Mishka Zena

Several months ago while I was researching the deaf schools facing budget cuts and planned school closings, an alumnus alerted me of a Deaf school where the deaf kids in an oral program are segregated from the Deaf students using ASL in the same building. These groups reportedly are not allowed to socialize or even speak to each other. 

Two weeks ago, a friend shared with me how a mother of a C.I. student instructed her oral deaf child’s IEP team that this child isn’t permitted to have any access to the ASL-using Deaf students in the public school. This IEP is enforced by the public school staff.

Supreme Court had determined segregated schools based on skin color unconstitutional.  One of the factors leading to this decision was based on a study indicating the different treatment detrimental to the self esteem of these African American children, with the majority thinking the Caucasians superior to them.

In the public schools, the hearing students are not segregated from each other due to fluency of different languages other than English. Nor are they forbidden to have any interactions with each other.

Why are the ASL-using Deaf and oral deaf students subjected to this enforced segregation?   What messages do this practice send to these students?   That the Deaf students using ASL are ‘contagious’, therefore the oral deaf students must be ‘protected’ from these students? 

Is this a good example of audiolinguicism, a form of discrimination based on one’s ability to hear and the use of a language?  This word hasn’t been coined formally, but both Deaf Pundit and I think this is a satisficatory term for dual discrimination, audism and linguicism.

Should segregation with no socialization between these students , based on hearing status and language be practiced in public schools funded by taxpayers? Is this practice legal?

I’ve been watching Carl’s vlog at DVTV ‘Hidden Agendas Behind Cochlear Implants’.  http://www.deafvideo.tv/video/watch/45321/  The room temperature there is getting hot.

A question for certain members of the Deaf Community who reject cochlear implants. Do you feel oppressed by the presence of cochlear implants? Do you feel oppressed when you see Deaf people, children, and toddlers wearing cochlear implants?

I am trying to understand what’s so evil about cochlear implants.  I see it as a technological tool to help Deaf people hear, but I understand it contradicts the mores of the Deaf Culture treasuring its Deafness  or Deafhood as some people prefer the term.  Some Deaf people do enjoy listening while others are more content  not hearing anything.  In my opinion, it is all about cultural values.  Some of us have the same cultural values while others don’t.   I won’t say people are right or wrong for what they feel  as feelings are just feelings and whether we agree with other people’s feelings or not, these feelings are valid to them. All we can do is try to understand, so maybe in a way, we can understand each other better.  What I am seeing is that a lot of Deaf people feel very oppressed by each other, something I suspect many are not aware of.

So hence my question how some Deaf people feel when they encounter this device.

Please no bashing. We are dealing with a very sensitive issue here and it’s imperative that we understand each other better, whether we agree or not.  After all, we all live in the same community. Peace  MZ.

P.S. Please no pointing fingers  or blaming at specific individuals.  This is a community issue, not an individual issue.  Thank you. MZ

William Hurt to Marlee Matlin: “I Apologize for Any Pain I Caused”
 
Marlee Matlin is spilling. William Hurt is sorry.

Matlin has been making the rounds touting her new memoir, I’ll Scream Later, and raising some eyebrows with allegations that she was abused by Hurt during their two-year relationship that blossomed on the set of 1987’s Children of a Lesser God.

“I always had fresh bruises every day. And if I had a split lip, or if…I mean, there were a lot of things that happened that were not pleasant,” Matlin told Access Hollywood in an interview Monday. “I was always afraid…of him, but I loved him. Or maybe I thought I did. But look, I was 19, he was 35.”

The actress, now 43, recounted one particular incident on the night of her Best Actress win for Children. She claimed Hurt threw her on a bed and stripped her naked as she cried, “No, no, no. Please Bill, no.” To read more, click on William Hurt to Marlee Matlin: “I Apologize for Any Pain I Caused” – E! Online

Commentary: The statements made by Marlee Matlin at Larry King show were disturbing.  Hurt abusing her every day?  She stayed with Hurt for two years since she didn’t know anyone in NYC and  domestic violence centers back then were not equipped to deal wtih Deaf survivors.  I am glad that more and more domestic violence centers for the Deaf are sprouting all over the country.  Abused Deaf people have access to help now that they didn’t over 20 years ago.

