VIEWS Fall 25: Connections & Reflections by Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

VIEWS VOLUME 42 | ISSUE 4 | FALL 2025

Connections & Reflections

A Laboratory of Relational Accountability Angela Blackdeer

From isolation to connection: How a newsletter sparked a community Aurélia NGG

Who Gets the Credit? Hercules E. Goss-Kuehn

Being in a League Together Jenny Miller 1

OUR TEAM BOARD OF DIRECTORS

HEADQUARTERS STAFF

CONTENTS

President’s Report

Newly Certified Interpreters

Letter to the Editor 1

Letter to the Editor 2

Letter from the Editor

CEC Webinars

RID Connect

CMP

VIEWS Vision

From isolation to connection: How a newsletter sparked a community

Being in a League Together

Who Gets the Credit? The Paradox of PPO Facilitation — Core Insights from the 2025 RID Conference

The Weight of the Work: Mental Health Trends and Solutions in the Interpreting Profession 3

FROM THE PRESIDENT

PRESIDENT’S REPORT Connections & Reflections Mona Mehrpour President, RID As the year comes to a close, we invite you to reflect on the connections made, lessons learned, and wisdom to guide us into the new year. I have been honored to step into the role of President of RID on October 22, 2025, and to be sworn in alongside two wonderful colleagues, Vice President Letty Moran and Secretary Rosemary Wanis. My parents and twin brother were also present, and I was deeply touched by the many messages I received from people sharing how much joy it brought them to witness the occasion. Seeing participants beyond our members reminded me of the broader impact of representation and underscored how I even got here in the first place. It was a firm reminder of the importance of celebrating individuals who are committed to contributing to a more promising and positive future for this organization. This is one facet of many that I hope to see grow as we increase RID’s visibility and understanding of what it stands for. Shortly after beginning my term, we experienced challenges during a special meeting that led to two adjournments. These moments, though difficult, offered valuable lessons about how we can improve the organization’s structure and ensure members feel supported and confident in participating. We are here for both our members and the Deaf community. It is essential that members feel supported in this profession, with resources and guidance readily available while serving our vibrant and diverse communities throughout the nation. We also need to raise awareness about what RID represents and how members can benefit from being part of this organization. I decided to run for President because, like many members, I experienced ambiguity about the organization’s purpose and was often told to get certified without understanding the value. My commitment is to bring understanding to how important it is to protect the communities we serve while supporting interpreters in pursuing their professional careers as certified individuals. I have only been in this position just shy of a month and a half and recognize I have a lot to learn, but I am here to learn and to deliver. I am committed to bringing us all together, fostering meaningful conversations, and guiding RID toward a shared vision for the organization’s success. As the year ends, let us celebrate the connections we have made, the lessons we have learned, and the opportunities ahead to create a positive and promising future for all in our community. Be well and be kind. 4

Join Our Team of Professionals and Enjoy: Per diem flexible schedules

On-site and VRI referrals

Dedicated support team and friendly atmosphere

Professional Development and skill enhancement opportunities

On time payments – twice a month – Direct Deposit

Diverse settings: Educational K-12, College Classes, Medical, Government, Platform, Corporate, Social Services

SignTalk, LLC

718.382.2020 jobs@signtalk.com

SignTalk Florida

407.612.6303 407.612.6303 jobs@signtalkfl.com jobs@signtalkfl.com

signtalk.com

Newly Certified In Region III

Region I Laura Bappert, NIC Abigail Chen, NIC Christina Du Brino, NIC Joshua Mora, CDI Marlee Stake, NIC Charley Thorn, CDI Melissa Watson, CDI Ronnie Zuchegno, CDI

PA PA NY NY PA RI PA NY

Region II Laura Albenesius, NIC Rachel Blevins, NIC Marcus Blue, NIC Catherine-Annette Cox, NIC Laura Daub, NIC Tania Delgadillo-Perez, NIC Amelia Eggerton, NIC Chiarra Foster, NIC Jessica Frew, NIC Molly Griffen, NIC Andrew James, NIC Paige King, NIC Bonnie Kramer, CDI Jordan Merwin, NIC Landon Morrison, NIC Zackary Raposo, NIC Felicia Reed, NIC Kayla Robertson, NIC Jessica Rodriguez, NIC Monique Southerland, NIC Andrea Stallman, NIC Sumayyah Tobing, NIC Kiyomi Wisnasky, NIC

Malcolm Peters, CDI Anna Hong, NIC Emmalee McConnell, NIC Tina Scott, NIC Rosina Switras, CDI

IN MI IN IL MI

Region IV SC GA MD MD VA WA MD MD MD FL AL MS MD FL MD MD SC GA FL GA MD MD NC

Kerie Ljunghammar, NIC Rebecca Lackey, NIC John Bechhold, CDI Kara Ross, NIC Kaelin Tonrey, NIC Lesley Poarch, NIC Megan Brown, NIC Sarah Bird-Gomez, NIC

OK MO OH MO NM MO TX CO

Region V Joshua Niphanprasart, NIC Rachel Rosenstock, NIC Amber Berteloot, NIC Anna Veal, NIC Mitchel Kvavle, NIC Dorothy Smith, NIC Austin Medlock, NIC Cayla Pennick, NIC Dylan Wright, NIC Sidney Ayele, NIC

OR CA CA AZ OR HI WA AZ CA CA

nterpreters

List from September 11 - December 18, 2025

Congratulations to all 291 interpreters who earned their RID certification in 2025! We are so proud to welcome this new cohort of certified professionals to the field and can’t wait to see the impact you will make in your communities!

COLUMN

From isolation to connection: How a newsletter sparked a community Aurélia NGG, Ph.D.

Aurélia NGG is a French sign language interpreter (LSF, IS, FR, EN), researcher, and educator. With over a decade of professional experience and a PhD in International Sign interpretation, she bridges academia and practice to foster more inclusive, connected interpreting communities. In 2023, she launched Le 15-15, a monthly newsletter that breaks taboos and builds trust among over 600 interpreters in France. Its success led to The 20-20, its international sister edition dedicated to bringing research to practice for sign language interpreters worldwide. Whether she’s decoding VAT, exposing bias, or curating insights, Aurélia’s goal remains the same: creating spaces where interpreters can learn, grow, and connect - far beyond the stage.

As sign language interpreters, we attend training here and there. A weekend workshop. A one-off webinar. But ongoing, regular, sharp, and relevant professional input? That is rare. We are often too isolated, too busy, or too far from opportunities to stay updated. Yet our profession evolves fast. We need something that meets us where we are. Not a classroom. Not a conference. But our phones. I see you and your seven hours of scrolling per day… (what, only me?) That is where the idea for a newsletter came in. A digital tool that fits in your pocket. Written by an interpreter, for interpreters. A toolbox. A space to grow. A space to connect. When I graduated from my Master’s program in France, I was surrounded by learning: research, feedback, peers, room to make mistakes. But when I started working, all that vanished. The sudden absence of feedback and exchange was brutal. Asking questions suddenly felt dangerous; like admitting weakness. But working alone in our corners never helped anyone. And taboos do not make us stronger. So I created what I wish I had from day one: Le 15-15, a monthly newsletter for French sign language (LSF) interpreters.

