Okay.
Legally—the American with Disabilities Act requires companies to provide accommodations that give equal access to disabled individuals—and that includes qualified ASL interpreters. But, the Act also says that if the company or agency will face risk of closure, are too small to carry the weigh of interpreters, or can show that their income to expenditures ratio does not allow for the cost of interpreters, they are exempt from providing interpreters.
That means, if I go to a dentist office with 8 employees, I can’t expect that an ASL interpreter will be provided. If I go to a volunteer event, and that volunteer event does not have an operating budget, then they don’t have to provide interpreters. That’s one reason I can’t get an interpreter at the church of my choice. That’s also the reason I don’t demand interpreters from my daughter’s charter school.
Yes, I’m deaf and use ASL interpreters. I will tell you this—the world is not kind in regards to interpreter requests. I’m on my fifth year at the University of Colorado, pursuing a Master’s that should take TWO years, but because the University’s disability support service is so bad, I have had to swim through molasses to get a sneeze of service. I’ve had professors say the ugliest and most unacceptable things that they would be absolutely fired for saying to a person of color, a Muslim, or a gay student. But, I’m “disabled” so they can get away with much more. So, yes, there is a long history of an ongoing, and sometimes daily fight to get access. It is a given if I want to deal with any agency from doctors to conferences to ticketing services (6 months of back and forth and still didn’t get an interpreter for an OMD/Howard Jones concert, even though their site said access would be provided- I’m still a tad annoyed by that).
In short, my complaints carry a small fraction of the push that other minorities have. They see deaf people functioning perfectly fine 95% of the time then ask, “What’s the problem here?” The problem is… I’d like to be in the world and enjoy things to a reasonable fraction that everyone else does. The best interpreters only give 65% of the whole. For most of my daily life, I don’t need help with access- I drive, shop, work, pound on the keyboard, all that just fine. But when I need a detailed description of an upcoming surgery, I dang well want the same information others would get.
(To add to that… people think cochlear implants are the solve-all answer. News flash, they aren’t. That’s a topic for another thread.)
Back to The Villages… I’m very familiar with the Villages. It’s considered the place for affluent retired Deaf people to go… nationwide, the average gross income of deaf and hard of hearing people is the lowest of all employable populations so the deaf folks at The Villages are for our “1%”
IF…. the College at the Villages could not afford interpreters… they had legal avenues to bypass providing interpreters. If they were truly as volunteer based as they say, then they weren’t legally required to provide interpreters. They wouldn’t have to close.
I suspect that the problem is that the College was sponsored, in part, by the larger Villages corporation and had a small budget provided by the main corporate. The Villages has a huge operating budget—they have money to maintain their landscaping, their private lake, maintenance of the buildings, golf course, and roads… The Village’s larger operating budget could easily have paid for the interpreters, but I suspect that the corporate would not increase their contribution to the College’s budget. Because the interpreters could have been paid for by the corporate, the College lost the lawsuit. If my guess is correct, because this is not an uncommon scenario, then the Corporate is, really, throwing the deaf people and the College under the bus. Either way, I know for sure the larger community isn’t getting all the information- they need a scapegoat.
Now, do I support the actions of the deaf people to sue? I don’t know enough about the situation. If they had made many requests, then yes, they may have felt that a lawsuit was their last resort. Should they have made suggestions? Maybe they did. The articles don’t say enough and the grapevine isn’t reliable.
Do I think deaf people should have to fundraise for their services? I will agree to that when everyone else has to fundraise for elevators. With that—I close with this: equal is not always fair.
(By the way, Louis Schwartz is quite a small celebrity in our community. He owns his own financing and investment company. I doubt he would pull a frivolous lawsuit)