.
To reach a Deaf DV Advocate 9am-5pm (PST), M-F
Videophone IP Address: 69.17.111.201
Email: adwas@ndvh.org
IM: ADWASHotline
Please note: The above hotline is closed 12 pm to 1 pm every day and as well as during major holidays).

To reach a hearing DV Advocates 24 hours
TTY: 1-800-787-3224.

One thing I can say about Marlee Matlin: She is quite a fighter!  MZ

Marlee’s sharing her abuse experience by William Hurt: Marlee Matlin Talks About William Hurt, Abuse

While reading AFA’s letter requesting for a copy of the CART transcription from the AFA/AGBADHH meeting two weeks ago, apparently on the behalf of two deaf oral AGBADHH representatives, a thought came to my mind.  Why was the CART services needed in the first place?

Wasn’t there an interpreter in the room, voicing for Deaf AFA leaders. Weren’t these deaf oral representatives able to lipread the interpreter?

I am surprised to see that these deaf oral representatives still needed CART transcriptions, even with an interpreter voicing for the Deaf people in the room.   “We understand that the CART was provided as an access provision for the two Deaf AG Bell representatives. Since the CART is a word file and permanent record of the meeting, we would very much value having a copy for our history. “ AUDISM FREE AMERICA: AFA’s 2nd follow up email to AG Bell Assoc

Last summer  Jay Wyant, the newly elected oral deaf president of AGBADHH, was able to use the voicing interpreter during the interview with Ruthie Jordan.  I am confused.  Am I missing something here?

Please no bashing.  Thank you

P.S.  Only comments related to this topic  will be posted. No attacks will be published.

Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader

It’s in progress now.

Hat Tip to the former Argus reporter, Chuck Baldwin, who covered her first trial.

Update:

8:37 The South Dakota Supreme Court will convene at the University of South Dakota Law School at about 9 a.m. this morning to hear arguments in the appeal of Daphne Wright, convicted of the 2006 kidnapping and murder of Darlene VanderGiesen.

Wright is appealing on several issues, including whether the trial court should have allowed the suppression of statements she made during an interview with law enforcement and whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violate double jeopardy.

8:43 Media access to the courtroom is restricted to the media room. It’s impossible to see the audience or both tables where the attorneys for Wright and the Attorney General’s office sit. Attorneys for both sides are settled and mulling over paperwork as the audience settles in.

The audience consists of lawyers from Sioux Falls, law students and past and former judges.

8:51 Cameras set up outside the newsroom pan the courtroom. VanderGiesen’s parents are here, sitting near in the front. Technicians tinker with last minutes fixes to the audio feed and cameras.
 
9:03 The court is seated and gives Wright’s lawyer, Minnehaha County Public Defender Traci Smith walks to the lecturn. She is given 20 minutes to make her arguments.

9:04 Smith begins her arguments by describing some activities of Wright during her police interview.
 
9:05 Smith said that Wright was not read her Miranda rights and not told when a lawyer for her arrived at the Law Enforcement Center in Sioux Falls in February 2007.
 
9:06 “She had written several notes to the law enforcement detective … on those pages … in the record there are several written requests for a lawyer,” Smith said.

9:14 State’s theory of the case used those statements against Wright made during that interview, which Smith argues should not have been used because of how the police conducted the interview.

9:17 Smith has moved on to another issue: the voluntariness of Wright’s statements to police
 
9:21 Wright’s prompt access to a waiting attorney, and she didn’t feel free to leave the law enforcement center, and detective kept cutting off the Wright’s interpreter, Smith said. All this may raise the question whether Wright’s statements to police were voluntary or not.
 
9:22 Justice Meierhenry moves Smith to the issue of interpreters used during Wright’s trial.
 
