Rob Cruz Executive Director, NAJIT Technology-Aided Remote Interpreting in the Judiciary: It is not a panacea Rob Cruz Executive Director, NAJIT

Agenda Background and Context Some of the Issues Our Sign Language Colleagues Moving Forward

Background and Context

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d – 2000d-7 National Origin Clause Prohibits denial of benefits, exclusion from participation or discrimination on the grounds of “race, color, or national origin” under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance How presentation will benefit audience: Adult learners are more interested in a subject if they know how or why it is important to them. Presenter’s level of expertise in the subject: Briefly state your credentials in this area, or explain why participants should listen to you.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563(1974) Language is “inexorably” linked to national origin A person’s language is so closely tied to their national origin that to discriminate based on language was a proxy for national origin discrimination Lesson descriptions should be brief.

Executive Order 13166 (2000) Aimed at improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) Lesson descriptions should be brief.

U. S. Assistant Attorney General’s letter from 8/16/2010 Reiterates that state courts must provide and pay for interpreter services for LEP individuals To not do so would be a violation of Federal law

The Reality Technology must play a role in order to provide meaningful language access For all languages Across all geographies At no cost to the LEP

Some of the Issues

Scope The goal should not be to replace in-person interpreters through use of technology The goal should be to use technology, when appropriate, to supplement in-person encounters

Applicability Not every type of encounter lends itself to the use of technology Evidentiary hearings Testimony Contested exchanges

Applicability Suitable encounters should involve encounters where information is communicated, not contested Arraignments Reviewing rules Attorney-client/witness communication

Uniformity of Technology Not all technology is created equal or suitable for remote interpreting High bandwidth connections Appropriate cameras, headsets and microphones Image quality High resolution displays Multi-channel audio to allow for attorney-client confidentiality Lack of uniformity through established rules and minimal requirements can create varying degrees of fairness across different jurisdictions

Training It is vital that all practitioners and stakeholders be adequately trained in the use of the technology

What can we learn from our colleagues in the deaf and hard of hearing community?

We know… The US Department of Justice has established guidelines for the use of “Auxiliary aids and services” under Titles II and III of the American with Disabilities Act 28 CFR 36.303 - Auxiliary aids and services These guidelines do not apply to spoken-language encounters

We know… Video remote interpreting for the deaf and hard of hearing in medical settings has demonstrated the overreach and over utilization of technology The National Association of the Deaf highlights these points in its “Minimum Standards for Video Remote Interpreting Services in Medical Settings” (see appendix)

Moving Forward

Needs Guidelines are needed for the use, scope, applicability and training if remote interpreting technology is going to positively impact language access Practitioner and Association involvement The use of Pilot Programs is also necessary to effectively incorporate technology into the interpreting landscape

Technology Providers: Part of the solution or part of the problem? Like technology, not all providers are created equal Many companies have entered the field with varying results Some also attempt to provide the interpreters as well as the technology, often bypassing interpreter certification requirements

It is also important to recognize Technology must play a role if we are to expand meaningful language access: Cost-savings should not be the principle driver Practitioners must be involved in determining scope and applicability It is also important to recognize It is a complex issue with many considerations It is not a panacea

Appendix “Minimum Standards for Video Remote Interpreting Services in Medical Settings” from the National Association of the Deaf. https://www.nad.org/about-us/position- statements/minimum-standards-for-video-remote- interpreting-services-in-medical-settings/