•	Why is it that in spaces that talk about the people who need this knowledge to liberate themselves they are excluded? Those who experience tons of incarceration as it is defined in the book were completely excluded from the event. Also, holy crap privileging those with academic backgrounds. How are those who identify as activists but don’t have the access to this discourse supposed to be able to utilize this knowledge or even fully participate in the event.
o	Intellectual or developmental disabilities
•	What is the role of disability studies in fighting back against the privileging of academic discourse as that discourse gets further and further away from being accessible. Where is the argument that we can be academic and accessible? We can maintain academic integrity and bring the level of discourse down to one that is accessible.
o	Disability studies for who?
o	Who actually owns and has a right to this knowledge?
o	What is actually the role of academia outside of the academic profit complex?
•	How do we take up the fact that ASL is not recognized as a legitimate language for academic discourse? How do we deal with the fact that ASL doesn’t have a register or the vocabulary to support this kind of discourse? There is an argument that as Deaf professionals move into higher levels of academia this kind of language and knowledge will begin to emerge. One of my big questions though is, is this appropriate? Should the Deaf community be forced to adapt to hearing discourses and ways of speaking to be considered legitimate? How does this level of discourse clash with Deaf cultural values of collective communication? Communication that requires people participating in the conversation to all fully understand everything that is being said. Conversations that are reciprocal and are not lecture style.
•	What are the structural barriers that keep Deaf people from being able to fully participate in academic events?
o	Interpreters
•	Qualified interpreters
•	Hearing people booking interpreters with little access to “community” held knowledge about interpreters (Ie. Who is making judgements about who is booked, with what knowledge, how is quality of interpreting being assessed?)
•	The opportunities available to interpreters to be steeped in this kind of discourse and language as well as thought exercises and approaches.
•	ASL often doesn’t have the capacity to express minute but significant differences between terms WHEN interpreters are struggling to stay on top of heavy academic jargon spoken quickly (When there is time for adequate expansions and interpreters are steeped in the topics and the language ASL as a language is fully capable of expressing these kinds of differences. It’s an access issue not the capability of the language itself)
•	Is that kind of academic jargon really accessible to anyone?
o	Cultural clashes between hearing and Deaf about how these kinds of events actually work.
•	What do differences in natural discourses for Deaf people and hearing people mean for Deaf people preparing dissertations or academic work in ASL?
•	How are open forums taken up differently in English (Hearing culture) and ASL (Deaf culture)? What are the cultural implications?
•	What does the concept of “Opening up to questions from the audience” mean in Deaf culture?
•	Floor is opened up for questions. Deaf person raises their hand. Recounts a disability issue that he is struggling with and needs support in managing. There is difficulty with the interpretation. It is difficult to see the direct link between his question and the material being presented. When he is finished asking his question there is a pause and then the audience claps and moves on to the next question. This question and request for help go unanswered. The interpretation given to the hearing audience is faithful to the question the Deaf person signed.
o	What happened here?
o	The whole room entered into a social contract to ignore his question
o	What differences between Deaf culture and hearing culture allowed this to happen?
o	Tokenized participation (Yay! You’re Deaf, you asked a question. We didn’t understand it, but yay! You did it!! Let’s all clap and be happy for you!)
o	Applause as unease? Discomfort? An effort to silence?
o	What does this moment tell us about hearing culture?
o	How would it have been taken up differently if the speaker had been hearing? With an intellectual disability? Was more obviously disgruntled? If their disability made communication difficult in a different way?