Flavia Fleischer – Incorporating Community Cultural Wealth Into the Interpreting Profession

Flavia Fleischer – Incorporating Community Cultural Wealth Into the Interpreting Profession


[Interpreter] Welcome everyone. Thank you for coming to the Department of Interpretation and Translation Colloquial Series. We’re thrilled to have
Dr. Flavia Fleischer who’s come from California. We’re absolutely thrilled
to have her here today. The department here has a four series, the lecture series, two in Fall and two in Spring. In the last recent
months, we’ve had a series and we’ve provided videos for those and we’ve archived the videos
for the interpreting community to be able to see those, and they are available on the website. You can see that it
says Colloquial Series, the Department of
Interpretation and Translation. The videos can be viewed there. It’s really a fantastic resource! It’s great to have the
information available for the community
interpreting and translation. I would like to recognize the interpreters that are here today, Jackie Lightfoot and additionally Natalie Van Eman. Thank you very much for
coming to interpret today. This is the second of the Colloquial. We’ll also have a third and fourth. After the presentation
today, we welcome you all to go to the Gallaudet
cafeteria to the second floor to be able to interact and
meet with Dr. Flavia Fleischer and have the opportunity to chat with her. Students and faculty are
welcome to come upstairs to the second floor. It’s close to the dorms,
to Carlin Dorm and Clerc. So you are welcome. Again, that’s in the
cafeteria on the second floor. Before Dr. Fleischer is introduced, I’d like to introduce
Dr. Brenda Nicodemus. She is the director of
the Center for Advancement of Interpreting and Translation Research. This is Dr. Nicodemus that’s speaking now. Hello everyone, and good morning. We are fortunate today to
have Dr. Flavia Fleischer with us here, right? I would like to briefly
make comments about what has happened with our
structure of the lecture. Next we’ll have Dr. Keith Cagle come up who will actually introduce Dr. Fleischer. Her presentation will be
approximately 30 to 40 minutes. After that, then Dr.
Steven Collins will come and ask questions of Dr. Fleisher. And then it will be open
to the floor for questions. If you have any questions
that come to mind, if you would like to come
to the stage and ask them, that will be your opportunity to do so. And when that is finished,
then we’ll proceed to lunch. That will be the structure for today. I think we’ll proceed now and
introduce Dr. Keith Cagle, and he will introduce our keynote. [Interpreter] Greetings
and good morning to you all. It really is a great pleasure to me to introduce our guest speaker
today, Dr. Flavia Fleischer. It is indeed a small world,
and let me tell you why. I actually graduated with
a master’s in educational administration from
California State University at Northridge back in the day, 1991. And at the time that I
was there, I actually met Flavia’s father, Dr. Larry Fleischer. We worked together periodically. At that time Larry Fleischer was the chair of the Studies Department at CSUN. Flavia Fleischer is now the chair of the Department of Deaf Studies, so that’s a wonderful transition. Larry Fleischer was also
president of the ASLTA, the American Sign Language
Teachers Association. He was also an evaluator,
and in that capacity as I was subsequently ASLTA
president and evaluation chair, I worked closely with Larry. So I feel as though I know Flavia largely through my connection
with her father, Larry. Larry was a third generation Deaf person. In terms of lineage, that makes Flavia fourth generation within
her family construct. She acquired her Ph.D. in Linguistics from Gallaudet University, and her dissertation
research was an analysis of American society’s constructed
images of Deaf people. She got her Ph.D. and has
progressed to many wonderful accomplishments including
her current position as chair of Deaf Studies at CSUN. So it gives me much delight
and excitement to see the inspired, energetic,
and positive presentations that Flavia has given over the years and thus great pleasure
to introduce her today and invite her to the floor for her presentation this morning. Dr. Fleischer, over to you. Thank you for such a warm welcome. It is true that I am now at CSUN, but my Ph.D. was gained here
at Gallaudet University. My bachelor’s, my second
master’s, and my Ph.D. are all from here. My first master’s, ’cause
yes, I do have two, it was from CSUN. That’s my academics for you. Just to clarify name
signs, my father Larry and myself, and my brother Flan all have similar name signs. So keep that in mind,
and don’t confuse us. As Dr. Cagle just referenced,
I am the fourth generation Deaf person in my family, but my daughter is in the audience and she is fifth generation. She just graduated with a
bachelor’s degree in psychology and is moving home closer to us to start graduate school at CSUN. Not in the same field as me. She’ll be looking at master of fine arts and looking at physical therapy, but I did want to recognize
that my lovely daughter is here in the audience with us today. As Brenda has just mentioned, I have a short 30 to 40 minutes. FYI, I’m going to be closer to 40 and possibly even pushing
to finish in that time. So I am going to proceed
directly with my presentation, but the things that I simply
touch on and don’t expand on, if you are curious,
please feel free to ask me at a later point to expand on any features that I simply didn’t have time
to in today’s presentation since we do have time constraints. I think we live in interesting times for how this presentation is situated. We have just had a presidential election. And I think that now our
discourse as we look at it from the West Coast and the East Coast requires us to partner and be allies and find out ways to work
together in overt ways. And you might wonder why
I think that’s critical. I think that the person
we have currently elected to the highest office
in the land in the US, who is taking that office,
does not seem always to have the best interests at heart at many of the minority communities that exist within this country. So we need to start looking at
what has fed that sentiment. What created the possibility that a person such as our president-elect,
who does not again seem to have the heart or compassion for minority communities,
has yet been elected? So I think we need to
look at what is missing. We need to look at academia. We need to look at community epistemology and identify the specific
structures and frameworks around which this has eventuated. We’re going to talk through that framework and then lead that to ways
in which we can work together in a much more cohesive,
collaborative manner. You can see my title, Incorporating Community Cultural Wealth into the Interpreting Profession. This is related with
interpreting practitioners and also with interpreter trainers. So when I talk about academia,
I’m talking about interpreter preparation, interpreter
education programs, and interpreting practitioners. So I do see them as well connected. I just wanted to mention
that at the outset. I’d also like to recognize
interpreting as a field and interpreting as it stands with the educational preparation programs, yet come within the structure of academia. And to me, that is how we
marry theory with practice, in a concerted form. We can look at that in a
fairly narrow structure in terms of the communities
that we invite into the field. For example, are we inviting
the Black community in? Are we inviting the Queer community in? Do we invite the community of
people with disabilities in? Because all of that informs our practice. So how we overtly construct invitations and welcoming to minority
communities within our field I think is vital to today’s presentation. That’s it. I have worked with interpreters
myself on a daily basis since I was a wee child. I was a product of the 1970s, when mainstreaming became de rigueur. It was the most popular
educational paradigm. There were residential Deaf schools, but they were often
isolated so they weren’t getting the children with
the best opportunities for academic success to
necessarily enroll there. Those children instead were
put in mainstream settings. So I think that, to a degree, the students who were raised
in the residential schools were not necessarily seen and valued. But we have to consider that in terms of the intersectionality
of the Deaf experience. Looking at all of the
