It is easy to doge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
~Sir Josiah Charles Stamp
Let me preface this post by saying that since I started leading the VRID Ethics & NIC Interview discussion groups, I have become that much more interested in ethics and the discussion of ethics. Preparing for this Saturday's discussion group has caused further contemplation and the idea for this post has been marinating for several weeks, before the invalid NIC rater scores came to light.
Before I address this week's events, let's take a step back:
On June 4, Janet Bailey lead a VRID community dialogue on FCC & VRS, highlighting the new FCC mandates and RID's response. As she discussed the actions that the FCC has taken in response to fraud in VRS settings, I began to see "long-term implications" in a new light. In an attempt to curb future fraud, the FCC has take reactionary measures. Among other things, VRS interpreters are no longer allowed to use privacy screens or work from home, because some of the fraudulent activity occurred when privacy screens were used or interpreters were working from home. While I know much discussion took place and FCC did not make this decision arbitrarily, it is a solemn reminder that the actions of a few can impact the whole.
During the ethical discussion groups, as well as my own preparation for the NIC Interview exam, I have always considered the short-term implications as immediate to the individual and those directly involved in the hypothetical scenario and the long-term implications to be the bigger pictures- the impact on the larger group- the interpreting community, the Deaf community, or hearing community. As we talk about short-term and long-term implications of imagined scenarios, the long-term implications of real-life bad ethical decisions are sending shock waves through the interpreting community.
On Tuesday afternoon, I was heading home from my assignments D.C. and I received this email while waiting for the bus:
"[....] We must regrettably report that a former RID employee committed fraudulent activities that affected the scores of 34 individuals whose National Interpreter Certification (NIC) Interview and Performance Examinations were scored between January and September 2010. These individuals represent less than three (3) percent of those who took the exam in 201.
While RID has determined that the impact on RID and its members is very limited, we take this fraud seriously and are working diligently to resolve the issues this incident has raised.
At this time, RID has sent notification letters to all affected individuals via trackable mail, with delivery scheduled on or before today, Tuesday, June 21, 2011. Therefore, if you have not received an official communication or notification of an official communication from RID regarding this matter, then neither your certification nor your exam results are in question [...]"
As I read the email from RID Executive Director Clay Nettles (available online in
written English and
ASL), I was stunned and angry. I had taken the exam in January 2010 and a small part of me was worried that a letter was waiting at home for me. Unsettled is probably the best adjective to describe how I have been feeling. While I was not one of the thirty-four individuals affected, I couldn't help but wonder what this would mean for them and their careers, as well as the interpreting profession as a whole. As I continually checked
RID's Facebook page for reactions, comments, and discussions, I noticed that many members had the same questions and concerns as me. We want to be supportive of the "Band of 34," while having access to the information that ultimately impacts our profession.
The bad decisions of one individual has jeopardized the livelihood of thirty-four and created a domino effect that impacts the livelihood of others. The resulting audit and new procedures has slowed down the rating of NIC Performance and Interview Exams. In the meantime, individuals waiting for results are potentially earning less (especially if an individual is non-certified) and at risk for losing their job, if they are unable to satisfy licensure or employment conditions. A friend of mine is another category- as a recent graduate of a two-year ITP, she has her Associate's degree and is facing the June 30, 2012 deadline to take and pass the NIC before the Bachelor degree requirement goes into effect.
Beyond income and employment, many individuals have already questioned the validity of the NIC Performance and Interview exam and this event will likely add fuel to the fire. More importantly, while it seems that most members appreciate the measures that the RID National Office has taken and their attempt at transparency, RID runs the risk of losing its members' trust. Worse, we, the interpreting profession, run the risk of its consumers- hearing and Deaf- losing their trust in us. It is my greatest hope that everyone realizes that one man is responsible for this fiasco and it is not a reflection of our profession as a whole.
I am disheartened that our profession has had to face two such scandals in a relatively short period of time. However, I am pleased to say that on a daily basis, I work with a great group of interpreters that I am proud to consider my colleagues and friends. Our profession is resilient and will move forward. There may be more hiccups along the way, but hopefully it will always be the miniscule minority- the 0.1%- and not the majority- the 99.9%- that make these egregious and destructive decisions. While we are beginning to see the long-term implications, it may be years before we know the final outcome of either situation.
I recently learned about the Gallup Poll's Annual survey of
Honesty and Ethics in Professions. As Gallup evaluated the public perception of professions, service professions dominate the top rankings. Granted interpreters were not included on the list, but it made me think. Where would interpreters be? And where do we want to be?
