Supporting Contract Interpreters

Did you know that roughly 75% of interpreters working in the United States are independent contractors?

Here at In Every Language, we understand the power of micro-business and we make it part of our mission to help contractors from disadvantaged background grow their careers.  Part of these efforts include our recent endorsement of the Contract Interpreters Information Center.

In this work, In Every Language joins respected colleagues from around the nation in supporting this valuable and growing resource.  The Center's website explains the benefits of running your own micro-enterprise as a contractor, contains advocacy information on the contractors' federal labor rights, and offers a blog updating state-specific information as it becomes available.  Information is also available on how an independent contractor can make her/himself more attractive to translating and interpreting agencies.

We appreciate our hardworking interpreters who strive day-in, day-out to ensure that our clients' communications are accurately conveyed from one language into the next.  That's why we do what we can to support them, and that is why In Every Language backs the Contract Interpreters Information Center.

Rand Paul, Racism, & Professional Interpreters

Full disclaimer: I’m proud to be a Kentuckian.

No matter which state you’re from, though, you’d have to be living under a rock, far far away from CNN to not have heard about US Senate hopeful Rand Paul’s unfortunate remarks.  In an effort to share his beliefs on government’s role (or lack thereof) in business, he unfortunately side-stepped into a nasty civil rights debacle.  What the man actually said is beside the point; what’s he’s been accused of saying is that the US government had no right to force businesses’ hand in repealing Jim Crow.  Whether those were his exact words or not, the national media rush resulting puts Kentucky forth as the Land of Johnny Redneck, while we scramble as a state to protest the embarrassment Mr Paul has caused.

From recent efforts to un-redneckify this image, something good has come forth: State Senate Resolution 10SS SR31.  Proposed by Senator Gerald Neal (D-33), the four page resolution reaffirms Kentucky’s belief in and adherence to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a state.  With language that is forthright, moving, and as passionate as you can get and still call it government, Senator Neal invokes the battle long-fought in our country for civil rights.  The resolution calls the Civil Rights Act “a statement of a core American value.”  Throughout the resolution, the message is clear: civil rights = good, prejudice = bad.  But civil rights for whom?

As the owner of a translating and interpreting company, I see a new discrimination when I look across the Bluegrass State.  Yes, racial discrimination still exists.  I may have personally been born post-Jim Crow, but even I have seen restaurants with separate doors and dining rooms for whites and blacks, still divided by the community in a jus au sanguine kind of way.  Laws mean nothing if they are neither followed nor enforced.  Racism is still an unfortunate reality in the South.  But where racism is slowly starting to disappear, a new form of discrimination is coming forth: prejudice based on national origin.

As a nation, we have Title VI, the portion of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits prejudice on national origin and which requires, thanks to a back-up executive order from President Clinton, that any agency receiving federal funding provide equal language access under the law.  (For you lay people out there, that means, in part, translating and interpreting.)  But, again, as we learned with laws, they must be either followed or enforced to take meaning.  The 1960’s seems like a long time ago to some.  The issues we faced with immigration then were different than the issues we face now.

That’s why I was so proud to see Senator Neal’s resolution.  Whether he intended it or not, whether the other senators who unanimously voted for it were aware or not, we now have new legislation in Kentucky that says Kentucky is a welcoming state to immigrants.  It’s right there, in the final paragraphs (for a full copy, visit http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10SS/SR31.htm):

        WHEREAS, if the United States is to remain the welcoming country for persons from all locations, regardless of race, color, religion and ethnicity, enshrined by the Statue of Liberty, the welcoming of persons from all nations, and the "melting pot" for persons coming to the United States, the core values must continue to be protected; and

        WHEREAS, the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky finds and declares that any ideology, philosophy, or position which does not recognize these core American values is repugnant to the citizenry of the United States and to the advances made since the United States declared itself independent of Great Britain in 1776, and to the guarantees of equal protection, enshrined in the amendments to the Constitution of the United States and is hereby rejected;

NOW, THEREFORE,
Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
Section 1.   The Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky finds discrimination in any form to be inconsistent with American values and stands firmly behind the principles of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966.

Section 2.   The Senate of the General Assembly rejects any attempt to retreat from the guarantees provided by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966, and urges all residents of the Commonwealth to do likewise.

Maybe I’m stretching for it.  But did you see?  We are “a welcoming country [and] the welcoming of persons from all nations, and the ‘melting pot’ for persons coming to the United States…must continue to be protected… [A]ny ideology, philosophy, or position which does not recognize these core American values is repugnant to the citizenry of the United States.”  

I don’t know about you, but English-only political positions and other anti-translation efforts definitely seem unwelcoming to me.  To me, there is nothing more repugnant than a non-English speaking person being denied quality health care because they do not speak English.  There is nothing more repugnant than doctors who don’t care if their patient understands, who aren’t willing to invest the time it takes to open the phone book and call a qualified interpreting provider.  There is nothing more repugnant than a state Medicare system that turns down federal funding to reimburse interpreting costs.  There is nothing more repugnant than an abortion clinic administering abortions to non-English speaking women without first explaining the procedure in their language.  There is nothing more repugnant than a government that bars non-English speaking people from taking a driver’s license test, and in so doing, keeps these same people from getting to work or English lessons.  There is nothing more repugnant than school systems that do not understand the importance of having an interpreter explain a child’s progress to his parents.  There is nothing more repugnant than these things, yet they and many others continue to be in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

It is my hope—no, it is my challenge—to Senator Neal and others that 10SS SR31 will take teeth and bite, that it will enact change, that it will not stop at the whites-only door, but rather march right into both dining rooms and say that ending discrimination means ending discrimination, no matter who is being discriminated against.