The name is a wink to our work rhythm: interpreters usually switch every 15 or 20 minutes. I am in the 15-minute team. And yes, I send the newsletter every 15th of the month at 15h. I am a simple girl. Le 15-15 started small: a curated list of links, reflections, and tools. But each edition sparked responses. Long emails. Private messages. People shared their fears, ideas, and even gratitude. It was clear: this newsletter had become a safe space. So I went further. I opened a private Discord server exclusively for interpreters. Now, we exchange daily. We share prep, dilemmas, resources, and support. 9

Le 15-15 now reaches more than 600 French interpreters (out of ~700 graduates), plus 200 students and allied professionals. Our motto? Mutual support, knowledge sharing, and good vibes. What makes it different? I talk about the things we usually do not: Money. Rates. Burnout. Mistakes. Discriminations. Questions we are ashamed to ask. I share mine even though I have been interpreting since 2012 and hold a doctorate. Because here is a truth: if you want admiration, share your wins. If you want connection, share your failures. I choose connection. And the responses blew me away: “I thought I was the only one who felt lost.” “This newsletter feels like it was written just for me.” “I used to avoid professional spaces. Now I talk to colleagues every day.” Some of the most-read editions in 2025? One focused on discrimination and aggression within the interpreting community - not from clients, but from interpreters toward each other. I collected anonymous testimonies. Some chose to break anonymity and confide in me. That trust deeply moved me. One story: a student intern was told by her mentor that she should “walk instead of taking the bus, considering her weight.” Another: a manager replaced a team of interpreters to avoid having “too many Black interpreters” on a job. The other standout edition? The one on Value-Added Tax (VAT). In France, VAT can feel terrifying to freelance interpreters. So I brought in an expert: a certified accountant who is also an interpreter. Together, we broke down the concepts and answered the real questions. The fear of VAT is one of the biggest blockers to financial growth in our field. Every November, I get messages like: “I did it! I finally crossed the VAT threshold this year - and my revenue is growing.” We also explored topics like co-interpreting, interpreting in South Korea, and the psychology of interpreting. It is not just about language - we discuss business, mindset, and ethics. As more international colleagues showed interest, I created The 20-20 - an English version with a twist.

The 20-20 is built around a clear promise: bringing research to practice for sign language interpreters worldwide. Every month, I choose one academic article, summarize it clearly, extract three takeaways you can apply today, and pair it with hand-picked professional resources. More than 200 interpreters from every continent now receive The 20-20: from the U.S. to Brazil, from Australia to Portugal to India. It is humbling. And motivating. Among the most popular editions? One on International Sign interpreting, the subject of my PhD.

Another on the interpreter’s eye gaze and its impact on the Deaf client - yes, there is a research topic in everything if you dig deep enough. Why does this matter? Because behind our titles, we’re often alone. We hesitate. We compare. We think, “Am I the only one who…?” Let me guarantee you: you are not the only one. So start small. Ask a colleague. Share something. Confide in someone you trust. You have a 99.9% chance of finding support (source: trust me). Let’s replace isolation with connection. Let’s talk. Let’s stay connected.

ARTICLE

Being in a League Together Jenny Miller MA, CI/CT, Ed: K-12, SC: L Jenny received her Associate’s degree in Interpreting and Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Last year she received her Master of Arts degree in Social Justice and Community Organizing from Prescott College to look at the intersections of these two loves and figure out how to keep the volunteers that are a part of them motivated to join, stay, and lead. She has been involved in the Colorado Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf fulfilling multiple board and committee roles for over 25 years. A happy interpreter, wife, mom, and lover of community, her friend bought her a refrigerator magnet that says “Stop me before I volunteer again”, and nothing could be more accurate.

“Did you know that across the world, throughout every culture, every study says community is the most vital key to joy…?” - “A Future That Bright,” Andrea Gibson Quick! Would you rather: Go bowling alone, or bowl in a group? One more. Would you rather: interpret where your “game” is as only good as you can make it? Or have a diverse team where everyone’s game is elevated? You might be wondering what bowling has to do with interpreting—and why you should keep reading. The truth is, bowling alone is not much fun, and it does not last long. Unfortunately, that’s where our field is right now. We have shifted from “bowling in leagues,” where we worked together and shared our strengths, to a place while more independent, yes, but also more isolated and mistrustful. When interpreters and Deaf Communities can come together, or our version of joining a league, we build trust, connection, and shared success. And if we started “bowling together” again, that sense of community could ripple out beyond our own careers to strengthen Deaf–Interpreter relationships and even our state and national organizations. Bowling Alone While earning my Master’s in Social Justice and Community Organizing, I was struck by Putnam’s Bowling Alone (2001) and the companion film Join or Die (Davis & Davis, 2023). Both explore the decline of social and professional groups in America and how to inspire people to join—and stay— connected. Putnam introduces the idea of social capital, or the relationships among people who live and work together that help society function beyond mere transactions. Building social capital takes effort and vulnerability—it means getting involved and maintaining those connections. In our interpreting and Deaf communities, I think fear of failure and worry often keep us from engaging. But if we shifted that mindset toward seeing involvement as an opportunity—to contribute, share ideas, and grow together—we would be more likely to invest in the long-term success of our profession. 12

Joining a League “Bowling alone” is not solely the fault of the interpreter, but rather the result of a disconnection between all parties. It may appear after a job that we end up feeling like we are not working for a common good, but instead a brief transactional exchange where we focus solely on our own score and not the outcome of the other players. Often, interpreters question how their job fits in as a part of being in the Deaf community because so many times our assignment entails only placing a call, doing the job, then leaving. Let us go a step further and think of our “team” not just as a single job however, but with our state RID chapters. I remember when I started out interpreting, I was scared to death to meet the “good interpreters” that were leading Colorado RID, and the Deaf Community at the Colorado Association of the Deaf. I was scared that if I went to a workshop or activity, I would be shamed or dismissed. What I found in both cases, the leadership of people who were running these events had been in my exact position just a few years before. Through their openness, I was able to gain social capital by accepting more responsibilities, developing relationships and being part of a new community of interpreter and Deaf colleagues. For our “bowling leagues” to be successful for both the pros and newcomers, we have to be honest about the barriers to forming true coalitions. Any shared history includes successes and progress— but also harm and power imbalances that have made collaboration difficult. Both the Deaf and interpreting communities have, at times, viewed each other as unsafe spaces. Yet our shared history also includes strong examples of partnership. When RID was first established, NAD supported the process by providing space and resources. More recently in 2005, the two organizations collaborated to create the shared Code of Professional Conduct (Miner, 2021). Avoiding Gutter Balls Any partnership, however, would involve answering some preliminary questions. • • • • • • •

How can we take the first step in being a part of our local community? What has kept people from joining before? Are conflicts within our own group keeping us from connecting? Have we been unintentionally gatekeeping to prevent people from wanting to join? How can we then think bigger to have our state, and national NAD and RID chapters establish an ongoing collaboration where we could gain social capital organization-wide? What sorts of community organizing, leadership development, social justice, and advocacy frameworks should inform a successful collaboration? What boundaries should exist regarding access to each other’s spaces?

Building relationships is not easy, and one of the biggest challenges in collaboration is trust. Learning to trust requires self-reflection and vulnerability—looking at how we have viewed and treated one another in the past so we can build a better future. Committing to relationships for the long haul helps us move beyond quick fixes and urgency-based thinking, while also recognizing that past hurts or hesitations might make us wary of reaching out in the first place (Bojer, 2021). There is the perception that the social capital of NAD and RID has declined, resulting in less opportunities for both groups to interact on state and national levels. But by honoring our past connections, we can find hope and a vision for the future (Padden, 2008). Hearing interpreters, for example, need to examine their privilege and recognize their role as ambassadors and cultural brokers who work with, not for, the Deaf community (Cue, 2024). An intentional, shared coalition between state affiliates can help foster those alliances. If NAD and RID could collaborate, they could also propose mutually beneficial goals that could make impacts at a local level. For example, recruiting people in the Deaf community to become Deaf Interpreters would create a ripple effect to even more partnerships with organizations like the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, the National Center for State Courts, and interpreter education programs. 13

