June 13, 2025 • 53 mins
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 When Executive Order 13166 was rescinded after nearly a quarter century, many interpreters and language professionals feared the worst.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
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome back Branded Bunch, to Brand the Interpreter
the podcast that shares yourstories about our profession.
I'm your host, mireya Perez,and I've missed you, so I'm so
happy that you're joining metoday.
Today's episode is one thattouches on something many of us
have been thinking about,perhaps.
Executive Order 13166 has beenrescinded.
(00:28):
In its place, executive Order14224, bringing a very different
message, and with that there'sbeen a wave of concern.
What does this mean forlanguage access, for the
communities that we serve, forthe work that we do every day?
In this episode, I sit down withBruce Adelson, former
(00:50):
Department of Justice SeniorTrial Attorney and language
access expert, to unpack what'sactually changing and what's not
.
We talk about why the initialreaction to this new order might
be missing something criticalwhat language professionals need
to keep in order might bemissing something critical what
language professionals need tokeep in mind when it comes to
enforcement, and where yourvoice might have more influence
(01:12):
than you think.
This is one of thoseconversations that brings
clarity, strategy and a littlehope right when we need it most.
And hey, don't forget.
If this episode resonates withyou, don't forget to share it,
follow the podcast and leave areview.
It helps when more people inour field find these important
conversations All right, and nowon with the show.
(01:35):
Bruce, welcome to the show.
It is such a privilege and anhonor to have you back as a
returning guest here today.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Thanks for being here .
Oh, it's my pleasure, mireille.
It is always great to see you.
I so enjoyed our previousconversations and it's my
pleasure to be with you againtoday.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Thank you.
I've also always enjoyed ourconversations not just here on
this platform, but anyconversation that I can join
that you are sharing someknowledge and some expertise.
I'm always so happy to join andbe a part of, just to soak in
and take in all the knowledgethat you have to share, because
I think that it's important forus as interpreters, to have that
(02:25):
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, juston any platform sharing your
knowledge.
So thank you again for beinghere.
We've got lots to cover today,so how about we get started?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, sure let's go.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Okay.
So in our previous conversationif any of you have not heard
that episode, I highly encourageyou to go back, because Bruce
really talked to us about oneexecutive order.
That is sort of something thatwe're going to be talking about
today, but Executive Order 13166was something that I know for
(03:10):
myself.
Whenever I talked about justguidances on language access, I
mentioned Executive Order 13166a lot.
So for those that didn't get anopportunity to listen to that
previous episode, first of allgo and check it out.
I'll an opportunity to listento that previous episode.
First of all go and check itout.
I'll make sure to link it inthe episode notes.
But, bruce, would you be sokind to just give us a quick
(03:31):
recap or review of what EO13166was?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
One of the things that's happening now, of course,
that there are a lot ofdevelopments like almost daily.
There are a lot of developmentslike almost daily legal court
decisions, executive orders,lots of things.
I think what's important forpeople to realize is that in
(03:57):
1964, when this 1964 CivilRights Act was enacted into law,
that kind of began thebeginning of language access as
a civil right, and a civil right, of course, is something that
is very significant in theUnited States, that freedom of
speech, freedom of religion andthere are many other aspects of
what is a civil right.
Well, language access as acivil right was then later even
(04:22):
more refined by the US SupremeCourt in the case of Lau v
Nichols, where it said veryclearly that students who spoke
Chinese were not being given anequal educational opportunity
because of language.
And then things continued fromthere.
But one of the issues that Ifind a lot and this is even true
(04:44):
among a lot of attorneys is notreally understanding or really
appreciating what an executiveorder is.
So you mentioned 13166.
As we know, earlier this year in, I think, the first weekend in
March, the administrationrescinded the executive order
from 2000.
(05:05):
So that's 25 years ago.
That was put in by PresidentClinton Then coincidentally,
that was during my DOJ career,so I remember that pretty well.
What that did is, it said, tofederal agencies you all have to
figure out how to communicatewith people who are a limited
English profession.
(05:25):
So come up with a plan and doit.
Then also, you need to put yourown information online in
languages other than English.
So the agencies did it tooksome a longer time than others,
but it's really important torealize that.
The EO 13166 and any executiveorder they don't create rights.
(05:50):
All they do for the most part,is set policy for federal
agencies.
So it's the president tellingthe agencies of the federal
government here I want you to dothis.
Agencies of the federalgovernment here I want you to do
this.
But it doesn't affect you or me.
It doesn't give us rights.
(06:13):
Take away rights, diminishrights, increase rights.
There are a lot of executiveorders and they all can be
rescinded by the next president,which happens all the time.
So President Biden rescindedthings that his predecessor had
done.
Now the current administrationis rescinding things that
President Biden did.
It's very routine.
It's all part of the.
In a way, it's like that insidethe beltway stuff in DC that
(06:38):
there's a lot of things that goon around here that are beyond
where most people are.
Certainly that was true for mebefore I worked for DOJ.
So this executive order hasgotten a lot of attention, the
rescission, the one by thecurrent administration.
(06:58):
It also said that it was goingto revoke executive orders or
guidance documents that reliedon the President Clinton order.
So since the President Clintonorder is gone, if there's
something that happens the nextyear that says we base this on
(07:21):
Executive Order 13166, sincethat is gone, well then the
other ones are going to have tobe gone too.
So that's essentially what DOJis doing now is combing through
25 years and I don't envy themthis thousands of pages of
documents to see which ones arebased on 13166 and which are not
(07:48):
, and the ones that are werescind, the ones that are not
we leave in place and we'regoing to come up with our own
guidance.
So I have to say quickly thatguidance documents are not
legally binding.
They provide recommendations.
It's like as a parent, if I'mgiving guidance to children and
(08:12):
to my children it's okay, don'tcross the road in the middle, be
careful where you walk anddon't in the snow, take your
sled and go down the hillbecause cars are coming up.
So that's all guidance.
That's what the federalgovernment guidance is too.
It's not legally binding.
But one thing that's veryinteresting and I own up to this
(08:36):
, as I recognize that I can bepretty nerdy with reading all
the stuff that I have to read.
So I found something from thelate 70s that is a regulation,
so it's a law, it's not anexecutive order that says
language access is essentiallyit's guaranteed and that
(09:00):
recipients of federal funds mustprovide documents and notices
in other languages.
They must provide meaningfulaccess to people who are LEP,
they must act reasonably.
Guess what?
That's all similar to whatExecutive Order 13166 said.
Let's see 19,.
24 years after the documentthat I found, 24 years after the
(09:24):
document that I found.
So while the executive order, Ithink, creates some confusion
and I know that people areconcerned about it I do take a
somewhat different view and it'salmost like you know, I'm not
from Missouri, but it's likesaying show me, show me the
problem here.
There have been no lawsuitsbased on this executive order.
(09:46):
The language access is still alegal civil right and that's not
going to change, because forthat to change, the Supreme
Court would have to say hey, youknow 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.
(10:07):
So one of the reasons I was sopleased to hear from you and to
join you today is to kind ofclarify what is happening.
I know there are still a lot offears and concerns.
Fears and concerns those arevery significant issues.
But as far as the legal accessto a legal right to language
(10:29):
access, that has really notchanged.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Fantastic explanation .
Thank you so much for layingthe ground for today's
conversation, and one thing thatI neglected to do, bruce, was
share with others yourbackground and why you're
considered an expert in thisfield.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, I very much appreciate that.
I have been a lawyer for a longtime.
I had a career as a DOJ, seniortrial attorney.
One of my jobs at DOJ wasenforcing Title VI, so actually
going to places that receivefederal funding and questioning
whether they're in compliance,going on strongly or less
(11:11):
strongly depending on thesituation.
And in addition to that, Iteach implicit bias in
healthcare at the University ofPittsburgh School of Law and
Georgetown University School ofMedicine.
In fact, my law school semesteris ending as we speak, my last
class is coming up and then it'stime for finals.
(11:34):
So I've been doing languageaccess work for more than 25
years in voting, healthcare,state courts, law enforcement,
you name it and I've had my handin it.
So it's been a real pleasurefor me and almost a labor of
love, because one of the issuestoo when my family came to this
country, they didn't speakEnglish and they were
(11:58):
discriminated against, and mydad had told me many stories of
his experience growing up in NewYork City, going to school,
being taunted, being treateddifferently because of his
language, and I think that thateventually, you know, rose to
the surface for me and became asignificant aspect of my career.
(12:23):
It's a big part of my lawpractice and it's a big part of
my teaching.