9:30 [Comment From John]
They must believe there is a possibility of her release or today’s hearing wouldn’t be happening

To read the rest, click   Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader

How horrible. A Deaf woman and her two kids were killed, allegedly by her common law husband in Trinidad area, which borders the campus of Gallaudet University.  The murders were suspected to result from domestic violence. I have no idea if the slain victim, Erika Peters, was an alumnus of Gallaudet or MSSD.  Deaf Woman and Her Two Kids Killed in Trinidad Neighborhood | WUSA9.com | Washington, DC |

For a long time  I have been covering the case of Tallie Antolin, killed by the hands of her former boyfriend, Chris Lambert.  Both the victim and the murderer were well known in the Deaf circles as they both attended Gallaudet. The case finally ended last year with a plea bargain agreement, bringing a long-overdue closure to the grieving family and friends.  Several months ago, I asked a family member of Tallie Antolin the best way to reach the audience about domestic violence and he said the education needs to start at the elementary schools. By the time the students were in junior and senior high school,  it may be too late.  Checking further, I discovered that domestic violence education wasn’t generally provided at the elementary schools.

Some time ago, I watched DeafHope’s “Till Domestic Violence Do Us Part’, a educational DVD,  beautifully created by the talented Deaf filmmakers Wayne Betts and Chad Taylor. The DVD was narrated in ASL, using Deaf actors and actresses. The power-control wheel  was thoroughly explored. Not only were the aspects of domestic violence explained : physical violence, sexual violence, economic abuse, and emotional abuse, but each aspect was also followed up by a brief skit expanding on the concept. These skits were both illuminating and powerful. You can still view the DVD shown free of charge. http://www.deaf-hope.org/seaofdreams/  I heartily recommend this DVD. DeafHope is still engaging in fundraising efforts to help support its current programs along with a new goal: a residential setting for the survivors of the domestic violence.  Please help them accomplish these goals so the Deaf domestic survivors can get help and support in an ASL-rich atmosphere.

My deepest condolences to the family and friends of Erica Peters and her children

P.S. Libelous statements against agencies and personal attacks on specific individuals will not be published.  This topic is about domestic violence.  Only comments related to this topic will be published, so please stay with the topic. Thank you. MZ

Recently I witnessed a barrage of comments in another blog that left me feeling disturbed. Disturbed doesn’t accurately describe my feelings, now to think of it.  A better description would be outrage.

A Deaf person expressed his opinions regarding the actions of a certain organization. One leader of a Deaf organization appeared and attempted to silence this person by invalidating his experiences and opinions. The implication was that a Deaf person doesn’t have the right to disagree. This leader later asked for her comment to be retracted.  Later, in another comment, that leader accused the Deaf person of lying.

The worst part is that this leader is a hearing person. It’s bad enough that the majority of the current Deaf leaders of this Deaf organization not only conducts attacks on other people with different ideas, but also encourage  some of its members to do the same. It’s even worse  that this Deaf organization condones its hearing leader oppressing a Deaf constituent and am disappointed to see her conduct.  

This reminds me of the time when I. King Jordan tried to tape the hands and mouths of his students closed.   His memo ’Restrictions of Students’ Expressions’  was written with the intention to silence the students from expressing their disagreements over the  presidential appointment of Fernandes. I was aghast to see a president of a university where critical thinking and discussions are supposedly essential elements of the academic atmosphere would attempt to censor the rights of Deaf students to express themselves.  His memo was one of the primary reasons why I got myself involved in the protest as the freedom of speech among the Deaf students is protected by the constitution.

What’s happening here?  Are we seeing a deja vu where a person or an organization attempts to control the Deaf Community by retaliating against those with different opinions?  Didn’t we break the chains of oppression at Gallaudet so we can be empowered as Deaf stakeholders?

Where is the Deaf Empowerment?

Deaf Empowerment will not occur until Deaf people feel free to express their real opinions without fear of retaliation or oppression by the Deaf leaders, hearing leaders, and/or its members. To expect a universal consensus among a very diverse Deaf Community is unrealistic. Labeling d/Deaf people with different thoughts and point of views as colonialists, deficit thinkers, audists’ deaf proteges and other negative labels are also measures to deter them from speaking up freely.

My question:  Are we going in the right direction or not?

