When turd meets fan

Once again I find myself at the center of controversy. Well, maybe not really the exact center, but close enough to count.

It is a position I have come to embrace; some may argue, and rightfully so, that I actually search out big piles of shit to throw at fans. "The more turds, the better!" is become sort of a professional (and personal) mantra.

So, lemme talk you through it:

About two months ago, I had spoken to a few board members of my local AC about my willingness to work one of the meetings. I originally spoke to the Prez, and was directed to talk to the veep. I am not one of those who is easily flustered by working in front of my peers. In fact, I believe that unless you've made a big fat mistake in front of a buttload of people, you have no right to be in the on chair. I also believe that the size of the error is directly proportionate to the size of the audience. I figure, Let people talk shit... because at least I'm willing to put myself out there. Usually those that are talking shit are the last to be willing to get up there in front of everyone and put it all out there for people to see. Anyway, I volunteered to work a local AC meeting, and my offer was accepted.

Not long after, I was approached by members of the board and asked if, instead of working the meeting, would I be willing to give the one-hour teaching session at the next meeting instead. I said Yes. Immediately I contacted a deaf colleague and asked if he'd be willing to co-present with me. It was my thought that he would bring a unique perspective to the topic I was asked to speak about. He accepted. I then contacted the board and said, Hey, by the way, I've asked a deaf colleague to co-present with me; we will both be sharing the lecture time at the next meeting. I was then asked what language I would be presenting in. As I was going to be working alongside a deaf presenter, I of course said that I was going to sign. I was then asked if we minded that our presentation not be interpreted. I really didn't care either way, but I said we were fine with it not having an interpreter. As I was presenting to my colleagues, all of whom could theoretically sign, and I was working with a deaf co-presenter and whenever I make public comments during the meetings I always sign anyway, I figured it wouldn't be a big deal.

The irony of all this is that I wanted to work the meeting so I could transliterate the meeting; our default is always interpreting. I guess I"ll have to wait for a future meeting to throw that turd.

Last week I was out of town on vacation visiting the other half. I got a message from a dearly trusted and well-respected colleague that I was apparently once again being a pot stirer. I then started recieving messages from another dearly trusted and well-respected colleague in the same vein. And what's this? Lo and behold a third message from another equally dear and well-respected colleage to call her...about what turned out to be the same issue, whatever the hell "the issue" was.

I thought to myself, JHMFC I'm not even in the state how the hell could I be stirring the pot this time?

Apparently there are members of my AC that are all up in arms that our presentation will not be voice interpreted.

I have recieved several text messages, emails, and phone calls about this issue.

So here's my dilemma: I actually don't think it should be voice interpreted, but I understand those that want it to be. I see both sides, and respect both sides. Now, let me just say here that it's kind of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing. You don't provide an interpreter and people will bring up the arguements that have been already addressed (which I find to be mostly cop-outs, but that's just my opinion on the matter). If you do provide an interpreter, people (specifically other hearing interpreters) will bitch because they don't want to listen to the interpreter.

The most common arguement that is being bandied about is that ASL students, late-deafened people, and (essentially) the sign-impaired will not be able to fully access the information given during the presentation. Fair arguement IF it was coming from students or late-deafened or sign-impaired people. This line of reasoning is actually being used by those that are currently working interpreters. My issue with this line of reasoning is that there have been, to date, NO students or late-deafened individuals who have expressed any concern. Quite the opposite, actually. There have been comments made from recent grads as well as current students who have said that they do NOT want there to be an interpreter. (To be fair, one recent grad stated that they would prefer to have the presentation interpreted.)

In this case, my co-presenter and I feel that the presentation should be signed and you just deal with not having an interpreter. It's not like this will be the only instance ever of a workshop/lecture given specifically to a group of sign language interpreters, in sign, that has been advertised as not having interpreter services provided. Let the students struggle; we all had to fall down a few times to grow our chops. This is a relatively safe place to fall down and it's not like the professional well-being and ultimate success of these neophytes lies solely with one friggin' hour.

Plus all the general information that will be presented at this meeting is all information that I have had the good fortune to have published on three separate occasions, twice in my AC newsletter, and most recently in the national newsletter. So the information is fully accessible, in an alternative format, to those that cannot sign. (God, I hope no one is going to play the "But I can't read English!" card. Seriously.)

One great point that was brought up to me was, We wouldn't think of denying deaf people interpreting services; how can we justify the double standard of denying hearing people access to information? My response is, But we all know sign. Therefore, between that little factoid, and the three separate instances of publication of this same information, everyone who wants to access the information, can.

I like the fact that the controversy is stirring; my community is going through quite a bit of growing pains regarding professional standards. I think controversy sparks discussion, and as long as that discussion is respectful and open and positive, I think only good can come of it.

So here's to throwing turds at fans. I will continue to proudly do so as long as there are turds to be thrown and fans at which to throw them.