So my parents passed away.
So I have a feeling that onsome level they're looking and
saying yeah, we remember whenthat happened to us.
Go for it, Bruce.
Yeah, Bruce.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
I bet they are yes, and you continue to do that and
advocate and share yourknowledge, which I think you
make it in a way that is verydigestible when you share your
knowledge.
For those of us that don't havethat legal background makes it
very relatable to the work thatI do, which is so important,
because I think oftentimes Idare to say particularly with
(13:13):
community interpreters it feelslike there's no real guidance
with some of the organizationsthat we work with and that it's
sort of like us against themtrying to inform them of
meaningful language accesspolicies and services.
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
(13:36):
is very relatable andunderstandable and it sort of
makes the connection with thework that I do, which is so
important, right.
There is some legal foundationthere that really solidifies my
work as a professional.
So thank you, bruce, again sovery much.
I want to basically ask thequestion that perhaps many of my
(14:01):
audience is interested inknowing, and it has to do with
the impact, the potential impact, of EO 14224.
But before we do that, howabout we sort of break down a
little bit as to what ExecutiveOrder 14224 actually is for
those that haven't had theopportunity to read it.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Sure, Well, I think it's part of the flurry of
information that's come out fromthe current administration.
The EO does several things.
One it establishes English asthe official language of the
United States.
Now, legally that meansabsolutely nothing.
It just can't do that,absolutely nothing.
(14:45):
It just can't do that.
However, one of the concernsthat I always have is when
something official comes fromthe US government.
It carries the stamp ofseriousness of being an official
document and it may empowerpeople to think wow, english is
an official language.
Well, you're speaking thisother language.
(15:05):
You can't do that.
The executive order says youcan't.
That's not true, butnevertheless I am concerned that
, whether it's in public schooloffices that people will feel
this sense of empowerment andtake advantage of people who
primarily speak a differentlanguage and while they're
(15:27):
speaking that other language, orbe harassing or taunting.
These issues have come upbefore in employment
discrimination cases.
In fact, I remember there was acase that interested me a lot a
few years ago of a restaurantin Arizona outside the Navajo
(15:49):
Nation that employed severalNavajos as staff, and there was
one day where there's severalpeople who were Navajo were
speaking Navajo in therestaurant and the owner said oh
no, you can't do that we onlyspeak English here and I don't
know what you're talking about.
As far as you could be makingfun of me, so we can't do that.
(16:12):
So he fired them and theneventually justice prevailed
that he lost and there was asignificant financial outcome.
So that's something thathappened like 23 years ago,
before there was any talk ofEnglish as the official language
of the country.
Now, with this executive order,I am concerned that there will
(16:36):
be additional instances likethat.
So we have the English as theofficial language.
We have rescinding or gettingrid of the President Clinton
executive order from 2000 aboutdirecting federal agencies to
tell them how to speak to peoplewho are LEP.
(16:58):
All guidance documents based onthat old executive order are
gone or if they're not gone now,they will be after.
Doj does the next thing, whichis review all of them, all these
documents, all these executiveorders, guidance documents,
(17:21):
advisories, letters tocolleagues from 2000 until this
year, and also to, I'm believed,to reinforce the underlying
legal obligation that if youreceive federal funds, doj put
something out.
Maybe it was within the lastmonth where they rescinded
(18:11):
another executive order relatedto language and they also said
okay, we're rescinding this, butlet's be clear, the law hasn't
changed.
You still have to provide thiskind of access, reasonable
access, meaningful access, andtheir restatement of what the
law said was accurate.
So here's DOJ taking away aguidance document from 2002
(18:31):
about providing language access,and then they say, all right,
we've taken this away, but youstill have to do what's written
in the guidance.
So okay, that's another kind ofWashington inside the beltway
thing, but in a different way.
It shows DOJ isn't justthrowing this stuff away.
(18:54):
They're not doing anything whichthey really can't do to repeal
Title VI, to throw that out, tocall the Supreme Court and say,
hey, why don't you just liketoss this old case, just like,
just do it?
They not only can't, theycannot do that, but they're not
(19:14):
doing it.
So I'm looking at when theyrelease their guidance, the new
guidance, because I am sure thatwill be very informative.
There's no date by which theyhave to do that.
They haven't announced whenthey're doing it, but coming up
with a new guidance documenttakes time.
I expect this will take a fewmore months and, frankly,
(19:39):
they're pretty busy these daysand they are bleeding lawyers.
The lawyers have either quit,been suspended or they've been
fired, so they're down a lot ofpeople.
So someone has to go to courtto make arguments for the
administration.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Maybe it'll take them four years arguments for the
administration.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Maybe it'll take them four years.
You know, I'll tell you.
I've said before that I thinkthings are going to be like they
were the first term.
I don't think this is comingout anytime soon and it could
very well you and I are going tohave to talk about this when
they do bring it out.
I think it will take a longtime and it could very well not
happen until 2028.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
I think one of the things that first came to mind
for me, just as you know, justas a lone interpreter on the
community, when I first heardthis was okay.
So, as interpreters and, justyou know, the language
professional community, we knewthat Executive Order 13166
(20:43):
provided guidance.
Yes, and that guidance was veryspecific.
It was language access plansand policies, definitions of
meaningful access for our LEPcommunities.
It talked about qualifiedinterpreters versus bilingual
staff.
So I dare to say that it was ahigher standard that was guiding
(21:10):
organizations on how toappropriately provide these
services, which was great.
That's what guidance should be.
Now I feel that with the lowerstandard if I could call it that
, meaning it's removing of, likea lower standard that
organizations may be moreinclined to say well, you know,
(21:45):
it's a lower standard, lessrequirements, much easier, so
we're just going to go with thisrather than continue with
potentially what they may havealready had started per se right
With the former guidance.
What do you anticipate,potentially, what could happen
with organizations that werealready starting to create
(22:07):
policy around maybe the guidanceof EO13166, versus now the
English as the official language, guidance or executive order?
Excuse me, do you anticipatethat people will say, well,
let's just water this down, thenthe requirements aren't as high
anymore, so we don't have tobring in a language access
(22:32):
coordinator, we don't have tocreate a policy, we don't have
to create a plan, we don't haveto bring in qualified
interpreters.
Or is this me saying thinkingworst case scenario?
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Well, I think it's always good to think worst case
scenario, best case scenario andeverything in between, to be
well prepared.
I have spoken to a lot ofwhether it's health care
providers, states, state courts.
Not one of them has said youknow, we're just not doing this
anymore.
(23:03):
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 sayingyou cannot do this, which
they're not going to say that.
So, yes, there will be changes.
If you look at, in a way, theSection 1557, the health care
(23:27):
regulations, they're going tochange those.
So when the change comes out, Ithink it's going to be similar
to what the change in 2000 wascompared to what had been done
by President Obama's team thatthere'll be less specifics,
(23:49):
fewer mandates, more suggestions.
When DOJ put out their 2002guidance about language access
which I remember because Iparticipated in this there was a
lot of discussion about well,which I remember because I
participated in this.
There was a lot of discussionabout well should it be required
or recommended, and that goesto one of the philosophical
(24:11):
differences between the twomajor political parties about
mandates and recommendations.
The political appointees wereadamant that and we had good
discussions about this, but theywere adamant that you know
we're not going to require themto do this.
We'll strongly recommend it orrecommend it.
(24:33):
So right now, even though 13166is gone, the standards that you
referred to for the most partare still there and for them, if
you want the worst casescenario the worst case scenario
would be the Lauve-Nichols casefrom 1974 would be overturned
(24:57):
by the Supreme Court and theSupreme Court would say there is
no language access.
Right, there's nothing.
So if you're limited Englishproficient and you need
information, tough becausethere's no requirement to
provide it to you, I don't seethem doing that.
I mean I just don't.
I know there's been some talkabout targeting the decision and
(25:19):
bringing other cases tochallenge it.
Even if that happens, it'sgoing to take years to go up to
the Supreme Court and I reallydon't see them overturning it.
And one aspect of that whichgives me a significant amount of
additional understanding.
(25:40):
I remember, within the last 10or 15 years, a very conservative
senator, who was notoverwhelmingly supportive of
most of the things we've beentalking about, came out strongly
in support of language access.
(26:02):
Why?
Because he had a family memberwho was hospitalized with a
life-threatening condition, whowas LEP and survived because she
got language access, and hesaid I'm supportive of this,
particularly in healthcare.
(26:23):
I've experienced it.
