Posted on 2 Comments

Change Ahead: A New Approach to Feedback for Sign Language Interpreters

Jackie Emmart presented Change Ahead: A New Approach to Feedback for Sign Language Interpreters at StreetLeverage – Live 2016 | Fremont. Her presentation advocates a new approach to feedback for more positive outcomes and increased accountability as we encounter the changing realities of the field.

You can find the PPT deck for her presentation here.

[Note from StreetLeverage: What follows is an English translation of Jackie’s StreetLeverage – Live 2016 presentation. We would encourage each of you to watch the video and access Jackie’s original presentation directly.]

When it comes to giving and receiving feedback, the interpreting profession, along with many other industries, has yet to standardize an approach. There are many reasons for this, but the reality is that from one assignment to the next, we interact with one another in a variety of ways. As a result, after the completion of an interpreting assignment, colleagues ask us for feedback but don’t really mean it; ask us if they can share an observation and then proceed to dance around the issue; invite our observations in a judgmental tone that implies an error in our decisions, behavior, and/or interpreting product; or without regard for the emotional impact, “let us have it” because their heart is in the right place but their soft skills leave something to be desired.

In 2014, I was fortunate to attend the Massachusetts Conference for Women, a gathering of 10,000 women seeking professional and personal development, when Sheila Heen was a guest presenter.[i] She and co-author Douglas Stone had just published “Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood)[ii],” and her presentation got at the heart of why we engage with feedback differently from one person to the next and from one day to the next. As I listened to her explain that we’ve been doing it wrong all along, reframe how we could respond to feedback, and share strategies to engage with those responses, I thought that this information could transform everything for us in the interpreting field, and so here we are.

Annually, organizations spend billions on training supervisors, managers, and leaders to give feedback more efficiently. They’re taught to persist if the feedback they give is not immediately received well. The irony in this, as Sheila revealed in her presentation[iii], is that it’s the receiver of the feedback who holds all the power, not the giver. The giver has no control over how the receiver interprets what is said or whether or not and how to use the feedback. This money and our time could be more wisely spent engaging the receivers of feedback, shifting our energy toward seeking feedback (yes, even the negative kind) and asking for what we need to learn, grow, and develop. This is not only because of the rationale Sheila shared, but because our field and the face of the Deaf community are rapidly changing[iv], and we need to adapt in order to remain responsive and relevant. This can be achieved through our professional dialogues with one another, day in and day out.

Defining “Feedback”

Before I continue, let’s take a moment to acknowledge what is meant by “feedback.” Feedback is any information that we get about ourselves, and even when life is messy and it seems impossible to do so, it can be separated into three categories: Appreciation, Coaching, and Evaluation.[v] Appreciation is about relationships and human connection. It’s “Thanks,” “I see you working hard,” and “You matter to me.” Nearly all (93%) workers feel underappreciated at work and half of all workers leave their jobs because they did not feel appreciated. Coaching is feedback that is aimed at helping someone learn, grow, or change. Examples of coaching are when we give tips to improve a skill, approach, behavior, decision, or an appearance. Evaluation tells you where you stand. It’s an assessment, ranking, and/or rating, whereby there is a standard to which you and your work are being compared. Annual performance reviews fall into this category. One of the easiest ways to get clear on the feedback you’re receiving is to ask what is intended – sometimes it seems we’re getting feedback that falls in a particular category when the giver means for something altogether different. Ensuring that the intent and the impact are aligned will support understanding throughout the feedback conversation.[vi] Let’s also be clear that it doesn’t matter what you call the information you get; I know that some individuals are uncomfortable with calling it feedback.[vii] That’s fine; my goal is not for us to change what we call it. My goal is for us to change how we do it.

We know that finding exceptional teachers and mentors with whom we will always have an open mind regardless of what critique they present is a treasured rarity. Most of our experiences will be with other people who don’t have the time to give us meaningful feedback, who don’t know how to give it, who are just plain mean, or who fall somewhere in between. In order to walk the talk when it comes to our commitment to growth, we need to develop the capacity to learn from everyone.[viii] Yes, everyone.

