Whenever you scroll through your Facebook feed, go to a concert or attend a public event, you’ll often see a person whose hands and body seem to move like a silent rapid-fire raver, magically providing access to the world of sound for deaf people. Often, you’ll see these people glorified on Facebook or in the news for interpreting the latest concert performed by titans of the music industry, all while stealing the spotlight — projected as saviors of the deaf while grandstanding as performers. That person engaging in the raver-like show of hands is an American Sign Language interpreter.
ASL interpreters are different from spoken language interpreters, as ASL is a visual, three-dimensional language that’s not spoken. Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, deaf individuals have a legal right to ASL interpreters where communication access is concerned. Interpreters can be deaf or hearing, and working in different settings such as schools, hospitals or elsewhere in the community. ASL interpreters are there to provide communication access for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, as well as for hearing people who communicate with them. Under the ADA, a “qualified” interpreter refers to those who can interpret both expressively and receptively, accurately, effectively and impartially. However, the qualifications required of interpreters in the United States are inconsistent, and often unable to fulfill the demands of higher-order professions such as deaf university professors, academic researchers, lawyers, doctors and scientific scholars.
[See: 10 Lessons From Empowered Patients.]
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, or RID, is the certification body for sign language interpreters. There are approximately 16 states that have legislation in place that requires interpreters to hold state licensure; of those 16, 12 require national certification to hold state licensure. According to RID, certification and licensure is, at best, a patchwork of laws and regulations that vary by state — and, at worst, an inconsistent practice that harms deaf individuals who utilize sign language interpreters. Why is this important, you ask? Well, consider. Would you want to visit a doctor who isn’t board-certified in their field? Would you hire an unlicensed lawyer to take on a custody case for your children? Would you send your children to a school full of uncertified teachers? The answer is a resounding “no.” Just as you would want licensed and qualified professionals to serve you and your family, deaf people need interpreters with the necessary licensure and qualifications to provide equal access to information and communicate effectively.
Given that the RID is mostly comprised of hearing people who are the dominant majority in society, they are in a position of power over deaf people. It’s essential that people in positions of power recognize their oppressive behavior and address issues of marginalization. Oppressive acts toward deaf and hard-of-hearing people is known as audism, which stems from the belief that speaking and hearing are superior. ASL interpreters walk the fine line between the hearing and deaf communities and, as such, must remain culturally sensitive. To maintain a cooperative relationship with the deaf community, RID was partnered with the National Association of the Deaf in order to ensure that the National Interpreter Certification exams were developed in tandem with the deaf community, instead of being led by a hearing-driven ideology. However, in 2016, NAD and RID ended their partnership, which marked the deepening divide between NAD and RID.
The roots of paternalism and audism do not fall squarely on the shoulders of RID but are, rather, one part of historic systematic oppression against deaf people. Gallaudet University, the only university in the world that exclusively serves deaf and hard of hearing students, has been governed by hearing presidents since its founding in 1864. It was not until 1988 when the Deaf President Now movement emerged as a watershed moment for the civil rights of deaf people and a rallying cry against audism and the matrix of oppression, which ensnares deaf bodies the world over. DPN was successful in that global media attention thrust an all-deaf-student body into the national spotlight. Several politicians, including former President George W. Bush, lent their support. Actress Marlee Matlin joined in a fiery debate with Hlibok and Zinser on ABC’s “Nightline.” DPN leaders and the student body held steadfast in the consistent negotiating for four demands. When the board conceded to said demands, Gallaudet University was finally governed by its first deaf president in 124 years: I. King Jordan.
The pervasiveness of audism is not limited to the arenas of higher education and sign language interpreting — it spills over into simple, everyday things. Most people take for granted going to the movies and being able to understand the entire film; landing a job interview and not fretting over whether an interpreter will be provided — and the extra layer of wondering if, in the absence of a consistent national mechanism to certify interpreters, will the interpreter be qualified? It is not enough that deaf candidates for job interviews possess the necessary qualifications so much as it boils down to how well the interpreter demonstrates the qualities of the deaf candidate throughout the interview. It’s not unheard of that more hearing candidates for jobs are chosen over deaf ones, even if the deaf candidate is equally qualified.
[See: 10 Concerns Parents Have About Their Kids’ Health.]
We can observe this occurrence by recognizing the number of hearing versus deaf administrators in higher roles such as superintendents and directors at deaf schools — a startling 62.5 percent hearing administrators vs. 37.5 percent deaf administrators, according to 2017 data. When equally qualified deaf and hearing candidates are gunning for a position within a deaf-centric setting or organization, the deaf candidate should be chosen when possible.
Several months ago, RID was tasked with choosing a new CEO and presented two finalists. First, a deaf candidate, Naomi Sheneman, with 18 years of interpreting and interpreting related administrative experience, including prominent roles within the deaf community. Sheneman holds a Ph.D. in ASL interpretation. RID chose her running mate, Joey Trapani: a hearing candidate with one year of interpreting experience, a B.S. degree in liberal studies, but years of experience as a CEO in health care operations. While Trapani has deaf parents and may have seen the deaf community from its inner circle, his selection is still an indication that RID neglected to consider the cultural ramifications of their selection. Is it right that a hearing candidate be chosen over a deaf candidate with equal or better qualifications, for an organization that serves deaf people? Following this debacle, a proposal for a new, deaf-centric organization called the Association of American Sign Language Interpreters was developed by Robert Rice, president of District Columbia Association of the Deaf. The proposal seeks to dissolve RID and serve as a replacement that is governed with a deaf-centric focus. The AASLI proposal was developed and presented so unexpectedly prior to the NAD general forum that many community members were unable to form a steadfast, educated opinion. It has since been referred to a joint NAD-RID committee for further discussion. But this new proposal brings up many questions from the deaf community: Is the concept of AASLI feasible? Should we instead work to make RID more deaf-centric? RID profits from deaf people, and some community members feel it would be more appropriate to have a deaf-majority administration.
[See: 6 Dangerous Games Your Kids Should Avoid.]
While audism has been ingrained in society throughout history, it has been mostly examined from an individual standpoint, in which individual behaviors that are oppressive have been examined. It’s time to unveil the prevalence of audism in not only individuals but in the matrix as it exists among institutions. It’s essential that the hearing community recognize when dialogue or behaviors are marginalizing to the deaf community so that hearing individuals are able to better unpack hearing privilege. This holds true for not only general members of society, but it also extends to those who work with and around deaf people, like interpreters who are affiliated with RID. After more than a century of fighting to elect a deaf president to the world’s only deaf university and finally succeeding, it should not be troublesome to maintain a deaf-centric approach within organizations that service and are founded wholly on the backs of deaf people and their needs.
Natalie Delgado is a Latinx Deaf student doctoral student from Lamar University and a fifth-year teacher at a residential deaf school. Follow Natalie on LinkedIn.
Dr. S. Jordan Wright is a graduate from Gallaudet University and an assistant professor of deaf studies at Lamar University. His research interests include intersectionality, identity and critical theory.
More from U.S. News
Why Are Some People Always Hot and Others Always Cold?
7 Signs You’re Tired Other Than Yawning
7 Alternatives to Toxic Cleaning Products
ASL Interpreters: Allies or Oppressors? originally appeared on usnews.com
