Hispanics Encounter Language Barrier
in Courts, Schools
Key Finding: Forty-Six Respondents with
Court Experience Say There Were No
Interpreters for Them
MONTGOMERY, Alabama (The
Southern Poverty Law Center) April 23,
2009 ―
Language is one of the greatest barriers
faced by Hispanic immigrants in the
South. When they enter schools,
hospitals or courts, they often find
there's no interpreter. This means for
many Hispanics there is no one to help
them communicate with a teacher, a
doctor or even the judge deciding their
fate.
Of the places the survey asked about,
Hispanics said they were least likely to
find an interpreter in court. Forty-six
percent of those reporting a court
experience said there was no
interpreter.
Marty Kaufman, a registered interpreter
in Georgia, isn't surprised by the
results. Georgia has a certification
process to ensure interpreters are
qualified for the job, but many courts
still use unregistered people, she said.
Often, courts in rural areas of the
state do not provide interpreters at all
or provide those with questionable
ability.
"They go down to the local Mexican
restaurant and bring someone in,
literally, to interpret," Kaufman said.
The lack of an interpreter has created
courtroom situations that border on the
absurd. There have been incidents
reported in the South in which attorneys
communicated with clients through their
children. One person interviewed for
this report recounted an incident in an
Alabama court where Hispanics charged
with traffic violations were asked to
put an "X" on one hand and an "O" on the
other. They would use one mark to
indicate their innocence and the other
to indicate their guilt. One immigrant
advocate interviewed for this report
cited a domestic violence case where the
girlfriend of the alleged perpetrator
was asked to interpret for the victim.
Woman Ordered to Learn English or
Lose Daughter
"That's not justice. It's awful," said
Isabel Rubio, director of the Hispanic
Interest Coalition of Alabama.
Despite the common criticism problems
stemming from the language barrier are
the result of Hispanic immigrants
refusing to assimilate and learn
English, almost 57 percent of Hispanics
questioned in a survey by the Pew
Hispanic Center believe immigrants must
speak English to say they are part of
American society. An overwhelming 92
percent of all Hispanics in that survey
said it is "very important" to teach
English to the children of immigrant
families. The number was even greater
for foreign-born Hispanics, of whom 96
percent said it was a "very important"
goal.
These results suggest a desire to learn
English and assimilate. Nonetheless,
interpreters are needed to bridge the
gap as this assimilation occurs. The
failure to provide adequate interpreters
in court is deeply troubling and clearly
unlawful.
Unfortunately, it occurs all too often.
Sometimes, the attempts to bridge the
language gap not only raise serious
legal questions but are a source of
embarrassment. Officials in Rogers,
Ark., discovered the Spanish-language
rights waiver signed by a man pleading
guilty to driving while intoxicated
stated that he was charged with "a
murder" and his penalty was "1 anus in
jail and a $1,000 fine." A court clerk
who spoke Spanish but wasn't certified
by the state had translated the waiver
form into Spanish several years earlier.
Agencies Fail to Comply with Civil
Rights Laws
These failures extend well beyond the
courts. The SPLC's experience has shown
many Southern agencies (schools,
hospitals, social service offices and
other critical resources) are failing to
comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which provides no person
shall be subjected to discrimination on
the basis of race, color or national
origin under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance.
Title VI prohibits agencies receiving
federal money from denying persons with
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) access
to programs on the basis of their
national origin. These agencies must
take steps to ensure services are
provided to LEP individuals in a
non-discriminatory manner.
Yet, even court systems across the
region have failed to comply with the
most basic constitutional due process
protections by ensuring non-English
speakers understand the charges against
them and have a meaningful opportunity
to be heard.
The Justice Department acknowledged in
The Police Chief, a law enforcement
trade publication, recipients of federal
funding — including police departments —
have an obligation to make their
services accessible to non-English
speakers:
Beyond the common sense reasons for
addressing language barriers in police
work, there are laws obligating police
departments to ensure LEP people can
access their services. As a condition of
receiving federal money, police
departments and other recipients of
federal financial assistance must comply
with certain legal obligations, such as
adherence to Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations.
