The American Translators Association and the“Quality Crusade”

By guest blogger
Bernie Bierman

Last November, Marian Greenfield, the current president of the American Translators Association, announced that the Association would embark on a “Quality Crusade.”

I was somewhat jarred by that slogan, given the fact that the word “crusade” has taken on – rightly or wrongly – a most negative connotation in the past decade or so, not just in the Islamic world, but also in the non-Islamic world. Indeed, I wrote to several colleagues acerbically asking why the ATA didn’t select a slogan like “A pogrom to achieve quality in translation” or “The final solution to quality in translation” or “An inquisition to attain quality” or “Achieving quality through cleansing.”

Seeking to give them the benefit of the doubt (and driven by my general lack of interest in ATA doings), I attributed the ATA’s and/or Ms. Greenfield’s choice of wording to naiveté and/or to 100% immersion in matters translational, so much so that they both were unaware of the furor caused when President George W. Bush used the term “crusade” at the outset of the Iraq war (Mr. Bush has not used it since, at least not publicly) and the general disfavor that the term has fallen into.

Obviously, I was mistaken in my attribution of naiveté as the reason for the use of the word “crusade,” for in the February 2007 issue of The ATA Chronicle, Ms. Greenfield once again announced “ATA’s Quality Crusade”: “Much is planned for 2007 to continue ATA’s ‘quality crusade’ and I hope that you will not only find it exciting, but that you will also contribute.”

It certainly appears that with this latest reiteration of “Quality Crusade,” Ms. Greenfield and/or her colleagues in official ATA circles deliberately selected a word around which swirls all sorts and manner of controversy, say nothing of its extreme offensiveness to hundreds of millions of people, particularly to those who practice Islam.

I cannot help but ask, why would a president of an international organization like the American Translators Association, which is home to hundreds of Middle Eastern-language translators and interpreters (some of whom may be practicing Muslims and others secular Muslims), select a word that has become so offensive and so riddled with negative connotations? Clearly, our very rich English language provides a veritable trove of words that would convey the same idea, e.g., “Quest for Quality.”

The more I look at the unfortunate use of the word “crusade” and the more I review the events in the ATA of the past 5 or so years with particular respect to the involvement of translators and interpreters in the so-called “War on Terror,” the more I see signs that the slogan “Quality Crusade” as used by Ms. Greenfield in November of 2006 and February of 2007 was not a mere manifestation of naiveté. There is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that it was deliberate and planned, If the two-time use of the word “crusade” is a manifestation of anything, it is a manifestation of the Association’s political sympathies, notwithstanding its protestations that it is a non-political organization and that its members in the exercise of their professional duties must always demonstrate neutral objectivity. And that manifestation of political sympathies is evidenced by the following events:

1. The ATA’s closing the door (in 2004 and subsequent years) on an open discussion of the Mohammed Yousry case. While the ATA made and disseminated several statements after 2004 condemning the actions of Mr. Yousry (an Arabic-English interpreter for Lynne Stewart, defense counsel for persons involved in political terrorism acts), it steadfastly refused to allow publication of views defending Mr. Yousry actions and conduct as an interpreter.[1]

2. The ATA’s immediate condemnation of the so-called “Anti-torture resolution” offered in October 2006 by Aaron Ruby, an ATA-member-translator from Texas. Indeed, when forced by legal statute to accept Mr. Ruby’s resolution for a vote by the membership, the ATA reacted under the leadership of Ms. Greenfield by telling the membership that it should vote against Mr. Ruby’s anti-torture resolution. It was only at the eleventh hour under pressure from less dogmatic and doctrinaire heads that the ATA relented and offered its own watered-down anti-torture resolution, notwithstanding the fact that this counter-resolution smacked of all sorts of illegalities in terms of procedure.[2]

3. The ATA’s cold refusal to come to the assistance of its chapter, the New York Circle of Translators, when the Circle received an implied threat of legal action from the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators (NAJIT) over the Circle’s publication of an article by Mr. Ruby describing the resistance he received within NAJIT over his efforts to enact an anti-torture resolution in that organization. It remains noteworthy that both the ATA and NAJIT were strongly allied in their condemnation of Mohammed Yousry’s work as an interpreter in the Lynne Stewart case. Although the New York Circle of Translators is an official ATA chapter and therefore an integral member of the ATA family, ATA officials were more than willing to allow the Circle “to twist in the legal wind”; evidently, the “mother” did not particular care for the views of its “rebellious child,” and appeared more than willing to have its “child” duly spanked by an outsider.

No, “crusade” as in “quality crusade” wasn’t a slip of the tongue or a manifestation of political naiveté on the part of Ms. Greenfield and her ATA colleague-officers. This was a word deliberately chosen to reinforce previous messages (see above) about where the organization and its leaders stand politically.

[1] The first and also last article published in the ATA Chronicle offering an explanation of Mr. Yousry’s problems was a piece by Maya Hess written in September 2003, to which the ATA added a disclaimer. Two subsequent articles by Marguerite Shore and Alison Dundy, respectively, defending Mr. Yousry’s conduct as an interpreter were not picked up for publication in the ATA Chronicle, but were published in “The Gotham Translator”, the newsletter of the New York Circle of Translators, which also published the official views of the ATA about Mr. Yousry’s work as an interpreter.

