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their deficiency” ignores the fact that society often creates the barriers—through poor design, lack of awareness, or outdated attitudes.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).