I am challenging you to be better, Kentucky.  I am challenging you to keep me proud.  I know that it’s in you.

Speak English Well, or You'll Get a Ticket - Racism in Alabama?

Speak English Well, or You'll Get a Ticket. That's the title of a Jay Reeves article appearing in Saturday's issue of the Atlanta Constitutional Journal. Sad part is, this title isn't trying to be sensationalist, it's being honest.

Trucker Manuel Castillo, a native Spanish speaker, was driving his rig through Alabama when he was pulled over by Alabama State Police for a routine check. Castillo, who speaks English on a third-grade level (like many other Alabamians, I fear), had a routine conversation with the officer about his license and registration, the truck inspection, and so on. According to the article, he didn't forsee any problems (he's been a trucker for 20 years and wasn't speeding), until the officer gave him a $500 ticket for--you guessed it--speaking English poorly.

I encourage you all to read the article on the ACJ's website. There will certainly be more details and information available there. This blog entry is basically my personal outlet for sharing the sheer absurdity of it all.

A $500 ticket for speaking English poorly? In Alabama? Come on, people.

This is sheer racism and discrimination. Even if the Alabama State Police are able to hide behind the federal law which requires anyone with a commercial driver's license to speak English well enough to talk with police, they hopefully won't be able to hide for long. I can understand the necessity of being able to deal with law enforcement. What I can't understand is sheer hatred. Were those native to Alabama able to pass this requirement as well, we'd have no issue. But, according to the ACJ article, Mr Castillo was cited because he had an accent. An accent. In Alabama.

Now, I'm a Southerner. I love the South. My own brother lives in Huntsville. But, come on! The Alabama Department of Education admits to a 16.7% high school drop-out rate. According to the Department's Alabama Reading Initiative presentation, available online, 15% of the State's third-graders (the level at which Mr Castillo speaks English) tested below proficiency on state and national reading exams. When it comes to speaking English well enough to drive a semi, maybe Alabama State Police are pulling over the wrong people. If this is not a hate law, as it seems so much to me to be, could someone tell me how many native Alabamans who speak poor English have also received a $500 fine?

Tips for Working with Legal Interpreters

A few tips I came up with to help our legal clients better work with interpreters. If you have any to add, please feel free.

1) Work with professional interpreters, as opposed to bilingual grocers/wait staff/etc. You are a professional and your client expects professional service from you and everyone you contract on his/her behalf.

2) Ask for the right type of interpreter. For legal proceedings, a legal interpreter is the easy default; however, if you're deposing an doctor about a malpractice suit, then you might need an interpreter who's worked in medical situations as well. Make sure your interpreter specializes in the case's subject matter.

3) Request the right language. Many languages have multiple dialects. Spanish, for example, has 19 major dialectal forms.

4) For appointments slated to last longer than three hours, schedule two interpreters who will work in half-hour blocks. When working with only one interpreter, schedule regular breaks.

5) Allow for extra time. Everything everyone says will have to be said twice and, in addition, some languages simply take more words to say something than others. Spanish, for example, uses 33% more words to say something than English.

6) Prepare the interpreter. Provide him/her any police report, transcripts from preliminary hearings, and other materials. In cases where multiple translations are available, knowing the context will help your interpreter choose the correct one.

7) Practice working with the interpreter when you prepare your client for questioning. You'll get the kinks worked out ahead of time, everyone will look more polished, and your client will be more at ease.

8) Keep it in the first and second persons. Instead of telling the interpreter "Ask him where he was on the night of the 15th," say "Where were you on the night of the 15th?"

9) Be as precise as you can with your questions. Anything in your syntax that is unclear (i.e., dangling modifiers, unidentified pronouns like "it," double negatives), may be interpreted incorrectly.

10) Be aware that EVERYTHING you say will be interpreted, even if it's just to ask the secretary for more coffee.

11) Don't be surprised if your interpreter has questions about seemingly simple vocabulary words. What's only one word in our language could be one of many words in the other language, depending on the context. In French, for example, the English word meeting could be a "tête-à-tête," a "rendez-vous," a "conference," or even a "meeting."

(Blogger's note: Only after Tweeting this post did I realize I put this same article on the blog Tuesday, June 17, 2008. Must be something about June that makes me think legal! My apologies to those of you who are long-time readers.)

Obama Administration Cracks Down on Language Assistance Availability

It's been a while since I've updated the blog--too long of a while, in fact--and the news below was important enough to get me back into the swing of it. Abstracted from an article written by Nataly Kelly for Common Sense Advisory, please find information below on how the Obama administration and the US Department of Labor are cracking down on Title VI violations (full story here):

In January, the Common Sense Advisory predicted that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) would begin taking a stronger stance on language issues under the Obama administration ("Title VI Enforcement to Grow under Obama," Jan09). Two months later, this assertion is already proving to be true. As federal agencies prepare to hand out funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the DOJ issued an important reminder about the role of language.

The Department of Justice highlighted the fact that all recipients of federal dollars - and that includes private companies - must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expressly prohibits national origin discrimination, "including language access for limited English proficient persons." In other words, before beneficiaries dole out AIG-sized bonuses, they would be wise to make sure that their budgets account for translation needs.

Like father, like son. State and local government agencies often take their cues from the federal government - and, because they too are often the recipients of federal dollars, Title VI is applicable to these folks too. In fact, the federal attention to language issues coincides with other state and industry-specific language access issues that have taken place since the new president entered the White House.

Even with cutbacks in many commercial accounts, beneficiaries of recovery monies - both public and private - will not be able to slash language services from their budgets without costly consequences. In fact, the DOJ is making the most of the opportunity to ensure that the funds are spent in compliance with federal law.