Believe it or not, babies born in 1980 – now 22 years old – do not remember a life without captions. But for the rest of us old-timers, we certainly remember life without that funny-looking brown box on top of our TVs that we could buy for $299 (and eventually $99) at Sears. Dynasty still continues to be one of the major events in many deaf people’s lives when talking about favorite shows. It was probably the first show that everyone actually could talk about week after week – who didn’t love to discuss the outlandish outfits, big hair, and hilarious fights between Krystle and Alexis?

It was on March 16, 1980, that the American deaf population tuned in to watch some of the first staples of American television that were closed captioned by the National Captioning Institute (NCI), including The ABC Sunday Night Movie, The Wonderful World of Disney and Masterpiece Theatre. While there were previous attempts to caption shows such as  ABC News (which was a re-broadcast shown at 11:30 p.m. Eastern, or at 6:30 a.m the next day.) and The French Chef, which first captioned its shows in 1971 by TheCaption Center, 1980 stands out as the year the captioning took hold in television programming.

It’s been three decades since captioning became reality for television owners and we’ve made great strides. We have an almost a full prime-time captioned line-up, have captioned movies, captioned videotapes and captioned/subtitled DVDs; and captioned lectures. By golly, we’ve arrived!

Not so fast, say many captioning experts.

Hurdles and Obstacles
Jay Feinberg, of NCI in Vienna, Va., says that even though the amount of captioned programming is steadily increasing, there’s still not full access. “Unfortunately, there is no good source of information on exactly how much programming is captioned.” Almost all nationally syndicated programs are captioned, but among cable networks, Feinberg says, captioning levels vary considerably.

A major boost has been the Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov). The Television Decoder Circuitry Act mandated built-in captioning decoders in all television sets 13 inches or larger manufactured after July 1993. Congress also passed a law in 1996 that requires video program distributors to phase in closed captioning of their television programs, although the new law does not require captioning of home videos or video games.

Based on the law passed in 1996, the FCC also requires, as of Jan. 1 this year, that at least 50% of all new network shows be captioned. But many feel the obstacle lies in the fact that there are many exceptions, including programs shown between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., commercials under five minutes long, programs shown on new networks for the first four years of the network’s operations, and video programming providers with annual gross revenues under $3 million.

“I believe most broadcasters are trying to meet the newest requirements, but there are many exemptions,” says Gary Robson, author of two books on captioning and a developer of captioning software. “For all practical purposes, the laws mandate captioning only on broadcast television.”

Robson’s right. Perhaps the most powerful exemption is the one that exempts home videos. In the “old days” of captioning, deaf people would often check the covers of rental videos carefully to see if they were captioned or not. Nowadays, that’s a rare occurrence.

Even so, Bill Stark, project director of the Captioned Media Program, reminds us that there’s still a huge gap between full accessibility and where we are today. “You probably are accustomed to going to a video store and finding most current movies with closed captions. But if you were a teacher of deaf kids and looking for captioned videos, you’d find that under 20% have captions,” he says.

“If you were a parent of a deaf kid and looking for educational captioned CD-ROMs or educational captioned DVDs, or captioned anything, you’d be very frustrated.”

Kelby Brick, a deaf attorney in Laurel, Md., filed a complaint with the FCC against cable company provider Comcast and Court TV for not meeting the Jan. 1 , 2000, requirement of having 25% of its programming captioned. FCC ruled in Brick’s favor, noting that Court TV had voluntarily, as a result of Brick’s complaint, increased the hours of captioning on its network.

These aren’t the only obstacles preventing us from full access to our society. Joe Clark, the Ralph Nader of the captioning industry and considered by many one of the captioning industry’s pests, says that quality of captioning is a serious concern.

“No, quite obviously, we are not at ‘full access yet’,” Clark, an author and accessibility consultant based in Toronto, says. “We would need something approaching 90% captioning on all programming that could be captioned to achieve ‘full access.’ I say 90%, because, as in the Canadian regulations, if you’re captioning 90% you’re probably captioning 100%, and in any event some unavoidable technical problem will come up on a rare occasion.

“Unfortunately, though, quality of captioning, which was never great, has gone steadily downhill…Mom-and-pop captioning shops and postproduction houses who seem to think that captioning is ‘straightforward’ are a pox on the industry.”

He claims that a reason for this is the captioners’ salaries. “Salaries are crap… Moreover, it’s an insult. You’re supposed to be a university graduate with unmatched literacy, and temp secretaries earn more money than you do? Frankly, you might as well work as a phone-sex operator. It’ll earn you a lot more money than captioning.”

Although Clark’s view is a bit extreme, many real-time captioners also work at meetings needing computer-assisted real-time captioning (CART), or in court situations. The equipment basics are the same – and requirements, though for different needs, are basically the same. Many real-time captioners work on a free-lance basis, working for anyone who wants to use CART, with minimal training.