communities that exist. Those who came up within the community, those who were raised up in the community of people with disabilities, looking at the Queer community, and all of those other demographics that we sometimes overlook. So when we look at the Black community, the Queer community, et
cetera, we need to recognize the intersectionality
of what that looks like in our constituent base
and us as practitioners. What I think is absolutely
fundamental to this is to recognize the residents of those demographic communities in our work. So as I said, I was raised
working with interpreters from a very young age. As I did so, I noticed over the years and I have worked with many interpreters, that some commonalities exist. Interpreters will often come
with a strong language base and be competent signers. And in that regard, be able
to relay what’s being said, but I would often find that
I couldn’t connect with what the speaker was
really trying to address. So let’s talk about first the paradigm that interpreting is not a
natural way of discourse. It’s an artificial construction. So when you think about what’s being said, interpreters are often
describing what had been said and interpreting that
effectively, but not always effectively managing why
things are being said, what their context was. So I am a white, cisgendered, female, Deaf, able-bodied atheist. All of those identities exist within me in terms of my intersectionality and I cannot remove one
identity from the other in my existence in how
I experience the world. Every one of us has a
multitude of identities within our own intersectional
construct as well. Some of the identities I have
are privileged in our society. So being white, cisgendered, and straight, for example, give me privilege. Some of the identities
within my intersectionality are not privileged: being
Deaf, being atheist, being a woman. What that means is that when
an interpreted interaction occurs and we look at the text we examine the text of that discourse as it’s presented via interpretation. Does it always connect with me? Not always, and I think that
the same exists for all of us. We have to analyze that text in terms of how it relates to ourselves and how it relates to the other person. And again, we can never remove that contextual connection from one another. So as we look at the interpreting field, those connections and
intersectionalities exist. As we look at interpreting
training practitioners it exists, within academia, and also
within the community. So how do we marry theory and practice? And when I say community, I
don’t mean just one community. For example, the white, Deaf community. I mean all communities. All communities must be overtly engaged in this and recognized. So let me progress. So we look at engaging communities and we look at the interpreting
fields and academia, we’re looking at the
connections people make in various facets of their lives. All of us work with people regardless of their
individual field of expertise. We have to interact. And we’re designed as
a bridge, if you will, to connect people. So we are never removed from one another’s individual experience. So I think that we therefore need to recognize the intersectionality
and the multitude of identities within each of us and how that intersectionality shapes us. So Paul Murray is one of the first people who brought up the concept
of intersectionality. Black, Deaf, female,
queer, I believe, attorney. So that term intersectionality
was also brought in by Kimberly Crenshaw in later years. But the concept really came
from Murray’s original work. The concept of intersectionality looks at examinations of the community, and looking at the fact that there are more than one identity reflected and more than one language
discourse represented and that we need to recognize
this and incorporate that. If we were to do so,
what would it lead to? We’d be better able to
understand the positionality of others with whom we
interact, with discourse, with interpretations, and therefore our connections with people. And that, I believe, would
make the interpretation far more robust. And language use and the
interpretation process are interchangeable to a degree and yet they cannot be
removed from the people engaged in that interaction. So how do we understand that framework of looking at the community and academia and how they intersect? And how they should best
leverage one another? I think that is really the point of what I’m here to discuss today. So before I change slides, let me also add there are different bodies of work, bodies of research out there. And they may discuss the
concept of intersectionality, in terms of how they shape a person and a person’s life experience. So when we look at the Latinx community or the Chicanx communities, we contemplate the origins. Those who are from Mexico
often refer to themselves as Chicanx, but the
overarching umbrella is Latinx. Under Latinx are the
multitudes of communities, including Chicanx that are recognized with that
experienced and identity of being Latinx and how that
shapes people’s experience. When we look at the Latinx Deaf community, and Latinx Deaf women, those identities are never
separated within a person. Carla Garcia Fernandez did
her dissertation back in 2014, a really nice body of work. And looked at the idea
of intersectionality and how it applies to and
impacts on the communities and therefore should be
reflected in academia. Lisa Stapleton was a Black hearing woman who also did her
dissertation work at CSUN. Her dissertation focused on
the Black Deaf experience in higher education. How Black Deaf students navigate
their way through academia and how they manage their success. And saying that that ought
to be overtly instructed in our teaching, because of the
validity of that experience. So when we look at the
interpreting practice and interpretation services, look at education of interpreting,
that needs to be central. We need to understand
what those concepts are and how they manage what we do. The real lives of people,
their experiential validity need to be incorporated,
and their identity as members of non‑privileged entities. It is rare to see someone
who has an unprivileged or underprivileged existence brought up to the privileged environment,
and make a bit of a joke, but we could say that the
current political climate possibly reflects that. So why is it that we look at the majority or those who are privileged
when it’s not most of us? Probably 99.9% of us in this room are not in that majority privileged group. I’m about to start a
discussion on oppression and the idea of -isms. I know that this slide
has a lot of text on it, so I’d like you to run you through first what it looks like before
you get a chance to read. When I talk about the idea of -isms, I look at the idea of
epistemology and what knowledge, skills, experience,
and talents are valued, and used, and poured into
theory and poured into practice. But it also looks at what
knowledge, experience, practice, tools, and talents we don’t
value, that we minimize, and why we do that. That to me is ingrained
within the concept of -isms. So I just wanted to touch on that first. The slide you will see
with the definition is long and I will give you a moment to read it and then briefly explain it. And then again, if you do
have further questions, I can address them later. Just get a sense on whether
people have finished reading the definition, great. So when we talk about what
knowledge, experience, skills, and tools are valued, they
become the ones that are put in everyday practice
and others are therefore dismissed from that majority space. And they’re not shared and
invested at the same level. Why does that happen? To me, the reason behind it is the -isms. I’ve worked with a couple
of colleagues in particular, including my husband,
who is also a colleague, and we developed this
definition of -isms together in some of our work. It looks at the idea that
there are a multitude of oppressions, but in that
they are not all the same. Racism is different from able-ism. Able-ism is different from heterosexism. That is different from
transgender oppression. So they are not all created equal, but they nonetheless all
exist and they do share some particular elements. Some of those specific
elements are firstly, the idea of the oppression
experienced within that group. The prejudice, the ideas
and thoughts we have about a particular group. And then our everyday actions
