Once I graduated from RIT in 2011, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do career wise. As you know I majored in criminal justice. I focused on corrections/policing until I found passion with court/law in the last year of college. I was considering to go to law school. I wasn't prepared to commit to another 3 years of school, so I decided to take the time to make sure it was what I wanted. I knew I had the passion for the criminal justice field so I just had to narrow it down.
I moved to Groton, CT after my graduation, reuniting with my boyfriend who had moved there for his job the previous year. I started applying to jobs in the area which I ran across Transportation Security Officer (TSO) position with T.F. Green airport in Providence, R.I. which I applied to in March 2012. This became the ultimate dream job because with my love for airplanes and security combined in one, I thought it would be the perfect job. I also loved the airport environment every time I traveled. I was invited to take the x-ray exam (identifying items in x-ray monitor images) and I drove to East Smithfield, R.I. to take the exam. I was a nervewreck not knowing what to expect, but I passed it with flying colors as I got the e-mail the very next day.
I was excited for the next step which was waiting for a call from the airport to come in for airport assessment (interview, color vision test, paperwork). A position finally opened up in August 2012 while I was employed at American School for the Deaf. I called back immediately and left three voice mails in a week period. I even tried to call to get a person on the line, but no luck. A month later, they stated that they never got any of my messages and that the position had been filled.
I didn't want to give up so I continued the search for Transportation Security Officer positions which a few opened up at Tweed in New Haven, CT and Bradley in Hartford, CT. Unfortunately I never got any calls. In April 2014, another position opened up at T.F. Green in Providence, R.I. so I applied again. The first test I had taken was only good for certain time so I had to take the test again which I passed the second time. A week later I got the call for airport assessment. I was thrilled to finally get this far.
The woman on the phone recognized that I was deaf from using the relay on the phone so she requested that I put in a formal request with Transportation Security Administration headquarters. I had a week to put in the request and have it approved in order to be able to participate in the assessment. It was a VERY stressful week of calling the headquarters every day and getting the paperwork faxed to them immediately.
The headquarters finally sent me a letter on the last day of the window to schedule the assessment. The letter had been sent to me via Fed Ex overnight. I also got an e-mail from the director of accessibility services. Both letters had REJECTED the approval to have an interpreter at the assessment. It SHATTERED my confidence for the assessment. The letter stated that TSA had a hearing level that I had to pass in order to be able to do the job. How did they know my hearing level? I didn't even the chance to take the hearing test part of the physical exam which would have came down the road. I was very disappointed and hurt because I had high hopes of being a TSO and felt very confident that I could do the job despite my disability.
I contacted the state lawyer who worked for Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities to see if TSA had the grounds to deny me the right of having an interpreter. The lawyers looked into it immediately and came back to me saying that they did have that authority since it was federal based agency. The letters stated that even through the interpreter request was denied, I could still schedule the assessment without interpreter. I decided to do so with hopes of communicating verbally as much I could and resort to writing when necessary.
After scheduling the assessment, I got another e-mail from the director at the headquarters confirming my scheduled assessment and stated I was NOT able to bring paper/pen or alternative method in communicating. She also stated it would be group style interview with 3 supervisors/employees with 3 other candidates as well. My heart broke after reading this e-mail knowing I cannot do group style interview without any assistance in communicating. My confidence SANK even further to the Earth's core. I felt that it was their mission to make it IMPOSSIBLE for me. They were making everything difficult for me and continue to shatter my hope on getting the ultimate dream job.
I was shocked at how little the ADA law could help me in this situation. This needs to change, to allow accessibility to people with disability to be able to work for TSA. Deaf people are considered to be more visible than an average person since we have the loss of hearing we rely more on our vision. That skill would be very helpful for TSA as it is the primary job to inspect civilians/their luggage which requires vision more than anything else. I hope that someday TSA will be able to hire deaf people.
12.8.14
22.4.14
Technology for the Deaf
As all of you know, technology continues to be developed in today's society. That includes technology for the deaf to allow them the accessibility. Through out my life, I have experienced various of technology devices and still experiencing new technology to this day.
