)%20(1400%20%C3%97%201400%20px).jpg)
Brand the Interpreter
What if La Malinche—the Indigenous woman who famously served as interpreter and advisor to Hernán Cortés during the Spanish conquest of Mexico—could share her stories? Imagine the insights and experiences she could offer about the power of language and navigating the complexities of two worlds. That’s the spirit behind the Brand the Interpreter Podcast!
Hosted by Mireya Pérez, an interpreter and personal brand advocate, this podcast gives today’s interpreters a platform to share their own fascinating stories, challenges, and triumphs. Each episode pulls back the curtain on the world of interpreting, from navigating high-stakes conversations to facilitating cross-cultural understanding, offering listeners a glimpse into the lives of the professionals who bring meaning across languages.
Whether you’re an interpreter, a bilingual professional, or simply curious about the magic that happens behind the scenes, Brand the Interpreter immerses you in the stories of language professionals making an impact every day. It’s more than just a podcast—it’s a celebration of language, connection, and the vital human element that makes communication possible.
Join us to explore how the power of language, driven by human connection, shapes understanding, opens new worlds, and transforms perspectives, revealing the deeper truths that unite us all.
Brand the Interpreter
Is Language Access at Risk? Bruce Adelson Weighs In
The stroke of a pen in Washington D.C. sent ripples through the language access community earlier this year. When Executive Order 13166 was rescinded after nearly a quarter century, many interpreters and language professionals feared the worst. What would happen to language access rights? Would limited English proficient communities lose vital protections?
In this illuminating conversation, former Department of Justice Senior Trial Attorney Bruce Adelson cuts through the confusion with clarity and perspective that only someone with his background can provide. "The language access as a civil right has really not changed," he explains, drawing an important distinction between executive orders (which direct federal agencies) and the underlying legal foundations that remain firmly in place through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Supreme Court precedent.
While Executive Order 14224 declares English the "official language" of the United States, Adelson helps us understand why this has no legal force while acknowledging legitimate concerns about how such declarations might empower discrimination. Rather than panicking, he encourages language professionals to recognize this as "a bump in the road" and redirect advocacy efforts toward states and local communities where meaningful change remains achievable.
Perhaps most compelling is Adelson's optimism about opportunities for innovation. Just as COVID transformed remote interpreting, this moment of uncertainty could drive new approaches to language access - with interpreters perfectly positioned to lead that evolution. "Who would know the communities that we serve better than those of us that are serving the community?" host Mireya Pérez observes.
Whether you're an interpreter concerned about your profession's future, an administrator trying to understand compliance obligations, or an advocate for language access rights, this episode offers the expert insights and practical guidance needed to navigate this changing landscape with confidence.
So tune in. Only on the podcast that shares your stories about our profession: Brand the Interpreter!
Share your thoughts about this episode!
Thanks for tuning in, till next time! 👋
Connect with Mireya Pérez, Host
www.brandtheinterpreter.com
Facebook
LinkedIn
Instagram
Welcome back Branded Bunch, to Brand the Interpreter the podcast that shares your stories about our profession. I'm your host, mireya Perez, and I've missed you, so I'm so happy that you're joining me today. Today's episode is one that touches on something many of us have been thinking about, perhaps. Executive Order 13166 has been rescinded. In its place, executive Order 14224, bringing a very different message, and with that there's been a wave of concern. What does this mean for language access, for the communities that we serve, for the work that we do every day?
Speaker 1:In this episode, I sit down with Bruce Adelson, former Department of Justice Senior Trial Attorney and language access expert, to unpack what's actually changing and what's not. We talk about why the initial reaction to this new order might be missing something critical what language professionals need to keep in order might be missing something critical what language professionals need to keep in mind when it comes to enforcement, and where your voice might have more influence than you think. This is one of those conversations that brings clarity, strategy and a little hope right when we need it most. And hey, don't forget. If this episode resonates with you, don't forget to share it, follow the podcast and leave a review. It helps when more people in our field find these important conversations All right, and now on with the show. Bruce, welcome to the show. It is such a privilege and an honor to have you back as a returning guest here today.