Why is Engaging with Feedback Tricky?

Feedback sits at the intersection of two human needs – to learn and grow, or achieve mastery and the need for acceptance and approval of me just as I am now. Also, there will always be evaluation in coaching. If I am told how to improve, I’m also inherently being told that I’m not quite good enough and it can be tricky to keep our minds and hearts open when receiving these messages. As we’ll learn later, it’s essential that in our feedback conversations, both giver and receiver compare the giver’s intent of delivering appreciation, coaching, or evaluation, with the impact it’s having on the receiver.[ix]

How we receive feedback one day could be different than how we engage with it the next. There are many influencing factors, including how well we slept the night before, our emotional connection to who or what is in the room, who’s giving the feedback and how, and how we’ve learned to give feedback versus how it’s being given. Now that we’ve looked at the person-to-person experience of feedback, let’s take a step back to consider what’s ahead for our profession and how the changing face of the Deaf community will impact us in the months and years to come.

Now is the Time

Due to current and imminent changes on the horizon, we simply cannot continue to approach feedback and other discussions about our interpreting work in the same way that we always have. In order to meet the ever-increasing demands of these changes, we must find a new way to talk about the work, colleague-to-colleague.

Jackie Emmart
Jackie Emmart

Let’s begin by naming the elephant in the room. According to Humphries et al[x], 80% of all deaf children born in developing countries will receive cochlear implants. Due to the varying policies from healthcare providers and CI manufacturer protocols, there are a significant number of those children who will have no solid first language foundation. If they miss the critical period, they may not ever be fluent in any language. Additionally, cognitive tasks that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation.[xi] This has great impact on interpreters – how we work with these individuals must be different than how we work with Deaf individuals whose first language is ASL. We simply cannot go at it alone; we need to open the discussion with one another so that we are all better prepared to face the demanding tasks of interpreting for individuals with language dysfluency and possible cognitive delays.

The recent Trends Report published by the National Interpreter Education Center[xii] tells us that approximately 87% of deaf children are educated in mainstream settings. Without peers who share the same language and without access to Deaf adults who can shape appropriate language acquisition, there will be great impact on language and social fluency. We will work with Deaf people whose language is idiosyncratic and the interpreting strategies that work for one may not work for the other. Thus, we must be willing to engage with feedback and one another about effectively working with these current youth and future adults.

As of late, there has been an upswing in the numbers of social media posts, blogs, and articles from members of the Deaf community who are calling for interpreters to ‘clean up our house’.[xiii][xiv][xv] Deaf people are taking to public forums to highlight the lack of accountability we have for one another, and to demand that this be shifted so that we can show up to work in their lives prepared to collaborate and be consummate professionals. As guests in the Deaf community, we must listen to their views and find a way to appropriately respond. We can best clean our house through open conversations about our work, about our behaviors, and about what it means to serve the Deaf and DeafBlind communities. In order to work together, we must be willing to have these brave conversations and engage with feedback in a new way.

In the last 20 years, we have seen a boom in racial and ethnic diversity in the US and yet, 86% of interpreters are just like me: white women.[xvi] That means that we will not share the same linguistic styles or cultures of the individuals we serve with an increasing frequency. In addition to increasing the racial and ethnic diversity in our profession so that we can more accurately represent reality, we also need to work together to learn how to best serve those from different backgrounds. Talking openly about the work, about social and economic justice, and about other important issues that directly relate to working with individuals who are from different backgrounds will become imperative if we are to provide effective interpreting services.

Our interpreting work is being recorded and posted online in ways it hasn’t been before.[xvii] What used to be seen by only the individuals present is now publicly viewable and we are receiving “feedback” from anyone who wants to contribute, regardless of their credibility or intent. Again, in order to appropriately manage these situations, we must work together. We must be willing to engage with the feedback we receive from one another and request support as needed so that we can successfully navigate this uncharted territory.