TV Captioning:
My first memory of technology to allow accessibility for the deaf people was the old fashion captioning box for TV. I was born in the 1980's so all televisions then didn't automatically have closed captions. I had this old fashion captioning box on top of my VCR player. If I wanted to watch TV/movies, I would have to turn it on every time to turn on the captioning on TV. I can't recall when I finally got rid of that box when all televisions had closed captions, but I would guess somewhere in early 90's.
Movie Captioning:
My first movie theater experience with captioning was in 2006 when I was 17 years old. I have gone to the movie theater few times before 2006, but during these times my mom would sit next to me and give me a summary of what's going on every 5 minutes. It was difficult because I had to turn my head to see her (in the dark!) then back to the screen, back and forth multiple times. It also attracted attention from other moviegoers sitting behind us. I didn't like going to movie theaters, so I rarely went there. When I moved to Rochester, I started going to the movies often. There were more captioning availability in the movie theaters in Rochester, but we still had to wait a week after movie release to see it with captions. The only expectation of waiting a week after movie release only happened with movies that had midnight premieres. In late 2012, captioning changed again in the movie theaters. They stopped having captions on the screen but instead giving out captioning glasses to deaf people. I experienced the captioning glasses for the first time in Hartford, CT. I absolutely HATED it. The glasses are uncomfortable because they were so big and I had to keep my head straight the entire movie to see the captions on the screen. Every time I moved my head to look at my friend, the captions would be on my friend's face. I am very disappointed that they don't do the captions on the screen anymore because I enjoyed that the most. It allowed the accessibility to movies and blend in the crowd without anyone knowing that I was deaf. The captioning glasses made me stand out in the crowd. Now, I only go to the movies when I am desperate to see the movie.
Videophone:
I received my first videophone during my high school years. The video phone came with a box with webcam attached, which I had to place on top of the TV. On the TV, there was two images side by side, which one was me and the other would be the caller I'm speaking to. In high school, I went to a week long camp at RIT where I met many deaf friends, whom I stayed in touch with by video phone. I would chat with them like a regular conversation we could carry as if we were in person. The video phone also had a relay with interpreters to call hearing people. The interpreter will dial the number and speak to them on the phone while they were signing to me via the web cam. The issue with any relay service is that they open the conversation stating their company and interpreter's registry number which confuses hearing people who haven't experience the relay. I have a funny story with my grandpa, who I tried to call while I was at college to get a ride home to surprise my family. My grandpa is old fashioned - he didn't have a computer or cell phone where I could easily get in touch with him. I called him via the relay at his work. He picked up the phone, which the interpreter opened the conversation with "Sprint Relay (and rest of information including the interpreter registry number). My grandpa thought it was telemarketer from Sprint trying to sell phones so he hung up. I called back one more time and he hung up again. I didn't know what to do then. Few hours later, I called back but told the interpreter to not open the conversation in that way but state that it is me calling using an interpreter. The interpreter also was able to explain the relay to him a bit so we were finally able to have a conversation to plan the surprise. He felt terrible about what he did, but this is the normal reaction for most hearing people who haven't experience the relay.
Dorm:
When I moved into my dorm room at RIT, I was overwhelmed with the technology in the room. I had a doorbell outside of the room which I had a strobe light to signal me if someone rang the doorbell. I also had two other signals in the room for carbon dioxide and fire alarm. The carbon dioxide alarm would flash a yellow light if it ever went off (which it never did for me). The doorbell and the fire alarm both were white which was tricky to detect which was what. I had to look at the plate color, which fire alarm obviously had red. The fire alarm went off multiple times during night through out my college years and it wasn't fun to stare (I was half asleep!) at the BRIGHT light flashing in my eyes trying to see if it was the fire alarm!
