Where Do We Stand?

Mirta Vidal

On behalf of the Board of Directors I’d like to welcome you to NAJIT’s 17th Annual Meeting and Educational Conference. The theme of this year’s event is described in its title: Words Beyond Borders. And it seems most appropriate since there are more countries represented here today than ever before at a NAJIT event. In fact, we have presenters and participants from eight different countries, including the United States, with participants from 29 states. From as far away as Australia we have the Hon. Margaret O’Toole. With us also are Luis A. González Moreno and Iván Otero Diez from the Centro de Traducciones y Terminología Especializada in Cuba; from England, Ivonne Fowler of East Birmingham College and Deputy Chief Constable Colin Sheppard of the Norfolk Constabulary in Norwich. Our friends Georganne Weller and Leticia Leduc, from the Centro de Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada in Mexico City, and Janis Palma from Puerto Rico. The largest international group of participants is from Mexico, one person is here from Spain, and six colleagues have come all the way from Argentina to attend this event.

This international presence is a reflection of our role in a world that’s becoming ever more globally connected and culturally diversified. Today, the Internet is elevating the concept of information exchange to dizzying heights and at mind-boggling speed. But it is human beings that give shape and meaning to all new technology. In this fast-paced march into an uncertain future, translators and interpreters will have an increasingly important role to play in helping to propel humanity into the 21st century. Paradoxically, this world in flux is also deepening already existing social contradictions and is riddled with financial crises that will profoundly affect the atmosphere in which we all work. It’s important for us to take stock of this reality and of where we stand.

As we have said often before, recognition of the profession can only come as a result of our striving for excellence and demanding higher norms and standards for judging the quality of the work we do. While we’ve come a long way in this respect in the last 17 years, we also face some of our greatest challenges.

Both in the pages of Proteus and at last year’s conference we’ve talked about the adverse effects of budget cuts on interpreter services in the U.S. courts. The threat of sliding backward on the progress made in the last two decades is ever-present and growing.

In the area of certification, we are moving away from, and not towards, valid, universal testing to guarantee the quality of the services provided to every person to whom the law extends this right. On the federal level, exams for interpreters who work in languages other than Spanish appear to have been indefinitely shelved. But there is also talk of tampering with the exam for Spanish interpreters—the only truly reliable measure of proficiency there has been so far—in order to cut back on the cost of administering it.

It’s important to realize that the federal exam in its present form tests only the minimum level of proficiency that a person must demonstrate in order to perform the work. But as those of us who have worked in a courtroom know all too well, the work itself is much harder. Even those of us who are certified—and there are no exceptions to this that I know of—need additional training, specialized courses, continuing education and constant self-study.

Many state courts are now adopting training programs and joining the consortium sponsored by the National Center for State Courts in order to offer an adapted version of an exam. Several have done so in recent months. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is also considering making use of those exams in lieu of developing one comparable to the Spanish test. We should be clear on the significance of this. The creation of the consortium and the work done by the National Center for State Courts is a positive development to the extent that it reflects a growing concern with the problem of monitoring the quality of interpretation and a search for solutions. In that sense it’s a step in the right direction and we commend it. These exams, however, cannot compare with the federal exam. Anything short of a test that includes a written portion, for example, does not adequately screen those who are truly competent, because it fails to test overall proficiency in a language and the educational and cultural level needed to do this highly skilled work.

Offering tests that are not fully reliable and valid not only fails to address the need for credentialing but actually does more harm than good. It gives a seal of approval to those who are less than qualified and makes certification meaningless.

There appears to be a mistaken notion among those who control the funds for interpreter services, that different levels of competency are somehow acceptable, depending on what their budgets will allow; that defendants whose cases are heard in the state and local courts are somehow not as important as those whose cases are heard in federal courts; that defendants who speak Spanish are entitled to better interpretation than, say, those who speak Arabic, or Italian or Korean or Ibo. This is the only way to explain the enormous disparity in testing requirements among these languages and the norms being applied at different court levels. But this is dead wrong. This same logic of lower and higher standards seems to be applied to the courts as a whole, as compared with other forums where interpreting takes place. It seems incredible, for instance, that after nearly two decades we are still having to explain to judges and administrators why interpreters have to work in teams. It’s even more shocking to realize how few courts actually implement this policy.

Team interpreting has been the norm and is a sacred rule at the United Nations, the U.S. State Department, and all conferences where simultaneous interpretation is done. Anyone who doesn’t understand the need for interpreters to work in teams to ensure quality and guard against mistakes doesn’t know the first thing about the work we do and should not be making decisions that affect it. As for our fellow interpreters who agree to work under these conditions, we understand that often they have no choice. However, they should understand that each time they agree to do a trial alone without relief they are doing a disservice to the profession. More importantly, they are failing to uphold the ethical standard by which we must abide: to render a complete and accurate interpretation.

It’s time for us to stand up and demand recognition of this basic principle. If we don’t, rest assured that those whose primary concern is cutting back on expenses will see to it that it is done away with entirely. No one is better equipped than we are to understand what our job entails, what norms are needed, what standards must be kept. In doing so, however, we are not only defending our own interests as professionals. We are also helping to protect the rights of the non-English speaking. And we must never lose sight of the fact that they are our whole reason for being as professionals.

These are daunting tasks that require a concerted effort by a highly motivated and self-aware group of individuals working together in a united front. And when I look around this room I see precisely that. I see a new generation committed to bettering themselves, motivated to train and study on their own in view of the vacuum in formal education programs. A generation aware of the need to contribute knowledge and experience, to exchange ideas and information, who have broken out of the isolation that characterized the early years. A generation prepared to share with fellow professionals, rejecting any notion of competition, of protecting one’s turf and of concealing one’s ignorance that plagued us in the past. I see people doing research, writing presentations and coming here to offer them for the sheer satisfaction of knowing that this is done for our personal and common good, because it needs to be done, and not out of any self-serving consideration. For without this collective effort we are doomed as a profession and will stagnate as professionals.

I see how the profession has grown and matured, and I feel confident that we are prepared to enter a new stage, one that I hope will be marked by cooperation and the pooling of resources, by reaching out to everyone who shares our interests and is working toward a common goal. NAJIT is here to guide us in that process and to help us reach those goals. I’m very proud of what all of us together have accomplished and I invite all of you to continue with us on this exciting journey.

© 1996 by NAJIT