Speaker 2:Thanks for being here. Oh, it's my pleasure, mireille. It is always great to see you. I so enjoyed our previous conversations and it's my pleasure to be with you again today.
Speaker 1:Thank you. I've also always enjoyed our conversations not just here on this platform, but any conversation that I can join that you are sharing some knowledge and some expertise. I'm always so happy to join and be a part of, just to soak in and take in all the knowledge that you have to share, because I think that it's important for us as interpreters, to have that the legal component background, just to get an understanding of where our work derives from, and so it's always great to be able to have you, you know, just on any platform sharing your knowledge. So thank you again for being here. We've got lots to cover today, so how about we get started?
Speaker 2:Yeah, sure let's go.
Speaker 1:Okay. So in our previous conversation if any of you have not heard that episode, I highly encourage you to go back, because Bruce really talked to us about one executive order. That is sort of something that we're going to be talking about today, but Executive Order 13166 was something that I know for myself. Whenever I talked about just guidances on language access, I mentioned Executive Order 13166 a lot. So for those that didn't get an opportunity to listen to that previous episode, first of all go and check it out. I'll an opportunity to listen to that previous episode. First of all go and check it out. I'll make sure to link it in the episode notes. But, bruce, would you be so kind to just give us a quick recap or review of what EO13166 was?
Speaker 2:One of the things that's happening now, of course, that there are a lot of developments like almost daily. There are a lot of developments like almost daily legal court decisions, executive orders, lots of things. I think what's important for people to realize is that in 1964, when this 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted into law, that kind of began the beginning of language access as a civil right, and a civil right, of course, is something that is very significant in the United States, that freedom of speech, freedom of religion and there are many other aspects of what is a civil right. Well, language access as a civil right was then later even more refined by the US Supreme Court in the case of Lau v Nichols, where it said very clearly that students who spoke Chinese were not being given an equal educational opportunity because of language. And then things continued from there. But one of the issues that I find a lot and this is even true among a lot of attorneys is not really understanding or really appreciating what an executive order is. So you mentioned 13166.
Speaker 2:As we know, earlier this year in, I think, the first weekend in March, the administration rescinded the executive order from 2000. So that's 25 years ago. That was put in by President Clinton Then coincidentally, that was during my DOJ career, so I remember that pretty well. What that did is, it said, to federal agencies you all have to figure out how to communicate with people who are a limited English profession. So come up with a plan and do it. Then also, you need to put your own information online in languages other than English. So the agencies did it took some a longer time than others, but it's really important to realize that.
Speaker 2:The EO 13166 and any executive order they don't create rights. All they do for the most part, is set policy for federal agencies. So it's the president telling the agencies of the federal government here I want you to do this. Agencies of the federal government here I want you to do this. But it doesn't affect you or me. It doesn't give us rights. Take away rights, diminish rights, increase rights.
Speaker 2:There are a lot of executive orders and they all can be rescinded by the next president, which happens all the time. So President Biden rescinded things that his predecessor had done. Now the current administration is rescinding things that President Biden did. It's very routine. It's all part of the. In a way, it's like that inside the beltway stuff in DC that there's a lot of things that go on around here that are beyond where most people are. Certainly that was true for me before I worked for DOJ. So this executive order has gotten a lot of attention, the rescission, the one by the current administration. It also said that it was going to revoke executive orders or guidance documents that relied on the President Clinton order. So since the President Clinton order is gone, if there's something that happens the next year that says we base this on Executive Order 13166, since that is gone, well then the other ones are going to have to be gone too. So that's essentially what DOJ is doing now is combing through 25 years and I don't envy them this thousands of pages of documents to see which ones are based on 13166 and which are not, and the ones that are we rescind, the ones that are not we leave in place and we're going to come up with our own guidance.
Speaker 2:So I have to say quickly that guidance documents are not legally binding. They provide recommendations. It's like as a parent, if I'm giving guidance to children and to my children it's okay, don't cross the road in the middle, be careful where you walk and don't in the snow, take your sled and go down the hill because cars are coming up. So that's all guidance. That's what the federal government guidance is too. It's not legally binding.
