> (along with all the things they'd find - because they are
> (potentially) so paradigmatically different from  us)
> and its one of the reasons everyone who knows me wants to keep
> reminding me that "langauge change happens" and I should not be so
> keen on hanging on to archaic ASL - "let it develope its Vocabulary
> for god's sake!..."
> but in letting these baby terps and piss poor signing educators
> continue to trash ASL... and call it normal language change -
> we are losing the thinking that ASL allows for (as different from the
> thinking that English expresses as "right")
>
> sigh.
>
> ps - I'm not done thinking about your "stuff" but I'll post this (to
> see if I've ruffled any feathers)..and reply to more in bits.
>
> highly analytical
> Terri Hayes
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Kocher" <acko...@gmail.com>
> To: NI...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [NIDG] Re: for whatever it's worth
>
> What makes having a working definition "so hearing"? Are Deaf people not capable of thinking analytically, or making provisional definitions? (Maybe the constant need to assert/invent Deaf and hearing differences is such a hearing thing to do. Smile.)
>
> Since we are having honest discussion, i have to share something that has become increasingly problematic. It concerns the imaginary differences between Deaf and hearing, and the fellow graduate students and professors who I'm working with who are Deaf, hearing and otherwise are getting exhausted with this, too. I think even though it's an important strategy at times to point out meaningful differences, we have come to view virtually everything within the dualist framework of deaf and hearing, and ended up with an unnecessarily simplistic analytic framework. Not to mention overlooking an enormous number of equally important issues of class, gender, race, etc. Its not a this or that situation, but its just a problem.
>
> The other problem it creates for those of us trying to do research, is that we are constantly faced with the idea based on ignorance from our peers that to be Deaf is totally different than other forms of social difference. For those of us studying critical social theory and social science, the formation of Deaf identities is not beyond the scope of normal understanding. However, we often return to our Deaf, hearing, interpreter communities and hear the same argument: being Deaf is totally different, we almost can't even define it. So for instance, I get he deaf-heart idea. But the problems that even though it is useful and interesting, it ends up being dogmatic instead of productive, liturgical instead of critical. It is used to gauge adherence to an ideology rather than to expand understanding and open up possibilities.  It's the perfect example of an empty signifier: no one can define it but everyone is sure to get in line behind it. So the point isn't to eliminate the term deaf-heart but to put it into dialogue with other concepts, to bring people into dialogue rather than to isolate and marginalized.
>
> From my day to day experience, these concepts actually make substantive social recognition more difficult - which is not at all what those who are using it intend for it to do.
>
> In fact, I'm giving a talk next week with a colleague precisely on this issue and another talk at OCRID conference as well - so it happens to be on my mind.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Austin Kocher
>
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Stephanie Feyne <stef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting - I really liked Terri's explanation. And I'd rather not have a "working definition" only because its so hearing, smile.
>
> If "deaf heart" is something not owned by hearing people then I'm all in favor of letting the individual members of the Deaf community determine it each time for each individual interpreter/ally rather than imposing my hearing need to formalize it.
>
> As for the Board, to the best of my recollection, I don't recall competitive elections. It feels like we are given a slate and then we vote them in.
>
> Being on the Board is a tremendous obligation. I attended one mtg in NYC that had 700 agenda items. I was exhausted just from the first day's items:)
> I appreciate the fact that members volunteer to serve us!
>
> It not only requires dedication but also flexibility in one's schedule in order to travel to meetings and conferences. Not many free lance interpreters have the financial ability to take that on. So we already limit our pool of potential Board members financially.
>
> I'm not ready to make a judgment about the attitudes or sensibilities or "heart" of Board members.
>
