"Hello, my name is Robert Loeffler. I'm a GIS staff member here- Gallaudet Interpreting Service. I want to clarify a bit- there's ambiguity, [some people] saying 'Interpreters haven't been provided' [and others] responding, 'We are providing services." GIS is indeed providing services. GIS has provided services to anyone who can pay for services; just like anything else, with an interpreting agency, interpreters need money to pay the bills, pay for rent, buy things... that has never changed. Students have asked me why there are no interpreters. I said, 'You have to ask the administration- you must ask King (Jordan), you must ask JK (Jane Fernandes), you must ask your dean, Karen Kimmel or Tom Allen, Carl Pramuk.' Why are there no interpreters being provided? Gallaudet University claims to strongly believe in access to communication, but interpreters are not being provided. Again, I emphasize that GIS is not responsible for that. All along, GIS has provided services to the entire community because we must remain neutral. By remaining neutral, we can't do pro-bono work for one group, and then tell another group they must pay- it's not right. I agree with that [idea] and all students agree with that. But I see that the administration- the Office of Public Relations- stopped paying for interpreters for the media for the protest. That shows only the surface of the profound oppression that has been happening here for many, many years. That's one small example, but as for those who are curious as to why GIS stopped providing interpreters- GIS did not stop providing interpreters. The administration stopped paying. They look to suppress the voices of the protesters by taking away interpreters from them."
I assume since Gallaudet, in fact, recieve federal funding, right? On the other hand, does it means that the administrators actually violated the federal law regarding communication access?
I do not believe that the protestors would be out of control if the media got involved as someone had quoted. It would have decrease the frustration level among the protestors because they have the chance to express their concerns. It just escalate their frustration to a maximum level which it would be psychologically traumazing when communication access are not provided. I wonder who is liable?
Comments
transcript
"Hello, my name is Robert Loeffler. I'm a GIS staff member here- Gallaudet Interpreting Service. I want to clarify a bit- there's ambiguity, [some people] saying 'Interpreters haven't been provided' [and others] responding, 'We are providing services." GIS is indeed providing services. GIS has provided services to anyone who can pay for services; just like anything else, with an interpreting agency, interpreters need money to pay the bills, pay for rent, buy things... that has never changed. Students have asked me why there are no interpreters. I said, 'You have to ask the administration- you must ask King (Jordan), you must ask JK (Jane Fernandes), you must ask your dean, Karen Kimmel or Tom Allen, Carl Pramuk.' Why are there no interpreters being provided? Gallaudet University claims to strongly believe in access to communication, but interpreters are not being provided. Again, I emphasize that GIS is not responsible for that. All along, GIS has provided services to the entire community because we must remain neutral. By remaining neutral, we can't do pro-bono work for one group, and then tell another group they must pay- it's not right. I agree with that [idea] and all students agree with that. But I see that the administration- the Office of Public Relations- stopped paying for interpreters for the media for the protest. That shows only the surface of the profound oppression that has been happening here for many, many years. That's one small example, but as for those who are curious as to why GIS stopped providing interpreters- GIS did not stop providing interpreters. The administration stopped paying. They look to suppress the voices of the protesters by taking away interpreters from them."
Hope that helps.
-Davin Searls
Any captioning to go with
Any captioning to go with this?
I assume since Gallaudet, in
I assume since Gallaudet, in fact, recieve federal funding, right? On the other hand, does it means that the administrators actually violated the federal law regarding communication access?
I do not believe that the protestors would be out of control if the media got involved as someone had quoted. It would have decrease the frustration level among the protestors because they have the chance to express their concerns. It just escalate their frustration to a maximum level which it would be psychologically traumazing when communication access are not provided. I wonder who is liable?
Keeping my eye peeled.