Speaker 2:But one thing that's very interesting and I own up to this, as I recognize that I can be pretty nerdy with reading all the stuff that I have to read. So I found something from the late 70s that is a regulation, so it's a law, it's not an executive order that says language access is essentially it's guaranteed and that recipients of federal funds must provide documents and notices in other languages. They must provide meaningful access to people who are LEP, they must act reasonably. Guess what? That's all similar to what Executive Order 13166 said. Let's see 19,. 24 years after the document that I found, 24 years after the document that I found.
Speaker 2:So while the executive order, I think, creates some confusion and I know that people are concerned about it I do take a somewhat different view and it's almost like you know, I'm not from Missouri, but it's like saying show me, show me the problem here. There have been no lawsuits based on this executive order. The language access is still a legal civil right and that's not going to change, because for that to change, the Supreme Court would have to say hey, you know what we're going to. Take this now let's see 26, 51-year-old court decision and say forget it, I don't see that. So one of the reasons I was so pleased to hear from you and to join you today is to kind of clarify what is happening. I know there are still a lot of fears and concerns. Fears and concerns those are very significant issues. But as far as the legal access to a legal right to language access, that has really not changed.
Speaker 1:Fantastic explanation. Thank you so much for laying the ground for today's conversation, and one thing that I neglected to do, bruce, was share with others your background and why you're considered an expert in this field.
Speaker 2:Well, I very much appreciate that. I have been a lawyer for a long time. I had a career as a DOJ, senior trial attorney. One of my jobs at DOJ was enforcing Title VI, so actually going to places that receive federal funding and questioning whether they're in compliance, going on strongly or less strongly depending on the situation. And in addition to that, I teach implicit bias in healthcare at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Georgetown University School of Medicine. In fact, my law school semester is ending as we speak, my last class is coming up and then it's time for finals.
Speaker 2:So I've been doing language access work for more than 25 years in voting, healthcare, state courts, law enforcement, you name it and I've had my hand in it. So it's been a real pleasure for me and almost a labor of love, because one of the issues too when my family came to this country, they didn't speak English and they were discriminated against, and my dad had told me many stories of his experience growing up in New York City, going to school, being taunted, being treated differently because of his language, and I think that that eventually, you know, rose to the surface for me and became a significant aspect of my career. It's a big part of my law practice and it's a big part of my teaching. So my parents passed away. So I have a feeling that on some level they're looking and saying yeah, we remember when that happened to us.
Speaker 2:Go for it, Bruce. Yeah, Bruce.
Speaker 1:I bet they are yes, and you continue to do that and advocate and share your knowledge, which I think you make it in a way that is very digestible when you share your knowledge.
Speaker 1:For those of us that don't have that legal background makes it very relatable to the work that I do, which is so important, because I think oftentimes I dare to say particularly with community interpreters it feels like there's no real guidance with some of the organizations that we work with and that it's sort of like us against them trying to inform them of meaningful language access policies and services.
Speaker 1:So whenever, again, like I said, I hear your information when you're sharing it out there, it's just in a way in which it is very relatable and understandable and it sort of makes the connection with the work that I do, which is so important, right. There is some legal foundation there that really solidifies my work as a professional. So thank you, bruce, again so very much. I want to basically ask the question that perhaps many of my audience is interested in knowing, and it has to do with the impact, the potential impact, of EO 14224. But before we do that, how about we sort of break down a little bit as to what Executive Order 14224 actually is for those that haven't had the opportunity to read it.
Speaker 2:Sure, Well, I think it's part of the flurry of information that's come out from the current administration. The EO does several things. One it establishes English as the official language of the United States. Now, legally that means absolutely nothing. It just can't do that, absolutely nothing. It just can't do that.
Speaker 2:However, one of the concerns that I always have is when something official comes from the US government. It carries the stamp of seriousness of being an official document and it may empower people to think wow, english is an official language. Well, you're speaking this other language. You can't do that. The executive order says you can't. That's not true, but nevertheless I am concerned that, whether it's in public school offices that people will feel this sense of empowerment and take advantage of people who primarily speak a different language and while they're speaking that other language, or be harassing or taunting. These issues have come up before in employment discrimination cases. In fact, I remember there was a case that interested me a lot a few years ago of a restaurant in Arizona outside the Navajo Nation that employed several Navajos as staff, and there was one day where there's several people who were Navajo were speaking Navajo in the restaurant and the owner said oh no, you can't do that we only speak English here and I don't know what you're talking about. As far as you could be making fun of me, so we can't do that. So he fired them and then eventually justice prevailed that he lost and there was a significant financial outcome. So that's something that happened like 23 years ago, before there was any talk of English as the official language of the country.