Even so, there are real-time captioning companies that genuinely do provide top-notch, quality services. One such company is Caption First, located in Chicago. Pat Graves, president, says that the company has 12 real-time captioners working for the company who are predominantly certified real-time reporters. The certification is awarded by the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA). Graves is also the chairperson of the NCRA CART Task Force, which “has written a manual and guidelines for professional practice pertaining to CART,” she says.

Brenda Breaux, a real-time captioner in New Orleans who attended college specializing in court reporting, says that she had to pass speed tests starting at 60 words per minute and going as high as 225 words per minute. “I had to pass three tests in three categories – literary, jury charge, and testimony – with 97 percent accuracy. ” She specializes in court reporting and classroom captioning for deaf and hard of hearing students (and also blind students, who have their transcripts transcribed into Braille by the colleges).

“Training for CART providers and TV news captioners requires familiarity and programming of words, or dictionaries, pertaining to each individual job, assignment or news program. The goal is to have 100 percent translation and accuracy, and that comes with an internship and training period,” Graves explains in an e-mail. “We do not allow CART providers and captioners to ‘practice’ on consumers!”

Even with these stringent training requirements, Clark still thinks it’s not enough. Clark has spent decades writing to captioning companies notifying them of captioning errors. Indeed, captioning bloopers are sometimes funny, but mostly they are confusing, especially in times of emergency live newscasts when new vocabulary (the September 11 attacks, for example) may be introduced for the first time to the viewing audience.

He says that often, when tapes are re-encoded (captions being redone to an original, pre-recorded tape) the error is supposedly fixed. “But in practice, even re-encoded tapes – like syndicated episodes of The Simpsons – contain the original errors.” So, Clark says, when a captioner is notified of an error, the captioner should eat the cost of re-encoding the program.

“Now, can you imagine how well that would go over? Captioners would suddenly become accountable, and their errors would suddenly begin to cost them. And I mean, we can’t have that! Not when we’re paying our caption ‘editors’ $20,000 a year!”

Robson thinks another obstacle in achieving full caption accessibility is education. “Despite the huge amount of information about captioning that’s been published, far too many people in the broadcast business don’t understand the fundamentals. Why are they captioning in the first place? What are the captions supposed to accomplish?”

NCI’s Feinberg adds, “The reasons for captioning are complex – a combination of doing the right thing, meeting mandates and technical sophistication. A major effort in the early days of captioning was to make network executives aware of how important it was to people who are deaf and hard of hearing to be able to have the same access to the wide range of entertainment and important news programming on television that hearing people had. Even as awareness increased, budgets were slow to follow.” He credits the U.S. Department of Education funding as being a major boost to the hours of captioned programming available.

The Next Decade
So, in the next decade, what should we expect? Feinberg says most of the changes to come will be invisible to the regular viewer. “Technically, the biggest change will be the conversion to digital television… the current plans for captioning digital television will give viewers control over the appearance of the captions on the screen, such as size, color, and font.” He also believes that continuing advances in computer technology will help captioners provide high-quality captions at lower costs.

Robson, whose wife is a real-time captioner, predicts that captioning will become commonplace. “Ten years from now, it will be difficult to find a person who doesn’t know what captioning is and how to [activate] it on their television set.”

Clark, however, is a bit more pessimistic. “[Captioning] will get worse. More widespread, but worse.”

Perhaps, as has been the case for many years now, most of us will simply continue to discover new captioned shows exactly how Gallaudet University President I. King Jordan did: by surprise.

In the early 1990s, Jordan attended a meeting of the Caption Center advisory board in Boston during the day and then flew home to hurry and attend a black- tie event in the evening in Washington, D.C.

“I can remember rushing into my bedroom to change into a tux and having the TV on while I was dressing. It was turned to the local NBC affiliate and the local news was on,” Jordan recalls. “I was standing there watching and following the news when all of a sudden it hit me. Hey, I can understand this! A local news program was captioned! Live!”

Prior to that, only the national news broadcasts were captioned in the District. Jordan continues, “I was blown away because they hadn’t made a big deal about it, it just appeared. It took years before all the local news was captioned, but now ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX are all captioned live. I think news and, more importantly, emergency coverage captioning is most important, and we have come a long way.”

Special thanks to David Pierce for his technical assistance.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

I have a little secret to tell you.

I am a ballet failure.

But, ah, I quit ballet for a reason. You see, Sesame Street was on at 5 p.m. daily – the same time as my ballet lessons. So I was given the opportunity to pick one or the other.

My mother’s stern face looked at me with raised eyebrows as she asked me what I wanted to do, and I said happily, “OK! QUIT!” I saw the hope in her face crumbling away. Mom had grown up taking ballet lessons and had often shown me pictures of her dancing on toe in sequined leotards.

But me? In a tutu? Me, a tomboy that preferred to kick a soccer ball into the faces of boys who aimed for my knees during practice (I’ve got the scars on my legs to prove it)? Seeing Linda Bove on Sesame Street was the greatest highlight of my day when I came home from school. Especially since the show had started being captioned – I could now finally tell my friends who my favorite characters were. To this day it’s Telly and the monsters that communicate by honking their noses.

