Sign Language is not a marketplace for hearing people: when opportunity becomes appropriation

In Italy, every day, new Italian Sign Language courses are being launched. But as enrollment increases, one uncomfortable and necessary question lingers in the air: who is actually teaching this language? And more importantly, who is being left out?

The ones who often profit are hearing interpreters. Once again, the ones pushed to the margins are Deaf people. This happens in private associations run by hearing individuals and in some Italian universities: Sign language courses are directed, taught, and promoted by hearing people—centered around a language that doesn’t belong to them, but which they nonetheless label as a professional skill.

Sign language is not merely a tool for communication: it is a living language, deeply rooted in a culture, in a history of resistance, in a community that has endured exclusion, forced oralism, and invisibility. It is a cultural heritage with deep identity value. When it is taught and monetized by outsiders who neither know nor acknowledge the lived experience of those who grew up with Sign Language, we are facing a clear case of cultural appropriation. And no, that is not an exaggeration.

Imagine a Chinese course taught by someone who has never lived within Chinese culture. Or Arabic language courses systematically excluding native Arab speakers. Why, then, is this practice not only tolerated but normalized when it comes to Sign Language?

Many associations have involved Deaf individuals merely for promotional photos, while selecting hearing interpreters as teachers—some of them with only a basic certificate.
“They say the hearing teacher ‘communicated better’ with the students,” says Angela*, Deaf from birth and a Sign Language teacher for over twenty years. “But speaking better doesn’t mean living the language better.”

Another Deaf teacher, Michele*, adds:
“I’ve seen hearing teachers use unqualified Deaf people to pose as real colleagues. In those courses, most of the hours were taught by hearing instructors, while Deaf individuals had only a marginal role. The Deaf people present were pushed to confirm everything, even incorrect or made-up content. It’s a dangerous dynamic: they exploit the insecurity of inexperienced Deaf people to legitimize misinformation.”

These are not isolated incidents. They are the norm in far too many Italian contexts. Hearing teachers are considered “more suitable” because they speak, because they can “explain better.” But what do they know of the body that feels? Of the silence that forms words? Of the shared experience among those who communicate without voice?

The exclusion of Deaf people from Sign Language courses is a subtle yet powerful form of institutional marginalization. Deaf individuals are involved as symbols, as “guests of honor,” but rarely as true leaders.

Have you ever seen English courses where Italian is constantly mixed in? And yet, Italian hearing people learn foreign languages by keeping them separate from their own. With Sign Language, it’s the opposite: it is taught through spoken Italian and mixed gestures, resulting in a distorted form of Sign Language not recognized by the Deaf community.

Some Sign Language interpreters on TV or hearing participants in seminars use invented or hybrid signs combining Italian and Sign Language. Many of these signs were introduced by hearing instructors without any consultation with the Deaf community. It’s a form of linguistic imposition disguised as “innovation.”

Meanwhile, many associations continue to spread incorrect, manipulated, and emptied signs. Sign Language is used to showcase accessibility, to make associations and events look inclusive. But it’s only a facade. They talk about inclusion, but practice exclusion. They exploit the attention toward Sign Language for personal gain, leaving out those who live the language every day.

This is not about being “against hearing people.” It’s about justice. Because those who have never experienced communicative exclusion cannot claim the right to represent a language born from that very exclusion. Deaf people are replaced, erased, ignored.

Many hearing people justify their role as Sign Language instructors by claiming that most Deaf individuals are unqualified due to inadequate education. Others, even worse, invoke a supposed constitutional right to teach Sign Language—even without any collaboration with Deaf educators. But freedom is not domination. Freedom cannot become a license to erase others.

An important example at the international level comes from Riccardo, a Deaf Italian teacher who teaches American Sign Language (ASL) in the United States. In a livestream on Vlog33, Riccardo explained that in the U.S., hearing interpreters respect the leadership role of Deaf individuals in sign language education. Not only do they refrain from occupying spaces that don’t belong to them, but they consciously step aside, recognizing the authority and cultural centrality of Deaf teachers. Meanwhile, they continue their work as interpreters—a role that is highly valued by the Deaf community for the accessibility it provides, and for the humility with which it is carried out.

To support this testimony, Vlog33 also deduced an indirect confirmation from Giuseppe Nazzareno—founder of Vlog33, who has been living in Philadelphia, U.S., for the past seven months for work—in support of Riccardo’s claims. In one of his 165 videos published to date on his personal Facebook profile, Nazzareno recounted his firsthand experience in the United States: despite meeting many hearing interpreters in Philadelphia, Richmond, New York, and Washington D.C., in seven months he never met a single hearing person who teaches ASL.
This account by Nazzareno invites us to reflect on a cultural model in sharp contrast with the Italian one, where the opposite often happens. In too many cases, teaching roles are occupied by hearing individuals, even without real involvement of Deaf people. Centrality is claimed by those who are, in truth, external to the community that created and passed on the language. That is why the Italian Deaf community has, for years, made a clear appeal to hearing people: let Deaf individuals teach Sign Language. And yet, those who advocate for this are often attacked or silenced—as if hearing people are always, somehow, “right.”

The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) — representing about 70 million Deaf people globally — made its position clear in a statement published on its website in March 2023: Deaf people must be at the center of research, teaching, and development of sign languages. Not on the margins. Not behind. At the center. Because sign language is part of the body of those who live it. Not an accessory.