Speaker 2:Now, with this executive order, I am concerned that there will be additional instances like that. So we have the English as the official language. We have rescinding or getting rid of the President Clinton executive order from 2000 about directing federal agencies to tell them how to speak to people who are LEP. All guidance documents based on that old executive order are gone or if they're not gone now, they will be after. Doj does the next thing, which is review all of them, all these documents, all these executive orders, guidance documents, advisories, letters to colleagues from 2000 until this year, and also to, I'm believed, to reinforce the underlying legal obligation that if you receive federal funds, doj put something out.
Speaker 2:Maybe it was within the last month where they rescinded another executive order related to language and they also said okay, we're rescinding this, but let's be clear, the law hasn't changed. You still have to provide this kind of access, reasonable access, meaningful access, and their restatement of what the law said was accurate. So here's DOJ taking away a guidance document from 2002 about providing language access, and then they say, all right, we've taken this away, but you still have to do what's written in the guidance. So okay, that's another kind of Washington inside the beltway thing, but in a different way. It shows DOJ isn't just throwing this stuff away.
Speaker 2:They're not doing anything which they really can't do to repeal Title VI, to throw that out, to call the Supreme Court and say, hey, why don't you just like toss this old case, just like, just do it? They not only can't, they cannot do that, but they're not doing it. So I'm looking at when they release their guidance, the new guidance, because I am sure that will be very informative. There's no date by which they have to do that. They haven't announced when they're doing it, but coming up with a new guidance document takes time. I expect this will take a few more months and, frankly, they're pretty busy these days and they are bleeding lawyers. The lawyers have either quit, been suspended or they've been fired, so they're down a lot of people. So someone has to go to court to make arguments for the administration.
Speaker 1:Maybe it'll take them four years arguments for the administration.
Speaker 2:Maybe it'll take them four years. You know, I'll tell you. I've said before that I think things are going to be like they were the first term. I don't think this is coming out anytime soon and it could very well you and I are going to have to talk about this when they do bring it out. I think it will take a long time and it could very well not happen until 2028.
Speaker 1:I think one of the things that first came to mind for me, just as you know, just as a lone interpreter on the community, when I first heard this was okay. So, as interpreters and, just you know, the language professional community, we knew that Executive Order 13166 provided guidance. Yes, and that guidance was very specific. It was language access plans and policies, definitions of meaningful access for our LEP communities. It talked about qualified interpreters versus bilingual staff. So I dare to say that it was a higher standard that was guiding organizations on how to appropriately provide these services, which was great. That's what guidance should be. Now I feel that with the lower standard if I could call it that, meaning it's removing of, like a lower standard that organizations may be more inclined to say well, you know, it's a lower standard, less requirements, much easier, so we're just going to go with this rather than continue with potentially what they may have already had started per se right With the former guidance.
Speaker 1:What do you anticipate, potentially, what could happen with organizations that were already starting to create policy around maybe the guidance of EO13166, versus now the English as the official language, guidance or executive order? Excuse me, do you anticipate that people will say, well, let's just water this down, then the requirements aren't as high anymore, so we don't have to bring in a language access coordinator, we don't have to create a policy, we don't have to create a plan, we don't have to bring in qualified interpreters. Or is this me saying thinking worst case scenario?
Speaker 2:Well, I think it's always good to think worst case scenario, best case scenario and everything in between, to be well prepared. I have spoken to a lot of whether it's health care providers, states, state courts. Not one of them has said you know, we're just not doing this anymore. They've said the exact opposite, that why would we stop doing it? It works, we're used to it, everybody gets it. The government is not saying you cannot do this, which they're not going to say that. So, yes, there will be changes. If you look at, in a way, the Section 1557, the health care regulations, they're going to change those. So when the change comes out, I think it's going to be similar to what the change in 2000 was compared to what had been done by President Obama's team that there'll be less specifics, fewer mandates, more suggestions.
