Review of Deej Q&A

Today’s review is a 2018 ReelAbilitites Film Festival New York’s Youtube video called Deej Q&A with David ‘DJ’ Savarese.

As with other YouTube video analyses, the observations here are meant as a criticism of the technique, Facilitated Communication (FC), and not a criticism of the individuals being subjected to it. The primary concern with FC is an over-reliance on facilitator cuing which (often inadvertently) causes the assistant to control the typed messages. No one doubts the facilitators’ sincerity, but FC cannot exist without their physical, verbal, and auditory cuing. It is a design flaw that has yet to be corrected by its proponents in the 30+ years FC has existed. This built-in facilitator control over the typing or writing activity precludes it from being considered an independent form of communication.

Additionally, FC is not “interpretation” and facilitators share no training protocols, national standards, or licensing guidelines with organizations such as the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.

DJ’s facilitator holds his wrist to press a single button to automate a pre-programmed (FCed?) message. Her eyes are focused on the keyboard. (ReelAbilities Film Festival, 2018)

The Q&A starts just as the credits of the movie “Deej” are rolling. The movie features David James Savarese (DJ), a minimally speaking person with autism, as he attends high school and as he transitions to Oberlin College. The film does not disclose that DJ was introduced to FC in 2001 by practitioners at the University of Northern Iowa. His parents are proponents and continue to subject DJ to it. Facilitators supported him through his classes. Despite the obvious question of who completed the FCed coursework, Oberlin allowed DJ to graduate two years after the filming of the movie was completed. (See Movies for reviews of “Deej” and other pro-FC films)

Unlike other videos I have reviewed, the audience plays a role in the events that follow. It is difficult to know how much audience members knew about FC going into the screening. I suspect at least some were believers given that a parent/questioner refers to using FC and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) with her son at the event itself. Curiously, the emcee avoids using the term FC and calls it “digital communication” instead. Some audience members may never have heard of FC and were drawn in by the feel-good story the movie represents. Still others may have doubted FC but wanted to see DJ facilitating in an unscripted setting before making up their minds. 

DJ’s facilitator uses a hand-over-hand technique to position his hand on the paper and form shapes. (ReelAbilities Film Festival, 2018)

Audience members are told at the start of the Q&A that “this is a welcoming environment,” that “anything goes,” and DJ should feel “as welcome as possible.” The host explains that DJ is more comfortable answering questions from his seat in the auditorium. On the surface, these words seem heartfelt. However, just moments later, as the FC session unravels quite visibly, I wonder if the unintended consequence of the admonition was that any doubters in the audience spotting facilitator cuing would remain silent for fear of being accused of not accepting people with disabilities—an untrue but oft repeated mantra by believers.

“The Emperor’s New Clothes” comes to mind. Who wants to be the lone person in a room (seemingly) full of believers saying they had concerns that the words being expressed did not belong to DJ? 

To me, watching the video with the benefit of slo-mo and rewind, there are a few troublesome moments both in terms of facilitator influence over the communication activities (e.g., typing, writing and verbally “interpreting”) and in how the facilitator and audience respond to DJ’s protestations when they arise.

Despite significant edits to the video, I observed the following:

•  DJ did not interact with the computer by himself. He was not allowed to. His facilitator held the keyboard in her lap and prevented him from interacting with it unless she was in control. She held his arm in classic FC style and blocked him from touching the keys with his other hand. It appeared he needed no assistance in isolating his finger(s) to point or in reaching toward the board independently. 

• DJ did not write by himself. The facilitator held the pencil in a hand-over-hand style in what appeared to be a substantial grip while they made shapes on the page.

• DJ did not select for himself which communication system(s) he preferred. The facilitator made the selections. At one point, she put the mechanical devices out of his reach, and directed him to “use his words.” She physically cued him by mouthing the words she wanted him to say. She held the microphone close to her own body and away from DJ when he was attempting to talk. At one point, she “interpreted” his responses while his mouth was closed and his attention was on searching for the paper and pencil, which he seemed to like to hold.

• DJ expressed his own wants and desires with vocalizations, gestures, and non-verbal behaviors but they were ignored by the facilitator on several occasions.

DJ gestures (by singling out fingers and raising his arm independently) that he does not want to be on stage. In subsequent frames, he pushes past the facilitator and walks in the direction he indicated. (ReelAbilities Film Festival, 2018)

This video is cringeworthy. There is visible cuing from the facilitator, calling into question authorship. DJ didn’t even seem to understand how to press the one button that would activate a pre-programmed (facilitated?) message. His facilitator held his arm to do that. Astonishingly, DJ didn’t always move his mouth or pay attention when his facilitator “interpreted” words for him. No interpreter for the deaf would be allowed to just fill in the blanks for their client. Worst of all, DJ’s authentic communications go ignored while audience members watch from the sidelines.

It bothers me that no one—not even his facilitator—advocated for DJ in that situation. 

Perhaps audience members were primed to believe in FC and its illusion but, surely, they witnessed DJ’s protestations and heard his screams of frustration. To me, these were not random outbursts or a result of his autism, but rather a meaningful response to commands by his facilitator to “use his words” and “sit down.” He was in control of his actions and did not want to do those things, so he let her—and everyone else—know only to be ignored. 

Every time I watch this video, I wonder what would have happened if a neurotypical person was being questioned instead of DJ. If that person said “no, no, no,” moved his body away from the microphone, jumped up and down and screamed in frustration, pointed his finger to a place off the stage, and pushed past the facilitator to get there, would everyone in the auditorium have ignored him then?