Under Title VI, police departments and
other recipients of federal financial
assistance must provide services
accessible to all, regardless of race,
color, or national origin. Individuals
who are limited in their English ability
are often protected by Title VI, where
language serves as a proxy for national
origin discrimination. By failing to
provide appropriate language services to
an LEP individual, police departments
effectively exclude that individual from
accessing the same benefits, services,
information, or rights as every one
else. Noncompliant police departments
facing a Justice Department
investigation may find themselves
drained of valuable time, money, and
personnel resources as they attempt to
defend themselves against allegations of
civil rights violations.
Unfortunately, for many of the people
whose rights under Title VI are
violated, there is no effective remedy.
A 2001 Supreme Court decision overturned
decades of precedent under Title VI with
its decision in Alexander v. Sandoval,
532 U.S. 275 (2001).
Ruling Reverses Decades of Precedent
Sandoval, a case brought by the SPLC,
was a class action lawsuit contending
that the state of Alabama violated Title
VI by requiring applicants for a
driver's license to take the written
examination in English.
The suit alleged Alabama's policy
unjustifiably excluded non-English
speakers from receiving a driver's
license, discriminating against them
based on their national origin. Before
adopting an English-only amendment to
the state constitution in 1990, the
state had administered the test in 14
languages.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama ruled in the
plaintiffs' favor and ordered the
Alabama Department of Public Safety to
accommodate non-English speakers. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit affirmed that decision.
The Supreme Court's decision in
Sandoval, however, abruptly reversed
nearly three decades of precedent,
including the unanimous views of all
federal appeals courts that had
addressed the issue. The federal courts
had long interpreted Title VI and its
regulations to imply a private right of
action to sue for both intentional and
"disparate impact" discrimination.
Disparate impact discrimination is when
minorities are disproportionately
injured by a policy or practice whose
effects cannot be justified. In
Sandoval, the Supreme Court said there
was no private right of action to
enforce the disparate impact provisions
of Title VI.
The ability to sue for disparate impact
discrimination is important because
proving intentional discrimination is
often exceedingly difficult.
Meanwhile, Hispanics across the South
find themselves in a struggle.
Parents, for example, find themselves
unable to be involved in their
children's education because their
school has no ability to interact with a
Spanish-speaking parent. Other times,
individuals are turned away from medical
treatment and told to return with their
own interpreter.
Kaufman, the registered interpreter,
said this is the case at the indigent
clinic for pregnant women in her area of
rural Georgia. It has spurred a cottage
industry where unqualified and
unregistered interpreters are offering
their services for hire to Hispanics — a
prospect that could compromise medical
care.
The language problems are compounded in
some areas by so-called "English-only"
laws. Such laws restrict the use of
languages other than English in the
delivery of government services.
Some government officials are now
rethinking the wisdom of English-only
ordinances and even repealing them in
light of the expense of enforcing and
defending them in court, and the
publicity and accusations of racism that
such laws attract.
In December 2008, for example, Oak
Point, a small town north of Dallas,
killed an English-only measure that had
been adopted a year earlier. "For us to
spend our time pitting neighbor against
neighbor was a sacrilege," City
Councilwoman Judith Camp said. "We're
just a tiny little city and we were
getting a lot of negative publicity."
In Nashville, voters soundly defeated an
English-only measure in January 2009
that would have required all Metro
Nashville government business to be
conducted in English. The defeat
prevented Nashville from becoming the
largest city in the country with such a
rule.
Still, much work remains as the language
barrier continues to create a circle of
frustration for Hispanics.
Miguel recounted for SPLC researchers
his brother's experience after
complaining of back pain at work. The
Georgia Hispanic was taken to the
hospital — only to see a doctor who
could not speak Spanish. After Miguel
found an interpreter, the doctor said he
could not speak to any third party about
his brother's condition, including the
interpreter.
"So who was going to explain to my
brother what was wrong if the doctor
didn't speak Spanish and my brother
didn't speak English?" Miguel said.
"These are inexplicable things."