Different Frames Seeing potential collaborations through different political and social theories can give us examples of how to maintain our leagues for the long-term (Sitrin, 2012). For example, having two different groups meet in a shared space will allow room to address problems by using “non-reformist reforms,” challenging each other to dream what could be, versus being stuck having to focus on where a system is currently (Cabral, 1973). The mobilizing change framework highlights how one person typically does not bring change to a whole movement but more often, a community organizes together to fight for their beliefs. It is a way to see problems as a mobilizing force to motivate people to help being part of the change. Another framework that an organization could use is called a community power-building movement, which is a way to problem-solve by tapping each member’s diverse resources, to focus support for those most affected by current inequitable systems to build strength together (Change Elemental, n.d.). If NAD and RID would work together on joint priorities independently of their parent groups, their members would then report back to their respective organizations about previously unknown needs and develop courses of action tied to the combined groups’ shared goals. If we can find pathways to connect and work together, we can build bonds and trust for our members, and more effectively help communities that are experiencing barriers. All of these visions start with the small steps of people coming together to make a difference in their communities. In 2015, for example, a Colorado state-wide survey was sent out to learn about accessibility challenges at medical appointments. After hearing about these issues, the participants of the group founded Bridging Communications. Over the past ten years, our group has worked to pass three laws improving access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing patients in rural and mountain areas. And, a second Bridging Communications group formed, and we continue to work on new projects aimed at the concerns of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community, as well as the interpreting, medical, and disability fields. Bridging Communications is a collaboration by our Regional Accountability Entity (RAE), the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition (CCDC), the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), and Deaf Overcoming Violence through Empowerment (DOVE). Nationally a step was made in July 2024, when then CEO and President of RID presented at the NAD convention a workshop, “RID and the Deaf Community: Crucial Conversations.” They acknowledged the fallout from tension between the two over the years. They asked, “How can RID better support the needs of the Deaf community in the future?” (Bryant & Grieser 2024). It was not just collaboration for collaboration’s sake; they were thinking bigger about intentional relationship building. They encouraged both groups to dream big and start the conversation about what collaborations could look like personally, locally and nationally. Summary Even as organizations struggle with social capital, expectations for what organizations should provide keep rising. Coming together to build spaces of trust and innovation strengthen us individually and nationally, modeling cooperation for others to follow. Furthermore, expanding all levels of social capital by getting outside of our silos can foster trust, share information, and create a new safe space. Putting yourself out there is scary, but when we do it for the common good, it makes us stronger. The key is taking the first step, recognizing the value of reaching out and committing to strengthening our shared community. Bowling alone can make us feel like we have to figure everything out ourselves. Several years ago, I attended a training for legal interpreters called Iron Sharpens Iron. The idea was simple; by learning from the best, we could give our best to others. That is what I want for our profession and our communities. We need each other to sharpen our own “iron,” by drawing on our collective skills, talents, and wisdom. Together, we can celebrate successes, support one another, and form a team that plays in a league—not just for a season, but for the long haul. 14

*Immeasurable thanks to Amy Kroll for guiding my writing, and Carmela Roybal for interpreting. References Bryant, R. and Grieser, S. (July, 2024). RID and the Deaf Community: Crucial Conversations [Conference workshop]. National Association for the Deaf Conference. Cabral, A. (1973). Return to the source: Selected speeches of Amilcar Cabral. Monthly Review Press. https://www.scribd.com/document/187184842/Return-to-the-Source-Selected-Speeches-ofAmilcar-cabral Change Elemental (n.d.) Essential Capacities for Equitable Communities. Retrieved from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee2c6c3c085f746bd33f80e/t/5f6a2036a258802fc79 4e733/1600790609545/Essential+Capacities+for+Community+Power_Change+Elemental.pdf Cue, K. R. (26 June 2024): Defining hearing culture/re in the context of deaf culture: A grounded theory examination. Disability & Society, 40(7). DOI: 10.1080/09687599.20242369649 Davis, P. & Davis, R. (Directors). (2023). Join or Die [Documentary]. Freedman Films; Netflix Miner, C. (2021) Finding their fit: An exploratory study of interpreters’ perceptions of their membership in the deaf community. Journal of Interpretation, 29(1). Padden, C. (2008). The decline of deaf clubs in the United States: A treatise on the problem of place. University of California, San Diego. Retrieved from: https://pages.ucsd.edu/~cpadden/files/Decline%20of%20Deaf%20Clubs.pdf Morrison, M. S. (2013, Spring). Becoming trustworthy white allies. Reflections: A Magazine of Theological and Ethical Inquiry from Yale Divinity School, (The Future of Race). https://reflections.yale.edu/article/future-race/becoming-trustworthy-white-allies Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster. https://reflections.yale.edu/article/future-race/becoming-trustworthy-white-allies Sitrin, M. (Spring, 2012) Horizontalism and the occupy movements. Retrieved from: https://prescott.instructure.com/courses/3353/modules/items/203742

ARTICLE

Who Gets the Credit? The Paradox of PPO Facilitation — Core Insights from the 2025 RID Conference

Hercules E. Goss-Kuehn, NIC Hercules “Herc” E. Goss-Kuehn (she/they/he/siya/isuna) is a CODA with ancestral ties to Scandinavia and the Philippines. She brings over a decade of experience as an ASL interpreter, language broker, educator, and PPO facilitator, centering Deaf, disabled, LGBTQ+, and BIPOC communities. Hercules holds an AAS from St. Paul College and a BA from Metropolitan State University, with continued study at Gallaudet University. She has completed advanced interpreter training through the CATIE Center, KIS, and ASLIS. She co-founded TerpTalk Hawai‘i and served as president of MERGE (2018–2020). Currently, she serves as President of Hawai‘i RID (2024–2026), leading initiatives in accessibility, racial equity, interpreter education, and community engagement. Her work includes interpreting for social justice movements, developing PPO curricula, presented at the 2021 RID Conference and at the 2025 RID National Conference alongside colleagues. Through Hercules Interpreting LLC, she consults on ASL access for public events, including Hawai‘i’s first ASL access team for Honolulu Pride. Hercules’s work centers the labor, skill, and expertise of interpreters, advancing equitable access and fostering spaces where Deaf and marginalized communities are fully included and heard.

*PPO will be seen as analogous to DEI for the sake of this article Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) work is often framed as essential—noble, progressive, and necessary for the transformation of oppressive institutional structures. Yet those most impacted by systemic harm, including queer and trans people, people of color, Deaf and disabled people, and those who live at the intersections of these identities, are disproportionately expected to carry this labor. As a queer and trans person of color who also navigates disability and cultural and linguistic marginalization within Deaf and DeafBlind communities, I am repeatedly positioned as the person responsible for educating predominantly white, hearing, cisgender, and able-bodied colleagues on foundational DEI concepts. This article analyzes that tension through academic frameworks of invisible labor, cultural taxation, and vicarious trauma, while grounding analysis in the particularities of interpreting, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) professional structures, and the emotional costs incurred through PPO facilitation. Invisible Labor and the Interpreting Profession The concept of invisible labor refers to work that is required, expected, and extracted yet not formally acknowledged or compensated (Daniels, 1987; Hatton, 2017). This labor includes the emotional, relational, and pedagogical efforts necessary to sustain institutional functioning, particularly within institutions that center whiteness and normative identities. Building on this, Miller et al. (2019) demonstrate that such emotional and diversity-related labor is disproportionately shouldered by faculty and staff who hold marginalized identities, and that this inequitable distribution underscores 16

the need for formal recognition and just compensation. Interpreting systems rely heavily on this invisible labor. Interpreters are expected to be culturally competent, trauma-informed, and aware of structural oppression, yet the field offers few incentives for sustained education about these issues beyond minimal certification maintenance requirements. More troubling is how marginalized interpreters are expected to provide that education for free or for significantly reduced compensation. When I facilitate PPO workshops, I am not merely teaching skill and information. I am carrying the emotional weight of navigating those oppressive structures myself. I am asked to present content that centers on racism, sexism, transphobia, audism, ableism, and colonial violence, all while being subjected to these systems at the very moment I am educating others about them. This duality is foundational to the invisible labor of DEI in interpreting. Cultural Taxation and Expectations Placed on Marginalized Facilitators Padilla (1994) introduced the notion of cultural taxation to describe how institutions disproportionately rely on faculty and staff of color to take on DEI-related responsibilities because of their identity. Scholars have since expanded this concept to include queer and trans people, disabled people, and others with intersecting marginalized identities. In the interpreting field, cultural taxation manifests through: • • • • •

Requests for “quick” consultations about race, gender, pronouns, disability justice, or accessibility. Expectations that marginalized interpreters serve as cultural brokers or mediators. Invitations to teach PPO-related content without appropriate compensation or CEU recognition. Implicit evaluations of marginalized practitioners as more “authentic” DEI educators. Pressure to maintain emotional composure and provide care for participants who become uncomfortable or defensive.