I remember my father trying to make my mom – who can speak well – lipread entire conversations on TV, getting annoyed with her when she would sign, “Hold on, hold on” with her eyes fixated on the people’s mouths. And I would watch diligently along with Dad, trying to learn what I could.

Captioning wasn’t without its drawbacks for my parents, though. One evening, I saw the sentence on the big 27-inch television: “JACK, I’M NOT A VIRGIN.” Mom was in another room, so I asked Dad, “What’s a virgin?” My dad stammered, and after a long pause, said a little too quickly, “Someone who’s never been kissed!”

Later that night, as Mom was giving me my bath, I proudly said that I was not a virgin. After picking up the bar of soap that suddenly slipped out of her hands, Mom asked me in shaky signs, “Trudy, what does virgin mean?” I gleefully announced that I had been kissed, and therefore not a virgin!

She immediately went to give my father a lesson in telling the truth after teaching me about the birds and bees.

These all are, of course, because of the advent of closed captioning early in my life. I grew up with access to television, though I definitely remember the days before captioning (and because I am a night person by nature, I often have to flip through channels repeatedly until I can find something captioned at three or four a.m., usually Law & Order reruns).

I was fortunate to have parents who were fluent in my language, so I always had communication access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; I had this even with my hearing family members, who always had paper and pen ready to communicate with me if they didn’t know the signs. Even so, there’s nothing like a movie that the entire family can watch together.

At the public junior high school I attended along with 50 other deaf children, the deaf kids in my crowd and I would always bring the newspaper’s television guide to school. At lunchtime or during classes together, we would all agree to watch whatever movie of the week that night. The next day we would gather to discuss the movie, its characters and plot, and determine our opinions on the movie’s results.

An early movie club, I guess. And these ‘discussions’ were only made possible through the movies being captioned. I remember learning what domestic violence was when my mother and I watched Farrah Fawcett in The Burning Bed. It was the first time I understood the powerlessness of women in some relationships – and their choices – and it’s served me well throughout life. In high school, I was able to keep up with current events, thanks to closed captioning. My two-hour humanities course during my senior year required that we keep a log of television news broadcasts during the Gulf War. I wouldn’t have been able to do that if not for closed captioning.

I believe we’ve got a long way to go. I’m guilty of sometimes accepting too quickly that a show isn’t captioned, and wondering if it’s ever going to be (or suddenly stop being captioned, like many of the shows on The Learning Channel, such as Trading Spaces). All I have to do is write letters, and draw attention to the fact. It takes time and commitment, but if we all collectively write letters – polite, clear letters – we’d probably make more of an impact.

I would still choose Oscar the Grouch over a showing of The Nutcracker on television any day.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

There’s been a lot of publicity surrounding deaf prisoners within the past few years, including Joseph Heard, who was wrongly jailed for 22 months in a Washington, D.C. jail. Often deaf inmates are forced to deal with officers and other prisoners who do not understand deafness, prison systems that do not provide interpreters or accommodations, and cultural differences between hearing and deaf inmates.

Katrina Miller, originally from Kansas and currently working at the University of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Little Rock, recently earned her doctorate in deaf studies/deaf education. What makes her doctorate unique is that Miller chose to focus specifically on deaf inmates in the Texas state prison system – which is remarkable, considering that research on deaf inmates is sparse. She studied 97 deaf offenders serving time at a Huntsville prison.

“I looked at three areas pertaining to deaf prisoners [in Texas prisons]. Demographics, offenses, and accommodations provided,” explains Miller, who has a deaf sister. However, before she could actually study the population, she had to first go through a long process of being approved by several review boards.

When studying demographics, Miller discovered that most were similar between hearing and deaf offenders – sex, race, age, and IQ – but educational achievements differed greatly. “The average educational achievement of deaf offenders was third grade, but it was seventh grade for the remaining population,” Miller says.

In Texas, which possibly has the largest population of deaf inmates in the country, deaf inmates are grouped together at a specific facility. Miller feels this is a good practice. “I think grouping is an excellent strategy. Deaf people from rural areas or with communication isolation can be socialized to some extent in prison.” Miller also adds that prisons may become more supportive of hiring interpreters if there are more deaf people together in one location, making interpreting services cost-effective.

“I think it is healthier for deaf prisoners to be with people they can talk to,” she says. “It’s also safer for them physically, because deaf prisoners would make easy prey for others who would take advantage of them.” The drawbacks are that due to cultural differences, deaf prisoners are more likely to freely share information, which may create problems and give them unfair reputations for being “snitches” among hearing inmates.

Miller’s research also included talking with prisoners and learning about their experiences, backgrounds, and communication styles. The population at Huntsville has a full-time interpreter on staff and replacement interpreters as necessary, in addition to one television with closed captioning, TTYs upon request, and vibrating alarms. However, each inmate also has an identification card that states that he is deaf so they will not be disciplined for ignoring officers or not responding to directives they didn’t hear.

