There’s rightly lots of attention to language access these days. Triggered in part, of course, by the DOJ letter to the state courts.
A genuinely modest proposal: Lets think about talking about language participation rather than language access.
“Participation” is a much more equal word than access. “Access” suggests an outsider being allowed in — at least in part. “Participation” suggests making sure that a member of a community is allowed to be fully part of that community. “Access” appeals to the intellectual structure of disability, while “participation” suggests equality and contribution.
In short, “participation” is about being part of the system, and being needed to get all the information needed for the right decision.
I realize that “access” may more accurately reflect the language of the governing Executive Order (which talks generally in terms of “access to services.” But maybe that’s the difference between most institutions like a hospital and courts — that a hospital or indeed a school provides services. whereas a court provides justice in the making of which all should participate.
But no. Actually we all participate in shaping our health and our education, as well as justice — of those around us as well as ourselves. So maybe participation, a word that suggests that, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, we do not have a human recourse to waste, is a better word all round.
Anyway, even if legal categories sometimes restrict thought (really?) lets try to think about this in humanely broad terms. And, maybe we need to think too about participation in justice, rather than access to justice.
P.S. One language access advocate, shown a draft of this post, worried that abandoning the word “access” would de-link the concept from its civil rights roots and goals. I hope it is obvious that that is not the intent — any more than talking about diversity should be seen as undermining goals of rights to racial and ethnic equality.