Signing Savvy, Your Sign Language Resource

The DNA heredity companies are very popular right now. Every time you turn on the television you see a new touching commercial of how people’s lives have been changed. While watching a recent commercial, there was a woman who, all her life, thought she was primarily from one genetic background and her ancestors came from one place and lived her life accordingly. However, after getting the results of her DNA test, she realized her ancestry really was from a totally different part of the world. The commercial ends showing her standing in front of a mirror wearing the ancestral clothing of her "new" native country and embracing and celebrating her new found information about herself.  

This got me thinking about deafness. I wish more people could have this reaction when they first find out that their child is deaf. Unfortunately, many in the medical field approach deafness from what is known as the Medical Model and see it as a disability that needs to be fixed, rather than a part of an ancestry that needs to be explored, learned and cultivated. 

This may stem from the often unknown fact that over 90% of deaf and hard of hearing children are born into families that are NOT deaf themselves. This is not common knowledge to many people. When I have posed the question to my sign language students and families I’ve worked with over my career as an educator, many believe that the percentage of deaf children that are born to hearing families is low, like 3-5%. I think their thought process is that the hereditary gene of deafness is the major factor in determining a child’s deafness. That is not, however, accurate. 

The families that make up this over 90% are busy with their lives and most likely have many other things going on like work, schooling, raising other children, etc.. so when a child with a different "genetic background" enters their family, it can seem like an unexpected challenge. Often times this child requires another language to be brought into the home. Things may have to be taught and communicated in a way that is different from what has traditionally been done in this home. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done.  It just means that extra time and effort and systems are going to have to be put in place so this uniquely different child can still be a part of their biological family, as well as the child’s "ancestral Deaf family."

Many of these hearing families aren’t familiar or educated on Deaf culture and don’t realize it has a rich history, customs, and community. Just as the woman in the DNA commercial put on her "new" ancestral clothing at the end of the commercial, families can education themselves on Deaf culture and choose to embrace and celebrate it.

This article is part of our "Dear BC, Interpreter Q & A” series, which answers questions on interpreting and Deaf culture from multiple perspectives. This article was also published in the Winter 2018 Edition of VIEWS Magazine (page 28-29) from RID. VIEWS is a digital publication distributed quarterly by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) and dedicated to the interpreting profession. The magazine includes RID member spotlights, announcements from the RID board, and engaging stories about issues impacting the interpreting community. See this article and more in the Winter 2018 Edition of VIEWS Magazine from RID.

The video features a full interpretation of what is discussed in this article.

An Experienced Interpreter's Perspective:

This scenario is a perfect example of how interpreters sometimes have to engage in uncomfortable conversations with their team in order to incorporate the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct tenets into our practice. I don’t envy the interpreter in this situation. Their initial response is unfortunate but it’s also a very human reaction to such a frustrating scenario. 

It’s tempting to avoid the conversation altogether by contacting the agency directly or emailing the team afterward, but I think it is best to request an in-person meeting with the team. I would start by apologizing for the initial response and explain that you were thrown off by her behavior as you have only known her to be a strong and ethical interpreting team. Strive to emphasize your respect for her but also be transparent about your frustration that she put you in such an uncomfortable situation.

As these behaviors seem to be out of character for her, I would hope that together you could discuss what makes sense in terms of communicating with the agency. Hopefully she would be open to informing them that she only worked a small portion of the assignment. If she is not open to this, you could tell her that you have to inform the agency of her revised hours. The goal of an in-person conversation would be to resolve the issue between you and have the team communicate with the agency herself.

An Experienced Deaf Consumer's Perspective:

First and foremost, I am impressed with interpreter A’s ability to stay professional during this exchange. I’m afraid I might have lost it and burst out laughing, “You’ve got to be kidding - no way!” 

The first issue, driving her mother to the airport, is difficult to judge – was this an emergency situation? Could she have found someone else to drive her mother, or substitute for the interpreting assignment? Did she notify her supervisor, thus allowing the supervisor an opportunity to find someone to cover for her? Did the supervisor “excuse” her from being late to the assignment? If interpreter B did not notify her supervisor, as is implied in this encounter, she placed an undue burden on her team interpreter (and friend). 

The second issue indicates a severe lack of judgment, responsibility, and ethics on the part of interpreter B. Interpreter A was correct in pointing out that they were both being paid for the job. The only thing interpreter A could have done differently is emphasize her displeasure more strongly and tell interpreter B it is not acceptable to leave the assignment. 

Interpreter A has an ethical responsibility to let the supervisor know of this situation, regardless of friendship ties. If the supervisor is acting ethically, they will call in interpreter B to discuss the matter. Interpreter B may have committed fraud if she submitted a time sheet for the entire assignment and was paid in full. No matter their friendship, the supervisor needs to be aware of interpreter B’s irresponsibility and lack of respect for her team. Interpreter A should also notify interpreter B of her conversation with the supervisor and her reasons for doing so, whether it be in a face-to-face meeting or through email. If I were in that situation, I would tell interpreter B I am not comfortable working with her and request that the supervisor not assign us together in the future.

What's your perspective? Share your thoughts in the comments below.