> Pardon me if I insult Board members - and I could be very far off the mark here -  But in the recent past I would assume only a few learned to sign directly from the Deaf community. And that assumption is based on decisions that I feel have pushed the org to be more "professional" - meaning focused on interpreter needs and wants - and further from the needs and wants of the Deaf community. However, those decisions could have been as a result of pressure from the exec director to build the organization.
>
> That was the reason I was so eager for the IDP position to pass - if only to have 2 dedicated positions for individuals who see the impact of RID decisions on their own lives and families.
>
> There was an interesting post about the issue of tokenism that I do think deserves to be addressed. It's a tough one. It will probably be uncomfortable. But I think it would be valuable to address and perhaps help us individually define our own beliefs and values more clearly.
>
> I doubt we can or even should come to a consensus - but I agree with Amy that we expect an honest discussion of issues from this group.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephanie
>
> Typos courtesy iPhone:)
>
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Angela Myers <angm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Terri,
> Bless your heart (smile)!  That's quite an explanation but it's no where close to a working definition. Are you able to crunch it down a bit to a workable definition?
>
> And while I'm typing.... one thing that's been creeping up in my head over and over related to the "deaf-heart" issue is that from all the discussions on this site I am led to infer that many RID members do not think that our current board possesses the "deaf-heart."  We voted those people on the board.  Were we not considering "deaf-heart" as a trait at that time?  If not, why now is it getting the spotlight? If it's such a critical and foundational part of our profession, how did it get overlooked in the election process of our governing board?
>
> Angela Myers
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Terri Hayes <asl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha ha ha ha ha...
> Rebecca! If there was an Easy definition for "Deaf Heart" - it would
> have been canned and sold to all them interpreting students LONG AGO.
>
> Deaf Heart started (in my memory - which is long - but not as long as
> some of us here admittedly) - as a statement from Deaf people to
> hearing "baby" signers/wannabe (or Gonna be - if the Deaf have
> anything to say about it) interpreters... hearing people... who seem
> to exhibit some kind of "deaf"-ness in themselves - that caused Deaf
> people to feel at ease. It was a statement of how easy it was to trust
> that hearing person - an outsider yes, but somehow that someone was
> "deaf" enough - to be maybe you could say -  "honorarily" Deaf.
> I lived for many years as a Deaf person - they all knew I was hearing
> - (and I knew to make sure they knew...) but I was like the red-headed
> Native American... everyone knew what I was - but no one felt the need
> to bring attention to it (except when I could be useful for this
> "thing" I could do... over hearing a converstaion, reading mysterious
> postal letters from large sounding governmental places, or reading and
> explaining contracts or legal requirements ... helping to offset to
> potential for technial error in that hearing world)... dangerous place
> sometimes - that.
> Hearing people did not necessarily know I was hearing - and I was not
> bound to tell them - and have often been encouraged not to. (Its not
> their business.)
>
> Deaf heart - I think starts with a soul - who can deeply understand
> that Deaf people are not hearing people... (but Lordy - do not let
> that mean they need your help!)... and is in some way represented in a
> measure of apparently "native" fluency expressed in your language...
> how do you produce your signs, do you falter, do you have to think
> about it, and when you're not thinking about it - what kind of
> mistakes do you make... what kind of mistakes DONT you make - in your
> dealings with Deaf people... linguistic - or simply cultural or...
> (I'm not sure how to identify it exactly - because all the words that
> could be used have been so analyzed and well defined that its harder
> and harder to use them to express that which is not quite in line with
> the definition described)...
>
> ease... perhaps
>
> Deaf heart is a kind of ease that Deaf people feel when they're with
> you... its not hard (seeing, being with, talking with (or not)...
> asking questions of, telling information to (which will respect the
> hive culture and will not be spread... except when its information
> that is intended to be spread...)
>
> and hearing people have been trying to "define" it in English for
> years and years... many people assume that if someone signs well
> enough and represents themselves as an "Ally" (I was there for that
> discussion!... ha!... but Deaf heart is Ally - not exactly!) and then
