In a message dated 3/6/2006 3:26:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Terri writes:

<<When you are interpreting in a classroom setting, if the teacher is lecturing and asks a question and the deaf student raises his/her hand to answer--but the teacher doesn't see him/her or maybe has his back to the class--and students start answering/having a discussion and the interpreter voices, how do you indicate that it's the student's answer and NOT the interpreter's ? Many times the students begin answering without being recognized by the teacher. I feel sometimes that the students/teacher think it's my opinion since they hear my voice.>>

Terri,
This generally only becomes a problem if you've established a precedent of sharing your own opinion in the class in the past. The way it should work is that you only voice the deaf student's opinion and you never voice your own.  You are not there to voice your own opinion, you are there to interpret for the student. If you feel this is a problem, then schedule a time to meet with the teacher and explain the nature of your work to him or her.  Then request that the teacher, at an appropriate time, take a minute or two to explain to the class how the interpreting process works.
I'm sure the teacher has certain equipment in the classroom.  It is normal and expected that the teacher explains to the students how to use various classroom resources and equipment.  A teacher might explain to the students how to use an overhead projector, when they can sharpen their pencils, her policy on passing notes in class, seating arrangements, rules for bathroom breaks, tardiness policies, and any number of other classroom management issues.  You are just one more issue to be explained.
It is your job or that of your supervisor to inform the teacher of how you are to be used.  It is the teacher's job to explain that to the other students that when you speak you are expressing the views and opinions of the deaf student and not your own views and opinions.
Cordially,
Dr. Bill

Hello my name is Misty Martinez.  I am a student of American Sign Language. I at first started to study the language because my niece is deaf due to meningitis as a young child, but developed a love for the language and for the deaf in general. Here is my question. At our church at home in California, we used to do dramas or songs with sign language also called blacklight, (where you sign with all the lights off and white gloves) and since most of us that participated in the program were either deaf or ASL students, we signed the songs in ASL using correct signing and translation. Now I have moved to South Carolina, and the church I go to now has asked me to participate in one of their "signing dramas", but they have already told me that they will not be using correct ASL and that they heard that the deaf do not like it when they do drama the correct way. In my understanding if you do not sign correctly, how are deaf people going to understand what you are trying to put across? Also this seems to throw my education in the dirt, I took the time to learn it the correct way, and in the correct way it is a very beautiful language. It just seems very offensive to me is all. I don't know who is right on this, but I have decided not to participate in their program. What do you think?

Hi Dr. Bill,

I saw a couple of different ways to sign “you’re welcome” on your website. A Deaf person once told me that “thank you” and “you’re welcome” is the same sign. Is this a common way of saying thanks in ASL?

Also, I was wondering if you have any recommendations for a hearing person to learn to “see.” I find myself saying the words in my head automatically as I sign, as well as mouthing (not saying them aloud) the words. I know that if I continue to do this, it will cause difficulties later on in my ASL studies. Learning ASL is my love in life; I am very dedicated to learning it correctly. As of now, I am only in Elementary ASL I, with a wonderful Deaf teacher – an excellent teacher! Knowing that you have many resources, I thought it proper to ask you this question.

Thank you so much!
Wendy

Dear Bill,
I understand the "pride response". That seems natural, appropriate and healthy. I'm sure you're right about social evolution and things will change.

I'm reminded of the Blacks. (I'm no sociologist, so please correct me if I'm wrong; just my layman's understanding.) They first preferred to be called Negroes, to avoid the derogatory term nigger, then they preferred to be called Blacks, but later wanted to be called African Americans. Not all of them, most likely, some may still prefer Black. These are designations they chose for themselves, and felt good about. And Black is similar to Deaf, I think, in that the words black and deaf both describe just one physical characteristic, but Deaf and Blacks mean much more. I'm just guessing that the Blacks feel similarly about Black as the Deaf do about Deaf. My uneducated gut feeling is that Black evolved to "African American" because that more completely embodies everything that they are wanting outsiders to understand when they refer to them. The parallel that pops to mind is that Deaf might evolve to American Signers, or something of the sort. Not that the term Deaf would be discarded, just as Black has not been replaced by African American. It's also a parallel that not all Blacks are African Americans, and not all Deaf are American Signers (other sign languages).

It IS a public relations issue, as you say. No easy task and one that only happens over time. But one worth continually nudging along. Rather than discarding the existing label, Deaf, the public relations might work best as with African Americans not discarding Black. Keep "Deaf", but make the term American Signers more common.

As for the "Americans" changing the name to "Freedans", I understand your point. The Black=>African American illustrates more the point I was originally trying to make. With both the words deaf and black describing a single physical characteristic, and both words potentially being considered a negative (deaf an inability, black possibly evil, in the dark).

Respectfully,
John

John,
I agree with the Black / Deaf comparison.  That idea crossed my mind while typing an earlier email.
An interesting point though is that there are many "whites" living in Africa.
Suppose they moved to the United States (as I'm sure some do). They could "technically" be called African Americans.
Do you think they such "African Americans" could integrate well with what we commonly refer to as African American Culture?  And suppose there were some sort of community event and one of these white "African Americans" stood up and announced that he was African American and how proud he was to be a "brother."  How do you think that would go over? 
Hearing people may learn to sign, but they still don't know what it is like to be physically deaf. 
That knowledge is a large part of our culture. It is part of "the Deaf Way."  Deaf people, by virtue of having a shared experience, have automatic connections to each other. Calling ourselves something other than Deaf would lessen those connections.
Labels like Black and Deaf function in such a way as to draw a perimeter around a culture.  Sort of like wearing light or dark jerseys helps to define who is on what team.
Calling ourselves American Signers would expand the perimeter to such a degree that the boundaries of our culture would become confusing and in a large part, meaningless.
Taken to the extreme, perhaps we should abandon all labels.  No Blacks, no Deafs, no Christians, no Jews, no Muslims--just billions of Earthlings.  Would the earth be a better or worse place?  More peaceful, but also more boring.
Bill