[DeafDeaf]

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on ASL (American Sign Language) interpreters within this forum (see sign language ) 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.

[shut the front door]

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?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by DeafDeaf

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.

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by DeafDeaf

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on ASL (American Sign Language) interpreters within this forum (see sign language ) 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.

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.

[DeafDeaf]

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.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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

If music is a public performance meant to be enjoyed by all, then yes—providing ASL interpretation is a reasonable accommodation. Deaf individuals experience music through rhythm, emotion, and lyrics conveyed visually. Interpreters don’t “translate sound”—they translate meaning, allowing Deaf attendees to engage with the performance like everyone else. It’s not about changing the music—it’s about making the experience accessible. Yes, the entertainment department does provide interpreters for selected events!

Should slow runners, get a head start at marathons?

No—but marathons already accommodate different abilities. There are wheelchair divisions, age brackets, and staggered starts. These aren’t unfair—they’re structured inclusivity. Everyone competes within their category, and no one’s participation is dismissed because they move differently.

Should wheelchair participants be on equal footing with runners?

They already are—just in different divisions. Wheelchair athletes train rigorously and compete at elite levels. Their inclusion doesn’t diminish the race—it expands its reach. Equal footing doesn’t mean identical treatment—it means equitable opportunity.

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

This is a false equivalence. The NBA is a private league with performance-based selection. Public spaces and services, however, are governed by civil rights law, not entertainment contracts. The ADA doesn’t guarantee stardom—it guarantees access.

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.

Sometimes—but not always. ASL is a native language for many Deaf individuals. Written English may be a second language, and relying solely on text can exclude people from real-time interaction, emotion, and nuance. A written handout doesn’t replace a live experience. Reasonable accommodation means choosing the most effective method, not the cheapest workaround.

[DeafDeaf]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

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.

[DeafDeaf]

Originally Posted by shut the front door

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?

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by DeafDeaf

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.

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.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by DeafDeaf

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.

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.

[Whatnext]

///

[golfing eagles]

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.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[Whatnext]

Unfortunately these days, the tail wags the dog.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Whatnext

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.

[Whatnext]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

Commodities in very short supply as well.