“One man said that he had been put into a different facility because he used voice during his intake and [officials] would not believe he was deaf. It took him four months and his parents’ intervention to get over to the Physically Handicapped Offender Program environment,” Miller recounts.

Another area explored is the use of language. Miller chose to categorize the deaf inmates by oral, signing, and minimal language or language disorders. She learned that many of the inmates adapted their sign language to the prison environment. “For instance, a sign typically used for ILLEGAL was often used to describe CONTRABAND in the prison setting. It made perfect sense. There were also signs that I’d never seen, some of which were devised to describe the prison setting or were iconic gestures between hearing and deaf people that had become part of the language,” Miller says.

Other signs were simply old Texas School for the Deaf signs that are rarely seen today, such as the old sign for PUNISH that evolved to mean PRISON or HUNTSVILLE. This evolution of signs is common among deaf inmates, such as these at the Eastern Correctional Facility in Napanoch, N.Y., where the sign for INMATE is formed by pinching the inmate’s pants and shaking the cloth. Eastern has approximately 20 deaf inmates grouped together; Pennsylvania has 20 and Georgia 10, according to Miller, who was unable to get numbers for California.

Miller earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Alaska, Anchorage, in sociology in 1993, and master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling with the deaf from Western Oregon University in 1996. She is one of Lamar’s star graduates, according to Jean Andrews, Regents’ Professor of Deaf Studies. “She is not only one of our most prolific doctoral students in terms of professional writing, she is also a pioneer in her area of forensic studies.”

Miller has turned her research into a book, Deaf Culture Behind Bars: Signs and Stories of a Texas Population, due to be published and released by AGO Publications this summer. The book also provides a history, signs that may be unique to correctional populations, and tips for communicating with deaf prisoners.

“It’s my hope that it will lead to more of what I like to call ‘access studies’ in the prisons, which are studies and recommendations advocating for the accommodation of deaf inmates,” Miller says.

While at the University of Arkansas, she will research the use of job coaching and job support for deaf people with minimal language skills and multiple disabilities, in addition to advocating for legal rights primarily by publishing in legal journals. She credits many people for her success, namely Lamar University advisor Dr. Tony Martin, and Dr. McCay Vernon, a renowned researcher and psychologist.

“In addition, the information from this study will be used to help professionals in the field of corrections to understand and develop sensitivity to the unique barriers and cultural issues that deaf inmates face in the prison environment. I think Texas can provide a leadership role in sharing about the program they have developed with other states.”

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Council Bluffs, Iowa – Robert Patzner always dreamed of facing what seemed to be his biggest challenge: owning race horses and training them on his 10-acre hobby farm in the countryside of Council Bluffs, Iowa. Many of his friends warned him, saying that it wouldn’t be a good idea. He didn’t listen to them, and bought his first horse approximately 26 years ago.

Patzner, who grew up on a farm in Guttenburg, Iowa, and graduated from the Iowa School for the Deaf in 1951, says his love for horses began when his brother gave him a toy that looked similar to a horse track with a string of marbles that were in lanes between barriers. By pulling a rope, the marbles would take off. “This toy was my favorite, and obviously where my spark for horses began,” he says.

It wasn’t until the mid-1970s that he was introduced to racing, when friends took him to a racetrack in Omaha, Neb. There, he decided to pursue his dream of owning racehorses.

With the purchase of his first horse, Patzner learned how difficult the first years would be. “At first, it was a struggle for me to keep my business running by not earning winnings from my first few horses.” But in 1978, Patzner had his first taste of sweet victory when one of his racehorses, Tousty George, gave Patzner his first victory. The victory also helped boost his confidence and belief in his abilities in training his horses to become winners.

Owning racehorses isn’t a cheap hobby. Patzner, who worked for 42 years in production for the Serta Mattress Company, is not a rich man, nor is he close to becoming a millionaire. “I can’t recall ever having a hobby that did not cost a dime to actually maintain or be involved in,” he says. “So you see, there are a great deal of expenses to cover before one can say they truly have a hobby that, number one, you truly enjoy and number two, you can afford.”

Besides, he says, “Financially, for many years, we have been in the black. So if I can at least win from here on out, then my wife lets me keep the horses and even sleep inside the house and not in the barn with the horses.”

Racing horses isn’t the only sport that Patzner has been involved with. A standout athlete at the Iowa School for the Deaf in basketball, he once played against St. Louis Cardinal pitcher Bob Gibson – and even was involved in a fistfight with Gibson. Patzner later played basketball for local clubs, and continues to attend both local and national deaf basketball games as a fan cheering on his deaf sons.

He currently owns six horses, two of which are mares expecting foals this spring. “It’s one thing to own a thoroughbred and another whole ball game just to raise racehorses from a filly and/or foal to a full-fledged healthy racing thoroughbred,” he explains. “This is not a small task; it’s taken a long time, patience, and a lot of sorrows to get where I am in my life now. But this is what I love.”

Patzner’s countless racing victories, mostly held at Nebraska and Iowa racetracks, stretches over 26 years. “It is not possible for me to keep track of the number of victories I have had since 1978,” Patzner says.