When I teach DEI workshops, participants often rely on my lived experience as “proof” of the content. My identity becomes the curriculum. While personal narrative can be pedagogically powerful, it should never be required for legitimacy. Yet DEI facilitation routinely demands that marginalized educators re-live their own trauma for others’ professional development. Performative Labor and Emotional Containment DEI work is not solely informational, it is deeply emotional. Marginalized facilitators must constantly navigate white fragility (DiAngelo, 2011), defensiveness, guilt, denial, and resistance from participants who feel implicated by the material. This emotional burden is part of what Ahmed (2012) calls institutional non-performativity: The phenomenon where institutions speak the language of diversity while refusing to implement material change. In practice, this means: • • • • •

Managing discomfort of participants whose identities align with dominant societal norms. Providing emotional reassurance to learners who feel “attacked” by discussions of privilege. Softening language to avoid backlash or defensiveness. Controlling tone to avoid being perceived as “angry” or “biased.” Taking responsibility for “holding the room together,” even while facilitating content that renders me vulnerable.

This performative emotional containment is rarely acknowledged or compensated; it is framed instead as professionalism or good pedagogy. 17

Vicarious Trauma and the Emotional Costs of Educating Others About Oppression Vicarious trauma refers to the psychological impact of exposure to others’ trauma (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). However, in DEI contexts, the trauma being revisited is often one’s own. Each time I teach PPO content, I revisit oppressive experiences of racism, transphobia, colonialism, and structural exclusion. This forces my body and psyche to undergo an invoked cortisol response which I then have to self-monitor; a form of deep-acting. Miller et al. (2019) describe the emotional demands of diversity facilitation as forms of deep acting, in which instructors must engage empathetically with participants’ comments even when those comments are dismissive, harmful, or directly invoke historical violence. This deep acting often requires a degree of depersonalization or “disconnecting” from one’s own emotional responses in order to maintain the learning environment. During the 2025 RID conference, immediately following a presentation that highlighted human zoos, plantation economies, and the afterlives of slavery, an audience member minimized this history and questioned why we would be “in a fit” over events that occurred “centuries ago.” Not only did the participants fail to realize that the content shared was actually within the recent century, and, the topics mentioned were well within this recent decade. The emotional regulation required in that moment, bridging empathy with pedagogical responsibility while absorbing a racially dismissive remark, is precisely the type of internal labor Miller et al. (2019) identify as both invisible and disproportionately demanded of marginalized facilitators. A second layer of emotional labor emerged after the session, when multiple participants approached me in tears, expressing how the workshop had “opened their eyes.” While framed as praise, these interactions positioned me as an emotional container for others’ realizations. Miller et al. (2019) describe this as emotional labor that extends beyond the formal teaching space, where facilitators are expected to provide affirmation, support, and therapeutic holding. As a queer trans person of color, the paradox is striking: participants were awakened to realities that shape my daily life, yet I was simultaneously expected to absorb their emotional responses to that awakening. This dynamic was mirrored in more subtle forms throughout the conference. Some attendees avoided eye contact or physically distanced themselves, only later admitting that the workshop had forced them to confront their own complicity or ignorance, and that I was a reminder of such. I clarified that my role was limited to facilitation and participation, not emotional counseling or confession. Nevertheless, I found myself absorbing the tension and discomfort projected onto me. The feedback I received disproportionately centered not on the content or research we presented, but on participants’ feelings, guilt, or internal conflicts. This shift reflects what the literature calls cultural taxation: the expectation that marginalized educators provide not only intellectual labor but also emotional caretaking, often in ways resembling informal therapy. Miller et al. (2019) note that this includes “emotional labor out of the classroom,” such as tending to personal disclosures, providing emotional support, and managing service-oriented interactions. Such cumulative demands not only constitute invisible labor but also intersect directly with vicarious trauma. In DEI contexts, the “trauma” being mediated is not solely that of others, it is often our own histories, identities, and lived experiences, reactivated repeatedly for the purpose of others’ learning. This ongoing exposure can produce: • • • • • • 18

Exhaustion Emotional numbing or dissociation Irritability or hypervigilance Decreased motivation Strain on mental health Burn-Out

PPO spaces routinely expect facilitators to expose themselves to re-traumatization without structural support, relief, or acknowledgment that this constitutes substantial emotional labor. RID, PPO Units, and Structural Contradictions RID requires interpreters to earn PPO-related CEUs to maintain certification, signaling that sociopolitical competence is essential to ethical practice. Yet RID simultaneously denies PPO CEUs to the very facilitators who produce, teach, and sustain PPO knowledge. RID only grants them GS credit on the grounds that “the facilitator is not learning.” This rationale collapses under scrutiny. It assumes that (1) generating and teaching PPO content does not constitute learning; (2) the emotional, intellectual, and pedagogical labor required to design and deliver this content is not PPOrelated development; and (3) marginalized facilitators do not merit professional recognition for the very expertise RID deems foundational for everyone else. This contradiction reveals PPO instruction as a form of institutional invisible labor. RID relies on DEI facilitators to meet its certification standards and uphold its public commitments to equity, while simultaneously withholding the structural recognition, PPO units, that would affirm and compensate that labor. In effect, RID extracts the sociopolitical expertise of marginalized educators but refuses to credit them within the very system their labor sustains. Correspondence with RID produced this common ground: presenters may only earn General Studies CEUs for delivering content, even when the material is PPO-focused. The rationale is that presenters are sharing existing expertise rather than engaging in new learning, which distinguishes their role from participants’ structured learning aligned with educational objectives. While this logic has institutional consistency, it obscures a critical distinction: proficiency in a content area is not the same as the ability to teach it effectively. Facilitators must not only master the material but also research, synthesize, and translate concepts into teachable content, a process that requires intellectual labor, pedagogical skill, and emotional regulation. Teaching, as educational research demonstrates, is itself a profound form of learning and knowledge production, yet this labor is systematically unrecognized under RID’s framework, reinforcing the structural undervaluing of facilitators, particularly those from marginalized communities. The Paradox of Believing in the Work While Being Exhausted by It A central tension underlies my experience. I believe deeply in DEI education’s transformative capacity, yet I experience physical, emotional, and intellectual exhaustion from being repeatedly tasked with work that institutions are unwilling to resource. I care deeply, but care does not justify exploitation. Even well-intentioned colleagues are often unaware that their requests for “quick help” function as unpaid consulting. Organizational reliance on marginalized educators becomes normalized, and DEI labor is framed as moral duty rather than professional expertise. Toward Structural Accountability and Equitable Compensation If PPO work is essential, it must be treated as essential. This requires: • • • • •

Compensating DEI facilitation as specialized expertise. Granting PPO CEUs to PPO facilitators. Recognizing emotional and cultural labor as legitimate professional labor. Adopting trauma-informed DEI pedagogies. Distributing DEI responsibility across whole organizations.