I've seen what can happen ifthe patient doesn't understand
what's being told to them orvice versa, what they're telling
to their physicians.
So I remember that very so.
I remember that very, very welland that gives me some
additional support for myfeeling that no, the language
(26:47):
access right is not leaving us.
The devil will be in the details.
Yes, they may say, well, you'renot 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 likethat happening and, since Mireya
(27:11):
, let's be honest that there area lot of organizations that
still don't do this, that stilldon't provide language access.
It would be one thing if therewere like 95% compliance and 95%
of the public schools wereproviding language access and
that's all gone.
But it's not true.
It's not true.
(27:32):
So, in a weird kind of way,assuming that this happens, the
more information that's put outthere, the more people
understand it, the more thereality of we have very
significant civil rights in thiscountry that are different than
(28:10):
in most other countries, and,yes, that many of them are
really being put to the test nowby the current administration,
but the bottom line is now bythe current administration.
But the bottom line is if youhave the right, if you have a
particular right and you don'tuse it, then you may lose it,
because there's this sense that,hey, you know, people didn't do
(28:32):
anything about this.
So why do we keep this anymore?
That's not just an idle concern.
There was a Supreme Courtdecision in the 80s that said if
the federal government is notenforcing certain regulations,
then I guess they're decidingthey're not worth enforcing, so
(28:53):
let's just get rid of them.
That's a little simplisticanalogy, in a way, to what we're
talking about, but thefundamentals are true.
If we have rights and we don'tuse them, history shows that we
will not have them anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Michael actually say, which was that when the
Department of Justice goes outto review complaints, they do it
on the basis of Title VI, noton the executive order, right?
So the executive order wasn'tam I using the correct term
enforceable.
It was the Title VI thatthey're going after when,
(29:39):
whenever they do file acomplaint, and that they're
going to go and do a review.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean when I would doenforcement, let's say Title VI
enforcement, I would never say,well, I'm here to enforce this
executive order Because the DOJhas 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.
(30:06):
I can't go to court and sueover just that executive order.
Because what's interesting tome too, as we talked about a
little while ago, there havebeen no lawsuits about this,
because it is legal to revokeexecutive orders.
That's not a problem.
(30:32):
And the executive order, unlikeother executive orders, does not
suggest that there'll beinvestigations or that we're
going to define what diversitymeans, and if your definition is
different than ours, we'regoing to investigate you.
That's not true here.
So I always think andadmittedly some people kind of
(30:53):
give me a weird look when I saythis I give them credit for
coming up with this executiveorder when it relates to
language access, that doesn'tgive anybody a hook to hang
their hat on to go to court.
That's a lot different thansome of the other ones, but this
(31:13):
one there's no hook, it's justnot there.
It may come later, depending onwhat the new guidance says, but
for now there's nothing there,because you and I know, if there
were, how many lawsuits wouldthere be existing?
Speaker 1 (31:32):
now lawsuits we may be relying more on, potentially
on individual complaints rightor even potential lawsuits that
are addressing language barriers.
What challenges do youanticipate the DOJ will face in
(31:53):
enforcing some of these thingsthat might be reactive?
As a result, Do you anticipatemaybe an uptick in the civil
rights complaints that arerelated to language access and
you kind of covered this earlier?
Do you even think that the DOJis going to be prepared to
handle these potential increasesin the investigations?
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Well, right now, unless they, they're going to
have to hire a lot, of, a lot ofnew lawyers and I know they are
in the process of doing some ofthat now because they just
don't have the staff to handlewhat are there like 150 lawsuits
or something against thecurrent administration?
So that's an issue.
How much of a priority this isfor them is an issue, and for
(32:38):
that to happen, people wouldhave to basically say well, you
know what?
We're going to have a newpolicy where we use unqualified
people to provide interpretationor translation.
I don't really see thathappening.
To the extent that that'shappening now, the people who
(32:59):
use unqualified people now willcontinue to use unqualified
people.
So I don't see this massreversion to decades ago.
Instead, I see that the processwill just continue along.
There may be some fundingissues in the future, but I
(33:20):
don't see this mass rush to thenon-compliant door hey, we're
just not doing this anymore.
It really is going to depend onwhat'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 authorityto do it to say that Supreme
(33:42):
Court case is gone.
It's just gone.
Title VI, one of America'sfoundational civil rights laws.
We just tore it up, so that'sjust not going to happen.
I think there will be more ofthat detail aspect.
You don't have to have alanguage access coordinator.
You don't need a languageaccess plan.
(34:03):
But whether you have a specificplan that's labeled language
access does not necessarily meanyou're going to do all the
things that the plan says.
And if you are providinglanguage access, you know big
secret between you and me youhave to have a plan anyway.
(34:24):
Whether you call it a plan ornot, you still have to know what
to do.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
You know, in the midst of chaos, there always
seems to be some sort of newinnovation that occurs new
innovation that occurs.
We've seen this time and timeagain and I'm referring
specifically to our profession,with the use of interpreting
equipment during the Nurembergtrials and simultaneous
interpreting during COVID mostrecently, and the transition
(34:53):
from in-person to many morerequests for remote
interpretation and the use oftechnology AI, for example and
how interpreters are shiftingwith this new technology.
Do you anticipate, with now,this new change, that there
could be potential newopportunities to enhance
(35:16):
services for language access?
Do you think maybe there's away to potentially identify new
approaches to these services?
With this chaos, what do youthink maybe, in an optimistic
viewpoint, would be the silverlining here that maybe
potentially occurs as a result?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, I think that's a great point.
I think that there are oftenopportunities for change, just
as there were, as you said,during COVID, when people were,
there were mass deaths and veryserious illnesses that were
connected to the virus, and Ithink that the same is going to
(35:55):
happen now, because there willbe some cost imperatives.
Now, because there will be somecost imperatives, how can we do
this, maintaining the qualitythat we do now and again?
This is an organization thattakes it seriously, that has a
good program, and they'regenuinely interested in
providing this information inother languages.
(36:16):
Is there a different way to dothis?
And one of the things that,whether it's AI or other
technology, the technologies aregoing to continue.
They're not disappearing.
There's a significant financialincentive to make things work,
just as they did with VRI 15years ago, to make them work
(36:40):
better.
When VRI started, it workedterribly.
I mean, it was veryinconsistent, they were often
pixelating or the image wouldfreeze all kinds of things.
It was terrible, but theyimproved it and it became much
more usable now effectively thanit was then.
More usable now effectivelythan it was then.
(37:02):
In a way, I look atinterpreters as being
professionals in providinglanguage access and language
assistance, but I also see themas being professionals, or
consulting professionals when itcomes to these new forms of
providing language access,because who better knows this
(37:24):
than you all?
I mean, it's your job, it'syour profession, it's your life,
it's your skill, so that therewill be, I think, a lot of
opportunities to do that.
To explain well, this won't workbecause of X, y and Z, or this
isn't the most effective way toto provide this information, or
(37:46):
certain languages and I'll goback to Navajo are not really
being reproduced accurately orinterpreted accurately,
translated accurately, becauseof the computer not having
enough exposure to Navajo inorder to learn and to understand
(38:08):
what it's all about.
But let's do that.
We do it for Spanish and thetechnologies can incorporate
Spanish.
Let's say Well, it should beable to incorporate Navajo.
Let's see what we can do aboutthat.
So I see there will be a lot ofopportunities that are similar
(38:30):
to or even greater than whatthey were during COVID for your
profession when it comes tothese innovations.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
I completely agree.
You know who would know thecommunities that we serve better
than those of us that areserving the community?
And I think that if we've evereven considered the topic of
advocacy in our work, this wouldbe, in my opinion, the
appropriate approach to advocacyin our work is advocating for
(39:02):
the profession and advocatingfor the communities that we
serve and advocating for thecommunities that we serve.
And speaking of advocacy, Iknow that this, with what we've
seen so far, with this currentadministration pushing out many
things, that they're basicallythrowing it out to each state to
sort of approach on their own,do you think, or what are your
(39:26):
thoughts rather on, whetherinterpreters, in terms of
advocacy, should be perhapsgetting ahead of this topic at a
state level and advocating morefor language access at a state
level versus not necessarily oneor the other, but you know,
(39:46):
including or having more top ofmind state level versus federal
level.
What are your thoughts on maybethat that's something that
interpreters in their own statecan potentially do to begin
getting ahead of language accessat their states?
Speaker 2 (40:01):
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 toCapitol Hill and you talk to
the staff of your representativeand it's a real.
