"Real Interpreter"

[Lisa Sands]

I wanted to start a discussion about www.realinterpreter.com, a website started by Convo to make speechs accessible for the Deaf community in ASL, ISL and South African Sign Language after the debockle that took place at Nelson Mandela's memoral service.

 

There has been so much meaninful discussion happening about what a "real" interpreter is. There has been discussion about how we need to raise the bar and expect that interpreters obtain national certification, and that business/hiring agencies use certified interpreters so we have a minimum standard set for our profession. It feels like a really exciting time in our profession and change is on the horizon.

 

I know we can talk all day about what qualified and unqualified means and how many uncertified interpreters are extremely qualified to do the work. But, how can we expect our field to change when we are lenient with our standards (using uncertified interpreters, even if they are "qualified"). How can we we demand the use of certified interpreters, but open the gates for some uncertifed? How does this motivate the uncertified interpreter to further their education/training and join the ranks with the rest of us when they are working and don't really have to? What does this inconsistancy show to the community, both Deaf and hearing?

 

I am posting this question because of a video I viewed on www.realinterpreter.com of President Obama's speech at Nelson Mandela's memorial service. I recognized the interpreter as a performace artist who has made some music videos in ASL. I also heard that she is not certified and not an associate member of RID. I was a little shocked that this website is representing her as a "real interpreter" when she doesn't hold national certification, or have any stake in our national organization. After all of the discussion we have had this past week, it feels like a setback.

 

What are your thoughts about a "real interpreter"?

 

Thanks

Lisa Sands

CI,CT,NIC-Advanced

 

 

 

 

[Corrie]

Hi, Lisa!

I'm assuming you're talking about President Obama's speech, interpreted by Azora Telford. I don't know Azora personally, but she is a respected interpreter in the community where she lives. Granted, she has gotten more national exposure through her work on YouTube, but I don't see that as a problem. She is also a heritage signer, having grown up with deaf parents who use ASL. She is an associate and a spokesperson for Convo, so it seems like a natural choice for this current endeavor.

I don't want to presume to know Azora's motivations (or even her certification status), but many people have expressed doubts if RID certification is the only mark of a "real interpreter." If Azora has been embraced by the deaf community in her area and beyond, who am I to tell her she has no right to interpret a speech on the Internet?

It speaks to the need for deaf people to be involved in the process of selecting who provides interpreting services. I am more concerned about a system that excludes deaf voices from the discussion and promotes the least expensive service as the primary qualification for providers.

Thanks for bringing the conversation!

-Corrie

-C

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Lisa Sands]

I agree on all of your points. Does RID certification make a "real interpreter"? I definitely sets a standard for minimum competency. Can any interpreter who holds RID certification be an effective interpreter in any situation? Absolutely not.

 

My question was after all of this debate, was using an uncertified interpreter (which I was told, but I am presuming) to respresent a "real interpreter" appropriate?

 

I don't know Azora as well, and my intention is not to bash her as an uncertified or unqualified interpreter. I think she did a great job. It just seemed to go against the grain of the discussions that were happeing. I wonder what went into Convo's decision making process when picking who would represent a "real interpreter".

 

Thanks!

[Austin Kocher]

Excellent discussion, Lisa and Corrie. I agree with both of you, so please read my assertive tone as happening with us marching forward together, not in battle against one another.

While I fully endorse certification and believe it is important, I'm not bothered by the certification status of the interpreter on realinterpreter.com. What's more bothersome to me is why no one else made that video first. If the only person to take the time to make that video is an uncertified interpreter with a private company, then I think it's an indictment of RID and the rest of us, certified or not.

In fact, in my recent blog post about RID's public statement, I claim that RIDs response lacked urgency and missed a unique opportunity. RID is the certification leader and the organizational face for all of us – I say that proudly. But if having certified interpreters is important, why didn't RID use its membership and organizational website to fix the injustice? Can you just imagine the amazing opportunity we had to do something valuable for the Deaf community, and also get tremendous press coverage as an organization?! My own pathetic interpreting blog BLEW UP in three days because I posted up-to-date information. But look at the RID website today and you can barely even find mention of the Mandela incident. I'm not blaming any one individual at RID. But it is definitely a missed opportunity.

I don't think a discussion of who counts as a "real interpreter" will end up any more productive than debating who has "Deaf Heart". These end up being empty signifiers which can contribute to complacency and polarization in the first place. (Crab theory, anyone?) I'd prefer to work at a team on real projects with tangible benefits. Forget who counts as a real interpreter. Azora got it done. You and I didn't. Shame on us. Now let's start fixing this broken system.