Marginalized facilitators should not bear the full cost of institutional inequity. 19

Conclusion This article situates my lived experience, at the intersections of queerness, transness, race, disability, and cultural-linguistic marginalization, within scholarship on invisible labor, cultural taxation, vicarious trauma, and DEI facilitation. Interpreting and disability justice environments depend heavily on marginalized practitioners while failing to materially support or recognize their labor. RID’s refusal to grant PPO CEUs to PPO facilitators is one example of how institutional structures undermine the values they claim to uphold. DEI work has transformative potential, but only if the labor of those doing the work is visible, valued, and compensated. References Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press. Daniels, A. K. (1987). Invisible work. Social Problems, 34(5), 403–415. DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54–70. Hatton, E. (2017). Mechanisms of invisibility: Rethinking the concept of invisible work. Work, Employment and Society, 31(2), 336–351. McCann, I. L., & Pearlman, L. A. (1990). Vicarious traumatization: A framework for understanding the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3(1), 131–149. Miller, R. A., Howell, C. D., & Struve, L. (2019). “Constantly, excessively, and all the time”: The emotional labor of teaching diversity courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(3), 491–502. Padilla, A. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24–27.

COLUMN

A Laboratory of Relational Accountability: An Indigenous Counter-Observation Angela Blackdeer, NIC Reframing the Experiment Dr. S. Jordan Wright titled his plenary reflection A Laboratory in Real Time (2025). It is an apt metaphor, but laboratories reveal more than their intended hypotheses. What occurred at the 2025 RID National Conference was indeed an experiment, though not solely in professional practice. It was an experiment in relational ethics, power, and the limits of reciprocity within a profession that often mistakes authority for accountability As one of the En Avant creators and the CEO of LingoForce, the company that provided interpreters—including some of the most skilled Certified Deaf Interpreters (CDIs) in the nation—I observed the same “laboratory,” but through a different lens. Where Dr. Wright saw dysfunction, I saw data of another kind: evidence of how our field behaves when Indigenous and relational values are absent from its methodology. He wrote that “effective access requires planning and preparation.” On this, we agree. Yet despite repeated requests for preparatory meetings and presentation materials, no reply was given. From an Indigenous standpoint, preparation is not procedural—it is ceremonial. Among Native communities, collaboration begins with relationship, preparation honors that relationship. To withhold communication and later attribute confusion to others misreads the experiment’s variables entirely. The real data point was not interpreter error; it was the breakdown of reciprocity. That is the phenomenon worth studying. Variables of Power and Mischaracterization Dr. Wright’s narrative presents the inclusion of a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) alongside a Deaf presenter as a spontaneous invention. In truth, this configuration has deep precedent in both Deaf-Interpreter teaming scholarship and within Indigenous and multilingual communities, where layered access, humility, and shared authority have long guided collective communication. To call this “invention” is to erase history, and to overlook the generations of Deaf and Indigenous practitioners who have refined these methods through lived experience rather than research abstraction. While Dr. Wright spoke passionately about the importance of his data—describing it as “complex,” “high-level,” and essential for everyone to access, he simultaneously dismissed the very experts positioned to ensure that access. This contradiction sits at the center of the harm that occurred. It illustrates what happens when authority replaces relationships, when control is mistaken for care. RID’s own position paper affirms the essential role of Certified Deaf Interpreters: “Benefits of using a Certified Deaf Interpreter include: 21

• optimal understanding by all parties; • efficient use of time and resources; • clarification of linguistic and/or cultural confusion and misunderstanding(s); • arrival at a clear conclusion in the interpreting situation.” (RID Position Paper: Use of Certified Deaf Interpreters, [2025]) From this standpoint, who better to be on stage so that Dr. Wright could share his findings confidently while ensuring that second-language signers, multilingual participants, and emerging professionals could truly understand? The use of a CDI was not an experiment in optics; it was a proven structure for equity and comprehension. It does not take a laboratory or dissertation to recognize that our CDIs are cultural and linguistic experts whose work bridges gaps between Deaf presenters and diverse audiences. Yet, in an informal lunch conversation the day before his session, Dr. Wright announced his intention to implement an open microphone—a choice widely discouraged by those present, including myself. Despite reasoned input from coordinators and interpreters, he disregarded the fact that captioning, closed-mic protocols, and the expertise of the CDI team could adequately represent his “high-level content.” This response reflects a broader pattern familiar to Indigenous professionals: a distrust of community-based expertise when it comes from those not centered in traditional academic hierarchies. From a Dakota perspective, this reveals a deeper imbalance, one between ego and humility, selfauthority and collective wisdom. In our ways, knowledge is not owned; it is shared. Expertise is validated through relationship and respect, not credentials alone. The interpreters on that stage embodied this ethic of relational excellence. They worked in- circle, not hierarchy, bringing multiple worldviews together so that understanding could ripple outward to every listener. When Dr. Wright chose to disregard that process, the experiment did not fail because interpreters were unprepared, it failed because relationship was broken. His skepticism was not about access, but about control. The lesson here is not scientific; it is cultural: trust is the foundation of communication, and when it is withheld, even the most “high-level data” cannot reach the heart of its audience. Our team’s decisions were made with deliberation, respect, and accountability to both Deaf communities and the conference’s Indigenous, Black, Asian, and all people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The inclusion of CDIs, the use of captions, and the commitment to closedmic integrity reflected an Indigenous understanding of communication as shared responsibility. In Dakota thought, wówačhiŋtȟaŋka, generosity and patience, guides how we listen and respond. The interpreters lived that teaching. They ensured clarity and dignity for all participants, even when their own professionalism was questioned. In this so-called “laboratory,” the true experiment was not linguistic at all, it was ethical. It tested whether our profession values relationship over ego, reciprocity over recognition, and humility over hierarchy. On that measure, the interpreters succeeded. Decolonizing the Laboratory The experiment ultimately revealed less about interpreters than about professional colonialism— the habit of occupying space without relationship and calling it rigor. From an Indigenous research framework, this is a failure of relational accountability. As Shawn Wilson (2008) teaches, research is ceremony; it binds researcher and community in mutual obligation. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) reminds us that when white researchers engage BIPOC communities without reciprocity, they replicate the extractive logics they claim to oppose. Dr. Wright’s study of interpreter “violence” cannot be separated from the relational violence enacted when collaboration is refused. Had materials been shared, interpreter roles could have been aligned, representation balanced, and 22

harm prevented. Instead, interpreters worked under uncertainty—then were portrayed publicly as data points in dysfunction. In any laboratory, that would constitute researcher bias. From a Dakota worldview, professionalism is not the performance of expertise but the practice of good relativeship. It asks: Did we prepare together? Did we honor one another’s time and knowledge? Did we repair what was broken? If the answers are no, the experiment must be redesigned. Perhaps, then, this truly was a laboratory in real time—not of interpreting professionalism failure, but of how colonial dynamics still operate beneath the language of evidence. The lesson is not to avoid experimentation, but to ground it in relationship. When we decolonize the laboratory—when we privilege reciprocity over control—our field will finally evolve from observation to transformation. References Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (n.d.). Position paper: Use of certified deaf interpreters. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. Wright, S. J. (2025). A laboratory in real time [Plenary presentation]. Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf National Conference, United States. Stone, C. (2009). Toward a Deaf translation norm. Gallaudet University Press. Hauser, P. C., Finch, K. L., & Hauser, A. B. (2008). Deaf professionals and designated interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(1), 100–115.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: PUBLISHED UNEDITED

Letter to the editor A Research Dilemma: Ethical Concerns About “A Laboratory in Real Time” Daniel McDougall PhD, CSC Dear Editor, Dr. Wright’s article presents readers with a troubling dilemma. He claims his disrupted conference presentation was “a laboratory in real time” that “provided a case study as vivid as it was unintentional.” This raises a fundamental question: Is this article a research report or not? If this IS research, several ethical violations demand attention: First, the methodology is misidentified. Wright calls this an “autoethnography,” but autoethnography examines the researcher’s own cultural experience and “insider’s perspective” within that culture. What Wright describes - observing and analyzing conference attendees’ actions without their knowledge - is human subjects research requiring informed consent from participants. Did attendees consent to being research participants? What framework was built to ensure the integrity of this research? Legitimate research, whether conducted in academic institutions or professional organizations, operates within ethical frameworks that protect participants and ensure methodological rigor. Where are these safeguards in Wright’s work? Second, while VIEWS describes itself as peer-reviewed, it is a professional magazine designed to inspire “thoughtful discussions among practitioners” - not an academic research journal. The peer review process for professional publications appropriately evaluates content for quality and relevance to practitioners, but does not (to my knowledge) provide the methodological and ethical scrutiny that human subjects research requires. Research claiming to observe and analyze participants’ behavior without their consent demands the rigorous ethical review provided by academic journals and institutional research oversight. If this is NOT research, different concerns emerge: Why frame a professional grievance in research language? Calling disrupted attendees “disruptors” who “provided a case study” weaponizes research terminology to legitimate what is essentially a personal complaint. This misrepresents the nature of research and undermines public understanding of what rigorous scholarship entails. Either way, the organizational implications are concerning: Dr. Wright is RID’s Director of Research and Strategic Communications. His use of the organization’s official publication to frame conference attendees as unwitting research subjects - whether actual or rhetorical - creates a chilling effect. Will future conference participants wonder: Are we being studied? Is our participation voluntary or are we “rats” in someone’s “laboratory”? As an educator who teaches research methods to interpreting students, I struggle with the pedagogical implications. How do I explain that research ethics - informed consent, appropriate methodology, peer review - apply everywhere except when studying our own field? The profession urgently needs rigorous research on horizontal violence and professional culture. That research must model the ethical standards we claim to uphold. 24

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: PUBLISHED UNEDITED

LETTER TO THE EDITOR Response to “A Laboratory in Real Time” by Dr. S. Jordan Wright Amy Williamson PhD, CI, CT, SC:L, Ed:K–12

Dear Editor, As a long-standing member of RID, I was deeply concerned to read Dr. Wright’s recent article, “A Laboratory in Real Time,” in the latest issue of VIEWS. While he frames the piece as reflective scholarship, its premise and tone are troubling—particularly given his role as an employee of an organization that exists to serve its members, not to chastise them. There are many issues raised in the article, and many of them are complex and multi-layered. It is clear that Dr. Wright, as a relatively new participant in RID events, did not have the background or understanding of the cultural and communication norms that have developed over decades of member collaboration. I also recognize that there were failures of leadership that contributed to the situation he found himself in and, ultimately, to the perspective he formed about his experience. Nonetheless, VIEWS is not the appropriate platform for Dr. Wright to process or publish his personal reactions to a member conference. That it was permitted to move through editorial review and into publication is deeply concerning—and raises serious questions about the judgment and oversight of those who approved it. Dr. Wright’s article purports to analyze professional behavior “in real time” at the national conference, yet what it delivers is a public rebuke of the very members whose work and dues sustain the organization. The conference he describes is not his laboratory; it is our shared professional space, built and maintained through decades of member effort. His critique of how members navigated language and access reflects a misunderstanding of the historical, cultural, and linguistic context in which those choices were made—and a missed opportunity for dialogue. Although I was not at this year’s conference, I have attended enough national gatherings and member meetings to know how complex and fragile communication in these environments can be. Balancing multiple modalities, access needs, and cultural expectations is challenging work—work that our members have approached for years with persistence, care, and good intent. It is disappointing that what appeared in VIEWS offered only a single narrative of what occurred, one that cast members as the problem rather than as professionals navigating an intricate and evolving dynamic. This commentary is offered not as an attack, but as an invitation to reflection and honest conversation—for leadership, staff, and members alike. The questions raised in the article are worth exploring, but they require balance, curiosity, and accountability—especially when they concern the work and culture of RID’s members.

While the article raises questions worth examining, the way it was presented—and the assumptions that underlie it—reflect several serious concerns. I outline five of them here, not to dismiss Dr. Wright’s perspective, but to clarify what I believe went wrong and why it matters for our organization moving forward. These points speak to tone, premise, professionalism, the absence of dialogue, and the need for reflection across all levels of RID—each of which deserves thoughtful consideration. 1. Misuse of Platform and Tone Toward Members VIEWS is a member publication—an outlet meant to inform, inspire, and reflect the diverse perspectives of RID’s membership. It is not a platform for staff to scold or lecture the community they are employed to support. Dr. Wright’s tone throughout the article conveys distance rather than empathy, judgment rather than collaboration. Using an organizational platform to characterize members as regressive or exclusionary undermines trust and the spirit of partnership essential to RID’s mission. 2. Faulty Premise: Misunderstanding of the ASL Space In his article, Dr. Wright writes that “the baseline was distorted into a ceiling,” suggesting that the conference’s language expectations limited rather than supported access. That interpretation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the “ASL Space” at RID conferences represents. The ASL Space is not an arbitrary rule or a social preference; it is an intentional, member-established standard that allows participants—Deaf and hearing alike—to gather in a fully signing environment. There are very few spaces in our profession, or in society more broadly, where that kind of linguistic immersion is possible. RID’s members deliberately chose to make the national conference one of those spaces. Doing so was not an act of exclusion but of inclusion—an effort to ensure that everyone could participate fully in every aspect of conference life by sharing a common language. In this environment, the burden shifts appropriately: rather than Deaf participants having to navigate spoken language, less fluent ASL users are supported through open captions and other resources as they navigate the signing space. This shared-language approach reinforces the organization’s commitment to linguistic equity and cultural respect, ensuring that access is both mutual and meaningful. This standard was not imposed by chance or elitism; it is the result of years of member-driven advocacy, discussion, and persistence in the pursuit of linguistic equity. To conflate this intentional framework with “linguistic policing” or to label it as restrictive dismisses the history and collective labor that made it possible. What may appear as limitation from the outside is, in fact, the careful work of building shared access and cultural respect within a professional community that values language as connection—and celebrates the underlying cultural aspects of the language choice, ASL. 3. Lack of Cultural and Professional Humility As both a researcher and an RID employee, Dr. Wright was not merely presenting to the membership—he is employed by the membership. In that dual role, he had an even greater obligation to approach the conference context with curiosity, humility, and respect. Instead, the article reveals a striking absence of all three. When challenged about communication preferences that conflicted with established norms, he chose not to ask questions or seek understanding, but to interpret those challenges as dysfunction. Leadership and scholarship both require humility—the willingness to listen, to learn from lived experience, and to engage disagreement as a source of insight rather than evidence of failure.

4. The Absence of Dialogue Disagreement and challenge are hallmarks of a healthy professional community—but only when accompanied by dialogue. What unfolded at the conference was not the result of disagreement itself, but of the failure to engage when disagreement arose. Without curiosity, listening, or exchange, conversation gives way to confrontation. The opportunity to understand differing perspectives—to learn why the ASL Space matters and how it functions—was lost. That absence of dialogue is what turned a moment of potential connection into one of conflict. 5. The Need for Reflection Across the Organization This commentary is not meant merely as criticism, but as an invitation to reflection and dialogue. For HQ staff, I hope it prompts consideration of how staff voices are used—and how the authority of position must never be leveraged to speak at the membership, but rather with it. For members, I hope it reinforces that questioning and challenging are not acts of hostility; they are essential expressions of engagement when done with respect and care. And for all of us, I hope it serves as a reminder that curiosity and compassion must remain our starting points if we want to grow together as a profession. In Closing RID’s members have spent decades building an environment that honors Deaf leadership, linguistic diversity, and access grounded in ASL. The ASL Space is a reflection of those values—hard-earned and collectively upheld. To misrepresent it as “performative disruption” or “resistance to evidence,” or to use an official publication to demean those who sustain it, is unacceptable. It is equally concerning that a staff member—one employed by the very community he critiqued—used the authority of his position to gain access to the member magazine for the purpose of publicly rebuking that same community. The ASL Space is more than a communication choice; it is an embodiment of shared access, mutual respect, and cultural pride. It represents the very principles our leaders are entrusted to understand and protect. When those principles are misunderstood or misrepresented, it points to a deeper failure—one of leadership awareness and institutional accountability. This commentary is written for all of us—for RID leadership, HQ staff, and members alike—as an invitation to examine how we communicate with and about one another. My hope is that it sparks a broader dialogue about how we can preserve trust, uphold the intent of VIEWS as a member publication, and create space for questioning, challenge, and growth without alienation or accusation. And ultimately, I return to the same question with which I began: Who reviewed this piece and deemed it appropriate for publication in our member magazine? That question is not rhetorical; it is essential. The answer will tell us much about whether VIEWS continues to belong to the members it represents—or to those who have access to its platform. At its core, this is not only about one article, but about leadership—the kind that understands our members, our history, and the principles that have shaped this profession. RID’s strength depends on leaders who carry that understanding forward and who are willing to do the hard work of speaking those values to power, especially when it is uncomfortable to do so. Constructive dialogue about access and equity is always welcome, but it must be rooted in respect, curiosity, and recognition of the community’s history—not delivered from a platform of self-importance.