based on those prejudices, which is what we would
refer to as discrimination. So, oppression and
discrimination both exist in terms of thoughts and actions, but when they are combined with
power at the systemic level, that’s what comprises oppression. So how does that manifest? Let’s look at racism. Within racism, Black people
are typically oppressed, members of First Nations are oppressed. We look at how the Latinx
populations are oppressed and they may all be
oppressed in different ways, but nonetheless at the
root of that oppression, regardless of the myriad ways
in which it’s manifested, is that sense of systemic oppression, of taking away people’s ways of control, you’ll others having control
over your sense of agency. So that’s the root of this. That oppression is the root
of it, but that said again, it does not manifest the
same way within these groups that experience oppression, but the oppression in
and of itself exists. So when we look at, for example,
the interpreting profession and the idea of oppression, all the communities have
a sense of oppression. Which means all of us are
responsible to ourselves to push for greater understanding and to fight for all types
of oppression to be relieved. Not just for one particular type. Martin Luther King said,
“Injustice toward one person “is injustice toward all.” And that means we can’t
look at the singular. We must look at the
plurality of that experience and I think that’s really
important to emphasize is that we have that
responsibility to engage all members in our craft
as we look at oppression and removing those roles. So again, let’s look
at how -isms manifest. They manifest because of the
overarching societal structures and constructs within which we live. They are passed down,
built upon, dispersed, and pervade all aspects
of history and society in a diachronic format. So when we look at societal constructs, we look at a particular group, and we think this exemplifies
the perfect human. And we humanize that experience with those characteristics and traits. That means by necessity,
when we look at oppression, we have to look at what
is happening to those who have been othered in this capacity. They are dehumanized by comparison and thus exhibits the
imbalance that exists in our social constructs and emanates from those social constructs. It’s not built on an individual basis. It’s built through social
connection, social networks, interactions, social media,
and is perpetuated thereby. So when we look at those
overarching social constructs, that is what feeds us and feeds our manner of everyday response. It feeds on structures within university. It feeds on how we look at what is valued. When we look at women in service
professions and programs. How that is not valued by society. How other elements are. It’s how we look at one another and the interdependency we have as humans. But within the United States, the social constructs we have here value a few particular elements. And those elements come
from the social constructs of what we have decided is
the epitome of human existence and human characteristics and
therefore the othering of all of those other communities that are seen as somehow flawed and dehumanized. We dehumanize them in our
approach to those minority groups. So what does this require
from us in terms of action? Action in terms of what
we can touch, taste, feel, what is tangible, I would say. Almost always tangible,
although sometimes not, ’cause some of these social constructs are not quite as visible. So when we look at laws and
how they work against us, that’s not as tangible
necessarily as some other aspects. So some things we have to
experience in order to understand the impact of a law and
how it reflects upon us in a daily experience. So I say tangible, but
tangible to a point. So when we look at all of these elements that may be experienced
by minority groups, we call them aggressions. And when we talk about aggressions, we have to give credit to another author, a Black gentleman, Chester Pierce. His research in 1969 talked about the concept of aggressions. And he said as members
of the Black community, their daily experience
is of being oppressed, marginalized, of having their
feelings, their thoughts, their experiences, their contributions not valued, systematically. And it doesn’t happen just once. It happens on a repeated basis. And that cumulative, iterative
impact on the community is to see that this pattern as it exhibits becomes a schema for how
people are addressed, how they are identified,
how they are defined. We all have a schema and a schema is that result of that iterative
process and experience. So again, back to aggressions. Let’s talk micro aggression. That can be on an individual level. It can be through
institution, for example. How a school system is built, and how the community around that school benefits from that school,
or how that school operates on inclusionary or exclusionary practices. That would be meso aggression
and then macro aggression would be how the system at large, how the federal Department
of Education’s policies, et cetera impact. So when we look at an
individual interpreter in their everyday scope of practice, perhaps they’ve been working
with a team interpreter, when you look at those
interpreters and the training that they have been through, the curriculum that they’ve been through, and their understanding
of what it means to work in a team and their experience, we look at how all of
that comes to practice. Are they open to the concept of different approaches to teaming? Do they understand that
different approaches might even exist? Do our curricula as we explain them look at the community
diversity perspective, and how it therefore might
reflect on working as a team. Does it support those constructs? Then we look at an interpreter, think about for Deaf people in general, that would be more at the macro level. But is interpreting for all of us? At the macro level, the
mainstream community would say, “No, it’s just for Deaf people.” Well, it’s not. Interpreting services are
for all of the interlocutors. But you can see how that
impact happens from the micro, meso, and macro level up, and then comes back down again. So as these aggressions
accumulate through an existence, they pervade the system and lead us to the concept
of some populations who are overprivileged, not
because of something they did. All of us work hard. All of us are putting our
efforts into navigating life. So privilege is not based on
something someone has done. It is based on the characteristics that have been envisioned
at the systemic level that are seen as positive traits and are therefore
privileged over other traits that are not well recognized. So when we look at this imbalance, there’s the underprivileged groups. So Tim Wise, a white male, who’s here, is an activist, has really been fighting
against the idea of racism. And his statement is
when you look at the idea of over privileged, the
other side of that equation must be the underprivileged. So when we turn that
conversation to the idea of epistemology and academia, who is included in the
communities of knowledge and who is not included? It’s based in this country,
a lot of research shows when you look at Deaf
Studies, Interpreting Studies, ASL Studies, predominately on the white and the Eurocentric Deaf approach. So it’s an ethnocentric practice. You might ask why. Again, it goes back to
the societal constructs within which we live and operate. And if you’re viewed as inequal, if you’re viewed as underprivileged, your contributions are
minimized and dismissed. So a brief example. I spoke earlier of Carla Garcia Fernandez and her dissertation. I actually happened to see
her give a presentation not too long ago and she was talking about the
sign for chili that she used and it looks like this. She arrived here at Gallaudet University and was talking about chili
and using that particular sign. And people said, “What on
earth are you talking about? “That’s not how you sign chili.” She said, “That is the sign I use. “What signs do you use?” And people said, “No, the
sign you’re using is wrong. “You’re just a wetback.” Goodness! You can see there at the relationship between the phrase and
the identity and the view that they had as a social
construction of who she was and they’re intertwined. Those kinds of views pervade
our essence at the micro level. How many of you have seen
the sign for Chicanx? It comes from the community. It’s rooted in the
community and the fact that there is very little separation