Speaker 2:When DOJ put out their 2002 guidance about language access which I remember because I participated in this there was a lot of discussion about well, which I remember because I participated in this. There was a lot of discussion about well should it be required or recommended, and that goes to one of the philosophical differences between the two major political parties about mandates and recommendations. The political appointees were adamant that and we had good discussions about this, but they were adamant that you know we're not going to require them to do this. We'll strongly recommend it or recommend it. So right now, even though 13166 is gone, the standards that you referred to for the most part are still there and for them, if you want the worst case scenario the worst case scenario would be the Lauve-Nichols case from 1974 would be overturned by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would say there is no language access. Right, there's nothing. So if you're limited English proficient and you need information, tough because there's no requirement to provide it to you, I don't see them doing that. I mean I just don't. I know there's been some talk about targeting the decision and bringing other cases to challenge it. Even if that happens, it's going to take years to go up to the Supreme Court and I really don't see them overturning it.
Speaker 2:And one aspect of that which gives me a significant amount of additional understanding. I remember, within the last 10 or 15 years, a very conservative senator, who was not overwhelmingly supportive of most of the things we've been talking about, came out strongly in support of language access. Why? Because he had a family member who was hospitalized with a life-threatening condition, who was LEP and survived because she got language access, and he said I'm supportive of this, particularly in healthcare. I've experienced it. I've seen what can happen if the patient doesn't understand what's being told to them or vice versa, what they're telling to their physicians. So I remember that very so. I remember that very, very well and that gives me some additional support for my feeling that no, the language access right is not leaving us.
Speaker 2:The devil will be in the details. Yes, they may say, well, you're not required to have a language access plan, it's a good idea, but you don't have to do it. I see more of the things like that happening and, since Mireya, let's be honest that there are a lot of organizations that still don't do this, that still don't provide language access. It would be one thing if there were like 95% compliance and 95% of the public schools were providing language access and that's all gone. But it's not true. It's not true.
Speaker 2:So, in a weird kind of way, assuming that this happens, the more information that's put out there, the more people understand it, the more the reality of we have very significant civil rights in this country that are different than in most other countries, and, yes, that many of them are really being put to the test now by the current administration, but the bottom line is now by the current administration. But the bottom line is if you have the right, if you have a particular right and you don't use it, then you may lose it, because there's this sense that, hey, you know, people didn't do anything about this. So why do we keep this anymore? That's not just an idle concern. There was a Supreme Court decision in the 80s that said if the federal government is not enforcing certain regulations, then I guess they're deciding they're not worth enforcing, so let's just get rid of them. That's a little simplistic analogy, in a way, to what we're talking about, but the fundamentals are true. If we have rights and we don't use them, history shows that we will not have them anymore.
Speaker 1:Michael actually say, which was that when the Department of Justice goes out to review complaints, they do it on the basis of Title VI, not on the executive order, right? So the executive order wasn't am I using the correct term enforceable. It was the Title VI that they're going after when, whenever they do file a complaint, and that they're going to go and do a review. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:Oh, absolutely. I mean when I would do enforcement, let's say Title VI enforcement, I would never say, well, I'm here to enforce this executive order Because the DOJ has no real jurisdiction to do that, jurisdiction to do that, since all it does is set federal policy for federal agencies. There's nothing to enforce. I can't go to court and sue over just that executive order. Because what's interesting to me too, as we talked about a little while ago, there have been no lawsuits about this, because it is legal to revoke executive orders. That's not a problem.
Speaker 2:And the executive order, unlike other executive orders, does not suggest that there'll be investigations or that we're going to define what diversity means, and if your definition is different than ours, we're going to investigate you. That's not true here. So I always think and admittedly some people kind of give me a weird look when I say this I give them credit for coming up with this executive order when it relates to language access, that doesn't give anybody a hook to hang their hat on to go to court. That's a lot different than some of the other ones, but this one there's no hook, it's just not there. It may come later, depending on what the new guidance says, but for now there's nothing there, because you and I know, if there were, how many lawsuits would there be existing?