COLUMN: FROM THE EDITOR

From the Editor: Addressing the Response to “A Laboratory in Real Time” Brooke Roberts Davis Communications Manager, RID The theme of this issue is “Connections & Reflections,” and often, the most meaningful reflections are the most difficult ones. The two featured “Letters to the Editor” from Daniel McDougall and Amy Williamson were written in response to the article “A Laboratory in Real Time,” published in our Summer 2025 issue. I want to thank both authors as their contributions represent exactly what VIEWS is intended to be: a platform for critical discourse within our communities. One theme centers on a vital question: How are articles vetted for publication? I believe the best way to move forward is with transparency regarding the VIEWS editorial workflow. Member vs. Organizational Content Currently, VIEWS operates with two distinct review processes depending on the source of the submission. Member Submissions (Peer-Reviewed): When a member submits an article, it undergoes a blind peer-review process. I remove all identifying information and send the submission to our Board of Editors (BOE), currently composed of two dedicated volunteer scholars and myself, for feedback. The BOE reviews each article to ensure quality, clarity, and relevance, checking for style, logic, and impact for the VIEWS audience. This review is done through a collaborative effort to support the contributors, which is the spirit of the entire editorial process. This approach allows us to include a wide spectrum of authors, including both formal academic research and less formal reflections, observations, and personal journeys. Once the BOE review is completed, I transfer all feedback to a new document that is shared with the author for their review. Authors are welcome to accept, discuss, or reject feedback as this process is completely collaborative. Once everything has been fine tuned, the author submits an ASL translation of the article and I manage the design of the publication. *Note: Authors are permitted to submit either an English or ASL version of their article, though my experience has been with English submissions. HQ and Board Submissions (Editorial Review): Historically, updates and articles from RID/CASLI HQ staff or the Board of Directors have followed a different path. These articles have undergone an editorial review for mechanics and clarity. Due to the nature of the content, these articles are often submitted much later than member submissions and therefore do not allow for the same review timeline, considering VIEWS is driven by a volunteer BOE; this sometimes results in a sole editorial review. Because these contributions from the organization’s leadership or staff are often focused on providing updates on work being done or personal reflections, they have not been subject to the blind peer-review process required for member-submitted articles. While precedent for editing HQ/Board content under my tenure has been focused on mechanics, as Editor-in-Chief I recognized that the “A Laboratory in Real Time” article was unique. As such, I provided a thorough review and multiple rounds of feedback and edits on the article’s substance— beyond grammar and structure. The article was shared internally with leadership as well. As with 28

all articles, the final tone and framing remained the choice of the author. My philosophy remains that VIEWS is a platform for our communities to share their views—even when those views are controversial. While most of the feedback regarding language and tone of the article is directed at the author, as editor I have reflected on my role in this situation at great length. My editorial philosophy is rooted in the protection of free expression. I believe that an editor’s role is not to sanitize a contributor’s perspective to make it more palatable, but to provide a space where those views can be aired and debated. That freedom of speech is a sacred right that must be protected. In an age where Jimmy Kimmel is taken off air for making a joke, standing up for an author’s freedom of speech, even when their message is controversial, is a necessary check against the trend of silencing dissent. Our profession is strengthened by open dialogue, not by the suppression of unpopular ideas. While I may not personally align with every perspective published, protecting the right to express unpopular opinions is a commitment to transparency; it allows the community to see, engage with, and respond to individuals’ authentic views. That is a fight to power I can and will make. Evolution Through Feedback The response to Dr. Wright’s article has made it clear that the distinction between “member, peerreviewed content” and “staff content” must be more than just a matter of internal workflow; it must be visible to you, the reader. We are using this moment to evolve. To address this, VIEWS will immediately begin labeling each article so you will know whether a piece has undergone a blind peerreview by our Board of Editors or an internal editorial review. I welcome a collaborative approach to this process and hope you will share your feedback on the labels as I work on refining the wording and layout so it is clear to all readers. I also recognize the importance of research claims and sources being properly vetted, for both member and staff submissions alike, and this is where improvement must be made. First, an important correction needs to be made: The article “A Laboratory in Real Time” contained an in-text citation of (NDC, 2025) that was misappropriately included. The citation was not included in the reference list and should not have been included in the article. The position referenced in the article does not reflect NDC’s views. Going forward, all articles submitted by RID/CASLI staff and Board, beyond strictly program updates, will be edited by the BOE. Truthfully, timelines have not been my friend throughout this journey, and implementing this protection may result in even further shifting release dates for VIEWS to allow time for our volunteers to properly review potentially late submissions. I ask for your patience as I am currently the only staff member in the Communications Department, managing all things social, email, VIEWS, RID Press, ads and more! While the internal pressure of my ADHD’s brain to deliver on time is very real, this experience has shown me the importance of slowing down, even to a halt if needed. Speaking of timelines - one idea that has been tossed to me is reducing the number of issues put each year from every quarter to twice a year. As some issues have struggled to receive more than one or two member submissions, I see the possibility of having more content heavy issues under a semiannual release schedule. This would also allow authors more time to submit and grant a larger review period for the BOE. I welcome your feedback and suggestions as we continue working on enhancing VIEWS. Would you like to see two issues a year, or stick to four? Let me know! Changing For Good My journey as Editor-in-Chief is like Dorthy’s journey through Oz: A bumpy adventure, set out on 29

a winding path with a grand objective. While VIEWS was once run by a full team of RID staff and volunteers, the tornado that threw me in left me to begin the journey alone, knowing the wonderful people I would meet along the way. I explain my journey because I come to this role with no set expectations of what VIEWS “should” be. My goal has always been to welcome all authors and work collaboratively to create a platform that shares insights and sparks discussions. As editor, I take all of your feedback seriously and will continue to work to deliver a publication that meets members needs. At the core, I and the BOE recognize that VIEWS is, and must remain, a member-centric publication. One topic highlighted in Amy’s Letter to the Editor was that of “ASL Space.” As a Hard of Hearing person, this is a topic I have seen flare into heated, passionate debate many times, especially at Gallaudet, and one that goes back decades. I can say with confidence that people have drastically different opinions on this topic. I believe topics like this are critical to explore as a community, and VIEWS presents as a perfect opportunity to have these conversations. What does ASL space really mean, and what rules come with it? What is the most accessible setup for a multimodal audience? Who gets to set the rules and who gets excluded from the conversation? How can we bring those who have been excluded not just to the table, but also into the decision making process? Those are the topics I have been reflecting on and hope we can explore collectively as we move forward. While we may have epistemological differences, different beliefs about what counts as evidence and ultimately what counts as truth, it is those differences that spark growth and change. We need both fresh perspectives and institutional knowledge and wisdom - we need your views. Think Of What We Can Do, Together VIEWS is created by a small but mighty team! The review process is managed by the BOE , consisting of myself and two dedicated volunteer scholars, and the design and layout process is managed by me. That said, we are seeking volunteers to join this work! If you want to help influence the future of VIEWS, we need you on our team! If you are interested in working with the BOE on review and editing, starting up a new ASL review team, or helping with design and layout, we want to work with you! If volunteering is not feasible, please consider submitting an article or reflection to share your views with our community, as the strength of VIEWS is dependent on the diversity of the voices within it. I again thank everyone who contributed reflections, both in VIEWS and online, to this important conversation. I hope we can continue to work together to spark new conversations and drive our communities, profession, and VIEWS forward.