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher

[hodi...@gmail.com]

I agree. This debate is interesting to see what people discuss but not very productive. It's like deciding who is really deaf (Deaf, HH who use ASL, HH who speak and use ASL, those who grew up oral but now use ASL, etc) none should be excluded because the collective use of ASL (communication) brings life to the culture no matter their background, correct? With interpreters there's that gap of deaf-made, school made, coda, certified, uncertified blah blah blah, etc. that when looked at under a microscope ruins this field. I'm here in Arizona where it's require to have the NIC and be state licensed, of which I have both, but quite frankly I am DISGUSTED often by comments and attitudes directed at and about other interpreters because they are ___________, or not ___________. Nothing is good enough. Judging others based on a status that they themselves have established is not professionalism and it's degrading to those who are defamed. Soap box is over.

Deaf should decide where the benchmark is. Period. Aren't they who we interpret for and who request the accommodation in the first place? Sure RID is the certifying body but who really makes the last decision about the certification process, are they deaf? I don't know. Who makes the checkmark on tests to say this interpreter is now certified, deaf? Not always. How are we supposed to trust such a flawed system when Deaf people are not always consulted on every level? I honesty don't have any answers for any of this but would love to see some change. 

My comments are not meant to bash anyone who has already commented...just my 2 cents...which may be a bit messy, but it is what it is.

Heidi Christensen

[Lisa Sands]

If there would have been a professional interpreter at the Mandela memorial, it would have been an interpretation into South African Sign Language, not ASL. Would have that been RID's responsibility to translate SASL into ASL? I don't think so. RID has a responsibilty to monitor and be actively involved with what is happening here, but I don't think they should have been the ones called into action to right the wrong.

 

I definitely agree with your point about Convo taking the lead and make something happen. I absolutely think it is comendable, and I think Azora's work and willingness to be in the spotlight and make it right should be comended as well. I think this is a huge lesson for all and we are going to see amazing thing happen because of it.

 

As far as your comparisson between "real interpreter" and "deaf heart", "real interpreter" can be measured by having standards set in place.

 

Thanks!

[Austin Kocher]

Sure – just to clarify. RID doesn't *have to* do anything. I'm not saying that RID's reputation is on the line. I'm thinking strategically as the founding board member of an NGO and someone involved in work with undocumented immigrants – a field with much more contentious politics than interpreting.

What I'm suggesting is, any non-profit organization gains legitimacy based on their ability to "speak for" their membership and their professional field. It's even better when they create programs that offer timely, substantive value for the field. This is true for any NGO. So within that world of NGO politics, RID could have contributed to very public and tangible content by creating that video. They don't have to – imagine for a second that you went to the RID website on December 15 and instead of the banner (that hasn't changed in years), you saw a full 720p video of an RID certified interpreter signing Obama's speech into beautiful ASL. Tag line: "This is why certification matters." Close your eyes and imagine. Cool, right! Goose bumps for me, anyways. It's not a very radical position, I think.

- Austin

[Stephanie Feyne]

Something that hasn't been addressed in this discussion is race. 

We have such a weird relationship to race in the US and even in RID that it feels uncomfortable to even bring it up. 

I watched part of her work (not enough time in the day). It was lovely. 

And it felt very fitting that we saw an interpreter of color for this event. Of course, I think it's fitting that we see interpreters of all colors at all events, but with the history of apartheid so recent, and with her native language and lovely skills I thought she was a great, respectful and appropriate choice. 

I also know that many of our colleagues in NAOBI are good, working interpreters but not certified. 

I don't know where to go with this other than reminding ourselves that there are so many factors that are to be considered when we determine what is "real interpreting." 

I'm hopeful that the new committee (that we are voting to populate) will be considering this as well when it looks at our documents. In their charge is the diversity statement. Of course, I think diversity is more diverse than just ethnicity and sexual orientation. I'm hoping we will consider Deaf parentage as diversity as well - it certainly is a minority in our organization these days:)

Thanks for this discussion. 

I love this group!!

Happy holidays, y'all. 

Stephanie 

Typos courtesy iPhone:)

[Diana MacDougall]

Stephanie,

Thank you for this perspective. Yes! The intersectionalities we live within requires us to look not only at certified, but also qualified and the complexities this entails with interpreters of color. Namely, accessibility to RID's test expenses that hold working class and people of color AND trilingual interpreters from reaching that goal. It's not the only thing, but we of privilege oftentimes forget these factors that we take for granted. 

Another cog in the wheel to address. 

Hopefully the new committee can include this in their agenda. 

Diana Mac

[Austin Kocher]

Diana,

I love that you just said "intersectionalities".

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher

[Diana MacDougall]

Hahaha. 

Diana Mac