Why ASL Interpreter Access Matters—Even in Retirement Communities
 

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on ASL (American Sign Language) interpreters within this forum (see https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...37/index2.html ) and would like to offer some clarification regarding accessibility and inclusion.

It is important to recognize that ASL interpretation involves trained professionals who provide real-time linguistic services, rather than relying solely on captions or slides. While captions can enhance understanding, they do not fully replicate the nuance, emotion, and immediacy provided by live interpretation. Equating written captions with live sign language interpretation is akin to telling a hearing person to "just read the transcript" instead of attending a lecture in person.

Furthermore, interpreters are highly skilled professionals who deserve appropriate compensation, similar to other essential service providers such as medical staff, educators, or speakers at events. Relying exclusively on volunteers can result in inconsistent access and may unintentionally hinder full engagement for Deaf participants.

Additionally, the assumption that “Deaf people can just read” overlooks that ASL is a distinct language with its own grammar, idioms, and cultural significance. Many Deaf individuals, particularly those who were raised signing, process information more naturally through ASL than through written English. Therefore, captions or handouts should complement, not replace, live interpretation—especially during interactive sessions, Q&A periods, or presentations that involve nuance and emotional expression.

Providing ASL interpreters is not about giving special treatment; it is about ensuring equal access. It enables Deaf residents to participate fully, ask questions, and connect with others on an equal footing. In our community, where inclusivity and dignity are valued, access to interpretation services should be viewed as a fundamental element of fairness and respect.

Just don't hire the one from Tampa Police dept press conference who was signing gibberish because she doesn't even know ASL.
How does that even happen?

Should there be an ASL Interpreter for the music in the Squares?

Should slow runners, get a head start at marathons?

Should wheelchair participants be on equal footing with runners?

Should 5 foot men be able to play in the NBA, but have a lower hoop to shoot at?

The standard is "reasonable accommodation". If one can't hear, it's reasonable to expect a "written" alternative. The rest of the world shouldn't be tasked with providing and/or paying for "equal accommodation", it's not practical nor warranted.

Great post. Thanks so much for explaining all of this. Maybe you could get the Villages to pay for ASL interpreters in plays, movies and other places. Or, perhaps Epic theaters might get involved with this.

It’s about removing barriers so that everyone has a fair chance to participate!
 

This kind of argument—while framed as a concern about practicality—misses the heart of what reasonable accommodation actually means. It’s not about giving unfair advantages or bending the rules for convenience. It’s about removing barriers so that everyone has a fair chance to participate, contribute, and belong.

Thanks for your response. Please note that the Recreation and Entertainment Departments already arrange for interpreters at various entertainment events and performances. Additionally, Epic Theaters offers open caption screenings at specified times each week.

It’s a wild—and deeply troubling—story, "Shut the front door" The incident you’re referring to happened in 2017, when a woman named Derlyn Roberts appeared at a Tampa Police Department press conference and claimed she was there to provide ASL interpretation. She wasn’t hired, vetted, or certified. She simply showed up, and officials—under pressure and assuming someone else had arranged it—let her interpret during a major announcement about a serial murder arrest.

What followed was complete gibberish. Deaf viewers were left confused and angry, as Roberts signed nonsensical phrases like “pizza,” “monster,” and “bear,” instead of relaying the actual information being shared. She had no formal ASL training and had a criminal history involving fraud and impersonation.

I would sometimes go to the open captioning especially if the movie had a lot of Her Majesty's English in it.


I was thinking more about a performer to the side of a movie translating while the movie is showing. Probably very taxing though.

That's not true.

Your argument and position, misses the entire point of what "reasonable accommodation" is. No one is entitled to a "barrier free" existence. That's simply not how the world works.

There are barriers everywhere, whether intentional or not. Stupid people are unlikely to qualify to be Doctors ... should we lower the standards?

No one has installed barriers to making life more difficult for deaf people to participate. The "barrier" is their own deficiency and it is their obligation to adjust and/or make accommodations that suit or minimize their deficiency.

While it's perhaps a noble ideal that everyone in the world is "equal", There will always be those who are smarter, taller, stronger, more attractive or can hear better.

Using your logic, the music in the Squares should be loud enough to be heard from miles away, to "accommodate" those whose hearing has diminished and don't have a golf cart to drive there and are too old to walk ... they should be able to sit on their front porch and still hear the music?

Turn up the volume, it's too low for us older folks! Perhaps we should prohibit the use of anything less than 10 pt type on official documents, because some folks might not be able to read it clearly?

Every accommodation necessary to provide "equal", offends or infringes on someone else's rights, hence "reasonable accommodation".