One of his biggest career disappointments was losing one of his best racing horse, April Flyer, in an automobile accident as he was driving a truck with a horse trailer in 1996. “April Flyer was my most favorite horse with a great possible future after multiple racing victories before the accident.”

Patzner continues to challenge the loss of April Flyer by turning his other horses into winners. He hired a horse trainer, W.F. Conyers, to help take care of his racehorses, and his most recent victory happened in Prairie Meadows, Iowa on Oct. 1, 2001, with his current racehorse, Miss Shares.

“Sure, of course I dream of making it rich in the horse business some day so that I may retire and maybe one of my five children would like to take over my business. Then I could just sit back, relax, travel all over the world and maybe even watch the horses win the Kentucky Derby or something big like that,” Patzner says.

He quickly adds, “But…then again, it wouldn’t be my hobby anymore, would it?”

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Auto shows allow people to check out the latest accessories, marvel at concept cars, and sigh over vehicles they’ll never be able to afford. There are often gimmicky performances and conversations with people about new innovative products, and fascinating details behind each car that are told by presenters or automotive industry workers. Deaf and hard of hearing people are now able to participate in what is considered one of the staples of the driving world, thanks to a program offered by General Motors’s Pontiac-GMC division.

Pontiac-GMC, for the fourth year, is providing interpreting services at each of its auto shows across the nation. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and product specialists conduct tours of the show for deaf/hard of hearing groups of sizes from anywhere to five people to 100 people, with tours lasting as long as six hours. Each group member is given a complimentary ticket, along with a souvenir.

“Last year alone, more than 1,500 deaf and hard of hearing students and community members experienced auto shows through the Pontiac-GMC program,” Christine Conti, public relations manager, said.

The program, which is paid for by Pontiac-GMC and through volunteer efforts, is the only one of its kind. The program, in addition to providing interpreters, also is exploring the possibility of having monitors and/or kiosks with closed captions during each tour.

“A typical auto show has displays by major automotive companies and related vendors, where speaking demonstrations about key vehicles and products are constantly taking place,” Conti said. “And the shows all provide plenty of written information about the products that can be taken home for more in-depth understanding.”

Many of the groups participating in Pontiac-GMC’s program are from schools, where students and teachers incorporate the program in their curricula.

“We are so glad that the experience so far has been a positive one,” Conti said, “and we are starting to make new friends for more group visits year after year.”

Shows are planned through April. For exact dates and locations, please e-mail carshowsfordeaf@aol.com.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

At first glance, the concept seems ridiculously simple. Set up a tripod-like device in front of you with two mirrors attached, and you can see what’s being shown on the wall behind you in order to interpret effectively.

Interpreters often have to interpret blindly what is being presented on the walls or screens behind them as they sit facing deaf consumers. It’s either that, or arch their necks at unsightly and often physically painful angles while maintaining the positioning of their signing at acceptable levels for the consumers.

But nobody had ever thought to produce such a device to alleviate the physical strains – until the Interpreter Mirror, devised by Steve Frank, an interpreter from Baltimore, Md. An odd-looking device at first glance, the Interpreter Mirror has quickly become an instrument of necessity for many interpreters.

Frank became interested in sign language and interpreting when he was in Russia in 1983. He returned to America and enrolled in courses at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. and Catonsville Community College in Maryland, then worked as a dormitory counselor at the Maryland School for the Deaf in Columbia for two years. Eventually he earned his certifications in interpreting and transliteration (CI/CT) from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.

“I found that most of my interpreting jobs involved visuals that I had to crane my neck to see. It was aggravating and later painful,” Frank said. “Finally, after a particularly grueling day of head-turning on Feb. 23, 1998 at two meetings, I went home to solve the problem. I figured that there must be a way to do it with mirrors.”

Frank took two mirrors and did some creative aligning of them to try and see a clock behind him. The crude yet effective experiment worked. With this concept in mind, Frank went through research and development, then applied for a patent that was granted on Sept. 25, 2001. Frank orders the parts from 15 companies then hand-assembles the kits out of Baltimore.

Today, he says he steadily provides the products to schools and universities, businesses, government agencies, churches, and interpreters. The product isn’t cheap, though, running at $350 for a full package. Even so, users of the device say it’s well worth the purchase. Steve C. Phan, CI/CT, Educational Liaison/Lead Interpreter at Houston Community College in Texas, said, “I have used it in two different college classes. One instructor made ample use of overhead transparencies; another instructor showed many videotapes during the semester. In both cases, my team interpreter and I felt the Interpreter Mirror helped save time and effort, physical and mental. I especially appreciate its portability and quick setup.”

Besides, Phan adds, the steep price serves well as a tax deduction. “Hopefully the price will go down as more people purchase it.”

Angel Carpenter, CI/CT, who works at the University of Central Florida in Orlando agrees with Phan. “The Interpreter Mirror has been invaluable to me, primarily when I interpret in university lecture halls. I am often unable to see visual information such as PowerPoint slides or transparencies that are behind me, but using the Interpreter Mirror allows me to catch that information and render my interpretation more accurately.”

