Powered by iPetitions - Start your online petition now

Signatures 229 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 › »

  1. 151
    Name: Vicky Rodr on Dec 11, 2004
    State:
    Country: PR
    Comments:
    Flag
  2. 152
    Name: Gilberto Garc on Dec 11, 2004
    State:
    Country: PR
    Comments:
    Flag
  3. 153
    Name: Alysse Rasmussen on Dec 11, 2004
    State: FL
    Country: US
    Comments: I understand the financial considerations. They could prove to be considerable. I understand the concern for a precident that might allow for other linguistic minorities to also request (or be denied membership to RID) because of the potential expense involved (i.e. we might deny Canada for fear of the need to accomodate French). But there are 3 very strong reasons for repealing this prejudicial ruling. 1st: PR-RID has member status and thus should have full access to communication. 2nd: even if PR-RID did not have member status, efforts to accomodate the needs of individuals with a sincere interest in interpreting but with limited access to professional development should be of paramount value to an organization that supports quality communication and respect for diversity. 3rd: it is simply the right thing to do. What kind of message are we sending if we say "your money's good, but we really don't want to accomodate you cause it will cost us". How can we look at a doctor or a lawyer or a businessman and advocate for EXTERNAL Deaf interests when we won't advocate for INTERNAL Deaf interests. Besides, if we don't encourage bi-lingual Spanish-ASL interprters what would make the Deaf think that we would continue to encourage CDI's
    Flag
  4. 154
    Name: Bram Weiser on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  5. 155
    Name: Marina McIntire on Dec 12, 2004
    State: OR
    Country: US
    Comments: This is positively shocking! I appreciate the PRRID chapter informing us about this (non-)development. How can we behave in such an exclusive manner when we expect and demand the general population to understand the need for interpreters for Deaf people The law aside, this behavior is discriminatory and unworthy of us as a profession. I'm ashamed of this decision on the part of our Board.
    Flag
  6. 156
    Name: Gilberto Garcia on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  7. 157
    Name: Idalmis Nazario on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  8. 158
    Name: Karen Pacheco on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  9. 159
    Name: Mary Darragh MacLean on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  10. 160
    Name: Nancy Sullivan on Dec 12, 2004
    State: NJ
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  11. 161
    Name: Wendy Watson on Dec 12, 2004
    State: MA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  12. 162
    Name: Lynn Hou on Dec 12, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  13. 163
    Name: Sherry Hicks on Dec 12, 2004
    State: MD
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  14. 164
    Name: Sarah Rauber on Dec 13, 2004
    State: MD
    Country: US
    Comments: I think it's ironic that the number of partcicipants would even be considered pertinant (as an ASL interpreter, how many times have I had to explain to a company that it doesn't matter if there are 50 Deaf participants, or only one; the need for ASL interpreting would still be great).
    Flag
  15. 165
    Name: Tom Makko on Dec 13, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  16. 166
    Name: Christina Trunzo-Mosleh on Dec 13, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  17. 167
    Name: Amada McKay on Dec 13, 2004
    State: TX
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  18. 168
    Name: Gerardo Castillo on Dec 13, 2004
    State: DC
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  19. 169
    Name: Antoinette Pineau on Dec 13, 2004
    State: CA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  20. 170
    Name: Melva Rodriguez on Dec 13, 2004
    State: IL
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  21. 171
    Name: Tanya Thomas on Dec 13, 2004
    State: MD
    Country: US
    Comments: With the 2005 Conference being held in San Antonio, which itself has a large Latino population and therefore makes use of trilingual interpreters more than most states, I am shocked to think that this "access" would not be provided. Is this not what our whole organization is about
    Flag
  22. 172
    Name: Audrey Cooper on Dec 13, 2004
    State: DC
