NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/bit/listserv/deafl/1164

Text File | 1992-07-22 | 5.3 KB | 99 lines

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!gallux.gallaudet.edu!gallua.gallaudet.edu!rggentry
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Slang, fluency and translation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 87
Sender: [e-mail] (News manager)
Organization: Gallaudet University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:13:21 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,         [e-mail] writes:
> To <[e-mail]>--
>
> My comments concerned the _economics_ of oral and manual
> education. From this perspective the issues you discuss in
> your recent post are largely irrelevant, important as they
> may be in other ways.
>
> But you do make one of my economic points far better than I
> could myself:
>
>  > [...] Perhaps interpreters can be viewed as expensive,
>  > but far more expensive are the communication breakdowns
>  > that can occur without them...the misunderstood
>  > doctor's directions, the misunderstood legalese of an
>  > attorney, the inability to participate fully in
>  > society's decisions because of a lack of information or
>  > understanding. The consequences are far more expensive
>  > than the interpreters.
>
> A school or program which, for whatever reason, fails to
> teach a deaf child as much speech competence as he/she is
> capable of learning thereby saddles the child with the
> lifelong economic burdens you so vividly describe here.



>> First, the other points I am making are not irrelevant. You made the
specific statement that Total Communication programs were being used because
they were cheaper than oral methods. I am reminding you that economics has
little or nothing to do with the still ongoing struggle to persuade programs in
deaf education to implement effective manually-based teaching strategies. Sign
language-based instruction is utilized to the extent that it is as a result of
political struggles by deaf people and their allies.

>>Secondly, I am challenging the notion that all deaf and hard of hearing
people are capable of becoming good enough lipreaders and good enough with
their voices that they will never need interpreters in a variety of situations,
especially when meeting with doctors, attorneys, and the like. Now, since not
all deaf and hard of hearing people will be able to use lipreading and our
voices as well as you and I do (I am also saying many will not. Whether or not
the many or the majority I do not know, but there are certainly enough..witness
the growth of the interpreting industry, an industry which has always, and
still is, shorthanded), many will need interpreters. The prevailing attitude
among deaf and hard of hearing people who use interpreters is that yes, it is
an expense, but clear and accurate communication at the front end of a
professional transaction is far preferable to misunderstandings that can have
serious medical, legal, financial, or other consequences.

>>Let me point out, also, that due to recent legal advances, most notably the
ADA, deaf and hard of hearing people are no longer required to carry the burden
alone. Various professionals, including physicians and attorneys, supplying
services to deaf and hard of hearing people, must obtain and pay for an
interpreter is one is requested by the deaf or hard of hearing client. (This,
by the way, is not my interpretation of the law, but the interpretation of
Department of Justice lawyers as reported by Sy DuBow, head of Gallaudet's
Center for Law and Deafness). Likewise, either the sponsor or the promoter of
a public event must assume the responsibility of providing interpreters if they
are requested, an must pay for them also. In anticipation of arguments that
professionals will simply refuse to serve clients who request interpreters, in
order to avoid paying the costs (which they may not pass on to the deaf or hard
of hearing client), let me just say that no such trend has been noted yet. I
can also assure you that to refuse to provide service in order to avoid paying
for an interpreter is an action that is discriminatory and will result in some
lawsuits. I am anticipating some test cases.

>>To summarize: 1) Interpreters have always, and will always be, a necessity
for large numbers of deaf and hard of hearing people. When necessary, deaf and
hard of hearing people willingly pay for interpreters rather than relying on
oral methods which do not, will not, and never would have, worked for them. 2)
Recent legal advances take some of the financial burden off of deaf and hard of
hearing people. Such advances also apply to assistive devices, which also cost
money. Representatives of the people who rely on interpreters and the of people
who rely on assistive devices recognized the need to support each other on that
issue.

>>As for the rest of the reply being irrelevant, it may be irrelevant to you,
but I am also writing for the larger audience of people in this list, many of
whom never or rarely reply, but are regular readers. They deserve full
explanations of the implications of any statement.

>>Lest anyone think this hearing aid wearer fixates on interpreters, let me
remind you that the ADA applies to assistive devices such as loops or real-time
captioning. Which, come to think of it, ain't cheap either.
> --David James
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]