> people feel they're doing all the right things and say they have Deaf
> heart... (I'm not sure that's exactly proper... it always feels wrong
> if I use the words to refer to myself - although throughout my life -
> those words have been used to describe me again and again and again -
> in many different places with many different Deaf communities...) but
> its not a label you can aspire to...
> its a being - not a doing.
>
> and while I can, occasionally, see a person who I suspect has Deaf
> heart.. and I might be willing to muse on the idea with another person
> - I'd be really careful about actually using the label... Its not mine
> to use. I'm hearing... Its Deaf... They see things I cannot see -
> because I'm hearing. I would NEVER assume to present another person to
> a Deaf person and say, "that person has Deaf-Heart!" - no, I can agree
> if its said to me - but I am hearing.. I cannot (perhaps I will not..
> point and label and smile and assume that ANY Deaf person is going to
> hold the same opinion... I'm not Deaf - they see things - and feel
> things that I do not. - and Deaf Heart is theirs to label.. not ours.)
>
> as for CODA... I've said it before - and I'll probably say it again
> (smile)... but CODA do not come born with Deaf Heart - and many of
> them who profess it - simply dont have it... (not in my opinion - but
> in the opinion of the Deaf who are talking about that person's
> nerve...)
> but Deaf people - they dont usually get into it with hearing people
> throwing words around - unless they're like them Hearing head
> people... so much English that they lose something Deaf inside
> themselves...
> Hearing can do what they want - Deaf live over here in this other
> place... this Deaf place (sometimes - right there in the middle of all
> them helpful hearing signing people)... but Deaf nevertheless - and
> far far far away from what hearing people think is important.
>
> Terri Hayes
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rebecca Buchan" <bec...@gmail.com>
> To: NI...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [NIDG] Re: for whatever it's worth
>
> Can we, as a group, come up with a working definition of "deaf heart", please?
>
> Thanks,
> Bec
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Betty Colonomos <visi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Thanks Amy,
>
> I feel the same way. NIDG discussions have been stimulating, sometimes frustrating, but always beneficial in my desire to understand us and get a pulse on our field (at least from folks active and involved!)
>
> There were so many irregularities in this whole fiasco that I feel it warrants revisiting by the Board. The cumulative effect of: 1) a lack of clear voting procedures and labels, 2) the Board publishing an anti-MAL report without creating space for IDP and DAG to respond to their comments, 3) carelessness in counting the vote and finally, 4) the retraction of the amendment based on less than 10% of the membership voting.
>
> There are diversity issues in every Committee, Task Force, Advisory Board, IDP, Deaf Caucus, etc. that need to be addressed by the membership of this organization, no doubt. To categorize IDP members as another "minority group" misses the crux of our growing pains.  The lack of ASL competence, little/no familiarity with Deaf Culture, and not respecting the community that allows us to earn a living from their language permeates every aspect of the interpreting field. It is an over-arching resource that is desperately needed along with Deaf membership and consumers having a stake in our development.
>
> It pains me that this "no-brainer" is seen by some of my colleagues as an issue of relevance, fear of empowerment, and a possible source of unwanted truths.  Because I value the intelligence and skills of some of my colleagues who I respect, I regrettably have to acknowledge the the absence of cultural literacy and "Deaf Heart" in our field is much more prevalent than I want to believe.
>
> There is so much to do...so much to talk about.
>
> Thanks again Amy for reminding me/us.
>
> Betty Colonomos
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:58:09 PM UTC-4, Amy Williamson wrote: Hi all,
>
> For whatever it's worth, I am disappointed and saddened that more discussion hasn't happened on NIDG regarding the IDP MAL position (for and against) and the retraction (for how it was handled and against how it was handled).
>
> Personally, I very much benefit from reading differing perspectives. It helps me to hone my own thoughts and I have missed having NIDG provide that forum for me.
>
> I am happy to be accused of being a pollyanna but had hoped that in this forum we could continue a dialogue even with disagreement. I do believe that we are all looking for the same thing.
>
> ~Amy Williamson
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Angela Myers]