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  23. 173
    Name: Susanne Morgan on Dec 13, 2004
    State: NY
    Country: US
    Comments: Equal access for all participants, no matter the number.
    Flag
  24. 174
    Name: Dana Yohner on Dec 13, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  25. 175
    Name: Jeffrey Jaech on Dec 13, 2004
    State: NY
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  26. 176
    Name: Betty Colonomos on Dec 13, 2004
    State: MD
    Country: US
    Comments: This policy is counterproductive to our attempts to reach out to minorities and non-English speaking colleagues and consumers. It is a disgrace!
    Flag
  27. 177
    Name: Jeanie Salyer on Dec 13, 2004
    State: CA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  28. 178
    Name: Alicia Rondeau on Dec 13, 2004
    State: MI
    Country: US
    Comments: I worked a cruise this year with 5 Puerto Rican interpreters who were desperately in need of training/mentoring opportunities in Spanish. They haven't come to the RID conferences because there's no Spanish interpretation provided. They feel alienated and far behind the U.S. interpreters.
    Flag
  29. 179
    Name: Marilyn Pimentel on Dec 13, 2004
    State:
    Country: PR
    Comments: We need the spanish interpreters in the RID's conference. (latin people support RID why not RID support latin people
    Flag
  30. 180
    Name: Patricia Dash on Dec 13, 2004
    State: NY
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  31. 181
    Name: Debbie Sicard on Dec 13, 2004
    State:
    Country: PR
    Comments: yes i would like the conference in spanish.
    Flag
  32. 182
    Name: Jason Hurdich on Dec 14, 2004
    State: KY
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  33. 183
    Name: Amber Fox-Young on Dec 14, 2004
    State: KY
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  34. 184
    Name: Rhoda Perez on Dec 14, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments: Count me in to help!
    Flag
  35. 185
    Name: Ruth Lehrer on Dec 14, 2004
    State: MA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  36. 186
    Name: Lisa Schaefermeyer on Dec 15, 2004
    State: FL
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  37. 187
    Name: Rachel Payne on Dec 15, 2004
    State: KY
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  38. 188
    Name: Cheryl Willis on Dec 15, 2004
    State: AL
    Country: US
    Comments: This RID requirement is uncalled for. Let's not reqress.
    Flag
  39. 189
    Name: Robert Loeffler on Dec 15, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  40. 190
    Name: Richard Hall on Dec 15, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments: The decision to limit access for our Spanish speaking colleagues lacks forethought and compassion. Please reconsider this decision.
    Flag
  41. 191
    Name: Sharin Nakayama on Dec 15, 2004
    State: CA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  42. 192
    Name: Jonathan Hopkins on Dec 15, 2004
    State:
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  43. 193
    Name: Lauren Hurdich on Dec 15, 2004
    State: KY
    Country:
    Comments:
    Flag
  44. 194
    Name: Rafael Guzman on Dec 15, 2004
    State: MD
    Country: US
    Comments: I support Spanish interpreting services for latinos
    Flag
  45. 195
    Name: Kalen Beck on Dec 16, 2004
    State: VA
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  46. 196
    Name: Maria Emma on Dec 16, 2004
    State: MA
    Country: US
    Comments: There are spanish deafs/hearings who need interpreting services for their loved ones. It's really worth it.
    Flag
  47. 197
    Name: LeWana Clark on Dec 16, 2004
    State: CO
    Country: US
    Comments: If we stand for access, we should practice what we preach.
    Flag
  48. 198
    Name: Maria Fernandez on Dec 16, 2004
    State: FL
    Country: US
    Comments:
    Flag
  49. 199
    Name: Sheila Brager-Hall on Dec 16, 2004
    State: CA
    Country: US
    Comments: If we advocate that interpreting be provided to Deaf clients and members, we cannot in good conscience discriminate against our Spanish speaking members.
    Flag
  50. 200
    Name: Patty Gordon on Dec 16, 2004
    State: MN
    Country: US
    Comments: Imagine how this would look if you talked about the historically low numbers of Deaf members in attendance in the same way - what a mistake this policy is!
    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 › »

Sign Petition Now!

Sponsored links