Prejudices and Discrimination Against Deaf Workers in Italy: A Cultural Issue Rooted in Central and Local Government Bodies
In Italy, deaf workers continue to face prejudice and discrimination—daily and often invisible to the majority—even though our country is internationally recognized for its significant progress in the inclusion of people with disabilities.
This is a form of discrimination that is less visible but no less pervasive or deeply rooted. It is called audism and is based on the belief—whether conscious or unconscious—that hearing people are somehow “superior” to those who are not. It is the culture of hearing as the norm, of spoken language as the only legitimate form of communication.
Yet, the everyday experiences of deaf workers tell a different story—made up of real testimonies that deserve to be heard, understood, and addressed with seriousness.
Fortunately, our beautiful Constitution guarantees every citizen—including deaf individuals—the right to express themselves freely. It is in this spirit that the present article was written: to begin listing—with concrete examples—the first 17 key prejudices and forms of discrimination that still affect deaf employees today. More cases will be explored in future contributions.
It is important to highlight that these issues are not limited to Central and Local Government Bodies; they also affect deaf workers in the private sector, as well as members of associations led by hearing individuals, where similar dynamics of exclusion and discrimination are often replicated—sometimes in subtle and barely recognizable ways.
With deep trust, Vlog33 hopes that this open letter will resonate with those working in Central and Local Government Bodies, raising awareness and encouraging a genuine cultural shift—so that no deaf person will be forced to endure subtle forms of bullying or discrimination in silence ever again.
1. “Deaf people are less intelligent” — A Persistent Prejudice
One deeply rooted prejudice still persists: the outdated and disproven idea that deaf people—once improperly referred to as “deaf-mutes”—are less intelligent, simply because they do not use spoken language. This harmful belief confuses communication difficulties with an assumed cognitive inferiority.
As a result, many environments still tend to view deaf workers only through the lens of Italian Law 68/1999 (n.d.r.: mandatory recruitment of unemployed individuals with disabilities through the public placement office, with a lower secondary education certificate being sufficient for eligibility) —as individuals to be placed by legal obligation, rather than as professionals with qualifications, experience, and merit.
One emblematic case is that of executives, officials, and top staff in Central and Local Government Bodies who are genuinely surprised to discover that more and more deaf individuals are earning university degrees—or that some deaf candidates have successfully passed public examinations—simply because they are used to seeing them hired only through the mechanisms provided by Italian Law 68/1999.
This happens for one simple reason: the vast majority of managers, officials, and directors do not know—or prefer not to know—that deaf people can do anything except hear, thanks to their use of Italian Sign Language. This is a fully recognized language, validated by numerous scientific studies for its linguistic, cognitive, and cultural value—equal to that of spoken languages.
And most importantly, many are still unaware that Italian Sign Language is officially recognized as the language of the Italian Deaf community (Article 34-ter of Italian Decree-Law no. 41, March 22, 2021).
It is clear that there are deaf individuals with low levels of education—often due to the lack of educational opportunities they received throughout their lives. This is also true for many other vulnerable groups. Just consider the data: according to ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics), in 2021, 37% of Italian adults were poorly educated, significantly higher than the EU average (20.5%).
However, due to a still-living prejudice, Central and Local Government Bodies tend to generalize: in the face of such cases, they end up assuming that all deaf people are less intelligent—ignoring the achievements, education, and daily commitment of competent, well-educated deaf individuals.
And yet, despite these significant accomplishments, Central and Local Government Bodies still fail to fully recognize educated deaf people as capable, trustworthy individuals who can make meaningful contributions to society. On the contrary, too often, they are relegated to a pity-based category—seen as people to be helped rather than professionals to be valued. This stands in stark contradiction to the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has been ratified by the Italian State.
2. Denial of Deaf Cultural Identity
Central and Local Government Bodies are increasingly recognizing and valuing different communities—such as women, environmentalists, and animal rights activists—but the Deaf community is rarely taken seriously, despite having its own unique language, culture, and history.
Too often, this reality is trivialized or ignored—reduced to a mere “medical problem”—instead of being acknowledged for what it truly is: a legitimate social and cultural identity worthy of respect, recognition, and representation.
It must be emphasized clearly that managers and officials are not doctors, and it is not their role to assign clinical labels or use medical terminology when referring to deaf people and workers. Their role is to guarantee equal rights, full dignity, and effective inclusion—not to perpetuate stereotypes or inappropriate simplifications that fuel discrimination.
3. Offensive Language
Terms like “hearing impaired,” “affected by hearing loss,” or “hearing disabled” are still commonly found in official publications and internal communications. However, the Deaf community considers these expressions offensive, discriminatory, and culturally inappropriate.
Italian Law no. 95 of February 20, 2006, Article 1, clearly states that the term “deaf-mute” must be replaced with “deaf” in all legislative provisions. This principle extends to similar and misleading expressions, such as “Hearing impaired,” “affected by hearing loss” “person with hearing impairment,” “individuals with deafness,” and others—terms that reduce a person to a medical condition.
As noted at the end of Point 2, managers, officials, and directors are not authorized to assign clinical labels or use medical terms to define deaf individuals or workers.
Many official communications also continue to include completely incorrect phrases such as “gesture language” or “international language of the deaf-mute.” These are outdated and incorrect terms. The only correct and legally recognized term is “Italian Sign Language”.
Using appropriate and respectful language is not a minor detail—it is the first step in recognizing the dignity and cultural identity of deaf people.
4. Offenses to Professional Skills
In Central and Local Government Bodies, deaf individuals hired under Italian Law 68/1999 are frequently assigned to simple or marginal roles. Even when they are hired through public competitions—therefore based on merit, not obligation—they are still treated the same way, as if being deaf automatically limited their skills.
In the eyes of many managers, simply being deaf is equivalent to being unable to handle complex tasks, responsibilities, or participate in important projects. This is not just a serious prejudice—it is an offense to the professionalism, education, and experience of those who work with seriousness and competence, just like anyone else.
Worse still, in some cases, when managers organize informative meetings for users to explain new administrative procedures, they secretly assign the presentation to a hearing colleague—deliberately excluding the deaf head of office simply because they are deaf, with the implicit justification: “How could they explain it out loud, if they are deaf-mute!?”
Of course, the deaf person is well aware of their communication limits in the absence of a Italian Sign Language interpreter, and they know full well it wouldn’t be possible to explain oral procedures to hearing users. However, out of respect and transparency, the manager should have at least informed them that the meeting would be assigned to a hearing colleague for that very reason—instead of excluding them secretly and disrespectfully.
This is doubly serious: on one hand, the manager excludes the person based on prejudice; on the other, they openly violate organizational hierarchy.
These seemingly minor “logistical choices” contribute to a damaging perception: hearing colleagues get used to speaking on behalf of the deaf manager, as if replacing them were normal or expected.
And all of this happens within a mindset that, while outdated and unacceptable, is still widespread in Italy. It’s important to remember that in many other countries, similar forms of discrimination are prohibited by law, which mandates appropriate linguistic accommodations—as described in Points 9 and 10 of this article.
5. Infantilizing or Patronizing Attitudes
Many deaf workers are still spoken to slowly or exaggeratedly, or approached with paternalistic behavior—as if being deaf meant being fragile or less competent. This is a subtle, yet deeply humiliating form of discrimination.
In some extreme cases, managers and directors even contact the deaf employee’s family to explain what they should relay to them at home. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, both ethically and professionally. It shows a total lack of respect for the autonomy, competence, and dignity of adult deaf workers.
Let’s be clear: deaf workers are not children, the workplace is not kindergarten, and managers are not schoolteachers.
6. Imposing Spoken Language
Central and Local Government Bodies often discourage the use of Italian Sign Language, indirectly and invisibly, treating it as a “limiting choice.” Yet for many deaf people, Italian Sign Language is their native and most natural language. University studies support this—but the mindset of many managers remains stuck in outdated logic.
Deaf employees are often called to attend mandatory training courses, even multi-day ones, without a Italian Sign Language interpreter. Managers excuse this by citing “lack of funds” or “bureaucratic issues,” when in reality they never even thought of contacting an interpreter in time during planning.
They then offer meaningless reassurances like: “You’re good at lip-reading, you’ll understand everything.” or: “We’ll send you the slides—you’ll catch up later.”
These comments reveal a serious lack of understanding of deaf people’s actual communication needs.
Imagine being sent to a three-day course in spoken Arabic, and receiving only a few notes in Italian. After a few hours, you’d feel disoriented, exhausted, excluded. And those three days would feel endless. That’s what a deaf employee experiences in inaccessible settings.
To many managers, presence is what matters—not real inclusion. They want deaf workers to be present on paper, regardless of whether the training is accessible, respectful, or meaningful.
7. Unbalanced Discussions: The Speaker Always Wins
When a conflict arises between a deaf and a hearing colleague, the manager often summons both parties. But in practice, the manager almost always sides with the hearing person, even when they’re wrong. Why? Because during the meeting, the deaf person—without a Italian Sign Language interpreter—tries to explain with writing, gestures, facial expressions. But they are often misunderstood—or not understood at all.