Classroom technology:
At RIT, I was in mostly mainstreamed classes with hearing professors and hearing students. The deaf students had the option of an interpreter or c-print system. I am familiar with interpreters from having them through out my childhood. The c-print system was new to me, they seemed to be common with hard of hearing or deaf people who didn't know much of sign language. They had a laptop propped in front of them and someone would be typing word by word of what was said in the classroom. I personally never requested the c-print system but I have sat next to deaf classmates who had it. I would glance over at the c-print computer when I could, it was interesting. I felt that even through it was typed word by word, there was still many things missed. Interpreters also leave out some information as well, so it's just what the student prefer. If a professor called on the student with c-print system, the student have to type back their answer on the computer (but some of them were able to verbally give their reply or they would use the interpreter). We also had the option to use note takers in classes which I had that in high school so I requested it again in college. Due to limitations of access service staff, if a c-print system is already requested in the class then their typing were my "notes". That was only thing that I disliked. The note takers takes notes the way professor writes out the notes on a board, and it is more structured and organized. The c-print notes is dialogue notes. It can be difficult to pick out specific note I'm looking for in c-print notes because on average it was 20 pages long while a regular note taker's notes were 2-5 pages.
Hospital:
Growing up, I never had to go to the hospital (lucky me!) for anything until the last two years. In the last two years, I had kidney stones, pink eyes, and a kidney stones-scare (thought I had them again). I went to L+M Hospital in New London, CT. I had an interpreter for my kidney stone ER visit. The second time I went to the ER, I had a kidney stones scare which I was experiencing the same signs as the kidney stones but some how I didn't have them (still don't know what was wrong). During that ER visit, I experienced internet video conference with an interpreter for the first time. There was a mobile computer on wheels which the doctor had a conference call with an interpreter. The interpreter interpret what the doctor said, which I had to look back and forth from the doctor to the computer monitor. I also couldn't see myself so I didn't know if my signing were visible for the interpreter to interpret. I also was laying in bed which was an awkward position for me to sign to someone since they were seeing me from a side angle. It was so frustrating that after couple times of using it, I didn't want to use it anymore and started talking verbally to the doctor myself. I prefer a real live interpreter to be present in the room which I will be making sure to have for any further visits I may have (hopefully not but being realistic!).
There are many more technology that I have experienced through out my life, but this summarized the main technology that I have used which helped me to have the accessibility. I look forward to trying out more and finding out what is best suitable for me.
*I'm not forgetting the cochlear implants, which is a well known technology. It is a controversial topic in the deaf community enough to be a single post which will be coming soon!
TV Captioning:
My first memory of technology to allow accessibility for the deaf people was the old fashion captioning box for TV. I was born in the 1980's so all televisions then didn't automatically have closed captions. I had this old fashion captioning box on top of my VCR player. If I wanted to watch TV/movies, I would have to turn it on every time to turn on the captioning on TV. I can't recall when I finally got rid of that box when all televisions had closed captions, but I would guess somewhere in early 90's.
Movie Captioning:
My first movie theater experience with captioning was in 2006 when I was 17 years old. I have gone to the movie theater few times before 2006, but during these times my mom would sit next to me and give me a summary of what's going on every 5 minutes. It was difficult because I had to turn my head to see her (in the dark!) then back to the screen, back and forth multiple times. It also attracted attention from other moviegoers sitting behind us. I didn't like going to movie theaters, so I rarely went there. When I moved to Rochester, I started going to the movies often. There were more captioning availability in the movie theaters in Rochester, but we still had to wait a week after movie release to see it with captions. The only expectation of waiting a week after movie release only happened with movies that had midnight premieres. In late 2012, captioning changed again in the movie theaters. They stopped having captions on the screen but instead giving out captioning glasses to deaf people. I experienced the captioning glasses for the first time in Hartford, CT. I absolutely HATED it. The glasses are uncomfortable because they were so big and I had to keep my head straight the entire movie to see the captions on the screen. Every time I moved my head to look at my friend, the captions would be on my friend's face. I am very disappointed that they don't do the captions on the screen anymore because I enjoyed that the most. It allowed the accessibility to movies and blend in the crowd without anyone knowing that I was deaf. The captioning glasses made me stand out in the crowd. Now, I only go to the movies when I am desperate to see the movie.
