Reporters must be objective. Judges have to be impartial. Referees cannot take sides. But what about interpreters?

Neutrality is a core tenet of professional codes of ethics for interpreters, in every major setting where interpreters work. Whether it’s in a conference hall, a hospital, or a courtroom, practicing interpreters are required to render utterances across two languages without inserting their own opinions. This ensures that the information is free of embellishments, omissions and distortions that could be caused if the interpreter were to allow his or her own view to enter into the equation, thus enabling every listener — or participant in the conversation — to make his or her own opinion without any undue influence from the interpreter.

The interpreter — like everyone else — goes home from work at the end of the day. But interpreters are different. Reporters can bounce ideas off their editors, judges issue opinions matters after reviewing the facts, and referees make their calls to the cheers and jeers of fans. Unlike many others, interpreters are often left alone to process their thoughts. Like all human beings, interpreters do have opinions and emotions — not to mention unique and important perspectives. They just don’t get to share them that often.

So, as reporter Julia Preston points out in today’s New York Times, it struck many as unusual when a respected university professor and federal court interpreter, Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, wrote a detailed essay about his experience interpreting for the largest immigration raid in history. Unusual, yes — but so were the circumstances. So unusual, in fact, that the proceedings have been widely criticized. These individuals had a right to due process, and some feel that this right may have been denied.

This is not the first instance of an interpreter speaking out, and it will likely not be the last. Contrary to popular belief, interpreters do not typically take oaths of absolute secrecy. While it isn’t the norm, interpreters can and do talk about their work. Interpreters have written memoirs and biographies of their experiences working at the United Nations, