Blog Archives
Why are interpreters deaf community members? And other questions
Recently, I read some statements made by a hearing person who had very limited exposure to deaf people and interpreters. This person was in a position to hire interpreters to accommodate requests from deaf people. While some of her comments shocked the sensibilities inculcated in me as an interpreter, I imagine that other hearing people who know little about deaf people or interpreters share the same thoughts. I will address these sentiments to the best of my ability. Please feel free to comment if you have something else to add.
… the deaf community (and by that I mean, the deaf, not the interpreters, etc because I believe its ridiculous that a party who benefits heavily from the community be considered a part of it)…
First, let’s dispense with the fallacy that a party who benefits heavily from a community should not be considered a part of it. The butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker are members of their community even though they prosper by selling their wares to other community members. A Rabbi is a member of her Jewish community even though she benefits from their synagogue dues. But the interpreter requestor has a point: why are people who are not deaf considered a part of a community of those who are?
The short answer is that hearing people are members of the deaf community when deaf people say they are. We interpreters do not presume to be members of the deaf community, but deaf people invite us to be, and we are proud to be. The butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker are not members of the bovine, flour, or iron communities because inanimate materials do not form communities as people do. Deaf people, on the other hand, are people, and their language is inseparable from them. An interpreter must, therefore, enter the deaf community in order to possess an intimate knowledge of their language and culture; otherwise, they cannot be bilingual. And more important, they will not be trusted by deaf people who rightly view hearing people as potential threats to their way of life.
When I went to the Conference of Interpreter Trainers in San Antonio last October, I attended two presentations that spoke to the issues of interpreter identity and community membership, by Robert G. Lee and Arlene Gunderson, respectively. Allow me to share some insights I gleaned from them. Read the rest of this entry
I earned the title NIC Master and learned a lot along the way!
I am happy to announce that the results of the “practical” and “oral” exam I took in August came in today: I passed at the Master level! The certifying board is the RID (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf), and the exam is the National Interpreter Certification exam co–developed by NAD (National Association of the Deaf) and RID. Master is the highest of three levels: NIC, NIC Advanced, and NIC Master.
I took this exam even though I was already RID-certified in 1998 and 1999, respectively, with the CI (Certificate of Interpretation) and CT (Certificate of Transliteration). The reason I took it was to stay current with my profession and show the interpreters I train and students I teach that I have mastered the test they hope to pass or advance in.
Studying for the interview portion of this exam got me more familiar than ever with the NAD–RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC). This helped me become a more ethically minded interpreter who can think through dilemmas, see the perspectives of all the stakeholders, enact solutions, and foresee the short– and long–term effects of my actions. If for nothing else, I am glad I took the exam the professional development aspect.
I am grateful to Michelle Monahan, NIC Master, for her Mastering the Interview Portion of the NIC Exam workshop and to Windy Kellems, NIC Master, for being my study buddy as we practiced together to articulate answers to ethical dilemmas. You were both a great help, Michelle and Windy!
—Daniel Greene, BA, CI and CT, NIC Master 
The truth on interpreters for deaf at WordCamp Phoenix 2011
I was “the interpreter” who offered to coordinate interpreters for WordCamp Phoenix 2011. I wish I could remain silent, but the blog post I’m responding to has been viewed almost 900 times already and has already been sanctioned by a famous deaf blogger who I believe would think otherwise if he read my side of the story. So, before anyone else is misled, allow me to set the record straight.
I first spoke with Amanda, the conference organizer, on Thursday afternoon, January 14, and offered to interpret and coordinate. She told me the budget was $2,000 for a four–track conference which would need a maximum of eight interpreters. I figured I could get four professional interpreters to earn $50 an hour, get four students to volunteer their services pro bono, and that would still leave $400, half of which might go toward compensating me for coordinating services, and half of which might go toward gift cards for students.
That same night, I found out that Amanda had un–registered a deaf registrant because she didn’t like her attitude. I advocated for the ousted registrant, emailing Amanda, “Deaf people routinely face discrimination and have to fight for their rights. In light of this, I find the registrant’s demands assertive rather than aggressive.” I even followed this up another day and asked Amanda if she would please consider reinstating her. Amanda was immovable.
I should mention that the first deaf registrant had approached me around Thanksgiving about interpreting for WordCamp. I had said I would be interested and asked him to send me more information, but the holidays came and went before I saw an announcement from Amanda on the Arizona RID Yahoo Group. I knew how important it was for this deaf person to attend WordCamp, so I decided to provide for him even though I was not happy with Amanda’s handling of the other deaf registrant.
By the end of the week, I had offers from two other professionals and at least four other students. At this point, all I needed was one more professional if (and that’s a big “if”) there were deaf attendees in all four tracks on Saturday. Read the rest of this entry
Organizer’s attitude toward deaf, interpreters defeats her
The blog post “How Trying to Provide Deaf Interpreters for a Camp Bit Me in the Ass” paints the conference organizer as the victim, but I’m afraid it was her attitude toward interpreters and the deaf that defeated her, and it is the interpreting profession and deaf consumers that stand to lose by her misrepresentation.
I would hate for the takeaway message from any blog post to be, “Don’t provide interpreters to the deaf if you can possibly avoid it.”
Edmund Berke once said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Take a look at John Pozadzides’ 2009 blog post “An Open-Source Look at the Cost of WordCamp Dallas” and the comments that ensue when someone suggests “If you cut out the T-shirts and interpreters, you would break even.” You will learn a lot about complying with the ADA and providing accessibility to a public event.
I hope these two bits of history will help people make future events better for all.
Edited January 22, 2011 for clarity.