"We want what everyone else has", is an attitude and position that empowers opposition, as it should.

///

The OP makes a very cogent argument, and so does the major respondent so far. As with most things, there should be some middle ground.

For those of us here for a while, we remember the "Lifelong Learning College". It was a wonderful adult education program with many offerings that had over 50,000 Villagers attend each year (the number of distinct individuals was less due to those taking multiple courses).
It ran for years until one hearing impaired individual blew into town with his high-priced Manhattan lawyers demanding certified ASL interpreters for every class. This individual was some sort of "activist", and he and his legal team had already done this in other communities around the country. After a few years of litigation and a lot of wasted $$$ the college was closed. What re-emerged from the ashes is nothing like it was before.

So, was that "reasonable"?? Fair??? Something that was available to 99.95% of the population was destroyed by someone trying to "accommodate" the other 0.05%. And for what???? To provide "nuance"???

Many of us lose some degree of hearing with age, golfers also lose distance and touch. When next year's Master's rolls around, I would like special tees at 5.000 yards, 15 shots per round handicap and a 2-putt maximum on those greens that run 14 on the meter. I'll be wearing the green jacket every Sunday evening for the foreseeable future. When the Olympics return, can I start the marathon at the 26-mile mark??? I could walk the remaining 385 yards and hold the world record. Are either of those "REASONABLE" accommodations???

Bottom line: Life is sometimes unfair, people have different abilities, and "all people are created equal" means only "under the law". Just as you can't make poor people richer by making rich people poorer, you cannot make the deaf hear by closing programs that 99.95% of the population enjoy, nor by throwing tons of money at the problem.

That being said, I don't think anyone would want to trade places with someone who has been deaf since birth, and there should be REASONABLE accommodations, aimed at reducing their degree of impairment, but realizing that will never achieve auditory "equality"

I also hope that the OP is not the opening volley of a new round of activism and litigation that will once again reduce the opportunities enjoyed by the 99+% of us.

They just need to get equity into legal affairs more. There is a easily recognizable idea of what is fair and what is not. Common sense as defined by what would be most appropriate in a given situation.


That sounds ridiculous to close a program because some activist's passion.

I did often find the law in various areas while in law school having nothing to do with common sense. I remember an Arizona criminal case we studied at BYU Law School that had a woman hiring a hit man to take out her husband and the court throwing out the case because the arresting warrant had the wrong county on it.

Unfortunately these days, the tail wags the dog.

More like the meanest dog in the junkyard. Or maybe which ever dog can bark the loudest.

Just apply common sense as defined by what a reasonable person would see in any given situation.

Commodities in very short supply as well.

BrianL99, Your comment is loaded with misconceptions and dismissive rhetoric!
 

Everyone deserves a fair chance to participate in society. That’s the heart of what “reasonable accommodation” means. It’s not about giving special treatment—it’s about removing unfair barriers so people with disabilities can access the same opportunities as everyone else.

Let’s clear up a few myths:

No one is asking for a “barrier-free” world. We’re asking for thoughtful solutions—like sign language interpreters, captioning, or visual alerts—that help people participate fully. These aren’t luxuries. They’re legal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Disability isn’t a personal flaw. Saying Deaf people should “adjust to their deficiency” ignores the fact that society often creates the barriers—through poor design, lack of awareness, or outdated attitudes. Accommodations help fix that.

Accommodations don’t harm others. Making documents easier to read or events more accessible doesn’t take anything away—it adds value for everyone. Seniors benefit from larger print. Captions help people in noisy environments. Inclusion lifts all boats.

Equality isn’t about making everything the same. It’s about making things fair. That means recognizing different needs and meeting them with respect and dignity.

Bottom line: Reasonable accommodation is about community, compassion, and common sense. When we make space for everyone, we build a stronger, more connected world.

My deceased neighbor had done quite a lot of work according to her on the rights of deaf people in New York State. Mainly because her son is hearing impaired. She was quite the fighter. Her son did quite well for himself. I should not go into much detail though. Privacy rights and all that.

Acknowledging your comment!
 

Thank you for sharing this information. It is inspiring to hear about families who have taken the initiative to advocate for Deaf rights, particularly at the state level, motivated by personal experiences. Their dedication has made a meaningful difference, enabling their children to succeed.

Stories like these serve as a reminder of the importance of advocacy. Whether it involves supporting interpreters in medical settings, ensuring captioning at public events, or promoting accessible communication for seniors, every effort contributes to creating a more inclusive environment.

Out of respect for privacy, we will not disclose personal details, but we honor and recognize the efforts of those who have paved the way. Their work motivates us to continue our efforts in education and advocacy, fostering a more accessible world for all.