I realize that this discussion stems from the "deaf-heart" issue but as people are intertwining the discussion with grander ideas like a new organization or at least a pursuit of something else, I would hate to see the other deaf people I (hopefully "we") serve be left out of the bigger plan.  My passion is social justice so I interpret for deaf people who have little to no native language, deaf people who don't sign and need oral support, people who suddenly became deaf as adults and are just trying to find a way to communicate, deaf refugees from other countries, and deaf people who are bi- and possibly tri-lingual and choose which language they want at any time.

This was my concern when I saw the spontaneous introduction of the title of a new organization as.... ASL Interpreters.  I do interpret in ASL but not only ASL and I think limiting the scope of our work even just by a title does the opposite of what I think we want to do: oppress yet another group.

 

Yet another tangent. I'd like to ask a question to those who voted for the IDP position.  Something I haven't quite understood and perhaps one of you can clarify.  It's no philosophical but practical in nature so forgive me for the simplicity in the question.  If the IDP position had passed, exactly how would the nominating and qualifying of that position happen?  Many of you wanted the IDP position to represent the "deaf-heart" [although I think a deaf person would probably do that best]; however a definition of it seems undesirable... how would candidates be judged on their "deaf-heartedness"? Would they only have to declare themselves as possessing a "deaf-heart"?  Are only interpreters with deaf parents who state they are culturally deaf and use ASL be eligible?  When candidates apply for board positions we get some kind of bio usually but many of us don't know the individual. How would the voters know which candidate has a "deaf-heart"?  I'm not being facetious... I really want to know how people envisioned the practicality of the IDP board position in relation to "deaf-heart."

 

For examlpe:  There is a student whose mother is profoundly deaf but never learned to sign and infact recently got surgery for CI.  However, the student, her daughter, is now in an ITP. She is learning ASL from a native user and will learn about Deaf Culture, interact with the deaf community and eventually become an interpreter.Would she be a viable candidate for an IDP position on the board? 

 

Thanks for your time in advance!

angela myers

[Chuck Clark]

Good Evening,

As a follower of much if not all of this discussion I have felt that I could not contribute substantially to the debate.  BUT on this issue I do have an opinion I would like to offer.  I agree that there would be no promise or guarantee of a deaf heart being represented on the Board by the establishment of a CODA / IDP position.  Anyone qualifying by birth would be eligible.  On the other hand by expanding the Board we would be assured of one more voice being involved in the discussion; of one more person being involved with a decision.  Would this newest person have raised a hand in question as to what the Board proposed, can't answer.  Would this one more person have added some special insight to the question being debated, can't answer.  But this person would have been one more, one other person beyond those all ready on the Board who might have applied some kind of brake to the process there by allowing more voices to catch up and ask questions.  For efficiency's sake a smaller council can do more in a stream lined fashion than a larger group can but when more debate might be of worth the more voices heard; the more perspectives offered; the more opinions presented then I believe it best to add to the number of people speaking.  That is why I supported the addition of a seat at the table of our national organization for someone of the IDP.

Thank you,

Chuck Clark

[Chumley, Andi]

I would love to participate!

**********************************************************
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues

[Brace Aaron]

Good questions, Angela.  A cursory review of the relevant sections of RID's bylaws only lists the following qualifications for any MAL seat:

Article 4, "Directors": section 4, "Qualifications":

The member-at-large must have been a certified and/or associate member in good standing for at least four consecutive years immediately prior to candidacy.

Article 4, "Directors": section 6, "Nominations and Elections":

Officers: (president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, member-at-large and deaf member-at-large) Candidates must receive nominating signatures of at least twenty-five voting members in good standing representative of all regions.

This *does* leave an awful lot of leeway for people to be unhappy about how things work.  I don't think many of us are confident in how such things will be handled when there's any chance for "leeway".

How would people feel about a requirement that candidates for designated MAL seats have a certain number of years as members of the relevant member section?  And/or that the slate consist of X number of candidates put forth by the relevant member section?  Of course, I can see potentially overwhelming challenges in these ideas, too, but I thought of them as ways to address the potential identity issues Angela raised by relying on existing association structure.  At least the remaining controversies *might* be contained within the groups best qualified to resolve them.

