What they didn't know may have helped us: how the Supreme Court misinterpreted the role of sign language interpreters.
In Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that using state monies to pay for a sign language interpreter's services in a parochial school setting did not violate the Establishment Clause. That decision was based on a flawed reading of the role played by sign language interpreters and the implications of that role within the rubric of traditional First Amendment jurisprudence. This article explores why the interpreter's role is constitutionally significant. It then contrasts the two competing models set before the Court, the mechanical model and the full participant model. After finding that the latter model is the more accurate depiction of the interpreter's role, the article examines several unique features of interpreting between spoken and spatial languages that suggest a more sophisticated Court would have ruled against the Zobrests.
Siegel
P
P
Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, USA.
D003638:Deafness; D004519:Education, Special / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D012574:Schools; D012813:Sign Language