You know, the subways are morecrowded, the streets are more
crowded, the wait to get intothe Capitol is longer.
(40:22):
However, what does that get thepeople who are doing that?
What's the success?
What's the indication that notonly are you being listened to
because people are being polite,but they're actually moving
forward with suggestions to makethem into law?
I think these days, theopportunity for that to happen
(40:46):
are very few and far between,and it likely happens at a
higher level, a much higherlevel than we exist in our lives
and in our work.
I don't have millions ofdollars to toss around to give
to representatives on CapitolHill, but states are different.
But states are different Ifthere are a lot of states that
(41:13):
are not enormous, likeCalifornia or Texas, where the
legislators are veryapproachable and it's not like
you have to wait an hour to getinto the state capitol.
So there are a lot ofopportunities.
Many states have their own laws.
Some of them are not asclear-cut as the federal laws
are, but some of them are veryclear-cut.
(41:36):
Some cities and counties havetheir own language access
policies.
I think, frankly, the future isnow as far as not just coming
here although I love seeing allof you when you come to DC, but
not just coming here.
Although I love seeing all ofyou when you come to DC, but not
just coming here, or maybe notcoming here at all for a while
and going to state capitalsacross the country, whether it's
(41:59):
Albany, you name it Annapolisand Maryland, richmond.
We could keep going, sacramento, keep going down the list.
Why don't you spend time there?
Because I think, as you, youknow to me, you're kind of
implying that these states,which is the design of our
(42:22):
government, are closer to thecommunities.
So if you're advocating for acommunity that you work in and
you know about, you're an expertin, why not talk to the state
legislators, because they'recloser to those communities than
a US senator or acongressperson.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Absolutely.
Yes, I mean, I'm definitelythinking about, you know, just
the local municipalities like,and then some of the states that
had already started some ofthis work, for example.
So we know it's possible at astate level, you know I want to
mention the state of Washington,for example, with you know,
their legislation on languageaccess in schools specifically,
(43:02):
which is not something thatevery state has, and so being
able to advocate, you know, atthat level, you're right they're
much closer to our communitiesthan at a federal level.
Not to take away from theimportance of that, but I do
think that maybe because wefocus so much on the federal
(43:23):
component that maybe we've losttrack as to the other local,
more closer areas that we couldpotentially focus on as well.
And maybe that would be part ofsome of the silver lining to
this is sort of re-strategizingour approach in the profession
to focus more on our states andsort of getting ahead of what
(43:43):
potentially might come up withthis new guidance which, again
I'm throwing it out thereHopefully it takes about four
years.
So, oh my gosh, Bruce, I knowthat we can go on forever about
this topic, but I do want to, asalways, take the opportunity to
ask for your guidance with theprofessionals and what they
(44:05):
could potentially do, becausethere are a lot of conversations
out in the community right nowand unless you are seeking or
looking for these conversations,they're not exactly coming to
us, and I think that there's alot to be said with regards to
ensuring that our voices areheard and that we're actually
(44:27):
doing something, as much as wepossibly can, with what other
organizations or institutions ornonprofits are already pushing
out.
What would you recommend thatthe language professional that
maybe is not as involved orwasn't as involved prior to this
can do in support of languageaccess, of appropriate and
(44:51):
meaningful services to ourcommunities and just to the
profession as a whole?
Why don't we take thisopportunity to sort of guide on
what some of those action itemsthat we can do to support this
work?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Yeah, I think that that's a great point and I would
still favor the local in thesense of when has, whether it's
an interpreter organization orinterpreters who informally
gather together to work on andtalk about aspects that affect
their profession.
When was the last time youtalked to your police chief?
(45:26):
When was the last time youtalked to your school board
president?
When was the last time youtalked to the Chamber of
Commerce about less about thelegal right, but more about how
do you bring language accessinto your day-to-day activities?
And I remember a few years agoI did some training for law
(45:49):
enforcement in Maryland aboutTitle VI and we talked a lot
about language access and thatyou know some people were, let's
just say, less motivated thanothers to move ahead with this.
But I started to talk about howyou know this could be a
life-threatening event for youand for me that if I don't speak
(46:13):
English, how am I going tounderstand what you're telling
me to do?
You may think I'm threateningyou when I'm not.
You don't understand what I'msaying because you don't
understand the language.
And then you know, doing a lotof speaking, public speaking, in
programs.
Sometimes you have this goldenmoment and there was a captain
(46:34):
in the audience and she stood upand she said you know, he's
right.
This recently happened to me ina traffic stop, that the person
that I pulled over, I had theperson get out of the car but he
didn't understand what I wassaying.
I didn't understand hislanguage.
(46:55):
I had my hand on my gun readyto take it out of the holster,
but we were able to whether itwas just facial expressions,
putting my hands up with youknow, just calm down, and he
became calmer and I took my handoff my gun and I became calmer.
(47:16):
So she said I know this is true, I've seen it, this happened to
me and I know what could havehappened.
So from now on could havehappened.
So from now on, I always callthe station If I'm out on the
job and something like thisoccurs with language.
(47:36):
I take care of it, take care ofit differently than before
because I get it now.
So then there were a lot ofyeah, I have had that too and a
lot of head, you know, nodding,and yeah, that's what I think
interpreters, translators, theindustry, the profession should
(47:57):
do have these conversations.
That's great networking.
You're advocating, but in adifferent way.
You're not advocating before anelected representative, but
you're advocating, but in adifferent way.
You're not advocating before anelected representative, but
you're advocating before yourcommunity leaders, people in
your community who provideimportant services.
(48:19):
Let them know, because Iguarantee you, we both know
there are going to be people whowill say gee, I never really
thought of that, I didn't knowabout that.
I think that's a good place togo now.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Yes, definitely, and there are plenty of
conversations out in thecommunity right now identify the
places where we can either goand be a part of the
conversation or listen in onthese conversations.
So I know for a fact that I geta lot of this networking and
(48:58):
information through LinkedIn,and so, if you are on LinkedIn,
connect with Bruce, connect withmyself.
I'm always trying to resharethis information as well so that
you know, everyone in ournetwork can have the opportunity
to provide feedback, to share,just be a part of the dialogue.
I think that having anunderstanding at least the
(49:18):
basics, and and knowing some ofthose talking points always
supports us in whatever dialoguewe're trying to be a part of.
But we can only do this ifwe're out there being proactive
and taking part in theseconversations, because the
information isn't going to cometo us.
We have to look for it.
(49:38):
We have to be the ones that aretaking 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 ourtime to you know, to activate
and put you to share just yourknowledge and sort of, in a way,
(50:10):
give us a sense of hope.
In that there is, like inanything.
I think that's worth fightingfor.
There's always something moreto do.
There's always something thatwe can do to continue our work
in language access, and it'snever going to be done.
There's always going to be someroom for improvement.
We've hit a bump on the road,for sure, but it's just that,
(50:34):
like you helped us understandtoday, it's a bump on the road.
It's not.
You know, this is the end.
And just like everyone a fewmonths was thinking with AI,
this is the end of the road.
There's no more interpretersand translators.
We're done for.
I think this is the same notion.
We've just hit another bump onthe road, and we all know that
(50:55):
language access matters.
We understand the importanceand we all understand, I think,
the beauty of our linguisticallydiverse country and the
importance of our work.
So I thank you so very muchagain for taking time out of
your day to come and speak tothis audience in particular, and
I just want to give theopportunity for anyone out there
(51:17):
interested in being part ofyour network.
Where can our listeners findout more about you and the work
that you do?
Speaker 2 (51:23):
Well, thank you Well, first.
Thank you so much, maria.
As I said, it is always apleasure to talk with you and to
deal with these issues that areso significant and relate to
your profession, which I amimmensely admiring of.
So I think that and I agreeabout the bump in the road I
think that's really well put.
Probably the best thing is,just as you had said, is
(51:46):
LinkedIn.
Probably the best thing is,just as you had said, is
LinkedIn that I've posted a lotthis year about the issues that
we talk about.
That's a good place to go tolearn more about me and what
I've done in my career.
Speaker 1 (52:29):
So I would also commend out LinkedIn.
Yeah, and just because youheard Bruce talk about being a
former DOJ and getting ready toretire from his work, you're
doing create a profile, at leastjust to be part of the
conversation and then be able tojoin Bruce on all his wonderful
talks that he has in differentplatforms.
So, Bruce, again thank you foryour time.
It has been an absolutepleasure and a privilege to have
you back on the show.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Thank you, Maria.
It's my pleasure and you arevery welcome.
