Recently a very kind, generous, helpful member of this group posted a very nice,
well-intentioned instructional video with advice for an ASL 1 student. Do NOT
think that I'm upset in any way about the intentions of the individual. No. I'm
thrilled each time one of you reaches out to share and help others.
In that vein I share the following information as a "coach":
The presenter chose to "simcom." The word "simcom" is a portmanteau (a word that
blends the sounds and combines the meanings of two other words) of the words
"simultaneous" and "communication." (Also, occasionally written as "sim-com" or
mistakenly labeled as "TC"-[total-communication]).
I would like you to reflect on how posting a simcom video in an online ASL
classroom discussion space is an example of "Hearing privilege" and subtly
undermines the ability, authority, and passion of Deaf ASL instructors.
The simple fact is: Voicing for Hearing ASL 1 students is like catnip for cats.
If two people wanted to pet the kitty and one holds catnip guess which person is
going to get to pet the kitty?
At my day job, we have a policy and have implemented it in the catalog
descriptions of our ASL classes that our (ASL) classes are taught in "ASL." Not
kidding here. In the course description it literally says:
"Note: Taught in ASL without voice."
Suppose there are two instructors -- one is Deaf and the other is Hearing and
the Hearing person uses their voice to create an unfair advantage in
instructional processes, creation of student rapport, and provision of
non-ASL-yet-class-related supplemental information (for example, by quickly,
easily, and in a timely manner voicing complex information regarding course
homework assignments, deadlines, extra credit opportunities, tutoring options,
etc.).
The Deaf instructor of beginning-level students must instead type out such
information (or attempt to communicate it painfully slowly via rudimentary
signing and eye-stabbingly slow fingerspelling), which takes longer, and thus
takes away from lesson-related instruction time. Of course the non-voicing
instructor can also provide such information asynchronously (at a later time)
via electronic messaging but in doing so lose spontaneity and/or timeliness and
then much of the text-based information is often not read in full by the
students as in: "too long didn't read" (TLDR). The extra time required for
text-based or beginner-level-ASL-based communication can be considered a form of
friction or "drag."
At the end of the semester that friction or drag manifests when the students of
each instructor must fill out an end of course teacher evaluation. The students
of the instructor who voiced do not know that they missed out on a massive
amount of "skill growth related to processing of visual stimuli." No, all those
students know is that they had a fun and easy time in class with an instructor
who was highly relatable. They rate the voicing instructor as being excellent.
The students of the instructor who did not voice had to develop areas of their
brain (involved with priming the reticular activating system to notice and
process visual stimuli) which was "hard." They do not know that they are now
significantly better able to actually perceive and understand signing as done by
Deaf signers. No. Instead what the students of the non-voicing instructor know
is that the class was "hard" and at times "confusing." They rate the non-voicing
instructor as average or poor.
Then here is the "kicker." When it comes time to hire for next semester and
budget constraints are tight -- the Hearing Administrator looks at the
evaluations and decides to hire the instructor who voiced (who also has a great
relationship with the Hearing Administrator due to being able to voice to the
administrator and easily develop a rapport).
The above is an all too real example of how the use of voicing during the
instruction of beginning-level students actually harms the financial (and
emotional / psychological) well-being of Deaf people.
I once watched a fellow Deaf instructor explaining a game to his students in
ASL. His Hearing assistant kept jumping in and simcomming to "clear things up"
for the students. While this did indeed allow the game to get underway more
quickly -- it robbed the students of the chance to develop their decoding skills
and it robbed the instructor of control and authority. It "diminished" him and
drew attention away from his teaching process. Later when those students find
themselves needing to decode a Deaf person's instructions (such as the
instructor of the following class) the students will be looking around for a
crutch (in the form of "voiced" assistance) and frustrated when it isn't
available.
Let me give you another example. One of the most popular instructional ASL
videos online is that of a young lady with an enormous ring on her finger who
voices while teaching various signs. The fact that she messes up approximately
one in 15 signs is lost on the millions who have viewed her video. Rather than
doing the "hard work" of first learning ASL to an advanced level and figuring
out how to teach without voice -- she instead put on make-up, a large ring, and
sat down in front of a camera and started waiving her hands around and talking.
The provision of such catnip simcom videos harms the Deaf Community via the
corruption of that "one out of fifteen signs she messes up" (as well as
distracting viewership from legitimate / skilled ASL instructional videos).
Let me share a personal story: I recall inviting some friends over for a game
night. One of the friends is the Hearing spouse of a Deaf person. During the
game I (and/or other Deaf) would occasionally start negotiating (via sign
language) with one of the beginning level signers. The Hearing spouse would then
frequently interrupt my negotiations via voicing and signing at the same time.
The voicing was like catnip for the beginner who would then totally stop paying
attention to the hard work of communicating with the Deaf signers and instead do
the easy thing and negotiate with the Hearing person doing the simcom. The
Hearing person thus gained resources and advantage over the Deaf players. This
happened repeatedly until I pointed it out. The Hearing person was gracious
about it, realized their misuse of power, turned off their voice, and we had an
excellent rest of the game.
What is my point? Am I banning simcom on this channel? No, I'm not banning it.
I'm just pointing out that not everybody can "do" simcom and that the use of
simcom often creates an unlevel playing field. When we choose to use simcom in a
mixed environment it is Deaf people who end up on the lower end of the field.
Am I saying that simcom is bad?
Woah. Don't think in such polarizing terms.
I have a Deaf/hh daughter with no (2nd and 3rd) knuckles in her hands and for
whom simcom is a godsend.
Life is situational eh?
Look at the situation and do the best you can with what you have. I encourage
you to do so in a way that keeps the playing field level for the long term
benefit of all.
Notes:
Also see:
● Simcom
►
●
Simultaneous Communication ►