The interpreting industry is changing, the face of the Deaf community is changing; these are just some of the reasons why we must begin immediately to engage with feedback in a new way. We are not quite there yet because giving and receiving feedback can be challenging, and there are many reasons for that.

Feedback Can be Messy

It’s probably fair to say that the majority of us are on board with believing that the face of our industry and the Deaf community are rapidly changing. So, what’s preventing us from changing how we engage with one another and feedback to get ahead of the curve? The nature of giving and receiving feedback is complicated and there are likely just as many ways to engage with feedback as there are topics to discuss.

Generally, people believe that if we wanted to know something, we’d ask. Some people think that either we must already know or that someone else will tell us. They don’t want to hurt our feelings. The danger of withholding information, though, is that when we finally meet someone brave enough to share with us, we think whatever they say must not be true because certainly if it were, someone else would have told us by now.[xviii] If, however, I readily and regularly seek feedback from my colleagues, and if I engage with it in a curious way, I will have multiple opportunities to increase my awareness and make improvements as I go.

As mentioned previously, through the course of a feedback conversation, the giver may have a different impression about their intention as compared to the impact it has on the receiver, and thus the receiver responds to what they’re taking away from the conversation, not to what the giver intends. For example, the giver may intend to coach, but the receiver interprets it as evaluation. The onus is on the receiver to check throughout the conversation that intent and impact are aligned, and when they’re not, to discuss them discretely.[xix]

When we do get feedback, it can be easy to overlook and misunderstand the giver’s point. Sometimes they’re vague and we jump to a misinterpretation based on assumed intent[xx]. It’s also incredibly easy to find what’s wrong with the feedback – about you, about the situation, about the constraints – and justify our behavior based on our intentions. Speaking of misaligned intent and impact, did you know that 93% of American motorists believe they are better than average drivers? Or that of the managers surveyed by one 2007 BusinessWeek poll, 90% believed their performance was in the top 10%?[xxi] If we’re to successfully engage with feedback, as receivers we must switch from “wrong-spotting” to “tell me more.”[xxii] In place of justifications, we ought to respond with inquiry. Through the course of this new kind of conversation, we’ll better understand the impact of our decisions, thus mitigating the social blind spots we all have.

There have been attempts to reframe our feedback discussions, such that we now tell one another to separate self from work and talk only about the raw data in a given interpretation. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as raw data. As givers of feedback, we always interpret what we see before we store it in memory. So, by the time it makes its way out of our minds and into the laps of the feedback receivers, what’s being given is an interpretation. We think it’s raw data because that’s how we’ve stored it, but the truth is, there is no such thing. We attend to what we think is important, based on our experiences, values, assumptions, and implicit rules. For the purpose of more deeply engaging with feedback, we must remember that what we see or hear in an interpretation matters just as much as what we did not see or hear.[xxiii] The feedback you give is what is important to you through your lens, so if I really want to learn and grow, I need to seek negative feedback and not wait for others to share what’s important to them.

And then there are first impressions and the myriad studies about them. Regardless of a good or bad first impression, thereafter we seek data to confirm what we originally believed.[xxiv] That means that if we continue to focus on the giver of feedback, we’ll only get the data they’ve collected through their lens. If we ask specific questions about getting feedback, though, and focus on improving how we receive it, we can benefit from data that may otherwise have gone unnoticed.

In this new approach, we will drive our own growth and learning.