Videophone:
I received my first videophone during my high school years. The video phone came with a box with webcam attached, which I had to place on top of the TV. On the TV, there was two images side by side, which one was me and the other would be the caller I'm speaking to. In high school, I went to a week long camp at RIT where I met many deaf friends, whom I stayed in touch with by video phone. I would chat with them like a regular conversation we could carry as if we were in person. The video phone also had a relay with interpreters to call hearing people. The interpreter will dial the number and speak to them on the phone while they were signing to me via the web cam. The issue with any relay service is that they open the conversation stating their company and interpreter's registry number which confuses hearing people who haven't experience the relay. I have a funny story with my grandpa, who I tried to call while I was at college to get a ride home to surprise my family. My grandpa is old fashioned - he didn't have a computer or cell phone where I could easily get in touch with him. I called him via the relay at his work. He picked up the phone, which the interpreter opened the conversation with "Sprint Relay (and rest of information including the interpreter registry number). My grandpa thought it was telemarketer from Sprint trying to sell phones so he hung up. I called back one more time and he hung up again. I didn't know what to do then. Few hours later, I called back but told the interpreter to not open the conversation in that way but state that it is me calling using an interpreter. The interpreter also was able to explain the relay to him a bit so we were finally able to have a conversation to plan the surprise. He felt terrible about what he did, but this is the normal reaction for most hearing people who haven't experience the relay.
Dorm:
When I moved into my dorm room at RIT, I was overwhelmed with the technology in the room. I had a doorbell outside of the room which I had a strobe light to signal me if someone rang the doorbell. I also had two other signals in the room for carbon dioxide and fire alarm. The carbon dioxide alarm would flash a yellow light if it ever went off (which it never did for me). The doorbell and the fire alarm both were white which was tricky to detect which was what. I had to look at the plate color, which fire alarm obviously had red. The fire alarm went off multiple times during night through out my college years and it wasn't fun to stare (I was half asleep!) at the BRIGHT light flashing in my eyes trying to see if it was the fire alarm!
Classroom technology:
At RIT, I was in mostly mainstreamed classes with hearing professors and hearing students. The deaf students had the option of an interpreter or c-print system. I am familiar with interpreters from having them through out my childhood. The c-print system was new to me, they seemed to be common with hard of hearing or deaf people who didn't know much of sign language. They had a laptop propped in front of them and someone would be typing word by word of what was said in the classroom. I personally never requested the c-print system but I have sat next to deaf classmates who had it. I would glance over at the c-print computer when I could, it was interesting. I felt that even through it was typed word by word, there was still many things missed. Interpreters also leave out some information as well, so it's just what the student prefer. If a professor called on the student with c-print system, the student have to type back their answer on the computer (but some of them were able to verbally give their reply or they would use the interpreter). We also had the option to use note takers in classes which I had that in high school so I requested it again in college. Due to limitations of access service staff, if a c-print system is already requested in the class then their typing were my "notes". That was only thing that I disliked. The note takers takes notes the way professor writes out the notes on a board, and it is more structured and organized. The c-print notes is dialogue notes. It can be difficult to pick out specific note I'm looking for in c-print notes because on average it was 20 pages long while a regular note taker's notes were 2-5 pages.
Hospital:
Growing up, I never had to go to the hospital (lucky me!) for anything until the last two years. In the last two years, I had kidney stones, pink eyes, and a kidney stones-scare (thought I had them again). I went to L+M Hospital in New London, CT. I had an interpreter for my kidney stone ER visit. The second time I went to the ER, I had a kidney stones scare which I was experiencing the same signs as the kidney stones but some how I didn't have them (still don't know what was wrong). During that ER visit, I experienced internet video conference with an interpreter for the first time. There was a mobile computer on wheels which the doctor had a conference call with an interpreter. The interpreter interpret what the doctor said, which I had to look back and forth from the doctor to the computer monitor. I also couldn't see myself so I didn't know if my signing were visible for the interpreter to interpret. I also was laying in bed which was an awkward position for me to sign to someone since they were seeing me from a side angle. It was so frustrating that after couple times of using it, I didn't want to use it anymore and started talking verbally to the doctor myself. I prefer a real live interpreter to be present in the room which I will be making sure to have for any further visits I may have (hopefully not but being realistic!).
There are many more technology that I have experienced through out my life, but this summarized the main technology that I have used which helped me to have the accessibility. I look forward to trying out more and finding out what is best suitable for me.
*I'm not forgetting the cochlear implants, which is a well known technology. It is a controversial topic in the deaf community enough to be a single post which will be coming soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)