Yet many associations managed by hearing people ignore this appeal. One hearing coordinator of Sign Language courses—both a teacher and interpreter—considers himself more competent than Deaf individuals, treating both the appeal of the Italian Deaf community and the WFD’s statement as a mere drop in the ocean. An ocean that, in his distorted view, represents the supposed superiority of hearing people—implying that Deaf people should simply surrender to the majority power of the hearing population in Italy, and accept that hearing people can teach Sign Language as equals.

Indeed, many continue to profit, speculating on the backs of Deaf people. They want to teach Sign Language by speaking, without any cultural content.

Worse still, some Deaf witnesses report that an association issued Sign Language teaching certificates to hearing individuals, thanks in part to the presence—within the examination board—of a majority of unqualified Deaf members who approved all hearing candidates with troubling ease, simply because they could sign “well enough.” This means more and more hearing teachers will continue to emerge.

It’s the golden opportunity for hearing people to “commercialize” Sign Language—mocking those who speak out, calling Deaf people “divisive,” and accusing them of stirring up trouble. It’s the oldest trick in the book: silence the whistleblower, discredit the one who demands justice.

Fortunately, in Italy, there are exemplary institutions such as the ENS (Italian National Association of the Deaf), the SILIS group (Italian Sign Language School), and other organizations in the field, which are led by Deaf individuals and offer LIS courses taught by Deaf instructors, along with specialized training programs for Deaf people who wish to become teachers.

Fortunately, when silence is dressed up with pretty words, there are testimonies that speak for themselves. Facts. Real experiences. Voices that cannot be ignored.

Since hearing people tend to listen more easily to other hearing people than to us Deaf individuals, we have chosen to share the direct voices of hearing students who changed their perspective. Their stories are concrete evidence of what the Deaf community has been denouncing for years.

Indeed, many hearing students eventually choose to enroll — even after having already begun their learning paths — in courses organized by associations with Deaf teachers, because they have realized or experienced firsthand the inadequacy of the instruction offered by hearing teachers.

Here are some firsthand accounts of students who experienced this, particularly in the practical portion:

Maria*: “Honestly, I first enrolled in a Sign Language course with a hearing teacher, thinking it would be an advantage to learn sign language through verbal explanations. But in the end, I could only remember the spoken words and very few signs. So I decided to start again from level one with a Deaf teacher. Now it’s the opposite: I remember the signs, not the words. And I finally understand”.

Laura*: “I’m a mother of Deaf children. In my city, there are no Deaf teachers, so for convenience I enrolled in a Sign Language course with a hearing instructor. But what I learned was completely different from what my children used. I began to suspect that the signs were made up or altered. I then decided to travel — even making some sacrifices — to attend a course with a Deaf teacher. It was the best decision: now I can communicate naturally with my children. I’m not just happy with the sacrifice — I’m proud of the real result I achieved”.

Stefano*: “I had enrolled directly in level three with a Deaf teacher after taking the first two levels with hearing instructors. That’s when I realized I had a huge linguistic gap. The Sign Language I had learned wasn’t the real thing. So I decided to start over, and today I’m happy to finally be able to use authentic Sign Language”.

Gabriele*: “To tell the truth, with all due respect to hearing teachers, I have learned ten lexicons in LIS much more from deaf teachers than from them, from whom I had learned just one or two signs. Deaf teachers explain the different variations of the same concept with patience and passion. Hearing teachers, not being native LIS speakers, tend to teach just one sign for everything, as if that were enough. I often noticed that hearing teachers did not know other variations, which led to the impression that LIS was poor, when in fact it is not at all”.

Here are additional testimonies referring to the theoretical component:

Monica*: “My hearing teachers seemed truly competent and well-informed about the Deaf world, but over time I realized that much of what they taught didn’t align with reality. I recall phrases like ‘That’s how it is because he’s Deaf,’ without ever addressing deeper causes. Then I attended a seminar led by a Deaf person, with an interpreter. Their explanations struck me deeply: they were real, lived, direct. I realized that my hearing teachers, even with good intentions, unknowingly repeated many prejudices. I enrolled in a Sign Language course led by Deaf teachers — and in just one year, I learned more truths than in three years with hearing instructors. And it all happened thanks to real collaboration between Deaf and hearing teachers, unlike in earlier courses where all the instructors were hearing.”

Roberto*: “I was troubled to see some hearing teachers, while talking about Deaf culture, using spoken language with hearing students — even in front of Deaf people. That made me question their authenticity and respect. So I joined a course taught by Deaf teachers. There, I discovered the power of silence. I learned so much through that silence — more than from any verbal explanation. That’s when I truly understood what it means to be immersed in Deaf culture.”

The testimonies you’ve read reflect both the practical and theoretical aspects: the value of a true language, the power of silence, and the difference between representing and truly living it. They clearly reveal a truth that Deaf teachers know all too well: too often, Sign Language courses run by hearing people offer a distorted version, disconnected from the reality of the community that created it.

Perhaps some of you will be surprised by these stories, but for us, they are not surprising at all. Because this is our daily reality.

Despite everything, hearing teachers still present themselves as the most suitable, the most competent, the most “accessible.”

So let us leave the final word to the hearing students who found the right path after first taking the wrong one: “We strongly recommend: turn to Sign Language teachers — that is, to associations led entirely by Deaf people. If you’re drawn in by charming promises from hearing instructors, don’t make the same mistake we did. Listen to those who live Sign Language, not those who explain it without truly knowing it. We are happy with what we’ve learned from Deaf teachers, and if you listen to us, you will be happy and satisfied too.”

The Vlog33 Board
Manuel Alesi, Annamaria Amato, and Chiara Rinaldi

All names in the testimonies have been changed to protect privacy