As for myself, I have no problem with an organization, even with one whose objectives I may not agree with.  However, I do have problems with any organization stifling the freedom of speech and ideas within the community

P.S. Let me clarify again. I’m referring to this organization’s long history of attacking others who don’t agree.   It gets very tiresome. We need to move on in a healthy and constructive manner, where everybody can discuss freely without negative confrontations from the organizations’ leaders and certain members.

I want to acknowledge one thing:  There is no question about Tami making valuable contributions to the advocacy of bi-bi education and her commitment to this field. I wish we have more people like her. MZ

Another addition: Some people think I am accusing this particular  leader only because she is hearing. Actually no. If you read carefully the post and the comments,  I stated that  some DBC leaders and members frequently conducted bashing and seeing a hearing leader starting to do the same thing broke the camel’s back for me.  At that point, I can no longer be silent. 

Another leader, Barb, came up with a post as a private citizen, accusing me of twisting the facts and  allowed her blog be a medium for other people to bash me personally instead of discussing the issue itself.  Later this person attacked me in my own post, again accusing me of misrepresenting the issues and claiming that diversity isn’t the problem.  So, in other words, she is claiming my post is all a big twist. My concerns remain valid. Many people have been expressing similar reservations for some time.  Some people are also afraid of this organization due to the attacks they experienced in both DR and DVTV for expressions of their own ideas that the members didn’t appreciate.  As a civil right activist, it’s disturbing for me to witness the systematic attacks on other Deaf people, resulting in retaliatations from others. So far some ended being traumatized, few requiring medical treatment, at least a couple needing the services of emergency rooms. 

Is this an appropriate way for leaders of this organization to discuss the issues by accusing concerned people of making unfounded and untrue statements or twisting, then bashing them afterwards? Tami did the same to Ben and a “private citizen”,  the DBC leader Barb followed up, too, and her approach was extremely hostile which ends up reflecting DBC in a poor light.  Another DBC leader, John came  through with another post in his private blog last night, bashing Ben and damaging the reputation of an innocent Deaf organization. It had been removed since then. The pattern still persists.

My concern is how can the Deaf Community be healthy and empowered if most of the leaders and some members of a new organization engage in systematic oppression and intolerance toward certain members of Deaf Community with different views?  The answer: it cannot be as long as this practice is condoned by the organization itself. 

The actions of some leaders and members have already tainted the image of this organization. How can it help the deaf babies and children? Think about this.

How can we work together for the Deaf babies and children if some members and leaders cannot tolerate the diversity of ideas and expressions in the Deaf Community?  How effective is this organization’s marketing  to the hearing parents of the deaf babies and chidlren who may see these bashings toward others on the Internet?

This organization has a wonderful concept. It will go a long way when these leaders and members develop better tolerance to the diversity of Deaf Community. We need a healthy and empowering organization. Please think about this. MZ

Another note: Ann C sums it best: We have seen on DR time and again an organization’s leader who hides behind the organization’s name but uses his personal blog or comments on other bloggers’ sites to personally attack others with differing views about the organization he represents. This is when online readers have trouble distinguishing between the individual and the organization, both are seen as one and the same unfortunately. There are some leaders unable to separate their personas from the organizations they run, and thus to the detriment of the organization’s mission itself.  Can’t We All Behave?! | benvess.

An oral Deaf writer attacked Luke of Amazing Race and Deaf people in her op-ed article First Person: I can so talk!  Many deaf people can, despite what you might hear elsewhere

Apparently the fact that Luke was interpreted during an interview as saying that he wanted to disprove people’s perceptions and show that, “Deaf can do it, they can do exactly what hearing people can do, but not talk’  made Lisa Goldstein go after Luke and Deaf people in general.

Two days ago I contacted Lisa Goldstein to provide evidence  for a statement she made on the op-ed:  “According to the Gallaudet Research Institute, cochlear implants are common, with over 87 percent of students who are deaf wearing one.”  I already knew the 87% figure was grossly inaccurate.  She responded, claiming  that the 87% figure was an error and she meant 1 in 8.  I thought that was a big typo for someone to overlook , not once, but twice in a row. A 87 percent of students wearing cochlear implants is quite a leap from the actual 12.5 percent, in my opinion.

