The very complicated nature of interpretation, in general, and ambiguities involved in Derrida's writings, in particular, makes it very difficult to hold what Derrida means by deconstruction. As Biesta and Miedema (2011, 105) state: "One of the main challenges here is to get the interpretation of Derrida's writings 'right.'" Surely, by putting "right" in quotation marks, Biesta and Miedema do not mean "pinning down" what Derrida wants to say in his writings. Rather, the quotation marks indicate that a right interpretation of Derrida's writings cannot be straightforwardly achieved. In other words, the interpreter's role cannot be ignored in providing a right interpretation. The authors are totally in agreement with this point and, unlike what Biesta and Miedema attribute to them, they did not want to pin down what Derrida means by deconstruction. In this article, the authors discuss two interpretations of Derrida. One interpretation is suggested by Biesta and Miedema in terms of: (1) justice by using an external language and (2) taking deconstruction as merely an event. The second interpretation is what they have put forward in terms of interplay between: (1) justice and truth or between an external and an internal language, on the one hand and (2) event and action on the other. Biesta and Miedema hold that these authors' interpretation of Derrida is problematic. The authors discuss how this interpretation gets "right."