I look forward to our nextconversation.
Speaker 1 (52:55):
For sure.
Welcome back Branded Bunch, to Brand the Interpreter
the podcast that shares yourstories about our profession.
I'm your host, mireya Perez,and I've missed you, so I'm so
happy that you're joining metoday.
Today's episode is one thattouches on something many of us
have been thinking about,perhaps.
Executive Order 13166 has beenrescinded.
(00:28):
In its place, executive Order14224, bringing a very different
message, and with that there'sbeen a wave of concern.
What does this mean forlanguage access, for the
communities that we serve, forthe work that we do every day?
In this episode, I sit down withBruce Adelson, former
(00:50):
Department of Justice SeniorTrial Attorney and language
access expert, to unpack what'sactually changing and what's not
.
We talk about why the initialreaction to this new order might
be missing something criticalwhat language professionals need
to keep in order might bemissing something critical what
language professionals need tokeep in mind when it comes to
enforcement, and where yourvoice might have more influence
(01:12):
than you think.
This is one of thoseconversations that brings
clarity, strategy and a littlehope right when we need it most.
And hey, don't forget.
If this episode resonates withyou, don't forget to share it,
follow the podcast and leave areview.
It helps when more people inour field find these important
conversations All right, and nowon with the show.
(01:35):
Bruce, welcome to the show.
It is such a privilege and anhonor to have you back as a
returning guest here today.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Thanks for being here .
Oh, it's my pleasure, mireille.
It is always great to see you.
I so enjoyed our previousconversations and it's my
pleasure to be with you againtoday.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Thank you.
I've also always enjoyed ourconversations not just here on
this platform, but anyconversation that I can join
that you are sharing someknowledge and some expertise.
I'm always so happy to join andbe a part of, just to soak in
and take in all the knowledgethat you have to share, because
I think that it's important forus as interpreters, to have that
(02:25):
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, juston any platform sharing your
knowledge.
So thank you again for beinghere.
We've got lots to cover today,so how about we get started?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, sure let's go.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Okay.
So in our previous conversationif any of you have not heard
that episode, I highly encourageyou to go back, because Bruce
really talked to us about oneexecutive order.
That is sort of something thatwe're going to be talking about
today, but Executive Order 13166was something that I know for
(03:10):
myself.
Whenever I talked about justguidances on language access, I
mentioned Executive Order 13166a lot.
So for those that didn't get anopportunity to listen to that
previous episode, first of allgo and check it out.
I'll an opportunity to listento that previous episode.
First of all go and check itout.
I'll make sure to link it inthe episode notes.
But, bruce, would you be sokind to just give us a quick
(03:31):
recap or review of what EO13166was?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
One of the things that's happening now, of course,
that there are a lot ofdevelopments like almost daily.
There are a lot of developmentslike almost daily legal court
decisions, executive orders,lots of things.
I think what's important forpeople to realize is that in
(03:57):
1964, when this 1964 CivilRights Act was enacted into law,
that kind of began thebeginning of language access as
a civil right, and a civil right, of course, is something that
is very significant in theUnited States, that freedom of
speech, freedom of religion andthere are many other aspects of
what is a civil right.
Well, language access as acivil right was then later even
(04:22):
more refined by the US SupremeCourt in the case of Lau v
Nichols, where it said veryclearly that students who spoke
Chinese were not being given anequal educational opportunity
because of language.
And then things continued fromthere.
But one of the issues that Ifind a lot and this is even true
(04:44):
among a lot of attorneys is notreally understanding or really
appreciating what an executiveorder is.
So you mentioned 13166.
As we know, earlier this year in, I think, the first weekend in
March, the administrationrescinded the executive order
from 2000.
(05:05):
So that's 25 years ago.
That was put in by PresidentClinton Then coincidentally,
that was during my DOJ career,so I remember that pretty well.
What that did is, it said, tofederal agencies you all have to
figure out how to communicatewith people who are a limited
English profession.
(05:25):
So come up with a plan and doit.
Then also, you need to put yourown information online in
languages other than English.
So the agencies did it tooksome a longer time than others,
but it's really important torealize that.
The EO 13166 and any executiveorder they don't create rights.
(05:50):
All they do for the most part,is set policy for federal
agencies.
So it's the president tellingthe agencies of the federal
government here I want you to dothis.
Agencies of the federalgovernment here I want you to do
this.
But it doesn't affect you or me.
It doesn't give us rights.
(06:13):
Take away rights, diminishrights, increase rights.
There are a lot of executiveorders and they all can be
rescinded by the next president,which happens all the time.
So President Biden rescindedthings that his predecessor had
done.
Now the current administrationis rescinding things that
President Biden did.
It's very routine.
It's all part of the.
In a way, it's like that insidethe beltway stuff in DC that
(06:38):
there's a lot of things that goon around here that are beyond
where most people are.
Certainly that was true for mebefore I worked for DOJ.
So this executive order hasgotten a lot of attention, the
rescission, the one by thecurrent administration.
(06:58):
It also said that it was goingto revoke executive orders or
guidance documents that reliedon the President Clinton order.
So since the President Clintonorder is gone, if there's
something that happens the nextyear that says we base this on
(07:21):
Executive Order 13166, sincethat is gone, well then the
other ones are going to have tobe gone too.
So that's essentially what DOJis doing now is combing through
25 years and I don't envy themthis thousands of pages of
documents to see which ones arebased on 13166 and which are not
(07:48):
, and the ones that are werescind, the ones that are not
we leave in place and we'regoing to come up with our own
guidance.
So I have to say quickly thatguidance documents are not
legally binding.
They provide recommendations.
It's like as a parent, if I'mgiving guidance to children and
(08:12):
to my children it's okay, don'tcross the road in the middle, be
careful where you walk anddon't in the snow, take your
sled and go down the hillbecause cars are coming up.
So that's all guidance.
That's what the federalgovernment guidance is too.
It's not legally binding.
But one thing that's veryinteresting and I own up to this
(08:36):
, as I recognize that I can bepretty nerdy with reading all
the stuff that I have to read.
So I found something from thelate 70s that is a regulation,
so it's a law, it's not anexecutive order that says
language access is essentiallyit's guaranteed and that
(09:00):
recipients of federal funds mustprovide documents and notices
in other languages.
They must provide meaningfulaccess to people who are LEP,
they must act reasonably.
Guess what?
That's all similar to whatExecutive Order 13166 said.
Let's see 19,.
24 years after the documentthat I found, 24 years after the
(09:24):
document that I found.
So while the executive order, Ithink, creates some confusion
and I know that people areconcerned about it I do take a
somewhat different view and it'salmost like you know, I'm not
from Missouri, but it's likesaying show me, show me the
problem here.
There have been no lawsuitsbased on this executive order.
(09:46):
The language access is still alegal civil right and that's not
going to change, because forthat to change, the Supreme
Court would have to say hey, youknow 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.
(10:07):
So one of the reasons I was sopleased to hear from you and to
join you today is to kind ofclarify what is happening.
I know there are still a lot offears and concerns.
Fears and concerns those arevery significant issues.
But as far as the legal accessto a legal right to language
(10:29):
access, that has really notchanged.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
Fantastic explanation .
Thank you so much for layingthe ground for today's
conversation, and one thing thatI neglected to do, bruce, was
share with others yourbackground and why you're
considered an expert in thisfield.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, I very much appreciate that.
I have been a lawyer for a longtime.
I had a career as a DOJ, seniortrial attorney.
One of my jobs at DOJ wasenforcing Title VI, so actually
going to places that receivefederal funding and questioning
whether they're in compliance,going on strongly or less
(11:11):
strongly depending on thesituation.
And in addition to that, Iteach implicit bias in
healthcare at the University ofPittsburgh School of Law and
Georgetown University School ofMedicine.
In fact, my law school semesteris ending as we speak, my last
class is coming up and then it'stime for finals.
(11:34):
So I've been doing languageaccess work for more than 25
years in voting, healthcare,state courts, law enforcement,
you name it and I've had my handin it.
So it's been a real pleasurefor me and almost a labor of
love, because one of the issuestoo when my family came to this
country, they didn't speakEnglish and they were
(11:58):
discriminated against, and mydad had told me many stories of
his experience growing up in NewYork City, going to school,
being taunted, being treateddifferently because of his
language, and I think that thateventually, you know, rose to
the surface for me and became asignificant aspect of my career.
(12:23):
It's a big part of my lawpractice and it's a big part of
my teaching.
So my parents passed away.
So I have a feeling that onsome level they're looking and
saying yeah, we remember whenthat happened to us.
Go for it, Bruce.
Yeah, Bruce.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
I bet they are yes, and you continue to do that and
advocate and share yourknowledge, which I think you
make it in a way that is verydigestible when you share your
knowledge.
For those of us that don't havethat legal background makes it
very relatable to the work thatI do, which is so important,
because I think oftentimes Idare to say particularly with
(13:13):
community interpreters it feelslike there's no real guidance
with some of the organizationsthat we work with and that it's
sort of like us against themtrying to inform them of
meaningful language accesspolicies and services.
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
(13:36):
is very relatable andunderstandable and it sort of
makes the connection with thework that I do, which is so
important, right.
There is some legal foundationthere that really solidifies my
work as a professional.
So thank you, bruce, again sovery much.
I want to basically ask thequestion that perhaps many of my
(14:01):
audience is interested inknowing, and it has to do with
the impact, the potential impact, of EO 14224.
But before we do that, howabout we sort of break down a
little bit as to what ExecutiveOrder 14224 actually is for
those that haven't had theopportunity to read it.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Sure, Well, I think it's part of the flurry of
information that's come out fromthe current administration.
The EO does several things.
One it establishes English asthe official language of the
United States.
Now, legally that meansabsolutely nothing.
It just can't do that,absolutely nothing.
(14:45):
It just can't do that.
However, one of the concernsthat I always have is when
something official comes fromthe US government.
It carries the stamp ofseriousness of being an official
document and it may empowerpeople to think wow, english is
an official language.
Well, you're speaking thisother language.
(15:05):
You can't do that.
The executive order says youcan't.
That's not true, butnevertheless I am concerned that
, whether it's in public schooloffices that people will feel
this sense of empowerment andtake advantage of people who
primarily speak a differentlanguage and while they're
(15:27):
speaking that other language, orbe harassing or taunting.
These issues have come upbefore in employment
discrimination cases.
In fact, I remember there was acase that interested me a lot a
few years ago of a restaurantin Arizona outside the Navajo
(15:49):
Nation that employed severalNavajos as staff, and there was
one day where there's severalpeople who were Navajo were
speaking Navajo in therestaurant and the owner said oh
no, you can't do that we onlyspeak English here and I don't
know what you're talking about.
As far as you could be makingfun of me, so we can't do that.
(16:12):
So he fired them and theneventually justice prevailed
that he lost and there was asignificant financial outcome.
So that's something thathappened like 23 years ago,
before there was any talk ofEnglish as the official language
of the country.
Now, with this executive order,I am concerned that there will
(16:36):
be additional instances likethat.
So we have the English as theofficial language.
We have rescinding or gettingrid of the President Clinton
executive order from 2000 aboutdirecting federal agencies to
tell them how to speak to peoplewho are LEP.
(16:58):
All guidance documents based onthat old executive order are
gone or if they're not gone now,they will be after.
Doj does the next thing, whichis review all of them, all these
documents, all these executiveorders, guidance documents,
(17:21):
advisories, letters tocolleagues from 2000 until this
year, and also to, I'm believed,to reinforce the underlying
legal obligation that if youreceive federal funds, doj put
something out.
Maybe it was within the lastmonth where they rescinded
(18:11):
another executive order relatedto language and they also said
okay, we're rescinding this, butlet's be clear, the law hasn't
changed.
You still have to provide thiskind of access, reasonable
access, meaningful access, andtheir restatement of what the
law said was accurate.
So here's DOJ taking away aguidance document from 2002
(18:31):
about providing language access,and then they say, all right,
we've taken this away, but youstill have to do what's written
in the guidance.
So okay, that's another kind ofWashington inside the beltway
thing, but in a different way.
It shows DOJ isn't justthrowing this stuff away.
(18:54):
They're not doing anything whichthey really can't do to repeal
Title VI, to throw that out, tocall the Supreme Court and say,
hey, why don't you just liketoss this old case, just like,
just do it?
They not only can't, theycannot do that, but they're not
(19:14):
doing it.
So I'm looking at when theyrelease their guidance, the new
guidance, because I am sure thatwill be very informative.
There's no date by which theyhave to do that.
They haven't announced whenthey're doing it, but coming up
with a new guidance documenttakes time.
I expect this will take a fewmore months and, frankly,
(19:39):
they're pretty busy these daysand they are bleeding lawyers.
The lawyers have either quit,been suspended or they've been
fired, so they're down a lot ofpeople.
So someone has to go to courtto make arguments for the
administration.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Maybe it'll take them four years arguments for the
administration.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Maybe it'll take them four years.
You know, I'll tell you.
I've said before that I thinkthings are going to be like they
were the first term.
I don't think this is comingout anytime soon and it could
very well you and I are going tohave to talk about this when
they do bring it out.
I think it will take a longtime and it could very well not
happen until 2028.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
I think one of the things that first came to mind
for me, just as you know, justas a lone interpreter on the
community, when I first heardthis was okay.
So, as interpreters and, justyou know, the language
professional community, we knewthat Executive Order 13166
(20:43):
provided guidance.
Yes, and that guidance was veryspecific.
It was language access plansand policies, definitions of
meaningful access for our LEPcommunities.
It talked about qualifiedinterpreters versus bilingual
staff.
So I dare to say that it was ahigher standard that was guiding
(21:10):
organizations on how toappropriately provide these
services, which was great.
That's what guidance should be.
Now I feel that with the lowerstandard if I could call it that
, meaning it's removing of, likea lower standard that
organizations may be moreinclined to say well, you know,
(21:45):
it's a lower standard, lessrequirements, much easier, so
we're just going to go with thisrather than continue with
potentially what they may havealready had started per se right
With the former guidance.
What do you anticipate,potentially, what could happen
with organizations that werealready starting to create
(22:07):
policy around maybe the guidanceof EO13166, versus now the
English as the official language, guidance or executive order?
Excuse me, do you anticipatethat people will say, well,
let's just water this down, thenthe requirements aren't as high
anymore, so we don't have tobring in a language access
(22:32):
coordinator, we don't have tocreate a policy, we don't have
to create a plan, we don't haveto bring in qualified
interpreters.
Or is this me saying thinkingworst case scenario?
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Well, I think it's always good to think worst case
scenario, best case scenario andeverything in between, to be
well prepared.
I have spoken to a lot ofwhether it's health care
providers, states, state courts.
Not one of them has said youknow, we're just not doing this
anymore.
(23:03):
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 sayingyou cannot do this, which
they're not going to say that.
So, yes, there will be changes.
If you look at, in a way, theSection 1557, the health care
(23:27):
regulations, they're going tochange those.
So when the change comes out, Ithink it's going to be similar
to what the change in 2000 wascompared to what had been done
by President Obama's team thatthere'll be less specifics,
(23:49):
fewer mandates, more suggestions.
When DOJ put out their 2002guidance about language access
which I remember because Iparticipated in this there was a
lot of discussion about well,which I remember because I
participated in this.
There was a lot of discussionabout well should it be required
or recommended, and that goesto one of the philosophical
(24:11):
differences between the twomajor political parties about
mandates and recommendations.
The political appointees wereadamant that and we had good
discussions about this, but theywere adamant that you know
we're not going to require themto do this.
We'll strongly recommend it orrecommend it.
(24:33):
So right now, even though 13166is gone, the standards that you
referred to for the most partare still there and for them, if
you want the worst casescenario the worst case scenario
would be the Lauve-Nichols casefrom 1974 would be overturned
(24:57):
by the Supreme Court and theSupreme Court would say there is
no language access.
Right, there's nothing.
So if you're limited Englishproficient and you need
information, tough becausethere's no requirement to
provide it to you, I don't seethem doing that.
I mean I just don't.
I know there's been some talkabout targeting the decision and
(25:19):
bringing other cases tochallenge it.
Even if that happens, it'sgoing to take years to go up to
the Supreme Court and I reallydon't see them overturning it.
And one aspect of that whichgives me a significant amount of
additional understanding.
(25:40):
I remember, within the last 10or 15 years, a very conservative
senator, who was notoverwhelmingly supportive of
most of the things we've beentalking about, came out strongly
in support of language access.
(26:02):
Why?
Because he had a family memberwho was hospitalized with a
life-threatening condition, whowas LEP and survived because she
got language access, and hesaid I'm supportive of this,
particularly in healthcare.
(26:23):
I've experienced it.
I've seen what can happen ifthe patient doesn't understand
what's being told to them orvice versa, what they're telling
to their physicians.
So I remember that very so.
I remember that very, very welland that gives me some
additional support for myfeeling that no, the language
(26:47):
access right is not leaving us.
The devil will be in the details.
Yes, they may say, well, you'renot 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 likethat happening and, since Mireya
(27:11):
, let's be honest that there area lot of organizations that
still don't do this, that stilldon't provide language access.
It would be one thing if therewere like 95% compliance and 95%
of the public schools wereproviding language access and
that's all gone.
But it's not true.
It's not true.
(27:32):
So, in a weird kind of way,assuming that this happens, the
more information that's put outthere, the more people
understand it, the more thereality of we have very
significant civil rights in thiscountry that are different than
(28:10):
in most other countries, and,yes, that many of them are
really being put to the test nowby the current administration,
but the bottom line is now bythe current administration.
But the bottom line is if youhave the right, if you have a
particular right and you don'tuse it, then you may lose it,
because there's this sense that,hey, you know, people didn't do
(28:32):
anything about this.
So why do we keep this anymore?
That's not just an idle concern.
There was a Supreme Courtdecision in the 80s that said if
the federal government is notenforcing certain regulations,
then I guess they're decidingthey're not worth enforcing, so
(28:53):
let's just get rid of them.
That's a little simplisticanalogy, in a way, to what we're
talking about, but thefundamentals are true.
If we have rights and we don'tuse them, history shows that we
will not have them anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Michael actually say, which was that when the
Department of Justice goes outto review complaints, they do it
on the basis of Title VI, noton the executive order, right?
So the executive order wasn'tam I using the correct term
enforceable.
It was the Title VI thatthey're going after when,
(29:39):
whenever they do file acomplaint, and that they're
going to go and do a review.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean when I would doenforcement, let's say Title VI
enforcement, I would never say,well, I'm here to enforce this
executive order Because the DOJhas 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.
(30:06):
I can't go to court and sueover just that executive order.
Because what's interesting tome too, as we talked about a
little while ago, there havebeen no lawsuits about this,
because it is legal to revokeexecutive orders.
That's not a problem.
(30:32):
And the executive order, unlikeother executive orders, does not
suggest that there'll beinvestigations or that we're
going to define what diversitymeans, and if your definition is
different than ours, we'regoing to investigate you.
That's not true here.
So I always think andadmittedly some people kind of
(30:53):
give me a weird look when I saythis I give them credit for
coming up with this executiveorder when it relates to
language access, that doesn'tgive anybody a hook to hang
their hat on to go to court.
That's a lot different thansome of the other ones, but this
(31:13):
one there's no hook, it's justnot there.
It may come later, depending onwhat the new guidance says, but
for now there's nothing there,because you and I know, if there
were, how many lawsuits wouldthere be existing?
Speaker 1 (31:32):
now lawsuits we may be relying more on, potentially
on individual complaints rightor even potential lawsuits that
are addressing language barriers.
What challenges do youanticipate the DOJ will face in
(31:53):
enforcing some of these thingsthat might be reactive?
As a result, Do you anticipatemaybe an uptick in the civil
rights complaints that arerelated to language access and
you kind of covered this earlier?
Do you even think that the DOJis going to be prepared to
handle these potential increasesin the investigations?
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Well, right now, unless they, they're going to
have to hire a lot, of, a lot ofnew lawyers and I know they are
in the process of doing some ofthat now because they just
don't have the staff to handlewhat are there like 150 lawsuits
or something against thecurrent administration?
So that's an issue.
How much of a priority this isfor them is an issue, and for
(32:38):
that to happen, people wouldhave to basically say well, you
know what?
We're going to have a newpolicy where we use unqualified
people to provide interpretationor translation.
I don't really see thathappening.
To the extent that that'shappening now, the people who
(32:59):
use unqualified people now willcontinue to use unqualified
people.
So I don't see this massreversion to decades ago.
Instead, I see that the processwill just continue along.
There may be some fundingissues in the future, but I
(33:20):
don't see this mass rush to thenon-compliant door hey, we're
just not doing this anymore.
It really is going to depend onwhat'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 authorityto do it to say that Supreme
(33:42):
Court case is gone.
It's just gone.
Title VI, one of America'sfoundational civil rights laws.
We just tore it up, so that'sjust not going to happen.
I think there will be more ofthat detail aspect.
You don't have to have alanguage access coordinator.
You don't need a languageaccess plan.
(34:03):
But whether you have a specificplan that's labeled language
access does not necessarily meanyou're going to do all the
things that the plan says.
And if you are providinglanguage access, you know big
secret between you and me youhave to have a plan anyway.
(34:24):
Whether you call it a plan ornot, you still have to know what
to do.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
You know, in the midst of chaos, there always
seems to be some sort of newinnovation that occurs new
innovation that occurs.
We've seen this time and timeagain and I'm referring
specifically to our profession,with the use of interpreting
equipment during the Nurembergtrials and simultaneous
interpreting during COVID mostrecently, and the transition
(34:53):
from in-person to many morerequests for remote
interpretation and the use oftechnology AI, for example and
how interpreters are shiftingwith this new technology.
Do you anticipate, with now,this new change, that there
could be potential newopportunities to enhance
(35:16):
services for language access?
Do you think maybe there's away to potentially identify new
approaches to these services?
With this chaos, what do youthink maybe, in an optimistic
viewpoint, would be the silverlining here that maybe
potentially occurs as a result?
Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, I think that's a great point.
I think that there are oftenopportunities for change, just
as there were, as you said,during COVID, when people were,
there were mass deaths and veryserious illnesses that were
connected to the virus, and Ithink that the same is going to
(35:55):
happen now, because there willbe some cost imperatives.
Now, because there will be somecost imperatives, how can we do
this, maintaining the qualitythat we do now and again?
This is an organization thattakes it seriously, that has a
good program, and they'regenuinely interested in
providing this information inother languages.
(36:16):
Is there a different way to dothis?
And one of the things that,whether it's AI or other
technology, the technologies aregoing to continue.
They're not disappearing.
There's a significant financialincentive to make things work,
just as they did with VRI 15years ago, to make them work
(36:40):
better.
When VRI started, it workedterribly.
I mean, it was veryinconsistent, they were often
pixelating or the image wouldfreeze all kinds of things.
It was terrible, but theyimproved it and it became much
more usable now effectively thanit was then.
More usable now effectivelythan it was then.
(37:02):
In a way, I look atinterpreters as being
professionals in providinglanguage access and language
assistance, but I also see themas being professionals, or
consulting professionals when itcomes to these new forms of
providing language access,because who better knows this
(37:24):
than you all?
I mean, it's your job, it'syour profession, it's your life,
it's your skill, so that therewill be, I think, a lot of
opportunities to do that.
To explain well, this won't workbecause of X, y and Z, or this
isn't the most effective way toto provide this information, or
(37:46):
certain languages and I'll goback to Navajo are not really
being reproduced accurately orinterpreted accurately,
translated accurately, becauseof the computer not having
enough exposure to Navajo inorder to learn and to understand
(38:08):
what it's all about.
But let's do that.
We do it for Spanish and thetechnologies can incorporate
Spanish.
Let's say Well, it should beable to incorporate Navajo.
Let's see what we can do aboutthat.
So I see there will be a lot ofopportunities that are similar
(38:30):
to or even greater than whatthey were during COVID for your
profession when it comes tothese innovations.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
I completely agree.
You know who would know thecommunities that we serve better
than those of us that areserving the community?
And I think that if we've evereven considered the topic of
advocacy in our work, this wouldbe, in my opinion, the
appropriate approach to advocacyin our work is advocating for
(39:02):
the profession and advocatingfor the communities that we
serve and advocating for thecommunities that we serve.
And speaking of advocacy, Iknow that this, with what we've
seen so far, with this currentadministration pushing out many
things, that they're basicallythrowing it out to each state to
sort of approach on their own,do you think, or what are your
(39:26):
thoughts rather on, whetherinterpreters, in terms of
advocacy, should be perhapsgetting ahead of this topic at a
state level and advocating morefor language access at a state
level versus not necessarily oneor the other, but you know,
(39:46):
including or having more top ofmind state level versus federal
level.
What are your thoughts on maybethat that's something that
interpreters in their own statecan potentially do to begin
getting ahead of language accessat their states?
Speaker 2 (40:01):
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 toCapitol Hill and you talk to
the staff of your representativeand it's a real.
You know, the subways are morecrowded, the streets are more
crowded, the wait to get intothe Capitol is longer.
(40:22):
However, what does that get thepeople who are doing that?
What's the success?
What's the indication that notonly are you being listened to
because people are being polite,but they're actually moving
forward with suggestions to makethem into law?
I think these days, theopportunity for that to happen
(40:46):
are very few and far between,and it likely happens at a
higher level, a much higherlevel than we exist in our lives
and in our work.
I don't have millions ofdollars to toss around to give
to representatives on CapitolHill, but states are different.
But states are different Ifthere are a lot of states that
(41:13):
are not enormous, likeCalifornia or Texas, where the
legislators are veryapproachable and it's not like
you have to wait an hour to getinto the state capitol.
So there are a lot ofopportunities.
Many states have their own laws.
Some of them are not asclear-cut as the federal laws
are, but some of them are veryclear-cut.
(41:36):
Some cities and counties havetheir own language access
policies.
I think, frankly, the future isnow as far as not just coming
here although I love seeing allof you when you come to DC, but
not just coming here.
Although I love seeing all ofyou when you come to DC, but not
just coming here, or maybe notcoming here at all for a while
and going to state capitalsacross the country, whether it's
(41:59):
Albany, you name it Annapolisand Maryland, richmond.
We could keep going, sacramento, keep going down the list.
Why don't you spend time there?
Because I think, as you, youknow to me, you're kind of
implying that these states,which is the design of our
(42:22):
government, are closer to thecommunities.
So if you're advocating for acommunity that you work in and
you know about, you're an expertin, why not talk to the state
legislators, because they'recloser to those communities than
a US senator or acongressperson.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Absolutely.
Yes, I mean, I'm definitelythinking about, you know, just
the local municipalities like,and then some of the states that
had already started some ofthis work, for example.
So we know it's possible at astate level, you know I want to
mention the state of Washington,for example, with you know,
their legislation on languageaccess in schools specifically,
(43:02):
which is not something thatevery state has, and so being
able to advocate, you know, atthat level, you're right they're
much closer to our communitiesthan at a federal level.
Not to take away from theimportance of that, but I do
think that maybe because wefocus so much on the federal
(43:23):
component that maybe we've losttrack as to the other local,
more closer areas that we couldpotentially focus on as well.
And maybe that would be part ofsome of the silver lining to
this is sort of re-strategizingour approach in the profession
to focus more on our states andsort of getting ahead of what
(43:43):
potentially might come up withthis new guidance which, again
I'm throwing it out thereHopefully it takes about four
years.
So, oh my gosh, Bruce, I knowthat we can go on forever about
this topic, but I do want to, asalways, take the opportunity to
ask for your guidance with theprofessionals and what they
(44:05):
could potentially do, becausethere are a lot of conversations
out in the community right nowand unless you are seeking or
looking for these conversations,they're not exactly coming to
us, and I think that there's alot to be said with regards to
ensuring that our voices areheard and that we're actually
(44:27):
doing something, as much as wepossibly can, with what other
organizations or institutions ornonprofits are already pushing
out.
What would you recommend thatthe language professional that
maybe is not as involved orwasn't as involved prior to this
can do in support of languageaccess, of appropriate and
(44:51):
meaningful services to ourcommunities and just to the
profession as a whole?
Why don't we take thisopportunity to sort of guide on
what some of those action itemsthat we can do to support this
work?
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Yeah, I think that that's a great point and I would
still favor the local in thesense of when has, whether it's
an interpreter organization orinterpreters who informally
gather together to work on andtalk about aspects that affect
their profession.
When was the last time youtalked to your police chief?
(45:26):
When was the last time youtalked to your school board
president?
When was the last time youtalked to the Chamber of
Commerce about less about thelegal right, but more about how
do you bring language accessinto your day-to-day activities?
And I remember a few years agoI did some training for law
(45:49):
enforcement in Maryland aboutTitle VI and we talked a lot
about language access and thatyou know some people were, let's
just say, less motivated thanothers to move ahead with this.
But I started to talk about howyou know this could be a
life-threatening event for youand for me that if I don't speak
(46:13):
English, how am I going tounderstand what you're telling
me to do?
You may think I'm threateningyou when I'm not.
You don't understand what I'msaying because you don't
understand the language.
And then you know, doing a lotof speaking, public speaking, in
programs.
Sometimes you have this goldenmoment and there was a captain
(46:34):
in the audience and she stood upand she said you know, he's
right.
This recently happened to me ina traffic stop, that the person
that I pulled over, I had theperson get out of the car but he
didn't understand what I wassaying.
I didn't understand hislanguage.
(46:55):
I had my hand on my gun readyto take it out of the holster,
but we were able to whether itwas just facial expressions,
putting my hands up with youknow, just calm down, and he
became calmer and I took my handoff my gun and I became calmer.
(47:16):
So she said I know this is true, I've seen it, this happened to
me and I know what could havehappened.
So from now on could havehappened.
So from now on, I always callthe station If I'm out on the
job and something like thisoccurs with language.
(47:36):
I take care of it, take care ofit differently than before
because I get it now.
So then there were a lot ofyeah, I have had that too and a
lot of head, you know, nodding,and yeah, that's what I think
interpreters, translators, theindustry, the profession should
(47:57):
do have these conversations.
That's great networking.
You're advocating, but in adifferent way.
You're not advocating before anelected representative, but
you're advocating, but in adifferent way.
You're not advocating before anelected representative, but
you're advocating before yourcommunity leaders, people in
your community who provideimportant services.
(48:19):
Let them know, because Iguarantee you, we both know
there are going to be people whowill say gee, I never really
thought of that, I didn't knowabout that.
I think that's a good place togo now.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Yes, definitely, and there are plenty of
conversations out in thecommunity right now identify the
places where we can either goand be a part of the
conversation or listen in onthese conversations.
So I know for a fact that I geta lot of this networking and
(48:58):
information through LinkedIn,and so, if you are on LinkedIn,
connect with Bruce, connect withmyself.
I'm always trying to resharethis information as well so that
you know, everyone in ournetwork can have the opportunity
to provide feedback, to share,just be a part of the dialogue.
I think that having anunderstanding at least the
(49:18):
basics, and and knowing some ofthose talking points always
supports us in whatever dialoguewe're trying to be a part of.
But we can only do this ifwe're out there being proactive
and taking part in theseconversations, because the
information isn't going to cometo us.
We have to look for it.
(49:38):
We have to be the ones that aretaking 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 ourtime to you know, to activate
and put you to share just yourknowledge and sort of, in a way,
(50:10):
give us a sense of hope.
In that there is, like inanything.
I think that's worth fightingfor.
There's always something moreto do.
There's always something thatwe can do to continue our work
in language access, and it'snever going to be done.
There's always going to be someroom for improvement.
We've hit a bump on the road,for sure, but it's just that,
(50:34):
like you helped us understandtoday, it's a bump on the road.
It's not.
You know, this is the end.
And just like everyone a fewmonths was thinking with AI,
this is the end of the road.
There's no more interpretersand translators.
We're done for.
I think this is the same notion.
We've just hit another bump onthe road, and we all know that
(50:55):
language access matters.
We understand the importanceand we all understand, I think,
the beauty of our linguisticallydiverse country and the
importance of our work.
So I thank you so very muchagain for taking time out of
your day to come and speak tothis audience in particular, and
I just want to give theopportunity for anyone out there
(51:17):
interested in being part ofyour network.
Where can our listeners findout more about you and the work
that you do?
Speaker 2 (51:23):
Well, thank you Well, first.
Thank you so much, maria.
As I said, it is always apleasure to talk with you and to
deal with these issues that areso significant and relate to
your profession, which I amimmensely admiring of.
So I think that and I agreeabout the bump in the road I
think that's really well put.
Probably the best thing is,just as you had said, is
(51:46):
LinkedIn.
Probably the best thing is,just as you had said, is
LinkedIn that I've posted a lotthis year about the issues that
we talk about.
That's a good place to go tolearn more about me and what
I've done in my career.
Speaker 1 (52:29):
So I would also commend out LinkedIn.
Yeah, and just because youheard Bruce talk about being a
former DOJ and getting ready toretire from his work, you're
doing create a profile, at leastjust to be part of the
conversation and then be able tojoin Bruce on all his wonderful
talks that he has in differentplatforms.
So, Bruce, again thank you foryour time.
It has been an absolutepleasure and a privilege to have
you back on the show.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Thank you, Maria.
It's my pleasure and you arevery welcome.
I look forward to our nextconversation.
Speaker 1 (52:55):
For sure.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com