The hearing colleague, on the other hand, speaks fluently, gaining the manager’s full attention. In the end, it’s not about who’s right—it’s about who is better understood.
If the deaf person happens to be wrong, they can’t defend themselves effectively and are reprimanded without any real understanding of their communication limitations.
The absence of a Italian Sign Language interpreter undermines equality—the deaf person starts at a disadvantage. This isn’t impartiality. It’s systemic discrimination disguised as dialogue.
8. Discriminatory Introductions and Privacy Violations
Too often, when directors or offices introduce new staff, everyone else is presented by name and role only. But when it comes to a deaf colleague, they’re introduced with phrases like: “He’s deaf-mute—he doesn’t speak or hear.” This gives new arrivals a distorted, pitying, or discriminatory impression.
The same happens when users approach deaf staff: hearing colleagues often interrupt, saying “he’s deaf-mute” instead of supporting respectful communication.
Though still a common practice, this violates not only dignity, but also privacy laws. Being deaf is sensitive personal data, protected under existing data protection laws. This information cannot be shared without explicit consent.
Deaf people are fully aware of communication challenges, but through experience, they’ve learned to understand and be understood using writing, gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact—all of which are part of Italian communicative culture.
Users and colleagues naturally adapt—they learn to communicate without needing labels. Therefore, no one should feel entitled to define them with offensive or reductive language.
The Italian Data Protection Authority has repeatedly stated that sharing disability-related information without consent is illegal and punishable.
Central and Local Government Bodies must train their staff on privacy rules, especially when working with deaf individuals, to protect their dignity, rights, and confidentiality.
9. Exclusion from Daily Communication
Deaf workers are frequently excluded from everyday communication—not out of malice, but due to widespread social ignorance and a lack of genuine willingness to communicate.
Memos, public announcements, and video content are often not subtitled or lack Italian Sign Language interpreters, completely ignoring the communication needs of deaf people.
Even when subtitles or interpreters are present, they are often provided in an inadequate format: subtitles are too small, interpreters are placed in tiny video boxes—as if deaf people needed a magnifying glass to understand.
Sometimes, managers allow real-time transcription apps, but even that isn’t enough: people speak softly, talk over each other, or ignore the presence of the deaf person—and much of the conversation is still lost.
If a deaf worker notices hearing colleagues talking about them and asks for clarification, the usual answer is: “We’ll explain later”—but no one ever does.
This creates a constant sense of exclusion and marginalization.
The most effective solution is ensuring the presence of Italian Sign Language interpreters, even remotely. Yet, many administrations avoid this, citing costs or bureaucracy, even when the national budget could clearly support inclusive projects.
It’s not a financial issue. It’s a cultural one, as stated in Point 11.
In the US, UK, and many other countries, public agencies ensure access to sign language interpreters—in-person or remote—as a basic accessibility right.
10. Underrepresentation in Work Meetings
Deaf employees are still far too often excluded from meetings with top-level administration, even when the topics discussed concern them directly. They are not invited, or they are “represented” by others—colleagues, union reps, supervisors—who speak on their behalf, without real involvement. Even more concerning, during such meetings, it is not uncommon to hear patronizing, pitiful, or even offensive remarks from seemingly competent or well-meaning hearing participants, as noted in point 3. In many cases, their presence is considered unnecessary, and their voice goes unheard.
This exclusion is not always intentional; it stems from two root causes: on one hand, a lack of awareness about the value of direct participation by deaf individuals—as encouraged by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the Italian State—and on the other, concern about the costs of providing Italian Sign Language interpreters.
In contrast, many other countries guarantee constant access to interpreters and promote the direct involvement of deaf individuals in decision-making processes, which improves public policy and builds trust between administrations and deaf workers.
11. Dismissal of Deaf People’s Proposals
It is common to see that ministerial offices and unions do not recognize the value of proposals made by those who experience certain difficulties firsthand. There is no openness to experimentation—just bureaucratic excuses and a reluctance to propose concrete, effective alternatives.
This happens in part because many decision-makers, confident in their university degrees or years of experience “on behalf of” people with disabilities, believe they are more competent than deaf people themselves—even though they are not deaf and therefore lack direct lived experience.
To use a familiar comparison, it’s similar to when, in the past, some men felt entitled to decide what was best for women, without ever having experienced life as one. It’s a rooted presumption that excludes and silences those who most deserve to be heard.
