Quote:
Originally Posted by gomsiepop
The Villages cannot rewrite the laws of the land. There are laws in place that the government has seen fit to pass to enable the handicapped to live as full and complete a life as everyone else. The following is one of those laws. The real issue at hand is not with the deaf community but with The Villages since they refuse to comply with these laws.
https://www.accreditedlanguage.com/.../when-is-sign.../
When Is Sign Language Interpreting Required By Law? - Accredited…
ACCREDITEDLANGUAGE.COM |
There is a lot of blame to go around.
What Schwarz and the plaintiffs did in bringing the lawsuit was reprehensible. They have been responsible for destroying a major asset of our community. Before starting the suit, they should have reached out to the community for support. This is a community of volunteers. Had Schwarz and the others publicly described their concerns, people could have stepped up to help or volunteer: sign-language interpreters, donations for speech-to-text equipment, etc.
Furthermore, modern speech-to-text software and equipment clearly works well enough in this day and age to constitute "reasonable accommodation". I recently watched, using closed captions, a live panel discussion among six participants on CNN. While not perfect, the captions clearly allowed the viewer to follow the substance of the discussion. Keep in mind also that sign-language "interpreters" interpret, they don't translate. That is, the are conveying the substance of what is being said.
In fact, it seems clear that it is just a matter of time before sign-language interpreters go the way of Latin interpreters. A problem seems to be intransigence on the part of the plaintiffs, who are part of a deaf culture that is centered on sign language and supports a commercial sign-language industry. It does not seem that members of that culture should expect the public to pay for their resistance to technological change.
On the other hand, the Developer, who controls both the defendants in the case, suppressed all news of the litigation for years-- apparently to avoid bad publicity. Then, without any public discussion or pleas for the kind of community input and involvement described above, he abruptly pulled the rug out from under us by closing down the Lifelong Learning College-- that at a point in time when the defendants were winning the lawsuit.
What prompted him to do this? School systems throughout the country run adult ed programs like the Lifelong Learning College despite the ADA and lawsuits like this one. The details underlying his decision are unclear, and the two articles in the Developer-controlled Daily Sun fail to shine much light on the subject, other than launching a barrage of criticisms (at least some of which appears to be well deserved) at the plaintiffs.