The device, which consists of two joined mirrors and a tripod, is a bit difficult to set up at first. Users have to learn how to align the mirrors at the ‘just-right’ angle – but once that step is learned, it becomes easy to use. The product also comes with a carrying case, instructions, and other accessories.

“The basic argument for use of the mirror is that an interpreter can only accurately interpret that which s/he fully understands. Any message consists of both the verbal and visual parts. If the interpreter does not have convenient access to the visual part of the message, then something will suffer – either the interpreter’s neck or some of the message will be missed,” Frank says. “We believe that the mirror greatly increases the interpreter’s ability to fully understand the message and thus interpret it more accurately.”

For more information on the Interpreter Mirror, visit www.interpreter-mirror.com.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

When a couple has a child that needs immediate care, they expect top-notch, accessible service. Even with the Americans with Disabilities Act having been enacted a decade ago, doctors’ offices and other medical providers often continue to violate the powerful law when deaf patients ask for equal communication access.

The Majochas aren’t any different. Anna and Darrin Majocha of Pittsburgh, Pa., filed a lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Ear, Nose & Throat Associates in March 2000, when the couple was denied an interpreter for their son’s consultation.

Darrin, who is deaf and communicates in American Sign Language, and Anna, who is hearing, were referred to the highly-recommended clinic in August 1999 for a surgical evaluation for their hearing son, related to a recurrent ear infection. An appointment was made, and Anna requested an interpreter for Darrin so that her husband could participate fully in the medical consultation. The office refused, but the couple continued to request interpreting services.

Anna said, “When the doctors denied us an interpreter, we felt frustrated and anxious because our son needed care and this care was being delayed. We were persistent with our request because we felt it was important to have both parents involved in the appointment and we also knew that we were entitled to have an interpreter.”

Anna also said that the office suggested that she come to the appointment alone, or that she serve as interpreter. “At one point, the office even questioned the effectiveness of communication between my husband and myself. It was insulting to have to explain that we do in fact know how to communicate with one another.”

The office persisted in trying to refer the couple to other clinics, but the couple refused because Pittsburgh Ear Nose and Throat was so highly recommended. The office proceeded to cancel the appointment, and sent a letter informing the Majochas that they would not provide medical care.

“It was truly embarrassing to receive such a letter,” the mother remembered. “At times, we were fearful of being blackballed by other doctors’ offices. We also worried that our son would receive second-rate care.”

In Sept. 2000, the federal district court deciding the case handed the Majochas a victory, denying a defense motion for summary judgment in its entirety. In his decision, Judge Donald Lee cited the letter sent by Pittsburgh Ear, Nose & Throat Associates denying the Majochas medical care and said the letter was “as close to a smoking gun as it gets in federal court.”

The couple, who settled for an undisclosed amount of money, said that their son ended up needing immediate surgery in addition to three surgeries after that. Interpreters were requested and provided for all visits.

“Even though the process of persistently requesting an interpreter was difficult, it was worth it in the end. There is legislation to protect deaf and hard of hearing people from this type of discrimination, but typically it is difficult to enforce, especially if you are working alone,” Anna said.

Anna works for the Arbitration Division of the Common Pleas Court in Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, in addition to jointly coordinating with Darrin the Deaf Youth Program at Pittsburgh Hearing, Speech and Deaf Services, Inc. Darrin also cares for the couple’s two children three days a week at home.

The doctor’s office, under the terms of the settlement, rescinded the letter it sent, and will provide qualified interpreters and assistive listening devices at no charge to patients. The clinic will also train all of the office’s staff and physicians on the new policies, in addition to posting signs in prominent locations advising patients of their rights.

Anna added, “We hope that these small steps help others who are confronted with these issues on a daily basis. Obviously, this case will only strengthen the ability of all individuals to enforce the current laws protecting Deaf people. I hope our fight encourages other families with Deaf members to stand up for their rights as well.”

Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Well, deaf schools are taking yet more blows from the press. I’ve been following the series published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about sexual abuse at residential schools for the deaf nationally. Some of them I read in depth; others I skimmed through. I think a lot of them were over-kill – repeating the same points over and over.

Yet, I can’t help but marvel at how adept school superintendents are at sweeping issues under the rug. I understand why they do this: they don’t want bad publicity for what, usually, is otherwise a good and well-run school; they don’t want parents worrying about their kids; and so on.

You know what? Too bad for the superintendents. Parents must worry about their kids. Here’s what happens when they don’t: recently a friend of mine who works as a houseparent at a deaf school told me about how he took one of the students home for Thanksgiving. The friend, “Jeff,” said that the student had nobody come to pick him up for the holidays, and since the school was closed, Jeff took him home.

