The System Isn’t Built for Us

April 25, 2026

By Morrison

1. Legal Issues in How the Law Is Interpreted and How Access Is Provided

Across the country, the implementation of Section 504 and the ADA is shaped by assumptions rooted in ableism, particularly the belief that DeafBlind people fit neatly into existing Deaf or Blind service structures. Many state systems interpret these federal laws through a Deaf‑centric lens, restricting how accommodations are defined, delivered, and regulated.

A common example: states often assume that DeafBlind individuals can be served through the same programs designed for Deaf ASL users. These programs prioritize visual ASL, visual access services, and Deaf‑oriented accommodations. They do not reflect the communication modalities used by DeafBlind people, who rely on tactile language and reciprocal, touch‑based communication. This misalignment becomes structural when states designate their Deaf and Hard of Hearing divisions as the gatekeepers for all communication access, even though these divisions are not designed to support DeafBlind communication. Meanwhile, Blindness agencies operate separately and also do not address tactile language access. The result is a system where DeafBlind people fall between two frameworks that were never built for them.

Connecticut is one of the few states that has acknowledged this gap by waiving RID certification requirements for DeafBlind interpreters, recognizing that no accredited certification pathway exists for this work. Most states, however, continue to require interpreters to register under Deaf‑centric systems that do not evaluate DeafBlind competencies. Many states also prohibit DeafBlind individuals from bringing qualified interpreters from out of state unless they complete state registration, delaying access and violating the ADA’s requirement for timely, effective communication.

When states elevate their own regulations above federal civil rights law, they create barriers that are both unlawful and deeply rooted in systemic ableism.

Layman’s Terms:

Imagine you need a wheelchair ramp, but the building says:

“We already have stairs. Stairs work for most people. Just use those, or we can carry you.”

That’s what happens to DeafBlind people.

States say:

“We already have ASL interpreters. That’s what Deaf people use. Just use those.”

But tactile language is not the same as visual ASL, just like stairs are not the same as a ramp. The accommodation exists, but it’s the wrong one.

2. How the Law Is Being Broken, and Why Agencies Get Away With It

State agencies frequently rely on state‑level regulations (rooted in ableism) instead of federal law, even when those regulations exclude DeafBlind people entirely. When accommodations fail, there is rarely accountability. Agencies justify their decisions by pointing to their own internal rules, outdated screening systems, or narrow interpretations of “qualified” services. A major driver of this problem is the assumption that DeafBlind people “use ASL,” and therefore can be served by visual ASL interpreters. This assumption ignores the fundamental reality that tactile language, not visual ASL, is what provides reciprocal, two‑way communication through contact space for many DeafBlind individuals.

Because interpreters are trained only in visual ASL, DeafBlind people are expected to adapt to the interpreter’s limitations rather than the interpreter adapting to the DeafBlind person’s communication needs. This leads to communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, and even physical strain or injury when interpreters use visual and air‑space signing that forces DeafBlind individuals into uncomfortable or unsustainable positions. Not only that, but have to constantly ask the interpreter to clarify as many of the signs are similar (e.g., Onion vs Apple; Platform vs Table; Chips vs Potato; Short vs Knife; Health(y) vs Strength; Ugly vs. Summer vs Dry). Or misunderstand numbers or letters being manually signed by the interpreters.

When agencies deny tactile access, delay services, or provide unqualified interpreters, they violate the ADA and Section 504. Yet these violations persist because the systems enforcing compliance were never built for and with DeafBlind people in mind, and because the law is routinely misinterpreted through a Deaf‑centric framework that erases tactile language altogether.

Layman’s Terms:

Imagine you have a severe nut allergy.

A restaurant is legally required to provide nut‑free meals.

But the manager says:

“Our state guidelines don’t say we have to provide nut-free meals. So we’ll give you a gluten‑free dish and call it a day.”

You explain that gluten‑free is not the same as nut‑free.

They shrug and say:

“Well, our state rules don’t mention nut allergies, so we’re following the law.”

That’s exactly what happens with DeafBlind access.

Agencies insist they’re compliant because they follow their rules, even when those rules contradict federal law. And because tactile language is invisible in their system, they assume visual ASL is “good enough,” even when it isn’t considered close to effective communication at all. It places us at risk, creates harm.

3. Interpreting Programs and Screening Systems Do Not Measure DeafBlind Work

No state‑based interpreter screening or registration program evaluates DeafBlind interpreting competencies. These systems were built to assess visual, air-space, ASL proficiency for work with Deaf consumers, not tactile language through contact space, Protactile communication, or the physical, linguistic, and relational skills required for DeafBlind interpreting. Because DeafBlind people (adept in tactile language) are not included in the design, evaluation, or leadership of these programs, interpreters are registered as “qualified” despite having no training in DeafBlind communication. States then insist that DeafBlind individuals rely on these registries, even though the registries do not measure the skills required under the ADA’s definition of “qualified interpreter” and access to “effective communication.”

This mismatch forces DeafBlind people to accept services that do not meet their effective communication needs, while states claim compliance based on standards that were never designed for our community. It is a systemic failure rooted in ableism: programs built for visual ASL are being treated as universal, even though they exclude the very modalities that DeafBlind people rely on for equitable access.

Layman’s Terms:

Imagine a driver’s license test that only checks whether you can ride a bicycle. Imagine!?!

If you pass the bicycle test, the state says:

“Great, you’re qualified to drive a car.”

But driving a car requires different skills, training, and safety knowledge.

You wouldn’t trust a bicyclist to operate a vehicle just because they passed a bike test.

Yet that’s exactly what states do with interpreters.

They test visual ASL skills, then declare those interpreters “qualified” for DeafBlind work, even though tactile language is a completely different modality.