Benefits

On a personal level, when we receive feedback well, our relationships become more rich. In fact, a key predictor of healthier, stable marriages is whether or not we’re willing and able to accept influence from our spouses. Additionally, our self-esteem becomes more secure because through the process of learning what we need to improve and subsequently working to improve it, we get better at things and we feel good about it. [xxv]

Feedback-seeking behavior is linked to higher job satisfaction and seeking negative feedback is associated with higher performance ratings.[xxvi] When we’re committed to learning and growth in our hearts and in our actions, it’s no wonder that we will be more satisfied with the work that we do. And when we seek negative feedback from our colleagues and the individuals we serve, our “walking the talk” is perceived favorably as a sign of true commitment to align intent with impact.

For generations, we have seen that our happiness does not spring from the events or things in our lives but rather how we choose to respond to those events. Modern research tells us that it is experiences, not material goods, that create happiness.[xxvii] We have the opportunity to create the life we want to live on a daily basis, by engaging with one another in a curious way about our work, our behaviors, and our decisions.

There are many more benefits for us as individuals and for our field as a whole that we will realize upon making these changes – to shift our focus from refining the giving of feedback to improving how receivers seek and engage with feedback of all kinds.

Are you in?

Feedback is not always easy, but it is always worth it. There are many compelling current and future reasons on individual and profession-wide levels for why we must now shift how we handle the art and science of engaging with feedback. We must collectively decide that we want to proactively shape our future; multiple paths will lead us there, some of which are listed above. For more information on how you can shift your energy and learn to receive feedback well, check out Thanks for the feedback. If you let it, it will change you – personally and professionally.

 

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”

 

References

[i] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[ii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[iii] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[iv] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[v] Heen, S. (2014). Understanding the Science and Art of Receiving Feedback to Negotiate What Matters Most. Presentation, Massachusetts Conference for Women.

[vi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[vii] Emmart, J. (2015). Sign Language Interpreters and the ‘F’ Word. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2015/12/sign-language-interpreters-and-the-f-word/

[viii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[ix] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). Penguin Group USA.

[x] Humphries, T., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9 (16). Retrieved from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16

[xi] Humphries, T., et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9 (16). Retrieved from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16

[xii] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[xiii] C Green. (2014, June 12). Accountability: Clean Your House. [Web log article]. Retrieved from http://deafwordsmith.blogspot.com/2014/06/accountability-clean-your-house.html

[xiv] Suggs, T. (2012). Deaf Disempowerment and Today’s Interpreter. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage.com/2012/12/deaf-disempowerment-and-todays-interpreter/

[xv] E Stecker. (2014, April 23). Video Blog Community accountability: Interpreters [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/znK5wUUQe-U

[xvi] Cogen, C. & Cokely, D. (2015). Preparing Interpreters for Tomorrow: Report on a Study of Emerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NIEC_Trends_Report_2_2016.pdf

[xvii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.34) Penguin Group USA.

[xviii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.90) Penguin Group USA.

[xix] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.201-202) Penguin Group USA.

[xx] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.88-89) Penguin Group USA.

[xxi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (p.64) Penguin Group USA.

[xxii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.46-47) Penguin Group USA.

[xxiii] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.54-55) Penguin Group USA.

[xxiv] Dimitrius, J. E. and Mazzarella, M. (2000) Put Your Best Foot Forward: Make a Great Impression by Taking Control of How Others See You. New York, NY: Fireside.

[xxv] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.8-9) Penguin Group USA.

[xxvi] Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (even when it is off base, unfair, poorly delivered, and frankly, you’re not in the mood). (pp.8-9) Penguin Group USA.

[xxvii] Hamblin, J. (2014, October 7). Buy Experiences, Not Things. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/buy-experiences/381132

 

Posted on Leave a comment

Presidential Candidates: Who Should Sign Language Interpreters Vote For?

Personal politics aside, the 2016 Presidential election is an opportunity to view politics through a “sign language interpreter lens”. Using this angle, Cassie Lang examines the candidates’ views on various issues.

Presidential Candidates: Who Should Sign Language Interpreters Vote For?