between sense of self and sense of community in that regard. Let me think of another sign. Are you familiar with this sign? I see one or two heads nodding. Most people are not. It’s a sign that can be used for chicken. So I’m going to talk about
Black ASL in just a moment. But as a quick example, let
me just say to start with, do we need to call it Black ASL? Is that label even appropriate? And what does it mean
when we say Black ASL? Do Black people not belong
to the United States? Are they not part of
the American experience? So again, these are
related to how we present, how we name and label things. And they are infused within
the societal construct within which we live. And I just think we need
to have open conversations so that we can look at
theory and practice, marry them into our academia
and marry them further into our professional practice
in the interpreting field. I don’t think we have yet
fully incorporated this into our teaching, so we
have a little work to do. But that’s why I think
that it’s important to show this definition of oppression. [Interpreter] We have
this definition here talking about -ism. The definition is really
ingrained in this concept, critical race theory. And that’s been developed from
a variety of different works of famous people that are in
critical race theory field. Derrick Bell, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Kimberle Crenshaw, Tara Yosso, and a long list of other
people who work in this field. And they have developed this definition. Genie Gertz, she included this theory
in her dissertation. She proposed the idea of a Deaf crit. Understand that crit is
strongly rooted in the Black community and the
oppression that was studied in their community and
the Black experience. The idea of crit emerged and has expanded to also include other communities. Race crit is heavily related
to the American experience. Race is central in the
Deaf community also. That is central but also it’s recognized with intersectionality. For example, the QueerCrit. We also have the FemCrit,
NatCrit, for the First Nation, DeafCrit. But this is also related
to race as being central. We also must realize that
we must name and identify the experience that has been
perpetuated through oppression. We can’t only focus on one
experience of oppression. We have to include the way
that people have exposed and challenged oppression. And this is what we call
community cultural wealth. Community cultural
wealth is the resistance against the system of how people are able to flourish and live and prosper. It is amazing. We are able to navigate and break through and fight barriers. And not sitting back lax
and taking the oppression that we experience. Not seeing them as deficient, however we leverage
the marginalized groups and their knowledge and their wealth. And recognize that they
understand the system very well. And that has to be taken advantage of and used and incorporated
into our teaching. So specifically here, when we focus on community cultural wealth,
there’s not only one, there are many, many capitals,
many aspects of this. We have the Black
community cultural wealth, we have Deaf community cultural wealth and they often overlap. So with Black Deaf
community cultural wealth, what would that happen to look like? If you’d like to analyze
this more, you can look at Lissa Stapleton, her dissertation, a Deaf Latina community cultural wealth as that’s combined and what
would that perhaps look like? You can also look at Carla
Garcia Fernandez and her work. The Deaf community cultural
wealth specifically from the Deaf community relates with how to resist the hearing
dominant structure in society. That’s just one piece of it though. And Genie Gertz with
her work looks at that. Everything has value. But to recognize again
that race is central to not just America, but to the US and to the lives we
experience here in the US and a way of life. Community cultural wealth can be discussed in different capitals
as we see on the slide and we can see there what we
need to include in academia so we can start here with
a few ideas of how to incorporate this into academia. First and foremost, we have
to come from a place of knowledge, experience, and
knowledge for all of us. We all have multiple
communication and language skills. And we often come from a place where my way of communicating
and my language use is the best and that’s our opinion, we feel that it’s superior, actually as it pertains
to English and ASL. We look at that and we feel that ours is absolutely the best without question and others’ language and
communication is unrecognized. And it seems as a deficiency is based on what we have decided is superior. It’s different from
capitalizing on linguistics as one of the capitals. And talking here about
people’s access to language. Also language efficiency, that’s something that needs
to be discussed but… As far as including
other people’s capital, the Chicanx, for example. There’s a variety of signs for Africa. There’s a wide variety of signs. Do we understand and recognize
the wide variety of signs? Do we promote the use of this variety and matching who it is
that we’re working with? Do we understand the
emotion behind these signs? And this is something
that we need to discuss. All language, all words that are used, all signs that are used,
are social, political, and they are connected
politically to society. And therefore we can discuss
oppression from there. I don’t think we do enough of this. We tend to focus primarily
on the experience of the Deaf white person, and, unfortunately, that
is just one example. Also, we noticed accents. Perhaps the interpreter would say, “I have a problem understanding them “because of their accent,”
and why would that be? We’re not exposed to or used
to these sort of experiences in the community and what
their community practices are. It’s important, however,
that we push people to break out of their communities and include a broad base
of other communities. We should push the
boundaries of our knowledge and of our experience and our skills, in the interpreting profession, and also, most importantly,
pushing our boundaries for the community for those
that are marginalized. Accent is just one example. But we must analyze and
often we say things like, it’s their accent but we just accept this as being the way it is
as if it’s excusable. It may be excusable, I’m not sure, but this should be open for discussion. But we haven’t discussed it. That was linguistic capital. Now we’re moving onto social capital. I sat with a student, they were a Black, Deaf Queer. I believe she identified
herself as Hard of Hearing, Deaf Queer. Hard of Hearing, Black Queer. And she grew up, she arrived at college, and she had her first
connection with Deaf people, hence, she came to sit
with me to talk about it. And I didn’t see that she
said that she didn’t feel like she has any Deaf people
here who look like her. I understand myself as
a white, Deaf person. I asked her if she knew of NDBA. [Interpreter] I asked her if
she had been exposed to NBDA, National Black Deaf Advocates,
as one group of people with whom she might feel
affiliated and she didn’t know. But my job as a white,
cisgender straight Deaf woman is to also be a resource
to other communities. I may not fully understand them. I may not fully be aware
of the tools that they use, but I must be aware of their existence and be the resource for other
members of our community. That is part of my
responsibility in terms of social capital, to be that resource. There are resources already
in the Deaf community. There are resources in
the Black Deaf community. If I meet someone who does
not yet have a connection to them, it is my moral responsibility, it’s an imperative to not simply say there’s Deaf Women United,
there’s National Association of the Deaf, but to also say there are all these
other entities out here and to help people in my
overarching community connect. When she said she didn’t know who National Deaf Black Advocates were, I honestly was a little bit crestfallen. It had major impact on
the idea of our sense of responsibility and accountability and how she had come through
life to this point in time not having a connection, that should never happen. We should all be collaborating
in a far more overt way, in a far more conscious manner to ensure that our resources are well connected within our communities. So, there’s something