Even more discouraging is when initiatives promoted by the same offices—often disconnected from the real needs of deaf people—are still approved, funded, and even celebrated, simply because they are low-cost. The outcome is always the same: a waste of public resources and no real impact for those who need support.
Unfortunately, some officials pretend to honor agreements made with deaf employees—on communication accommodations or the replacement of ineffective solutions—but continue proposing outdated methods, assuring that the agreements will be implemented “soon.” These promises are postponed or never fulfilled, aiming to calm deaf employees and persuade them to accept, once again, inadequate tools.
In the end, these same offices even boast publicly, emphasizing the quantity of interventions “for the deaf,” as if numbers alone proved inclusion—ignoring quality, feedback, criticism, and the real needs expressed by deaf individuals.
12. Discrimination Reported, Credibility Denied, and Additional Punishment
When deaf workers report discriminatory incidents at work, they are often met with defensiveness, minimization, or even mockery from officials, directors, and managers.
One significant pattern deserves attention: when inclusion issues are raised by deaf employees, offices either fail to respond or delay action—passing the matter to other departments with no real expertise, hoping time will make the complaint fade away.
However, if allegations of discrimination involve managers or senior staff directly, the reaction is immediate and firm—not to resolve the problem, but to protect the administration’s image.
Instead of listening humbly and taking issues seriously, many resort to repetitive, rhetorical, or vague statements—designed to confuse rather than clarify. The implicit aim is to discredit the deaf individual, framing them as untrustworthy or “always complaining.”
In some cases, this leads to invisible forms of mobbing—or worse, the initiation of disciplinary actions against deaf employees. These actions may appear legitimate on paper but are often baseless. And unions rarely step in to defend them, often lacking the awareness to recognize the communicative vulnerabilities of deaf workers and the subtle evasive strategies used by some offices.
These punishments are often nothing more than retaliation for speaking out. It’s a clear attempt to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right: the right to express one’s opinions freely and claim one’s rights.
This isn’t just discrimination masked by formality and polite words—it’s a sneaky and dangerously effective strategy designed to avoid real confrontation and silently perpetuate systemic discrimination.
13. Protection of the “Deserving,” Discrediting of the Whistleblower
Managers and directors often choose to overlook or downplay discriminatory behavior by hearing colleagues—even when the wrongdoing is obvious. Their defense is based on the belief that these colleagues are “deserving” because they are considered more productive, having reached many objectives and provided better results for the office—seemingly more than deaf employees.
On the other hand, those who report discrimination are sometimes discredited—not based on the facts they raise, but because they are seen as less productive, or because they have used—entirely legitimately—the leave provided by Law 104/1992.
This reinforces the damaging stereotype that deaf workers are less reliable or “lazier” than hearing colleagues considered “efficient.”
Productivity becomes a shield to excuse discriminatory behavior, while those who suffer end up isolated. This is a dangerous dynamic that harms not only deaf people, but the credibility and integrity of the Central and Local Government Bodies—and, by extension, the Italian State.
It must be remembered: even if some deaf workers produce less than “deserving” hearing colleagues, this is often the direct result of being consistently assigned to simplistic, marginal tasks—a clear consequence of outdated mindsets and systemic bias by directors and managers, not a reflection of actual professional shortcomings, as highlighted in point 4.
In any case, this can never justify discriminatory behavior, nor support narratives that discredit whistleblowers while protecting those who discriminate.
14. Exploitation of “Weaker” Deaf Workers to Undermine Complaints
In some cases—similar to what happens in other vulnerable groups, such as women or people with low literacy—managers choose to involve deaf employees who are perceived as “weaker” or easily influenced. These individuals, often for fear of losing their job or to maintain a peaceful relationship with superiors, feel compelled to please those in power.
These workers are led—directly or indirectly—not only to deny episodes of discrimination reported by other deaf colleagues, but to claim they have been treated positively, thus unintentionally supporting the administration’s self-serving narrative.
It’s a silent but serious dynamic: it turns deaf people against one another, exploiting personal vulnerabilities and the lack of a truly fair system of protection.
15. Defenseless in Disciplinary Procedures
All too often, when a deaf employee is accused of contractual violations, a manager summons them for explanations—reproducing the same communication imbalance described in point 7. In these cases, no union steps in to remind that no disciplinary action should proceed without appropriate communication accommodations—namely, the presence of a Italian Sign Language interpreter.
As a result, the deaf person is summoned with no linguistic support, forced to explain themselves as best they can, without fully understanding the seriousness of the situation.
The manager, with a reassuring tone, promises a light penalty, and the deaf worker—wanting to avoid trouble and often unaware of the implications—agrees in good faith.