I applaud Jeff for stepping in and fulfilling an important role in the student: one of a caring person. Yet, the risks Jeff took in taking the student home were high. The student could’ve easily accused Jeff of molestation, abuse, or a number of any other violations. Even so, the more important question is: where was the student’s family? Where were his guardians? This is why deaf schools often play an important role in the development of deaf children’s lives. And this is why superintendents cannot fool themselves into believing incidents, even minor ones, are not of grave concern.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident at a large and well-attended deaf school where a junior high student brought a loaded gun to school. Media coverage of this incident was sparse; only a local TV station picked it up. I assigned a writer to report on this incident after four separate individuals tipped me off to it. The writer had difficulty getting any information on the situation, and the superintendent’s office did not call the writer back. However, the superintendent did have one of my sources (a teacher at the school) contact me to ask me not to print the story because it would generate negative publicity and that parents would be upset. I also got the impression that the teacher’s job was at stake.

Rather than simply saying that the school was not at liberty to discuss the alleged incident, the superintendent chose to cower behind methods of intimidation and use other people to ask us not to print the story.

While the incident is more complicated than what I write here, my knee-jerk reaction was to say to the superintendent, “Too bad!” I am a strong supporter of residential schools for deaf students. Yet, I will never support the hiding of information about gross violations of other people’s safety, especially in schools. I also will not support the concealment of information for the sake of “positive publicity.”

Just because an incident took place at a residential school does not mean it is limited to that school. When I was in high school – a public school with 1,800 students, 80 deaf – a student brought a handgun to school. It was a few hours before someone tipped off a teacher and the boy got a few days of out-of-school suspension (this took place before the Columbine shootings). Oh, yeah, the kid was deaf. Does this mean that deaf programs at hearing high schools should be blamed for everything? Of course not.

What about all the shootings at hearing schools across the nation? Columbine, for one. Does this mean hearing schools must be blamed for the shootings? No.

How about the long history of sexual molestation, harassment, and rape at hearing schools across the nation? By coincidence – as I was thinking about this topic – I happened to stumble across a based-on-a-true-story movie today on the Lifetime Channel with Michael Gross playing Dr. Gordon Powell, a school principal who had a history of molesting female troubled students. Does this mean the problem is rampant at hearing schools and they must all be closed down?

Of course not. Problems are rampant in every situation, and certainly the strong presence of these problems at schools – residential or public -must be investigated and stopped immediately. It might seem much more dramatic in deaf communities across the nation because of the close-knit nature and because of the “recognition factor” – everyone knows everyone. But it doesn’t mean deaf people, schools, or organizations should be held to any different standards, whether better or worse standards, from those that exist for hearing schools. The problems are real. Yet, they shouldn’t be cause for closure of schools, as some anti-residential school advocates have been proclaiming for years.

The bottom line is that parents and students have the right to know of every incident at school that endangers them or their friends. Superintendents and school officials cannot ever use intimidation or threaten lawsuits to protect their own reputations. Chances are, the information will come out anyway, and their reputation will be even worse for being dishonest.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

In late August, I had to get some blood tests done for a routine exam. The doctor referred me to a lab run by Lab Corp, so I went in a few days later. Never did I imagine what would happen to me next.

I entered the office, and went to sign in. The receptionist, obviously not familiar with how to communicate with a deaf person who couldn’t speak, kept on speaking even though I had indicated that she should write. After several times of asking for paper and pen and being denied, I reached into my own bag and got out paper. “Please write, it’s easier to communicate. I can’t understand what you say,” I scribbled. The woman smiled, nodded, and indicated that I should give her my insurance card. I obliged, then she pointed toward the corner of the small office. I looked and saw nothing except a TV. I looked back, and she had been speaking to me the whole time my head was turned away. After a few moments of this and my asking her to “please write,” she took my arm and walked around the desk (still holding my arm) and escorted me over to this small end table next to the TV. She then put her hands on top of my shoulders and “sat” me down.

It turns out that she wanted me to fill out a registration form that was in a pile on that table. By now, I was blushing furiously with the entire waiting room audience looking at me. She walked back to her desk saying something, and suddenly every person looked at me. I filled the form out, and walked back to the receptionist’s desk. I wrote, “Could you repeat what you just said to the room?” She smiled and shook her head no, motioning for me to sit down.

I started reading a magazine, feeling incredibly stupid. I felt a nurse walk over and stand in front of me, looking at me. I didn’t want to look up, so I kept reading… after three minutes (I counted), she was still staring at me, so I finally gave up. She shook her head disapprovingly, and walked off. I suddenly realized I was supposed to follow her. Why didn’t she tap me on the shoulder? I entered the room, and the nurse said something to me.

I wrote, “What’s going on?” on a napkin. She said something that I thought I misunderstood. I wrote, “Did you just say you don’t serve deaf people?” She read the napkin, and nodded her head. I stood there, flabbergasted.

I walked out silently, clutching the napkin. I went to the front desk, and asked the receptionist to give me another nurse. Suddenly the nurse came walking to the receptionist desk, where a second nurse had appeared. The first nurse was speaking loudly and making a lot of angry gestures. I was completely lost as to what was taking place, so I looked at another patient who was giving me sympathetic looks. She mouthed, “They’re going to ask you to leave.” What?! I looked at her questioningly, and she mouthed, “Deaf.” Sure enough, the nurse came up to me and started talking.