wrong in the fact that this is not our current paradigm. So when we look at social capital, it’s the things that we look at and the things that we consider, and how we are or are
not incorporating those into our field of practice
and teaching interpreting, and in terms of our work as practitioners. We need to look at the work. When we look at living, we don’t live without the
Deaf, Queer experience. We don’t live without the
Deaf, Hispanic experience. Without women, without blindness. Life doesn’t exist without
all of those entities. We therefore need to be
reaching out consciously and connecting with those communities and incorporating into both our teaching and our field of practice. Moving on now. I warned you that I would be having a hard time meeting the
40‑minute time constraints. We may go past that time. Familial capital. More than often it relates to networking. It’s more than just social capital. It has to do with valuing and investing in another person and
recognizing and understanding that that investment will be two‑way, and not being disconnected
from that person, however having a close bond. And understanding that the
fate of the other person is the fate of the
person investing in them. And cherishing that investment. And understanding that
interpreting is not, would not exist without a community, but we should also know
who we’re investing in. Often in the profession we feel that we have become a professional and there is a division
between us and those we serve. And a Eurocentric, ethnocentric approach that we become removed from
the work that we’re doing. And we develop ethics by which we work. To make sure that we keep our separation and boundaries
between us and others. But our ethics should
be developed to keep us close and close-knit with
those that we work with. The ethnocentric theory is not really beneficial to those of us that are not privileged by
society or by the system. So then what do we do? This familial capital
is to invest in those, how we behave, how we respond, how we train people to support
those in the situation. This is turning the current
theory completely on its head. Often interpreters will
see a situation happen and they feel it’s really not
my problem, I’m not involved. Is that true? Maybe as a profession, we may feel stuck and that perpetuates the
community’s current situation. We should elevate the
community through our work. Moving onto the next slide. Navigational capital, this is how we design spaces. Not just physical spaces, but
also our social interactions, theoretical space, whatever it may be, structural space. Marginalization is designed
for people who have privilege. Marginalized people are
those who are not privileged, hence, space is not created for them. As a community they experience oppression. It’s not that we don’t know
how to navigate through. We do and we’re quite good at it. Studies show that many
communities are similar. But one specific study
shows that Black women who have daughters, mothers
who have Black daughters are very good at being able
to reinforce to their children that they are beautiful
and smart and capable. And they are teaching their
children how to resist. And we’re going to talk about that next. But these overlap. And teaching how to resist
teaches the children how to navigate space in the dominant culture. Carla Garcia Fernandez, she has a lot of related
examples for this. Carla mentions in her work, her experience growing up. She thought that being
included in a Deaf space could also be a Latina’s space. Then moving over in Latinx space. She felt that she could represent
or identify as a Latina, but not as a Deaf person. So it’s our responsibility when we look at Deaf space to also include all the other spaces and
create an opportunity for navigation through that space. We have to make sure that we fit the needs of the other communities to
create successful navigation and other ways of navigating through community experience and knowledge as we develop these ways
to navigate through space. People often think there is one way, (mumbles) but is that true? There’s just one way? Of course there’s many ways. You have to interact with
them and their experience. And for example, men solve
problems differently than women. As women, we need to learn to multitask. We have learned to multitask. We can do many things, because
women have their experience and knowledge of the many things that they take responsibility for. And men in our society often
do things systematically, one at a time, compartmentalized. And that’s beneficial to
them, it creates privilege. How do men identify as cisgender. There’s also a continuum, and that’s something that we
should include in our teaching. But this isn’t something
that everyone knows about. Women have to navigate, they have to learn how to multitask. And perhaps we could apply
that and teach that to others. It’s an important skill
to know how to multitask. It’s very important, and interpreters have to do this every day. Have to do the many things
that interpreters do and the tasks that they do. Next slide. Speaking of aspirational capital. How do we behave in a way
that shows that we support the dreams of another person? Or do we behave in a
way that tears them down and diminishes their dreams? A simple example again but
going back to team interpreting. This is a practice that
I’ve noticed all over, not just in any one local area. But of course there is
that interpreter who is referred to as being the on interpreter. But the interpreter who is quote “off,” what kind of activities
are they participating in? Are they texting, are they on their phone? What message does that send? Does that show that they’re
supporting the aspirations and motivations and the goals of those that they’re working with. It’s a very simple behavior. But it may have been
something that occurred once in a situation, but
actually when it’s cumulative, it creates a pattern. And the view is that the
opinion of that interpreter is not supportive of the
aspirations of the people involved in the situation. And how can we create a
situation that supports aspirations in our behavior? We need to discuss how we
support through behavior and how we’re not
supportive through behavior. And the behavior that isn’t
supportive needs to be stopped. And moving onto systems capital. I’ve already explained the Black
mother with Black daughters and how they teach resistance
to their daughters. In the Deaf community we teach resistance. In the Latino community
they also teach resistance. Resistance comes in a
variety of forms, though. It’s not one specific way and each community
understands the resistance. But we teach interpreters
is to be neutral. So going back to interpreters, there would be no interpreters
without Deaf people. So this means Deaf Black
people, Deaf Queer people, interpreters must allow the communities, the variety of communities
to educate them. We’ve already progressed
with that identity, that they haven’t included communities. We’ve already discussed this in academia. They do have many important things that are of value in academia, however, they are not necessarily
rooted in the community. And that there’s not
just one way to resist. The variety of communities’
ways of resisting needs to be included in academia. And how can we be neutral as interpreters, and expect to connect with
the people and understand? To be able to interpret their message? Text and discourse relates to the world, plus understanding the why. So as we compile all these capitals, this will help us understand the why. And also help us to
stretch and become better in our interpreting field, better people, and also elevate the community. Our community as a whole
and a variety of communities will be elevated as we get to the why. And in summary, where did we start? So this is adopted from
a book, a very thin book, Social Justice Meter was the author. There are four simple points. So I thought I would include
it to share with you today. First is awareness, then authenticity, then acuity and agency. This helps us understand
how we progress from here. Awareness. So I have to understand
myself as privilege, where I have privilege,
the community experiences at the communities that I work in. US history, the structure of academia. So that is awareness. And it’s critically important
that we understand that. Also, it must be authentic. Of course we understand the communities. But the connection with people. You can’t have
authenticity without awareness ’cause one must know
oneself in order to engage in authentic communications. Now when we look at the