Speaker 1:now lawsuits we may be relying more on, potentially on individual complaints right or even potential lawsuits that are addressing language barriers. What challenges do you anticipate the DOJ will face in enforcing some of these things that might be reactive? As a result, Do you anticipate maybe an uptick in the civil rights complaints that are related to language access and you kind of covered this earlier? Do you even think that the DOJ is going to be prepared to handle these potential increases in the investigations?
Speaker 2:Well, right now, unless they, they're going to have to hire a lot, of, a lot of new lawyers and I know they are in the process of doing some of that now because they just don't have the staff to handle what are there like 150 lawsuits or something against the current administration? So that's an issue. How much of a priority this is for them is an issue, and for that to happen, people would have to basically say well, you know what? We're going to have a new policy where we use unqualified people to provide interpretation or translation. I don't really see that happening. To the extent that that's happening now, the people who use unqualified people now will continue to use unqualified people. So I don't see this mass reversion to decades ago. Instead, I see that the process will just continue along. There may be some funding issues in the future, but I don't see this mass rush to the non-compliant door hey, we're just not doing this anymore. It really is going to depend on what's out there, what they put in their new guidance. But, more to the overall point, I don't see them because they don't have the legal authority to do it to say that Supreme Court case is gone. It's just gone.
Speaker 2:Title VI, one of America's foundational civil rights laws. We just tore it up, so that's just not going to happen. I think there will be more of that detail aspect. You don't have to have a language access coordinator. You don't need a language access plan. But whether you have a specific plan that's labeled language access does not necessarily mean you're going to do all the things that the plan says. And if you are providing language access, you know big secret between you and me you have to have a plan anyway. Whether you call it a plan or not, you still have to know what to do.
Speaker 1:You know, in the midst of chaos, there always seems to be some sort of new innovation that occurs new innovation that occurs. We've seen this time and time again and I'm referring specifically to our profession, with the use of interpreting equipment during the Nuremberg trials and simultaneous interpreting during COVID most recently, and the transition from in-person to many more requests for remote interpretation and the use of technology AI, for example and how interpreters are shifting with this new technology. Do you anticipate, with now, this new change, that there could be potential new opportunities to enhance services for language access? Do you think maybe there's a way to potentially identify new approaches to these services? With this chaos, what do you think maybe, in an optimistic viewpoint, would be the silver lining here that maybe potentially occurs as a result?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's a great point. I think that there are often opportunities for change, just as there were, as you said, during COVID, when people were, there were mass deaths and very serious illnesses that were connected to the virus, and I think that the same is going to happen now, because there will be some cost imperatives. Now, because there will be some cost imperatives, how can we do this, maintaining the quality that we do now and again? This is an organization that takes it seriously, that has a good program, and they're genuinely interested in providing this information in other languages. Is there a different way to do this? And one of the things that, whether it's AI or other technology, the technologies are going to continue. They're not disappearing. There's a significant financial incentive to make things work, just as they did with VRI 15 years ago, to make them work better.
Speaker 2:When VRI started, it worked terribly. I mean, it was very inconsistent, they were often pixelating or the image would freeze all kinds of things. It was terrible, but they improved it and it became much more usable now effectively than it was then. More usable now effectively than it was then. In a way, I look at interpreters as being professionals in providing language access and language assistance, but I also see them as being professionals, or consulting professionals when it comes to these new forms of providing language access, because who better knows this than you all? I mean, it's your job, it's your profession, it's your life, it's your skill, so that there will be, I think, a lot of opportunities to do that.
Speaker 2:To explain well, this won't work because of X, y and Z, or this isn't the most effective way to to provide this information, or certain languages and I'll go back to Navajo are not really being reproduced accurately or interpreted accurately, translated accurately, because of the computer not having enough exposure to Navajo in order to learn and to understand what it's all about. But let's do that. We do it for Spanish and the technologies can incorporate Spanish. Let's say Well, it should be able to incorporate Navajo. Let's see what we can do about that. So I see there will be a lot of opportunities that are similar to or even greater than what they were during COVID for your profession when it comes to these innovations.
Speaker 1:I completely agree.