But the outcome is far from mild: even a “small” penalty can have serious career consequences, such as disqualification from internal promotions, competitions, or productivity bonuses.
This is a silent violation of the right to a defense, made worse by the lack of adequate communication tools. And worst of all, these dynamics are considered “normal,” when in fact they deny deaf workers the ability to participate consciously in disciplinary processes.
Yet, criminal law requires interpreters for foreign nationals—invalidating any interrogation or statement made without linguistic translation. The same principle should apply to deaf people. Unfortunately, unions rarely invoke this right during internal disciplinary procedures, leaving deaf workers alone, defenseless, and often penalized.
16. Convenient Protection
When deaf people face simple, clearly defined issues, unions and offices respond promptly and effectively. But when the problems are more complex, sensitive, or require uncomfortable positions, the responses become vague, off-topic, or entirely absent—due to passivity or fear.
When the questions become challenging or question existing power structures, those involved become evasive. Answers become generic, promises pile up and are never kept, and attention is systematically diverted elsewhere.
As a result, no real inclusive initiatives materialize, and the promised protection becomes mere institutional convenience—useful for easing consciences but incapable of producing real change.
And despite everything, unions and administrations still have the nerve to say—half-truthfully—that they’ve “helped the deaf,” even when that help was partial, symbolic, or entirely nonexistent.
Once again, quantity matters more than quality: appearance over real effectiveness.
17. Exaggerated Credit for Minimal Obligations
It is common for certain ministerial offices—including unions—to take excessive credit for actions that are actually legally required. A notable example: a union issued a triumphant statement claiming it had “fought hard” to ensure Italian Sign Language interpreters for deaf candidates during written and oral exams of a public competition. In reality, the examining board was already fully aware of this obligation under Law 104/1992, in the event of formal request by candidates.
Taking credit for what is already a legal duty is not protection—it’s propaganda.
Conclusion
The situations described in this article are not hypotheticals or exaggerations: they are real events. They clearly reflect a mindset still dominant in many Central and Local Government Bodies—where appearances of inclusion are preferred, claiming to have “done a lot” for people with disabilities, without addressing the structural problems that prevent true inclusion.
And yet, reality is clear—and, fortunately, some within the institutions acknowledge it. On December 3, 2019, on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, the Italian President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, stated:
“… it is increasingly clear that the issue of disability is not about assistance; of course, that remains an essential need, but the real issue is support and action to enable opportunities and self-realization for persons with disabilities: that is the real problem. Our country is depriving itself of the potential, the resources, and the contributions of our fellow citizens with disabilities because it does not place them in a position to express and fulfill themselves. That is the true social and political goal we must develop and achieve.”
His words remain timely and vital. Recognizing the value of people, breaking down prejudice, and creating real conditions for inclusion is a responsibility that concerns us all.
The Italian President Mattarella has taught us—firmly and clearly—that it’s not enough to simply say something has been done in terms of quantity: we must act with quality, consistency, and respect—every single day.
Vlog33 hopes that Law no. 227 of December 22, 2021, “Delegation to the Government on Disability Matters,” will serve as a true educational turning point for managers, directors, and administrators—a real opportunity to initiate deep cultural change, not just through words but through lasting, structural, and verifiable measures.
Vlog33 firmly believes that, in addition to ensuring stable LIS interpreter roles—integrated as regular figures within Central and Local Government Bodies—it is essential to develop official, clear, and shared guidelines to ensure fair, respectful, and equitable treatment of deaf people, both as employees and as users. If truly heard and applied, these measures could resolve many of the issues described in the 17 points of this article—and those still to come.
If the Italian State truly listens to the Deaf community, it will restore to thousands of citizens what they deserve: dignity, voice, and recognition of their competence.
This is not just about overcoming communication barriers—it is above all about overcoming mental and cultural barriers. It means building an administration that is fairer, more human, more credible, and truly inclusive. It is time to leave behind outdated mindsets that still prevent the recognition of the real needs of deaf individuals, and finally achieve full inclusion—not theoretical or experimental, but concrete, effective, and lasting. As has already been done, for years, in many other countries.
Vlog33 would be pleased to actively collaborate with the Ministry for Disabilities, with Central and Local Government Bodies, and with all interested parties—contributing not only to the creation of the guidelines, but also to their continuous updates, based on real-life situations, and to their effective implementation.
Finally, Vlog33 is available to respond to questions, requests for clarification, or collaboration proposals from Central and Local Government Bodies, at the following email address:
vlog33@vlog33.it
