CDI, interpreters and Code of Professional Conduct
Hello! It has been a fantastically busy month for me, with several things going on. First of all, the first weekend of the month, I attended a CDI workshop which lasted three days. For you who are unfamiliar with the abbreviation, a CDI is a certified Deaf interpreter, who could work in teams with their hearing counterparts to convey clear and equal messages for their deaf/hearing clients. A CDI also can work in several areas such as text-to-ASL (signing from printed text to ASL), tactile interpreting (interpreting for deafblind clients), international sign language interpreting/translating, etc... The three days workshop covered two areas mandated by the Registry of Interpreters for Deaf: 1) roles and responsibilities of interpreters, and 2) code of ethics vs. code of professional conduct. The latter was quite illuminating for me.
I was not aware until the CDI workshop that the code of ethics had changed in 2005 to what is called "Code of Professional Conduct." The Code of Ethics was established in 1960s to define the responsibilities of an interpreter and a guideline that all interpreters are expected to follow. Over the years, the Code of Ethics proved to be too stringent for interpreters and their clients, and RID made minor alternations to the code. Like any evolving and expanding service industry, the interpreting field is undergoing many changes. In the early 2000s, the NAD and RID decided to work together on the Code of Ethics and revised it in order to clarify the stringent guidelines to aid interpreters to use their own judgements to do the right thing. As much as I hate to say it, Code of Professional Conduct gives interpreters more flexibility with their jobs. I will try to explain more about the differences between these two codes when I understand it better.
An interesting thing I learned was that the code can be outranked by two things: 1) the philosophy to cause no harm to anyone, and 2) by judges in the justice system. Under the old code, interpreters were bound by strict confidential agreement between him and the client. However, under the new code, if an interpreter learns of an immediate bodily harm or serious consequences, then he is bound by the new code to inform proper channels to prevent the situation from going to worse. Some Deaf people may see this as a breach of confidence on the interpreter's part, but the new Code makes provisions for this.
Another thing I learned was that the interpreter is not always for the Deaf person. For example, if an interpreter has been hired by the court, his role in the court has to be clarified. Is he a process interpreter? Then his confidence rule might be different than an interpreter who is working primarily at a table. A "table interpreter" is expected to keep everything in secrecy between the lawyer and the client. However, if a Deaf person meets a process interpreter and reveals something that might discriminate himself in the court, the process interpreter may be obliged under the court to inform the judge. A process interpreter is within the same bounds as that of a bailiff, who would also be obliged to inform the judge of anything he might hear. Deaf people will need to be aware of these important distinctions and how it effects their roles and responsiblities within the framework of the Code of Professional Conduct.
I asked the trainer why a lot of Deaf people are not educated about interpreters and their roles and responsibilities. It was interesting to hear that there was a workshop set up a while ago, and it was advertised to the local Deaf community. Only one person showed up to learn about this. Some deaf people might have misunderstood it as a workshop for interpreters, not on Deaf people's rights with interpreters, so they ignored the announcements and never came. We need to start educating the Deaf community about our rights and about interpreters' roles.
Anyway, back to the point: I have signed up for the written test for CDI on June 7th. This is the second step. (The first step was to take 16 hours workshop.) The written test will comprise 100 multiple choice questions, covering four areas. In order to prepare for this written test, the trainer has suggested us to meet twice a week at the local Deaf centre to go over some readings and discuss some points. We started meeting last week, and it was very beneficial for us all to share our opinions, POVs and comments with each other. This will continue for the next five weeks.
At the moment, as far as I know, Utah has only one CDI, and he is the trainer who is doing all this to help us become CDIs. In the workshop, we learned that only 20% usually pass the written test, and out of that 20%, 80% will pass the performance test. So, that would mean an average of 16 out of 100 people will be able to pass this in full. The trainer felt that lack of training and only 16 hours of workshops are insufficent for the written test, which is one of the main reasons why so many people fail the test. Therefore, he is trying to change that by keeping us trained until the written test. I think that is a fantastic idea, to try to work together in team to support each other in becoming CDIs in the future. We have to thank this trainer for taking the intitative to do this!