At first I tried politely to educate her about the inaccuracies in her op-ed, but apparently she wasn’t interested.  The more I thought about it, the more disturbed I was regarding the hostile tone of her article. The extent of the author getting bent out of shape was way out of proportion to the statement made by Luke’s mother. When I brought up the  possibility that Luke may have been misquoted,  she insisted she got the same comment from lipreading Luke.

I don’t watch this show, but I wanted to see that statement for myself.  A vlogger, Seek Geo, provided me the link to the tape. Running the tape, I’ve read his lips where he allegedly made that statement.  He was emotionally overwrought, making it a little difficult to lipread him, but the statement she claimed he made didn’t match the movements of his mouth.   After reviewing the tape, few Deaf people with strong oral backgrounds agreed with me that Luke didn’t say these words.

Yet this author claimed she lipread him saying “Deaf can do it, they can do exactly what hearing people can do, but not talk’.  She reported to me that she is one of the best lipreaders, according to her former teachers.  Perhaps she is, but the fact still stands: Luke  didn’t make that statement she accused him of.

During the on site interview, his mother, not a professional interpreter, was voicing for him. She made that statement.

Did anyone else catch the irony? Luke was talking during the show.  Why would he make that kind of statement about Deaf people not being able to talk  if he was already speaking?

The whole article was just a litany of criticisms levied against Luke and Deaf people, denigrating them. I am disappointed to see a diatribe against Deaf people published in a newspaper.

Here are some of her comments:

“…children who are educated using a spoken-language approach are proficient in spoken language and have high levels of intelligibility. They also possess reading abilities that are approximately double the national average for children with hearing loss”

“Not only does he denigrate all the hard work that goes with being able to speak and function independently in society, but he’s also sending the wrong message to current and future parents of deaf children. They will incorrectly believe that their children won’t be able to talk.”

“Mr. Adams’ abandonment of his implant is unusual. Only 7 percent of students with implants elect not to use theirs. Maybe he has a good reason for not taking advantage of a device that could help him win a race and $1 million, but he has a different mindset than I do.”

“Mr. Adams may have been tired but he knew what he was saying when making that inflammatory comment. He had a platform and was taking advantage of it. Because he has admitted to being a part of deaf culture, he is well-versed in its philosophies. As a big fan, he knows “The Amazing Race” is a popular, Emmy-award-winning show. He was exposed to deaf people who talk — imagine that! — at the university he attended, but still he denied their existence.

I can only hope that viewers will recognize his lack of independence as his teammate — his mother and link to the hearing world — interprets everything for him.

I was worried that Mr. Adams’ participation in the show would perpetuate the myth that all deaf people sign, but it ended up being worse. There have now been four episodes of the show, and he continues to do well. Adding to the irony, he has been shown talking to his mother. When this happens, the show subtitles him, because most people probably can’t understand him. Those who are used to hearing deaf speech, like my husband, have no trouble.

I wanted to root for Mr. Adams, as I did for Christy Smith, a deaf contestant on “Survivor” whose ability to speak and lip-read allowed her to compete on her own. But now I hope one of the other couples wins the million instead. Someone who dashes the hopes of millions is no winner in my book.”

What a nice writer…. not. This article was more inflammatory and inflicted greater damage than the misinterpretation of Luke’s statement.  The viewers can see for themselves that Luke was talking while signing.  To read the full article, click  First Person: I can so talk!

To see Luke’s comment.. watch 36.30 to 36.40  The Amazing Race Video – Episode 1 – CBS.com

I’m rooting for Luke and Margie. Go for it! 