Access to services and communication is a fundamental right. When we collaborate in advocacy, we strengthen our collective impact.

I am also involved in local initiatives related to medical access and ADA accommodations. It is encouraging to see others contributing to these important efforts.

I'm on the fence about professional interpreters. There is an active community of deaf people who reject the idea that deafness is a disability. To them, I say - no accommodations should be needed. And yet...

There is an active community of deaf people who believe their inability to hear is a disability, which I would grant deserves accommodation.

How to reconcile the two? Do we require all deaf people to sign in and declare their affiliation with disabled or not-disabled, before the show starts, and put the not-disabled ones on the side of the theatre so they're not allowed to see the interpreter? Do we give them special glasses to prevent them from seeing the closed captions?

Do we put the ones who say they ARE disabled, in the front row so they can better see the interpreter? Do THEY get special glasses that display closed captioning only to them and no one else?

In addition, if you consider that ASL is its own language, and we need to accommodate ASL-speaking deaf with interpreters - what about people who speak some OTHER language that is also not English? Do we provide interpreters for all non-English language-speakers? Should we have a Farsi interpreter, a Japanese interpreter, a Welsh interpreter, a Spanish interpreter, a Hindi interpreter, and an Italian interpreter too?

And what of those Deaf who use any of the other 299 sign languages? Shouldn't they get an interpreter for them too?

Or - perhaps everyone living in The Villages should be required to learn ASL. That way we can all communicate with the deaf without the need for any interpreter at all.

I personally feel that it'd be great to have interpreters, but I'm not sold on the need for exclusively "professional" interpreters. Anyone who is hearing-abled AND ASL-fluent, should have the opportunity to apply as a volunteer interpreter. Vet them, absolutely. Make sure they're qualified for the task. But if someone wants to help, you shouldn't let a school certification stop you. Many folks grew up with deaf family members and learned ASL to communicate with their own brothers, sisters, parents, children. Their fluency is likely better than anyone taking college courses in the language.

For the record - I'm hearing impaired, have been since birth and my impairment is degenerative. I understand a very limited amount of ASL. If I live long enough, I will eventually be deaf. So I speak as someone who is "on that road," not from a place of complete ignorance of the subject.

My older brother is 99.9% blind, and has had several close calls of being run over by electric vehicles he can’t hear approaching. Would it be a reasonable accommodation to eliminate all EV’s to accommodate the blind? By the OP’s logic, wouldn’t eliminating EV’s give blind people an equal opportunity to participate in society, so they can get around in public without fear of being run over?

I remember very similar conversations several years ago started, if I'm not mistaken, by the same OP. It wasn't long after that, the Lifelong Learning College was shut down because of 'reasonable accommodations.'

Accommodations cost money. To the extent that they don't cost much, I think most people are in favor. But when the accommodations start to dominate the budget then conflict starts. You may get fully inclusive and fair access to a not so great activity, venue or event.

I think the Villages does and will do what is required under the ADA in a cost effective manner. If they get sued and/or politically pressured, they will either end the activity or do more as stipulated, depending on budget. I think that is what most businesses do.

Accommodating disabilities in design makes sense, because it can be cheaper to design in accommodations than to retrofit them. But you need to know your actual audience. Awareness programs can distort that because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There may be very few people with the advocated disability. I think when designing accommodations and the budget for same, you have to consider all disabilities in your population, not just those with strong advocates.

Also to the OP - someone mentioned that you'd posted previously about accommodations so I took a peek at your earliest posts, from October 2009. I really hope you've evolved since then and have adjusted your perspective. I am not deaf, or Deaf (with a capital D), and I'm not "hard of hearing." I'm hearing impaired. I can hear people just fine. I just can't understand what they're saying unless I read their lips and they speak in a crisp, mid-range tone. If a person I can't understand speaks more loudly, I'll just hear really loud mumbling. That is not hard of hearing. It's an impairment, and it's what I have. You don't have to like that. You don't have to agree with it. But you don't get to tell me I don't have what I have.

In addition, if you don't consider being Deaf (with the capital D you prefer) to be a disability, then you should not expect any accommodations at all. Accommodations are to help people with disabilities.

Yes, let's clear up a few myths.

What you are promoting, is special treatment, that extends far beyond "reasonable accommodation".

There is no way to removed every barrier, to every "disability". If you're going use the word "disability", you should first understand the word and you apparently don't.

The word "disability" is defined as: "a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities".

Notice the word "limits". If you have a disability, you have "limitations". The rest of the world is not responsible for addressing your disability ... you are. You are not entitled to special treatment nor is anyone else. You need to make reasonable accommodation for your disability (your choice of words).