I decided it’d be wise if I just left quietly, without causing further commotion. I gathered up my things quickly, and walked out to my truck.

I immediately got in touch with a few friends to find out what I should do, and most of them encouraged me to sue immediately. After some thought, I decided to try and check my legal resources. I really didn’t want to sue, because I wanted to write a letter first and see if I could resolve it at that level. A few days later, I went to a different facility (same corporation) for the blood tests. The people there were very friendly, and gave me the contact information for Lab Corp’s quality assurance. I then wrote a letter explaining that I felt it was an unfortunate situation to happen, especially to someone as empowered and educated as I am. What if it had happened to someone who didn’t know his or her rights? I asked for an apology letter, signage in their patient service centers (all 900 of them) indicating that they would provide assistance to anyone who asked for it, and sensitivity training.

Well, a few months passed, and I almost forgot about the incident until a coworker asked me about it earlier this week. I promised myself I’d follow up on it after I finished the December issue.

Today, I got a floral delivery. I opened the card, and it said, “We apologize for any inconvenience. – Lab Corp”

That stunned me. Now, that’s either the best lawsuit deterrent, or that’s class.

The next day, I got two letters. One was from Lab Corp’s headquarters apologizing and saying they would meet each of my requests (training and signage). The other letter was from the two nurses involved apologizing for their behavior.

In our sue-happy society, we sometimes forget that it’s okay to simply resolve conflicts by writing effective letters. And we forget that individuals within companies do screw up – and the companies that actually do something about these screw-ups are the companies I will do business with.

I once had a ticket agent hang up on me when I was trying to make three plane reservations through Vanguard Airlines. The man simply didn’t have the patience to deal with a relay call and said, “Can’t the deaf woman get her mommy to call or something?” and hung up. I went on the website and found an e-mail address for “feedback.” I figured it was probably a waste of time, but what the hey? Less than 16 hours later, I got a response. Apparently that specific call had been monitored by the man’s supervisor, and the man was fired on the spot. I also got a free round-trip ticket out of it, in addition to a few free drink vouchers. Not bad. And yes, I continued to fly Vanguard.

On page 4, you will see a story by Stacy Nowak about Art Roehring’s experiences of being denied a flight to Italy last summer. While that matter hasn’t been resolved yet, Roehring is doing the right thing in trying to contact the airlines and doing his homework before he goes ahead and sues anyone. I certainly hope Sabena gives him an apology at least.

But flowers aren’t such a bad way to apologize, either.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

The United States flag has long been a source of pride and patriotism. In the wake of the recent tragedies in the nation, the flag has suddenly become even more meaningful and necessary. Americans United Flag Across America was one of the organizations trying to help raise funds by carrying the flag from Boston to Los Angeles between Oct. 11 and Nov. 11.

The starting and ending locations symbolized the original departure and arrival locations of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, which were hijacked by terrorists on Sept. 11 and crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Proceeds from the run will go towards the victims of these attacks.

Bill Estes of Alabama, along with his uncle, Benje Estes, and Bill’s 10-year-old son Cody, ran with the flag in Talladega County, Ala., on Sunday, Oct. 21. Bill and Benje were the only known deaf runners who participated in this run. “We got involved after getting information from our friend in Atlanta. We decided to volunteer through the website,” Bill said. “We ran four miles in the eastern part of Eastaboga, and ran into Eastaboga on US-78 heading to Lincoln.”

The flag carried across the country was flown over Iraq in the cockpit of a U.S. F-16 in support of Operation Southern Watch on Oct. 2. “We hope to do the very thing that we are doing – honor our fallen crews and others killed in the aircraft attacks on Sept. 11 and remind the nation that the flag was flying when we went through tough times in the past,” said First Officer Todd Wissing, the national coordinator of communications for the run.

The Estes made an impression on those who watched them participate. Alabama’s coordinator for the run Pat Ryan said, “I was absolutely awestruck at how dedicated and motivated to the cause they and their families were. They had a large entourage with them, some [deaf] and some not.”

Ryan said that each of the Estes trio ran two segments of two to three miles at night without extra escorts. “Bill and Benje are both well-trained distance runners and could run like the wind. The fact that these two deaf gentlemen ran with the flag at night across hilly terrain in the most challenging conditions we encountered in the state is testament to the fact that they are truly great American patriots who love their country and are not afraid to show it.”

However, Bill was modest about his participation, saying, “It is hard to describe the experience. What ran through my mind when I ran was how difficult it is to be in the war and how bad it is in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania compared to what I was doing – I was only running four miles.”

Wissing said, “”If we want to remain free, we have to now be brave – and we as a people and a nation are up to these challenges, just as we have been in the past. That is the message we are sending.”

For more information on the run, visit www.flagrun.org.

Copyrighted material. This article may not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.