Speaker 1:You know who would know the communities that we serve better than those of us that are serving the community? And I think that if we've ever even considered the topic of advocacy in our work, this would be, in my opinion, the appropriate approach to advocacy in our work is advocating for the profession and advocating for the communities that we serve and advocating for the communities that we serve. And speaking of advocacy, I know that this, with what we've seen so far, with this current administration pushing out many things, that they're basically throwing it out to each state to sort of approach on their own, do you think, or what are your thoughts rather on, whether interpreters, in terms of advocacy, should be perhaps getting ahead of this topic at a state level and advocating more for language access at a state level versus not necessarily one or the other, but you know, including or having more top of mind state level versus federal level. What are your thoughts on maybe that that's something that interpreters in their own state can potentially do to begin getting ahead of language access at their states?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's a fantastic point. You know that every year in DC, in April and May are like hill days, where everybody goes up to Capitol Hill and you talk to the staff of your representative and it's a real. You know, the subways are more crowded, the streets are more crowded, the wait to get into the Capitol is longer. However, what does that get the people who are doing that? What's the success? What's the indication that not only are you being listened to because people are being polite, but they're actually moving forward with suggestions to make them into law? I think these days, the opportunity for that to happen are very few and far between, and it likely happens at a higher level, a much higher level than we exist in our lives and in our work. I don't have millions of dollars to toss around to give to representatives on Capitol Hill, but states are different. But states are different If there are a lot of states that are not enormous, like California or Texas, where the legislators are very approachable and it's not like you have to wait an hour to get into the state capitol. So there are a lot of opportunities. Many states have their own laws. Some of them are not as clear-cut as the federal laws are, but some of them are very clear-cut. Some cities and counties have their own language access policies.
Speaker 2:I think, frankly, the future is now as far as not just coming here although I love seeing all of you when you come to DC, but not just coming here. Although I love seeing all of you when you come to DC, but not just coming here, or maybe not coming here at all for a while and going to state capitals across the country, whether it's Albany, you name it Annapolis and Maryland, richmond. We could keep going, sacramento, keep going down the list. Why don't you spend time there? Because I think, as you, you know to me, you're kind of implying that these states, which is the design of our government, are closer to the communities. So if you're advocating for a community that you work in and you know about, you're an expert in, why not talk to the state legislators, because they're closer to those communities than a US senator or a congressperson.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. Yes, I mean, I'm definitely thinking about, you know, just the local municipalities like, and then some of the states that had already started some of this work, for example. So we know it's possible at a state level, you know I want to mention the state of Washington, for example, with you know, their legislation on language access in schools specifically, which is not something that every state has, and so being able to advocate, you know, at that level, you're right they're much closer to our communities than at a federal level. Not to take away from the importance of that, but I do think that maybe because we focus so much on the federal component that maybe we've lost track as to the other local, more closer areas that we could potentially focus on as well. And maybe that would be part of some of the silver lining to this is sort of re-strategizing our approach in the profession to focus more on our states and sort of getting ahead of what potentially might come up with this new guidance which, again I'm throwing it out there Hopefully it takes about four years.
Speaker 1:So, oh my gosh, Bruce, I know that we can go on forever about this topic, but I do want to, as always, take the opportunity to ask for your guidance with the professionals and what they could potentially do, because there are a lot of conversations out in the community right now and unless you are seeking or looking for these conversations, they're not exactly coming to us, and I think that there's a lot to be said with regards to ensuring that our voices are heard and that we're actually doing something, as much as we possibly can, with what other organizations or institutions or nonprofits are already pushing out. What would you recommend that the language professional that maybe is not as involved or wasn't as involved prior to this can do in support of language access, of appropriate and meaningful services to our communities and just to the profession as a whole? Why don't we take this opportunity to sort of guide on what some of those action items that we can do to support this work?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that that's a great point and I would still favor the local in the sense of when has, whether it's an interpreter organization or interpreters who informally gather together to work on and talk about aspects that affect their profession. When was the last time you talked to your police chief? When was the last time you talked to your school board president? When was the last time you talked to the Chamber of Commerce about less about the legal right, but more about how do you bring language access into your day-to-day activities? And I remember a few years ago I did some training for law enforcement in Maryland about Title VI and we talked a lot about language access and that you know some people were, let's just say, less motivated than others to move ahead with this. But I started to talk about how you know this could be a life-threatening event for you and for me that if I don't speak English, how am I going to understand what you're telling me to do? You may think I'm threatening you when I'm not. You don't understand what I'm saying because you don't understand the language.
Speaker 2:And then you know, doing a lot of speaking, public speaking, in programs. Sometimes you have this golden moment and there was a captain in the audience and she stood up and she said you know, he's right. This recently happened to me in a traffic stop, that the person that I pulled over, I had the person get out of the car but he didn't understand what I was saying. I didn't understand his language. I had my hand on my gun ready to take it out of the holster, but we were able to whether it was just facial expressions, putting my hands up with you know, just calm down, and he became calmer and I took my hand off my gun and I became calmer. So she said I know this is true, I've seen it, this happened to me and I know what could have happened. So from now on could have happened.
Speaker 2:So from now on, I always call the station If I'm out on the job and something like this occurs with language. I take care of it, take care of it differently than before because I get it now. So then there were a lot of yeah, I have had that too and a lot of head, you know, nodding, and yeah, that's what I think interpreters, translators, the industry, the profession should do have these conversations. That's great networking. You're advocating, but in a different way. You're not advocating before an elected representative, but you're advocating, but in a different way. You're not advocating before an elected representative, but you're advocating before your community leaders, people in your community who provide important services. Let them know, because I guarantee you, we both know there are going to be people who will say gee, I never really thought of that, I didn't know about that. I think that's a good place to go now.
Speaker 1:Yes, definitely, and there are plenty of conversations out in the community right now identify the places where we can either go and be a part of the conversation or listen in on these conversations. So I know for a fact that I get a lot of this networking and information through LinkedIn, and so, if you are on LinkedIn, connect with Bruce, connect with myself. I'm always trying to reshare this information as well so that you know, everyone in our network can have the opportunity to provide feedback, to share, just be a part of the dialogue. I think that having an understanding at least the basics, and and knowing some of those talking points always supports us in whatever dialogue we're trying to be a part of. But we can only do this if we're out there being proactive and taking part in these conversations, because the information isn't going to come to us. We have to look for it. We have to be the ones that are taking the initiative to be a part of these conversations. So I feel that, as interpreters, if ever there are moments like this, this is basically our time to you know, to activate and put you to share just your knowledge and sort of, in a way, give us a sense of hope. In that there is, like in anything. I think that's worth fighting for. There's always something more to do. There's always something that we can do to continue our work in language access, and it's never going to be done. There's always going to be some room for improvement.
Speaker 1:We've hit a bump on the road, for sure, but it's just that, like you helped us understand today, it's a bump on the road. It's not. You know, this is the end. And just like everyone a few months was thinking with AI, this is the end of the road. There's no more interpreters and translators. We're done for. I think this is the same notion. We've just hit another bump on the road, and we all know that language access matters. We understand the importance and we all understand, I think, the beauty of our linguistically diverse country and the importance of our work. So I thank you so very much again for taking time out of your day to come and speak to this audience in particular, and I just want to give the opportunity for anyone out there interested in being part of your network. Where can our listeners find out more about you and the work that you do?
Speaker 2:Well, thank you Well, first. Thank you so much, maria. As I said, it is always a pleasure to talk with you and to deal with these issues that are so significant and relate to your profession, which I am immensely admiring of. So I think that and I agree about the bump in the road I think that's really well put. Probably the best thing is, just as you had said, is LinkedIn. Probably the best thing is, just as you had said, is LinkedIn that I've posted a lot this year about the issues that we talk about. That's a good place to go to learn more about me and what I've done in my career.
Speaker 1:So I would also commend out LinkedIn. Yeah, and just because you heard Bruce talk about being a former DOJ and getting ready to retire from his work, you're doing create a profile, at least just to be part of the conversation and then be able to join Bruce on all his wonderful talks that he has in different platforms. So, Bruce, again thank you for your time. It has been an absolute pleasure and a privilege to have you back on the show.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Maria. It's my pleasure and you are very welcome. I look forward to our next conversation.
Speaker 1:For sure.
