Sorenson Participation in VRS Panel at TDI
The 2005 TDI
Conference in New Orleans included a panel discussion of Video Relay
Service (VRS). For those who are not familiar with VRS it's a service
that provides an ASL interpreter as the "Communications
Assistant" in the relay process. The Deaf user signs to the
interpreter (through a video camera), and the interpreter then speaks
the message into the phone for the hearing person. When the hearing
person talks, the interpreter signs the message to the Deaf person, who
reads it on a TV screen or computer monitor. The service benefits Deaf
people, not hard of hearing or other OHL
folks, because the overwhelming majority of them do not sign.
During the panel discussion Sorenson avoided the use of the term "DeafAndHardOfHearing",
correctly referring to their users as people who are Deaf. This behavior
is so unusual in the hearing loss world that we want to commend them for
it. Here's Randy Collins' description of the workshop:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
have a copy of all the questions they were asked. From the outset
Hamilton, Sprint, and CSD constantly referred to deafandhardofhearing
as if their services included OHL people. CAC, Sorenson, and HOC
to their credit never referred to deafandhardofhearing and if I am not
mistaken never mentioned hard of hearing or oral deaf or late deafened
at all.
After being asked how many Deaf and how many hard of
hearing work in your company, the panelists were asked what their
companies were doing to promote jobs for Deaf and for hard of hearing
people. As a follow up they were asked how their companies supported
upward mobility of both groups into company management.
These were questions near and dear to all of us here at
OHL, I suspect.
The three purely VRS companies (HOC, CAC, and Sorenson)
again responded in terms of Deaf only and did not mention hard of
hearing. As far as I am concerned that is the way it should be. As I
said earlier I don't really see VRS at this point in time as being a
"non-signing person with a hearing loss" vehicle for
telecommunication. Unless they are developing new technology that would
include some form of real time captioning, why should they even address
the needs of OHL people or even more, hire OHL people? Good for these
folks. They know their market and they don't pretend to use us or our
numbers to justify their business. I intend to write all three and thank
them. I sincerely wish them the best of the future. (I'll post a copy
here.)
I don't recall Hamilton answering the question
separately. It seemed to be answered as part of the initial question.
Again however I will say that Hamilton admitted openly not breaking down
employee numbers into two groups but rather jumbling deafandhardofhearing
into one category of employees. Whatever Hamilton does there is no
distinction made between the two groups. I was impressed that they
admitted it. I plan to write them a letter as well thanking them for
their candor and expressing the need to consider us separately and why.
Sprint and CSD responded to the above questions as they
responded to the initial question, which is to say they acted as if they
never heard the questioner's request to distinguish between the two
groups in their response to the questions. Both said they hire either
hundreds or thousands of deafandhardofhearing people, and that many
deafandhardofhearing people are in management of their companies, and
that they encourage deafandhardofhearing people to move up their
respective corporate ladders. If either company understood the question
they never addressed it in terms of hard of hearing people.
Dear Sorenson:
I have just returned from the TDI Conference in New
Orleans where I had the pleasure of attending the VRS panel discussion
in which you participated. If I'm not mistaken more people attended that
session than any other session at TDI. There is without question much
interest in VRS across the United States.
As odd as it might seem to you I'd like to thank you for
something you didn't say. You didn't say "deaf and hard of
hearing" when you talked about your company, your employees or the
services that you provide. You said "deaf". Thank you,
sincerely.
I am hard of hearing and because of that I don't use VRS.
VRS is a wonderful service. My Deaf friends use it all the time and love
it as do my hearing friends. VRS really is not a service that functions
well for hard of hearing people. Most hard of hearing people don't sign
or don't sign well. As you know the vast majority of hard of hearing
people do not use VRS. However, those of us who know about it strongly
support VRS for our Deaf friends.
You may realize that while hard of hearing and Deaf
people use many of the same services, and while both groups are
characterized by hearing loss, there are major differences between the
two groups. There are linguistic and cultural differences. In the United
States most hard of hearing, late deafened, and oral deaf people
consider English to be their native language. As you know Deaf people
most often consider ASL to be their native language. Therein lies the
difference. We are equal but we are different.
Some relay companies, many programs and services that
primarily serve Deaf people refer to both groups as one, "deaf and
hard of hearing" as if the services provided are of equal use to
both groups. To the public at large and to potential service providers
and employers, when we are lumped together as one group in reference to
services that are intended for the Deaf community the inference is that
hard of hearing needs are being met. Often hard of hearing needs are not
being met.
I belong to an organization called Oral Hearing Loss
Advocacy or OHL Advocacy. We are hard of hearing, late deafened, and
oral deaf people whose native language is English. We came into being
over the growing concern in our "community" as it were over
the misuse of the words " deaf and hard of hearing " and all
that it implies. We often see the term being used as one word, "deafandhardofhearing",
a catchall for all people with a hearing loss. In reality more often
than not it means programs and services for Deaf people. If services and
programs are primarily for the Deaf community we support the use of the
word, "Deaf", not the misnomer, "deaf and hard of
hearing".
When a relay provider says, "we have hundreds of
"deaf and hard of hearing" employees" or "many in
our management team are deaf and hard of hearing", as some relay
providers did during the panel discussion, hard of hearing people know
that the statements are incorrect. We know there are none or few hard of
hearing, late deafened or oral deaf people who are employees or
management.
Your company functions primarily to serve Deaf people.
Hard of hearing people support that. Technology hasn't taken us yet to
the point where one size fits all. I appreciate the fact that you know
your market and that you state it as such. It's refreshing not to hear
our name being used where it doesn't really apply, in fact it helps.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy
Collins
None to Date.