Thanks to the Deaf people, M, B, G, S, D,  B, and S,  who lipread Luke on the tape and agreed with me that Luke didn’t state what Ms. Goldstein claimed he did.  Thanks to Jes for interpreting what Margie said. MZ

Update: 5/31/09. This writer is currently a board member of PA AGBell Association. This isn’t surprising since AGBell Association has a long history of attacking  Deaf people using ASL in the media.  Here is the link showing her official AGBell Association position http://www.agbell-pa.org/BoardOfDirectors/Index.html MZ

In 2006, Wright was  tried for killing Darlene VanderGiesen and using a chainsaw to dismember her body and was convicted.  She received the life sentence, escaping the death penalty sentence..  Wright is bringing up many issues, including the court’s refusal to approve her request for a Deaf certified interpreter (CDI).

Daphne Wright’s appeal goes before the South Dakota Supreme Court on March 25.

 One of the appeal issues is whether she should have had a CDI during the trial.

 The  legal document submitted for the appeal to the Supreme Court:

#24531  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009– NO. 1  State v. Wright

In August of 2004, Daphne Wright lived in Sioux Falls with her girlfriend, Sallie Collins.  They initially lived in Jackie Chesmore’s home, but Collins moved out in September.  Both Collins and Wright were deaf, and Collins moved into an apartment complex known within the deaf community as the “deaf apartments.”  While living there, Collins became friends with Darlene VanderGiesen, who was also deaf.

Wright became jealous of the friendship between VanderGiesen and Collins, and Wright also thought VanderGiesen was trying to destroy Wright’s relationship with Collins.  On February 1, 2006, Wright set up a meeting with VanderGiesen at a Pizza Hut, allegedly to plan a Valentine’s Day surprise for Collins.  Wright admitted meeting VanderGiesen at Pizza Hut’s parking lot that evening at 6:00 p.m. VanderGiesen was not seen again.  Two days later, VanderGiesen’s father reported that his daughter was missing.

While police were investigating VangerGiesen’s disappearance, Chesmore and Wright voluntarily drove together to the Sioux Falls law enforcement center to be interviewed.  There the police employed the use of a certified sign language interpreter for Wright’s interview.  The police interviewed Wright from 10:49 a.m. until 12:54 p.m., at which time the State acknowledges that Wright unequivocally asked for a lawyer.  Wright remained at the law enforcement center in the interrogation room without a lawyer, however, from 12:54 p.m. until 6:10 p.m., while police officers obtained and executed a search warrant for Wright’s home and vehicle.  At the conclusion of the search, Wright left the law enforcement center.  Wright was never advised of her Miranda rights.

Wright was arrested and subsequently charged with murder in the first degree (premeditated murder), murder in the second degree (felony murder), and aggravated kidnapping in connection with VanderGiesen’s death.

Prior to trial, a psychologist recommended and Wright requested the use of a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) to interpret the testimony to Wright consecutively, rather than simultaneously.  The trial court denied Wright’s request.  Instead of employing a CDI to interpret consecutively, the court provided five certified sign language interpreters and employed “real time” captioning, in which every word the court reporter transcribed was projected onto a computer screen for everyone to observe.  Separate interpreters were provided for counsel and for the court proceedings.  At Wright’s request, the trial was also videotaped.

The State offered evidence at trial regarding the officers’ execution of the search warrant, which included blood, bone and tissue samples from Wright’s vehicle and the basement of Wright’s home.  The State laboratory confirmed the presence of VanderGiesen’s D.N.A. in these samples.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts, but declined to recommend the death penalty.  Wright was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the first degree murder and kidnapping convictions.  No sentence was imposed on the felony murder conviction.

Wright appeals the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Wright’s motion to   suppress statements made during the interview at the law enforcement center.

2. Whether the trial court should have granted Wright’s request for consecutive interpretation during the trial and provided a CDI.

3. Whether the trial court’s system of selecting jurors, in which African-Americans were under-represented, violated Wright’s constitutional rights.

4. Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior altercation concerning Wright, VanderGiesen, and Collins.

5. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts of felony murder and premeditated murder.

6. Whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violates double jeopardy.

7. Whether cumulative error denied Wright a fair trial.

Mr. Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Ms Meghan N. Dilges, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellee, State of South Dakota

Ms. Traci Smith, Office of the Minnehaha County Public Defender, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant, Daphne Wright

End of document

Commentary: What are your thoughts?