presidential election, again the East Coast and the West Coast, we might say that a lot
of awareness is missing and therefore it doesn’t look authentic. When we say we will work
with all of these communities and when we hear that, it
doesn’t feel authentic, why? Because it doesn’t feel
as though the awareness is coming from the text of that person. But when you have awareness
and you’re striving for authentic connections with
people and looking to understand their positionality as well as your own, what that leads to is
an increased awareness of understanding, increased acuity in what theoretical constructs need to change, how they need to change. We haven’t yet arrived at
that particular point yet. Certainly not in academia. I think we’re back at
number one at this stage and we need some work on that first. But again, it’s looking
at how we incorporate community epistemology, how
we look at being authentic, and how that leads to
acuity in application. Once we have those engaged,
it leads to a sense of agency. The ability to know oneself
and to teach other people, other communities, how to
engage in the same practice. So we look at coming from
a position of understanding in order to affect change. And it’s not just Deaf communities. Again, this is applicable
to all communities. I do want to emphasize that. Anzaldua was a scholar who wrote a variety of topics including Borderlands la Frontera and in that particular
article she defined several really important points including the idea of decolonizing ourselves, decolonizing academia, decolonizing as it extends
to our field of practice, the field of interpretation and the field of interpreter training. That concept of decolonization
emanated from her work. We also need to look at de-academizing. And by that I mean the
concept of bringing in all of these communities and points of reference into academia. Building the body of knowledge and the theoretical constructs we have and using it to analyze. We can’t do that as a one‑way street and simply look at these communities through one particular frame of reference, it has to be done through
that multi-communal epistemological view. So I leave you with all those
thoughts to contemplate, and I hope that these can be incorporated into your everyday life,
your everyday practice, as interpreter educators, as
students, as practitioners, that we can start with
this analysis of self, lead it out to how we
look and listen to members of other communities, get all of us as equal
participants in this space in creative, co-creative,
collaborative ways. Thank you all very much! And Steven Collins is
going to be the respondent. There is an awful lot
more that I want to share, and I’m sure that you can sense that I really would like to be able to share it, but I don’t have the opportunity here. But again, if you’d like to
come up and ask questions after Dr. Collins
responds, please feel free. [Interpreter] Dr. Collins speaking. Yes, can you see me okay? First, a round of applause, an absolutely fantastic job. Very inspiring, wouldn’t you agree? Very impactful. I could mention so many
things that would be impactful in our field in our academics and also with the work that we do. Just absolutely incredible. I know that everyone is excited
to ask a lot of questions. [Interpreter] I hope you
are, I welcome your questions. [Interpreter] But just
first, related to VRS, video relay interpreting. I know that there’s a
wide variety available and signing styles. Interpreters come from all over, so then how do we incorporate this with VRS and video relay interpreting? [Interpreter] I think as
interpreting practitioners, if we’re not including the opportunity to engage the community
in the first place, we’re missing opportunities
to reflect our practice. So let’s look first, though,
at language teaching. When we look at interpreters,
they may come in via formal language studies or they may come in via the community and learn language that way. So there are Deaf interpreters and hearing interpreters of course, but when we look at language
teachers, by and large that’s the hearing students. It’s not always. There are some Deaf
students there, as well. Here’s to a different day when
we’re actually being taught by native users, but at this stage that’s not necessarily the case. So what is it that students in language learning courses are learning? The foundations of how
they’re approaching this? Are they being exposed to
and welcomed into ideas of looking at multiple communities and multiple epistomologies? Are they learning to be
malleable and adapt to and incorporate all of these
different positionalities? Are they being encouraged to go out into the world with that aspect? I think that we’re not sufficiently. There are specific types of communities that I think are emphasized
in language learning when we look at ASL, for example. And perhaps it’s because we think we can’t find representation
of these other models. But language is included
even in that comment on the language political structure. So when you look at this sense, I would say when we think
about K‑12 in a school system, how we discuss, how we
dialogue, how we incorporate various parts of knowledge in society from those very young ages up. I know that we’re not yet ready to solve the world’s problems. I’m well aware of that. But if we start with those youngsters, we start with ASL
instructors in the field, look at those who are in Deaf
Studies and incorporate them, and then bring that into
VRS more consciously, I think we would be better prepared. At this stage, however, I think that we expect people to jump into
VRS sight unseen and go along, without really having any
recognition of the plurality of communities that are
not yet being overtly brought to bear in our work. I think also it’s important
that we recognize our own level of self‑awareness
and our positionality. Not say, oh, I can work in that community, whether it’s different to mine or not. Can we really? We need to ask ourselves these questions in a very intimate reflective way in order to effectively
work with the community. And at what level? So if I have one Deaf
Latinx friend, really, does that make me an expert?
(audience laughing) If I have three Latinx friends. What does that mean? What’s my engagement within
that community look like? So I think we need to be able to accept that kind of critique
and look at and ensure that we are recognizing those communities and how they impact our boundaries, self‑imposed, and
societally-constructed boundaries. So I don’t have an easy answer for you, obviously, Dr. Collins. [Interpreter] Dr. Collins. I don’t expect an easy
solution for all this. Just something for us to think through. Oh, yes, another one that I came up with, just something I want to put out there. Latinx, is there a Deafx? [Interpreter] So let me
back up to why we have the x to start with. Originally when we’re looking
at the Spanish language, how it’s written, it has gendered nouns. So the ending of particular words denotes the gender of that. So Latino is male, Latina
is female gendered. But that is only recognizing a binary gender differentiation. Sex and gender obviously are not the same. So when we look at someone
who is born a female, we call them cisgendered females, but that’s not enough either. That’s not how our communities
are really established, it’s not how we live our lives. But it’s more of a hmm, dominant, hetero, patriarchal view of how we look at the
spectrum because we see it in those respects as binary. So if we focus only on binary, we are looking at only
the male and female, and ignoring the multiplicities that exist within those two ends of the spectrum. And that’s defined as male and female only and is conflating sex and gender. But when we look at our real lives, we look how can we partner
with our colleagues. And how can we do that
effectively if we’re not recognizing the multiplicity
within that spectrum, instead of the binary? So within that community,
the idea of Latinx came up. So Deaf in and of itself
as word is gender neutral. So it doesn’t need the x suffix. But it would be an
interesting contemplation, and I’d say that again
because the word itself is already gender neutral. But I will say that it is
a predominantly white term. And I certainly could
argue that because of how the community construction
exists and social construction that the word Deaf has
been implicated in that. So it warrants further discussion. Thank you, Steven. [Interpreter] Dr.