With the presidential election just a few days away, and considering this all began over two years ago (!) you might find yourself in one of two categories: fed up and despondent over the state of politics, or freaked and obsessed with the latest breaking scandal and poll results. Maybe you’re just trying to keep track of the latest sign for TRUMP while interpreting, or monitoring those facial meta-comments whenever the election comes up. With it now possible to watch presidential debates in a movie theater complete with a free drink, and nearly everything being labeled “unprecedented,” the tongue-in-cheek ending line to the SNL debate spoof, “Just to remind everyone at home, this was the presidential debate” seems to be further evidence of a populace that just wishes this circus would pack up the tent and go home.

[View post in ASL]

Is it just me, or does anyone long for days of political yore: some nice, boring analysis of policy statements, voting records and speech fact checking? During a campaign when most voters have already decided who they’re voting for or against (polls estimate only 2-12% are undecided), disillusioned though they may be about it, it just might seem an exercise in futility to dig into the issues facing America today that have so briefly garnered media attention.

What is a typical “Sign Language Interpreter Identity”?

The phrase “identity politics” rings true: we vote for candidates we feel most closely represent ourselves and our interests. With a nod to the latest buzz word but valid cultural construct, intersectionality, I’d like to share what I’ve learned looking at the candidates from the identity lens of a sign language interpreter. This focuses on the major party nominees, but information is also available on Libertarian Gary Johnson or the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

So what do we as interpreters care about? Using myself as an example, I consider things like out of pocket healthcare costs and insurance policies available on the exchanges, since I’ve been full time in private practice. I’m not incorporated nor do I own an interpreting agency, but I do work for several, so I also wanted to learn what if any impact this election may have on small business owners. I also have an eye on education: would massive budget cuts to public education have an impact on funding for special education and educational interpreters? Although the ADA remains largely a bulwark for Deaf-related issues regardless of party administration, I also have concerns regarding the politics surrounding bi-(or multi-) lingualism, minority cultures, and disability issues in order to keep moving forward on things like accessibility and equality instead of reverting to the back foot.

Issues closely tied to sign language interpreters and the people we work with haven’t gotten the coverage that perhaps foreign policy or personality have, so I did my best to compile sources. Here’s what I found:

Education

Hillary Clinton supports the Common Core Standards and publicly funded early childhood education, and wants to make public higher education “debt-free.” She also wants to reduce the number of standardized tests. She acknowledges problems with charter schools having the ability to be more selective about their students but does support a school voucher program for school choice (NPR, 2016).

Donald Trump does not support the Common Core or making public higher education debt-free, and is unclear on his position of early childcare education, although agrees with Clinton in reducing standardized testing. He supports a voucher program for private and charter schools, specifically proposing to cut $20 billion federal dollars from public schools. If states contribute another $100M each, then those funds combined would give “every student living in poverty” $12,000 toward school choice. States who have more private and charter schools are more likely to get back the subtracted federal funds and if they make a commitment to supporting non-public options. Trump also has a more negative view on teachers’ unions and believes teacher pay should be influenced by evaluations. (NPR, 2016).

Health care

Clinton supports the Affordable Care Act as a public insurance option for those not getting insured through their employer or those who are self-employed, and pledges to lower out-of-pocket prescription drug costs. She also wants to give states incentives to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans and allow enrollment in exchanges regardless of immigration status.

Trump wants to end the Affordable Care Act and replace it with optional Health Savings Accounts (where an individual can choose to deposit a portion of pre-tax income into a yearly account for approved health care costs). He also wants to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, minimizing or eliminating state regulation over the companies. He proposes to give state lawmakers more discretion over what federal Medicaid grants will cover.

Bilingualism

Clinton encourages Americans to become bilingual, does not believe English should be the official language of the United States, and opposes discrimination towards those who do not speak English (2008 debate). She voted “No” on getting rid of legal challenges to English-only job rules (March 2008).

Trump criticized Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail and was quoted as saying, “We’re a nation that speaks English, and I think that while we’re in this nation we should be speaking English…it’s more appropriate.”