[2] No official notification, i.e., by United States mail, was given by the Association to its voting members, as clearly prescribed by the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, the law which governs organizations like the ATA. But even if the ATA had followed proper procedure as called for by law, and not merely inform members in a random manner by e-mail that a counter-resolution could be viewed on the Association’s website, it had clearly missed the prescribed deadline for submitting its counter-resolution. The vote at the November 2006 annual conference should have been either in favor of the Ruby resolution or against it. Instead, the Association had its illegal counter-resolution on the ballot, and that illegal counter-resolution won by a few votes over the legal Ruby resolution.

About the author: Bernie Bierman has been a member of the American Translators Association since 1961 and served it in various capacities between 1961 and 1995. He was managing editor of “Translation News” (1989-1995). a privately-published newsletter. He is also the author of the only published book about the early history of the ATA, entitled “A Translator-Warrior Speaks: A Personal History of the American Translators Association, 1959-1970.”

Analysis of the ATA antitorture resolution

In response to the strongly-worded antitorture resolution that Aaron Ruby brought before the voting membership, the American Translators Association (ATA) recommended passage of an alternative resolution at the recent conference in New Orleans (November 1-4, 2006). The ATA's resolution is extraordinarily weak; it seems mainly to serve the purpose of warding off accusations that the ATA is doing nothing. Yet as we know, nothing is precisely what it at first intended to do when it advised the membership to defeat the Ruby resolution. Let's take a look at what was actually passed:

From the Preamble:

WHEREAS
the infliction of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is abhorrent to all civilized societies and has been condemned by national governments and international organizations, including the United Nations in its Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ;

WHEREAS
interpreters and translators strive to facilitate communication in the service of humanity, to create understanding and respect between speakers of different languages, and to break down linguistic and cultural barriers in order to ensure equal rights to all regardless of language; and

WHEREAS
members of the American Translators Association, in accordance with the Association's Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices, commit themselves to the highest standards of performance and ethical behavior,

The first clause is fine as far as it goes.

However, the second clause refers to a principle so general that it might itself be used to justify torture. Practitioners of torture frequently claim in effect that they do what they do "in the service of humanity." The current US administration asserts that it is attempting to bring democracy to Iraq, and as such it may be seen as trying "to break down linguistic and cultural barriers in order to ensure equal rights." There is nothing in the ATA's statement of principles that contradicts, for example, the use of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay.

The third clause refers us to the ATA's Code of Professional Conduct. Yet there is nothing in this code that precludes participation in torture. After all, the current US administration claims that information gained by torture serves the common good. Does that mean that torture competently executed meets the “highest standards of performance and ethical behavior"?

In other words, having started out reasonably well, it goes on to gut its own stated intent!

What about the substantial or operative provisions?

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE AMERICAN TRANSLATORS ASSOCIATION condemns and deplores torture in any form, anywhere;

explicitly defines knowing participation in, facilitation or countenancing of, cooperation with, or failure to report torture or other mental or physical abuse or degradation of any human being as unethical behavior that violates ATA's Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices;

requires that its members who become aware that torture has occurred, is occurring, or is intended, promptly report those facts to a person or persons capable of taking preventive or corrective action;

expects governments and other national and international entities to refrain from retribution or other punitive action against interpreters and translators when they refuse to participate in or cooperate with the torture, abuse, or degradation of any human being; and

urges schools and programs responsible for the education and training of interpreters and translators to include in their curricula training in ethical behavior and in internationally recognized codes of professional conduct.

Again, there is nothing wrong with point 1 as far as it goes.

However, point 2 refers us once again to the ATA code of professional conduct. Because there is nothing in the ATA code that condemns torture outright, it cannot be used for this purpose. On the contrary, as we have seen, the ATA code as it stands can even be used to justify torture.

The third point goes to the heart of what is wrong with the ATA resolution. Rather than condemning outright any participation in torture, in keeping with the promise of the first paragraphs of the preamble and operative provision, the ATA rejects an organizational stance in favor of a vague retreat into "personal responsibility." This is a pure copout. Having purged its resolution of any mention of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, and having declined to condemn the use of torture by the powerful governmental forces behind those atrocities, the ATA merely says that its members must report incidents of torture to "a person or persons capable of taking preventive or corrective action." Who might such persons be, when the US government itself sends its highest-ranking military personnel to establish its torture facilities? That is what this administration did when it sent General Geoffrey Miller, the architect of the abuses at Guantánamo Bay, to Iraq to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib and the other facilities, some of which continue to be secret? Nor does the ATA resolution hold responsible and condemn those who profiteer from torture, such as the civilian CACI and the Titan Corporation, which have contracts with the military in the hundreds of millions of dollars to supply linguist services. Instead of an outright condemnation, what we get is pap about personal responsibility, and reports to those responsible. What sort of resolution is that?

Instead of establishing solidarity with its members in rejecting torture, or offering them aid and solace in resistance, in point 4 the ATA begs unspecified "governments and other national and international entities" not to punish interpreters and translators who refuse to participate. This is an antitorture resolution in name only, a fig leaf. Any impulse to grapple with the issue head on is immediately turned into empty words.

There is a great concept in German: etwas totschweigen; literally, to "death-silence" something. It is a transitive verb much like "to disappear" someone, and it implies a deliberate act. This weak ATA resolution will do little more than "death-silence" the issue of torture and encourage its disappearance down the memory hole.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.