But, of course, this would have to be stipulated in the bylaws, which would require a referendum and 66% voting in favor... I'm in no rush to go that route until we've improved the structure and transparency of the process.  When/if the IDP MAL seat is brought before the membership again, perhaps these ideas or others addressing the same issues could be part of the motion, bringing a bit more clarity that could garner more support.  Or less.  We won't know til it happens.

Thanks for raising the questions.

Cheers,

Aaron

[Betty Colonomos]

Count me in!

Betty

[Betty Colonomos]

Hi Aaron, Angela and all,

I believe we can minimize or eliminate these pitfalls and challenges you raise Angela by stipulating that the IDPMAL slate be proposed and/or approved by by IDP members. Doesn't the slate for DMAL come from the Deaf Caucus and or Deaf Advisory Group? Please correct me if I am in error.

While we are talking about this, I believe we need a different system for elections. I have some ideas, but I will share them with others in Atlanta or in other posts.  My issue is that while we are questioning the appropriateness of candidates for these MAL positions, why can't we talk about having leadership experience as a pre-requisite for Board nominations.  Being  a certified member or associate member in good standing (meaning paying dues on time and getting CEUs for the CMP) for at least 4 consecutive years and having 25 people (in an organization of 15,000 is hardly a screening mechanism for the kinds of people we want on the Board....people with vision, leaders, trailblazers, people with integrity. 

While we are changing the ByLaws I suggest that we seriously re-think what worked 30+ years ago and where we are now.

Any thoughts on this?

Betty Colonomos

[Gina Gonzalez]

explains resignation. 

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XIeSlSmOyIg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXIeSlSmOyIg

[MERKIN Lewis /]

I will be there.  Keep me posted.  Looking forward!

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:54:17 AM UTC-4, Stephanie Feyne wrote:

[tracy....@gmail.com]

I had questions about this too which is why I felt ambivalent about the IDP vote. I am a CODA but only came into my identity during my time at my ITP. I came from a mixed language background and am always wondering if others are evaluating my CODA-ness. This type of position, while having benefits, can easily be turned into one mired in cattiness and criticism over who gets placed in it.

[Hilary Anne Mayhew]

I'll be there too. Hasta pronto!

[Hilary Anne Mayhew]

Any news on if/when/where this might happen? 

Anything in particular people are hoping to discuss in person?

About to hit the road to Atlanta!

Safe travels, and have a good weekend, all. 

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Stephanie Feyne <stef...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear Tracy,

Regardless of how you figure out who you are and what identity you fit into, there is no reason to allow the immature and uninformed behavior of a few to make you feel this way.  Don't enable/empower them by letting them have this kind of influence on your concept of yourself and how you behave.  Any language you have been exposed to besides spoken English is a gift that most Americans do not have and do not value. 

This is not about you personally. It is just the way unhealthy people need to put folks they don't understand into pigeon holes so they don't have to try to open their minds to the richness of differences.

Take care,

Betty Colonomos

[tracy....@gmail.com]

Thank you, I always make sure to explain my language background so I can help dispel some of the myths around being a CODA but I can easily see how a person in an IDP MAL position can be viewed as not "CODA enough" from both hearing interpreters and CODA interpreters.

[Bill Moody]

The point may be moot now, but, honestly, I don’t see the importance of defining what a good Coda or a real Coda is.  Anyone with at least one Deaf parent is a Coda.  Period.

 

It would be in the voting process that voting members (as many as decide to vote, anyway) would make decisions about who would best serve the membership as a designated Coda member of the Board.  That’s what voting is for…  And if there is only one ‘bad’  or ‘fake’ Coda who satisfies the requirements for nomination, then the membership is stuck with him/her!

Bill

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear Bill and All.

If this ever comes to pass, I would hope that nominations would go to IDP for screening (at least to verify status.)

Wish you were at Street Leverage Live in Atlanta. I am more hopeful than ever. Shane Feldman "hears" us and wants even more input.  He really gets it. Now it is up to us to nominate people who are courageous leaders who will make our vision a reality.

Betty