ADA/disability and Deaf issues

Cassie Lang
Cassie Lang

Clinton has been quoted for needing to recognize the positive impact people with disabilities have had on “changing things for the better” in America. In her position statement, she vows to continue to support the ADA, expand support for those with disabilities to “live in integrated community settings”, “improve access to meaningful, gainful employment” and provide tax breaks for families with individuals who have disabilities. Her website cites her effort when Secretary of State for the US to join the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

She spoke specifically at an event in September on creating more economic opportunity for people with disabilities, such as eliminating rules allowing the exception to pay those with disabilities below minimum wage.

In her answers to RespectAbility’s Report Questionnaire, Clinton details her votes for increased funding for IDEA, her introduction of the Count Every Vote Act to ensure accessible voting, her commitment to work with law enforcement on cultural understanding for persons with disabilities along with supporting the use of police body cameras, and her campaign’s efforts to make her website, media and interactions with voters accessible. Her response also mentioned her support of Bill Clinton’s $3M in grants to expand screenings such as the newborn hearing screening, and her first-ever appointment when Secretary of State of a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights to construct a plan to promote disability rights internationally.

Clinton also has an intern for her campaign who is Deaf.

Trump’s campaign website has no position statements on disability. After he made contorted arm movements while speaking negatively about a reporter with a disability at a rally last November, allegations of him mocking the reporter, including from the New York Times became widespread. He later denied this and was quoted saying, “I would never say anything bad about a person that has a disability. I swear to you it’s true, 100 percent true. . . . Who would do that to [the] handicapped? I’ve spent a lot of money making buildings accessible.” In citing adding accessibility to his buildings as the explanation for his actions being misconstrued, it is unclear whether his purported building improvements were going above and beyond the ADA, or simply coming into compliance with what has been federal law since 1990.

Trump was reported to use derogatory terms and behavior toward Marlee Matlin. Her response here.

Small business

Clinton supports helping small businesses get off the ground with access to capital and deferring student loan payments, streamlining licensing, simplifying tax filing rules, incentivizing health care benefits for business with up to 50 employees, providing training and mentoring to business owners and making sure small businesses get paid for services rendered.

Trump proposes to lower the business tax rate for corporate income from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies labeled “C” corporations (under 8% of small businesses benefit).

Related:

According to a recent Bank of America survey, 74% of small business owners are concerned that health care costs will impact their business, and 79% feel that the effectiveness of government leaders, in general, will affect their business in the next 12 months. Sixty-seven percent of respondents are voting based on personal perspectives as opposed to business.

It Matters in the End

Political polarization in the US is at its highest point in the last twenty years. And our perception of ourselves and others seems…skewed. Basically, people are more often saying “Yeah, my political party is pretty moderate, but that other party- those are the crazies.” And the result? Extreme rhetoric over the years not only has sown close-mindedness, and even anger, but also has nearly shut down the federal government on more than one occasion. It has also spawned the presidential race we have today.

One of my favorite things about StreetLeverage is the value it places on self-discovery and self-awareness of who we are as whole people functioning within systems of power, and the responsibility each of us has individually to effect change. How does who we are influence where we are- as individuals, as a collective? Let’s look at the electoral landscape and apply the same principles StreetLeverage calls us to embody: introspection, engagement, and resolve.

In doing this research, I came across an article that said, “if you don’t like the person, vote for the issues.” It’s up to us as sign language interpreters to determine where our identity politics lead us. We need to be as diligent as we can in looking closely at these and other issues that will form our democracy for the next presidential term. If this election season feels like a Tilt-A-Whirl you didn’t even buy a ticket for, close your eyes, take a breath and vote on November 8. This ride is over soon, kids.

* Interested in receiving StreetLeverage posts in your inbox?

Simply enter your name and email in the field above the green “Sign Me Up!” button (upper right-hand side of this page) and click “Sign Me Up!”