HOLDING SPACE

Art by KelEndersArtwork

ASL INTERPRETERS

WE WANT YOU!

The highest quality interpreting on the highest quality technology because every conversation matters.

APPLY TODAY!

ZPBETTERTOGETHER.COM

RID CEC WEBINARS

Check out the full lineup and archived webinars! REGISTER TODAY!

BEING MICHELLE SERIES This legal education series, inspired by the documentary film Being Michelle, will delve into legal barriers Americans with disabilities face by the justice system, and take sign language interpreters on a journey of breaking barriers, bridging gaps, and illuminating justice. This in-depth series will explore various legal, communication, and institutional challenges faced by Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals, and provide interpreters with tools to improve their understanding and enhance their work.

Inspired by the award winning documentary being michelle

FROM HQ

RID Connect: Speed Networking Events — Building Connections Across the Interpreting Community This year, the Member Services Department launched RID Connect: Speed Networking Events to meet the high demand for networking in the interpreting community. Held quarterly in February, May, August, and November, these events provide interpreters of all experience levels a fun, interactive space to connect, share experiences, and grow professionally. Why RID Connect? Networking is essential for interpreters, but opportunities to connect across regions and experience levels can be limited. RID Connect bridges that gap, offering a virtual space for meaningful conversations, exchanging insights, and building relationships that support professional growth.

2025 Highlights

May 3: RID Connect: Virtual Networking Event #1 • 137 registered, 15 attended live. • Featured ASL-only and English-supported breakout rooms. • Facilitator-led discussions and small breakout rooms encouraged deeper connections. August 26: RID Connect: Virtual Networking Event #2 Participants enjoyed a relaxed, interactive networking experience supported by RID HQ staff to ensure a smooth, engaging experience. “I met another interpreter from my state for the first time. I also connected with interpreters from other states. The discussion questions were a great starting point for meaningful conversation and learning from each other.” — Velvet Bryant, new member “It was nice to see the faces of other interpreters and share helpful resources with each other. Just having the event was valuable.” “I enjoy any opportunity to talk about interpreting. Personally, I find it a fascinating subject. Unfortunately, my family and friends don’t necessarily share that view. It’s always nice to have more in-depth discussions with those who are equally as passionate about our work.” November 14: Speed Networking with Experienced Interpreters • 42 members registered, approximately 10 attended live. • Featured six experienced interpreters sharing insights and guidance. Panelist: “This was a great experience. I had the chance to meet interpreters from across the country and talk about the challenges and joys we all face at work. I would definitely recommend it to any members who are looking to learn from their colleagues!” Student: “As a student studying interpreting, I still felt welcomed and heard. The RID hosts and panelists were all great! Everyone was so warm and welcoming and I felt comfortable being at such an event.” Impact & Looking Ahead Across all events, participants emphasized the value of connecting with peers, exchanging ideas, and learning from colleagues. These events help interpreters feel part of a broader professional community and provide opportunities to share knowledge and support one another. RID Connect will continue quarterly in 2026 in February, May, August, and November. Members are encouraged to join, engage, and take advantage of these opportunities to build connections, share knowledge, and strengthen the interpreting profession. 36

Explore a career at Interpretek A company founded by an Interpreter to support interpreters.

Join us as an • Interpreting Services Manager (Positions in FL and GA)

• Coordinator of Interpreting Services

A career at Interpretek provides • Comprehensive Insurance (Medical, Dental, Vision, Life, Short-Term, & Long-Term Disability) • Professional Development • Certification Reimbursement • 401K Match (up to 4%) • Annual Bonuses and much more! SM

Learn more at Interpretek.com/careers/

Certification Maintenance Program Maintain Your Certification! Membership Maintain current RID membership by paying annual RID Certified Member dues.

• • • •

Meet the CEU requirements

CPC & EPS

8.0 total CEUs 6.0 Professional Studies (PS) CEUs A minimum of 1.0 in PPO training Up to 2.0 General Studies CEUs

Adhere to the RID Code of Professional Conduct and EPS Policy.

REINSTATEMENT

REVOCATIONS

Should a member lose certification due to failure to pay membership costs or failure to comply with CEU requirements, that individual may submit a reinstatement request. The reinstatement form and policies are outlined here.

FY2025 Revocations for revocations that occurred due to non-payment of Certified membership dues and failure to meet the CEU requirements for a certification cycle can be found here.

FY2025 Reinstatements for revocations that occurred due to non-payment of Certified membership dues and failure to meet the CEU requirements for a certification cycle found here.

Revocations due to EPS violations can be found here.

VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF RID CERTIFICATION(S)

RID Certified members who decide to voluntarily relinquish the RID certification(s) they currently hold are required to submit a completed, signed and notarized form. To learn more about the eligibility requirements or to submit your request to voluntarily relinquish the RID certification(s) you currently hold, click here. This form is required to be notarized. 38

About VIEWS

VIEWS, RID’s digital publication, is dedicated to the interpreting profession. As a part of RID’s strategic goals, we focus on providing interpreters with the educational tools they need to excel in their profession. VIEWS aims to inspire thoughtful discussions among practitioners by providing information about research and insight into various specialty fields in the interpreting profession. With the establishment of the VIEWS Board of Editors, the featured content in this publication is peerreviewed and standardized according to our bilingual review process. VIEWS utilizes a bilingual framework to facilitate knowledge sharing among all parties in an extremely diverse profession. As an organization, we value the experiences and expertise of interpreters from every cultural, linguistic, and educational background. We aim to explore the interpreters’ role within this demanding social and political environment by promoting content with complex layers of experience and meaning.

Submissions

VIEWS publishes articles on matters of interest and concern to the membership. Submissions that are essentially interpersonal exchanges, editorials or statements of opinion are not appropriate as articles and may remain unpublished, run as a letter to the editor, position paper, or column. Submissions that are simply the description of programs and services in the community with no discussion may be redirected to the advertising department. Articles should be 2,000 words or fewer. If you require more space, the article may be broken into multiple parts and released over consecutive issues. Unsigned articles will not be published. RID reserves the right to limit the quantity and frequency of articles published in VIEWS written by a single author(s). Receipt by RID of a submission does not guarantee its publication. RID reserves the right to edit, excerpt or refuse to publish any submission. Publication of an advertisement does not constitute RID’s endorsement or approval of the advertiser, nor does RID guarantee the accuracy of information given in an advertisement. Advertising specifications can be found at https://rid.org/about/advertising/, or by contacting advertising@rid.org. Please submit your piece using the submission form found here. All submission and permission inquiries should be directed here.

VIEWS is published quarterly by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. Statements of fact or opinion are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the opinion of RID. The author(s), not RID, is responsible for the content of submissions published in VIEWS.

Statement of Ownership

VIEWS (ISSN 0277-7088) is published quarterly by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. Materials may not be reproduced or reprinted in whole or in part without written permission. Contact publications@rid.org for permission inquiries and requests. VIEWS’ electronic subscription is a membership benefit and is covered in the cost of RID membership dues. VIEWS Board of Editors: Brooke Roberts Davis, VIEWS Editor-in-Chief Elisa Maroney, PhD, CI & CT, NIC, Ed:K-12 Stephen Fitzmaurice, Ph.D., NIC:A, CI/CT, NAD 4, Ed:K-12

Help VIEWS Improve

We want your feedback! Fill out this form to submit feedback, suggestions, or questions about VIEWS.