I have been profoundly deaf since birth so I can speak with credibility.

This is one misconception most common ...all deafies are the same which is most certainly not true at all.

Some can speak, some cannot. Some can lip-read, some cannot. Some are educated, some are not. Some can benefit from hearing aids or cochlear implants, some cannot. Some are nice, some are not. Some have excellent coping skills, some do not. We come in all kinds, shapes, forms, and degrees just as you do.

Because I had interpreting services, I was able to obtain a paralegal certificate with all As and was a tax producer for years until I retired. Better this than be a tax consumer, uh?

I myself do not need an interpreter when I have routine medical appointments because I know what to expect. However if I have a medical situation with which I am totally unfamiliar, then I do need interpreting services so there won't be any misunderstandings. Medical service personnel appreciate this because they certainly do not want to be sued if something goes wrong.

I can hardly wait for the day when technology has improved to the point that we won't need to be so dependent on interpreting services anymore. But until then, we are crippled by this need.

Yup, very good post!

I so agree with this post, but I also wish that there wasn't a subset of "deafies" (if that is the PC term) that weren't militant crusaders and more open to compromise and less open to legal action. The only winners tend to be the lawyers.

OMG, did I read that right? Please, someone quick get a thermometer down to Hades and see if it is below 32:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Go ahead and take the time to read all of the posts and consider it a...Lifelong Learning Experience. :D

Yes because the misconceptions about the deaf posted here have me deeply concerned. I have been profoundly deaf since birth and cannot stand in the wings while others rant. attack, and vilify the deaf.

If it is any consolation to you, I myself would not have requested interpreting services for "fun" situations. However, the law (ADA) is the law, and we cannot discriminate against any disabled person by saying sorry, this is not something you need and therefore we won't provide services to you.

I do agree though that it is one of the most abused laws in this country.

Amen. There are more and more judges who throw out frivolous disability rights lawsuits.

I warned you to be sitting down. :1rotfl:

Must say, I tend to really get irked when a very small minority get preferential treatment over the vast majority. Of course there ARE cases when the minority MUST have a voice and be protected. But common sense and the common good should come into play - more often than high-priced lawyers and courts and special interests with deep pockets. Sometimes our system seems out of control.

This topic, in my opinion, is one of the cases. When one side seems to be not willing to negotiate and simply acting for financial and/or publicity.

What are the "interpreting services" that are the most useful? Are you generally talking about sign language? Would it be possible to have someone type - maybe with a large screen or monitor - what is being said? If this could work there would be a simple technology required and, I assume, a number of people who possess the requisite skills to translate in this manner.

Are you more broadly aware of The Villages and some of the clubs and support groups here? I am thinking specifically of the Deaf and Hard-Of-Hearing Social Times Group and Hearing Loss Association of America. Given the very active level of volunteerism here in TV it continues to astound me that a better solution couldn't have been worked out regarding the Lifelong Learning College.

LOL LOL LOL -
Just when I was missing French 101 or Knitting 202 or Painting with Water Colors -- you came to my rescue! Great idea. I will get started immediately ... tomorrow ... or next week ... or

For now I'll just take a nap!

Naps are kewl. :thumbup:

Some of the deaf plaintiffs are legally deaf in one year and cannot hear out of the other one.

If meant to be funny... not.

Since you don't live in The Villages and aren't a snowbird, how is it that you know the specific issues with each of the plaintiffs?

No it is not meant funny but those who are deaf in one ear cannot be compared to those who are deaf in both ears. This would be like a person who is blind in one eye comparing self to a totally blind person.

English, this is actually being done. The people who do this are highly skilled and type by phonetics rather than alphabet. It's an arduous process to be certified as a court recorder, and many of these people move on to "real-time" captioning, such as is seen on television news and other live broadcasts, because they can work from home via satellite feed. An accuracy rate of 85% was considered good in the midwest. The company I worked for provided this service for many of the colleges in Michigan, but of course not from home.

The problem with this is that it is not an interactive program. The deaf students want the right to interact with the other students and to ask questions.

So what they want are certified sign language interpreters who sign what the hearies say and speak what the deafies say. This takes an enormous amount of training, and they need to be certified in order to be reasonably compensated - and most importantly, to be trusted. We want to be sure they interpret accurately. We would not want an interpreter to misinterpret that Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1620 or that TV was started in 1850, would we?

I was just explaining to English that what he was proposing was already available, and stating what was being provided to deaf students in Michigan state universities at least a decade ago during lecture classes. It could be different now.

France, I get it, and I am not sure either how colleges accommodate its deaf students these days.

Likely, in the major areas, sign language interpreters are provided while in less populated areas VRI (video remote interpreting) is provided. Both are very expensive. If neither is available, then I would hope that the deaf student is reasonable enough to accept some other service such as CART note-taking.

Depends on how militant they are. Looks like the plaintiffs in the LLC case were not "reasonable enough" to accept ASL interpreters unless they were "certified".

Correct simply because the "uncertified" ones are usually not well trained enough to know the more difficult signs and the syntax of the American Sign Language.

If you needed a Spanish translator, you would want one who is certified rather than one who may have taken only one or two semesters.

Good explanation. Thank you. :BigApplause:

Depends if Spanish translator first language is Spanish, second English, I don't need him to be certified.

Unless you are intent on being "unreasonable?"

This is all interesting chatter, but what did the plaintiffs actually win besides a relatively small amount of money? Going forward, the reincarnated LLC will be structured in such a way to avoid being bound by ADA laws. So what have you actually accomplished? You can be sure that any organized endeavor created for the benefit of Villagers at large that is created by any legal entity in TV will not make the same mistake again. Had TV foreseen this lawsuit and its potential outcome, they would have quietly restructured the LLC between "semesters" and nobody would have been the wiser.

At the end of the day, this is all about what is considered "reasonable". The courts decided that what TV offered was not reasonable. Fortunately or unfortunately, TV has the ability, going forward, to sidestep the legal definition of "reasonable."

Janet Tutt stated that the restructured LLC will have interpreters available. So that's what the deaf community gained.

Don't you hate it when patients insist their doctors are licensed, never mind those high and mighty ones who even demand board "certified" Hmm "certified"

Apples and oranges. Nobody's life depends on getting every word in a LLC class exactly right.

Will they be providing the interpreters that the plaintiffs wanted or the interpreters that TV had offered all along?

A more relevant question might be, "Does the ADA REQUIRE certified interpreters?"

My guess is that the structure or organization or sponsorship of the new LLC will fall outside of any ADA requirements or oversight.

Hopefully. The ADA was a good idea that morphed into a Washingtonian nightmare.

No, it does not require certified interpreters if there are aids or other services that will accommodate the hearing impaired in specific situations..

If certified interpreters are the only service that will accommodate the hearing impaired in specific situations, then they have to be provided. But if the provider (ie the LLC in this case) does not like having to pay for them, then they would have to prove an undue financial hardship and/or prove that there are more economical ways that will accommodate just as well..

which only goes to prove post #915

Correct!

Is it a fact there will be "a new LLC?" I must have missed that.

This is my guess too.