Collins, thank you so much. I have one more related to DeafBlind. You mentioned the BASL. That really impacted me because
we’ve also discussed TASL, tactile sign language
and being protactile, so this is a new label
for the community, PTASL. A variety of different
changes that have taken place, also connecting that with the perspective we’ve discussed here. [Interpreter] There is
a field of linguistics that is trying to look at
whether language is separate and whether differences
are language or dialect. And determining whether any
two languages are actually two separate entities or whether
they are simply dialects. So when we look at how
we measure or define those concepts of a
particular language to see whether they are separate or connected, we have to recognize the
pervasive power and history that already exists within how those languages are described. So I think that it’s important
that we have a discussion that doesn’t say “Well
it’s obviously moot,” but that instead says,
“Are we understanding “the same language or are
we looking at dialect? “Are we looking at the same
language, and how do we know?” The measurement is often gauged
by our mutual understanding or our mutual intelligibility of the concept that we’re measuring. So if we have a high percentage
of mutual intelligibility, we would say it’s probably a dialect. Some words here and
there that are different, but by and large, we’re understanding one another quite easily, dialect. If we don’t have a high percentage of mutual intelligibility,
then we’re more inclined to say there’s two different languages. So that’s one way to measure them. I think it’s also really
important to look at the terms themselves and how they’re used. Are we using them? So when we look at the idea
of ASL, is it standard? Or do we often have these
prefixes that we attach? Maybe these prefixes represent a dialect. But how do we recognize the power imbalance implicit in our thinking when we go towards analyzing things like Black ASL and its value. Maybe putting Black ASL as
a prefix is appropriate, but maybe that instead
reflects our constructed view of what we consider Black ASL. And say well, this ASL piece is there but it’s not really what this looks like. Your language is different from ours. I mean goodness! Look at that way of thinking. It really ought to go. If we can present and
frame it in a discussion, in a different way I think
it’s more productive. And so my argument with
Black ASL isn’t necessarily that we leave the term there, rather that we need to have
an open discussion about it. Linguistic theories are important to have in terms of foundations of our discussion, but they don’t exist without
the community of reference. So I think that the discussion
really has to happen in a more conscious way
and find out what we, how our nomenclature needs
to adapt accordingly. The communities need to be incorporated into both our theory and our practice. – [Translator] Alright, Dr.
Collins, thank you so much. Now it’s time to move to
questions from the audience. Dr. Keith Cagle is coming
to the front for a question. [Interpreter] Dr. Cagle. I really appreciate the
framework that you offered in this question and how
important it is for us to recognize as interpreters,
practitioners, and instructors the diversity that exists
within our communities at large and how we can incorporate that. And as you referenced, the president-elect has made fun of people with disabilities, has oppressed minority
groups in a very overt conscious fashion, and as we
look to the next four years I wonder what advice you might have for us as teachers and leaders in terms of what we say to our students. How do we guide them
through the next four years? Dr. Fleischer. What a great question! I would flip it ever so
slightly, though, to say what would our communities say. ‘Cause I’m not sure looking
to unilateral decision. I think instead we need to engage with and partner with our
communities consciously. Look at the Queer community and find out what they want to do in
terms of resistance to this. How they believe it’s best accomplished. Look at the Black community. Look at the Black Queer
community and all of those other subgroups within our Deaf world. If we can look at incorporating
all of those views into what we do and how we think, then I am then responsible for my behavior and I am accountable to it. When we look at politics and politicians, I think it’s often hard
for us as individuals to believe we can affect change. But again, we need to
come back to understanding how that person got put
in place as it stands. Obviously we didn’t have enough discussion in the lead-up. I mean, he sexually assaulted
women, that’s been dismissed. He’s said horrible, heinous
things, that’s been dismissed. So, where is our sense of
accountability as communities? And I’m saying yes, on one
hand the concept of forgiveness and love certainly exists, but we have to look at what
have we done in the past that has enabled this
eventuality to be the reality of our president-elect. Those conversations and
community accountability have to happen for all of us. It has to happen in terms
of social constructs, in terms of institutions. We need to be talking about
what got us to this point. We also need to start saying okay to these other communities,
how do you want this addressed, and find ways to
collaborate and cooperate. We can’t just follow one idea. We have to look at a
multiplicity of ideas and views that exist and really
push against and resist the current system with which we’re faced. And honestly, I hope
that it’s not the case, but I think the president-elect
is in a big position to hurt many of our communities. As I said, I hope that’s not the case. [Interpreter] Dr. Collins speaking now. Does anyone else have a question? Any other questions from the audience? Dr. Shaw coming to the front now. Take your time coming to the stage. For those of you who would
like to ask questions, go ahead and line up. Dr. Shaw speaking now, oh,
really a wonderful presentation. Perfectly timed, too. Connecting with Dr. Cagle’s
conversation especially on campus this week,
what’s really struck me was white supremacy and
for so long people thought things were getting better. And now we’ve been basically
smacked in the face realizing that this is
something that’s developing in our own lives. And we talk a lot about that with the interpreting department. How do we include that type of practice for our new interpreters? And part of that, how do we facilitate this
work of their own identity? How do we pass that on to the interpreters to be able to provide access
without being oppressive? Also, we are required to include
social justice in our work. And what does it look
like, how do we do it? Part of it is exposure to
diverse types of language. Also then cultural experience,
understanding my own upbringing, and the oppression
that maybe I have experienced myself and how other communities
experienced oppression. But do you have suggestions of what to do and how to proceed for
the next generation? [Interpreter] Thanks for that. I think as Anzaldua said
we need to make sure that this is articulated consciously. When we look at the power, it must be handed back to the people in those varying communities. And we need to talk about
how we can more effectively teach interpreters of the next generation by pulling on the capital
wealth of these communities as much as possible and start immediately. So if you’re teaching a class, ask the people in that
class how it’s going. Don’t put them on the spot. That’s quite a different concept. Rather invite them into the conversation. Invite their perspective. Open the door for that. It’s a temporary step
in, if you will, for now. But in the long term, when you look at your
students and your faculty, what do they look like? Is your faculty diverse? Is your student population diverse? Does your faculty experience reflect that of your student body? If you can ensure that you
are reflecting diversity in the population with your faculty, then their cultural
knowledge, their experience will reflect that of what
the students are seeing. And I believe that that
can have a huge impact. When we come to the
concept of social justice, we often see that this stage
is a separate training. And I think that’s why
