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

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

3. Background and Context

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Some of the Issues

10. 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

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

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

13. 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

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

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

16. 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 Auxiliary aids and services
These guidelines do not apply to spoken-language encounters

17. 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)

18. Moving Forward

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Appendix
“Minimum Standards for Video Remote Interpreting Services in Medical Settings” from the National Association of the Deaf.
statements/minimum-standards-for-video-remote- interpreting-services-in-medical-settings/