Clowney: Sometimes. It depends on the nature of the two individuals.
I would agree that the burden is more on an investigator to be
understood in a university community than employees. The
burden is more so on the professional than the nonprofessional.
Attorney: Now, I’m speaking of two people who speak with each
other, who have divergent accents. You agree that you have an
accent, correct?
Clowney: At times I might. I don’t know if I do or not; you tell me.
Attorney: Well, isn’t it true that all people have an accent of one kind
or another?
Clowney: Not all people, some people. My mother is a schoolteacher
and she doesn’t necessarily have an accent.
Attorney: Well, do you think somebody from another part of the
country who speaks with a different intonation would say that
that person in fact has an accent?
Clowney: Possibly, yes.
Attorney: And communication between two such people involves the
acceptance of a certain responsibility for burden sharing between
each other in order to effectuate communication; isn’t that
correct?
Clowney: It can. It depends on the relationship between the two
individuals.
Attorney: One of the factors in that relationship that could make the
communication difficult is when one individual refuses to accept
burden, a burden in connection with effectuating
comprehensibility; isn’t that correct?
Clowney: How about the burden on the other person to go and take
courses and study and to be understood as well. What about –
why should the burden – I also understand diversity, but why
should the burden be on the recipient rather than, I mean, if you
look at modern-day diversity studies, we’d be here all day.
There’s a double burden; there’s a dual burden. I’ll – I’ll say
there’s a dual burden.
Attorney: Isn’t it true that in some conversations where one person
has a racial animus of one type or a national origin animus of
one type that person refuses to accept a burden, any burden for
ff
(ff)
#1