we’re often a little uncertain about how to build in time for a social justice conversation. But social justice says the
investment has to be there from the get go, it has to be
infused within the curriculum, all the curricular elements. We need to look at what the
curriculum is at the moment and how to change it so that it utterly and thoroughly incorporates
social justice. I wish I had a better answer. The reason I think that I don’t is because we really haven’t started
those conversations. We barely have our toes in the water. And the president-elect
hasn’t yet started. We understand that sexism
and racism and heterosexism and xenophobia and xenophobic tendencies that we’ve seen exhibited in that person, but the term in office hasn’t even started and yet all of this is already seen. So we need to be looking at
all these forms of oppression, at all of them, before we
can, I believe, make positive, effective change that
will truly, truly improve our experience on this earth. If we don’t do that and
we’re not open to that, we will continue beating
our heads against this wall. [Interpreter] Dr. Collins, we have time for one more question. This will be our final question. We have questions coming
from the audience. We’re thrilled about your topic. We’re glad you’re here. I have a long list of questions. I’m just trying to figure out
how to condense it into one. I do apologize I wasn’t here
for most of the presentation. I was working at an interpreting
assignment here on campus. I had to run to that and
then came back as quickly as I could but really
wonderful information and a lot to consider. So, yes, wonderful. The practical numbers are sad, it’s quite sad. In 2015, the number of people of color that were certified was significantly low. Most certified interpreters
are white and certified. When we’re talking about
faculty being able to match the student body, I’m
not thinking about that. Increasing the number
of interpreters of color and so forth and so on. And also being able to match the number in the populations of those that we serve. I have so many questions. I don’t really want to stop there, but this is what I am
suggesting as my question. [Interpreter] Thanks, Candace. Have any of you ever
watched Street Leverage? If you have, there is one
particular presentation by Erica West Oyedele. It is an outstanding presentation. She argues, in sum, that
the practices that the field has thus entertained
does not discuss racism, does not centralize that experience. And therefore how do you
expect people of color to feel welcome in the field? How can you possibly expect it? So starting with that statement
and looking at that space, we therefore need to create that space. Yes, it will take time to build. But we need create that space and welcome those communities in. We can’t have them create their own space and say we need to work together. We need to create the space in order for that collaboration to happen. We also need to seriously
analyze the K‑12 environment. I say K‑12 for a
particular set of reasons. There are some interesting
studies by some colleagues at CSUN that look at the idea of interpreters of color, particularly meaning Black interpreters, and the fact that they are just
a small number in the field. So in theory, are we consciously
dismissing that group? It’s entirely possible. But I want to emphasize
99.99999% of people are well intentioned. I’m not sure how our president-elect fits. He could be the .0001%
instead, we shall see. But I will again simply say most of us, I believe, are good people. Our intentions are good. However, that’s typically limited to our own ethnocentric approaches and those colonialized
practices from the white, patriarchal society in which we live that we have internalized. So when we look at ASL
teachers, as an example. And they say, “Ooh, I look
the same and feel the same “as this person, I can share my experience “with this student. “Oh, but I don’t have
any cultural reference “for working with this student, “and therefore I’ll retract
my support, my consideration, “my regard, and my connection.” We know what goes on because we’re not centralizing
race, and gender, class. We’re not centralizing those, and yet they are central
to our experience. We need to examine that. If you look, for example,
at class and how it intersects with race, typically white people in society, some of them
may live in poverty. But when you look at the intersection, the highest percentages of
people who live in poverty are people of color, not white people. It’s people of color. So when we look at what that means and we go through the K‑12
educational system now, we have the greatest
sense of disparity ever. 90% of children of color go to school with other children of color. We are segregating them. If you look at poorer communities, and again I’m not saying
it’s anything related to what that community has done. It’s related to the societal
constructs within which we live that have resulted in this. But when you have this, and
you have children in K‑12 settings in poor communities, they don’t have money for instruction. They don’t have money for ASL classes. They may not have money
for sports programs. They may not have time or
money for some of the academic and extracurricular clubs. All of that gets subtracted
from that child’s educational experience. Probably the program they do
have is free and reduced lunch. But then you compare that with a school, typically a white school
in a wealthy area, they have money that they can invest in all manner of things. Rarely in the free and
reduced lunch programs ’cause it’s not needed there, therefore they can invest
this money in other aspects. They’re getting contributions from their parent teacher associations,
from their local communities. They’re raising $2 million overnight from some fundraising event. Because of their privilege
and their privileged network. All of that means that there
are many people of color coming from high school
that have never been through an ASL program, never been
through a language program. So when they get to an IEP
and they’re being screened, who typically is the ASL instructor? Or who typically is
filtered into the course? The white students. Because they’re readier. They’re more prepared for interpreting. But something is very
wrong with that picture. So those of us who are
willing to take accountability need to look out and look down to where we can change the pipeline and the demographics of the pipeline. We need to change what
it currently funnels, so that we can see more people of color coming to our future generations of interpreting practitioners. There are a myriad examples
and reasons I can give you. There are myriad
implications, myriad issues that impact this. But that said, I do think
there is that larger issue and that is people of color just don’t feel like they belong. They don’t feel as if they are welcomed. And we absolutely need to stop that. We all belong. All of us. A couple of audience members are saying they feel
the same way, thank you. [Interpreter] Dr. Collins speaking. Many thanks to you. I will now give the floor
to Dr. Brenda Nicodemus for our closing comments. Dr. Nicodemus speaking. Thank you so very much. I apologize that we had to interrupt you. (mumbling) We’ve both experienced. We’re scheduled to have you
do a presentation this summer, but this was really the
perfect time for you to come and we’ll have to
continue this discussion. I hope that we can
continue this discussion as we go over to the cafeteria. And we can speak more with Dr.
Fleischer but before we go, I wanted to give you many thanks and thank all of those who came today, for keeping an open
mind and an open heart. I also wanted to give you a token of our appreciation. [Interpreter] Dr. Fleischer. Honestly thank you for the
privilege of the invitation to come here and speak before you all. Very much appreciated. [Interpreter] Dr. Nicodemus speaking. Lastly, we would also
like to provide a reminder this is our second
colloquial in the series. We have a third one
coming up, February 10th. It’s a Friday again, it
will be at 10 o’clock. We have our own Dr. Emily Shaw speaking and she will be discussing gesture in multi‑party interactions. So please if you would
come and continue learning, and thank you again. Have a wonderful day!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *