From the CEO

fication. This would also undermine the layer of protection provided to consumers. Yet we are asked to bend the rules all. the. time. And each and every time, we say simply, “No.”

Be professional. Do a good job. Be a good person.

The questions we grapple with both at headquarters and with consumers and membership include: Don’t share what is the EPS ultimately supposed to do? What do members think the EPS my business. is? How can we make things better and more ethical? We grapple with it, not because we want unethical certified interpreters in our midst (we certainly don’t), but because the scope of the EPS is so far-reaching. What should it cover? Provision of interpreting services only? Behaviors at all times or only during the job? Activities unrelated to interpreting? Integrity or character? The CPC is a holistic guide to professional behavior and applies to all professional services provided by interpreters. The CPC should not be limited only to time on the job; rather, it includes any realm attached to the professionalism of our work as interpreters: interacting within our roles with colleagues, teaching students or mentees, seeking professional development, in our roles with Deaf people and hearing people, and so forth. A great majority of this professionalism is conducted based on an honor system. When that honor system is disrupted and the CPC is breached, and all efforts to resolve the conflict on an individual level or with supervisors or agencies are not effective, the EPS is often the last recourse. Very often (but not always), by the time an EPS complaint reaches our desk, it has become one person’s word against another.

RID certainly recognizes the complex dynamics between professional service providers – interpreters — and consumers, both Deaf and hearing people who work with interpreters. In any given situation with these individuals, there is always a power dynamic: hearing versus Deaf, not to mention all the other -isms potentially involved such as race, gender, culture, linguistic, and so forth. When a power imbalance exists, conflict is bound to arise. As RID undergoes the process of overhauling the EPS, there is a constant challenge in addressing two major tasks. First, how do we protect the integrity of a certification? Second, how can the conflict between the complainant and the certified interpreter be resolved ethically? There’s also another question that we wrestle with: is the EPS supposed to help resolve conflicts between members and consumers? Or what is the EPS’s genuine purpose? And that, in turn, brings up even more questions. Is RID supposed to address the power imbalance between hearing, Coda, and Deaf people? Is it within RID’s purview to perform restorative conflict resolution between service providers and consumers or between two members? Or do we focus on ensuring that policies and procedures are in place and that all metrics of validity, reliability, and consistency are in place? Do we protect the integrity of our certification program or do we provide a service involving education and restorative conflict resolution to our members and consumers? Or can we do both? I don’t have answers. But I have a lot of interest in knowing what you think. Please share your thoughts with me at CEO@RID.org.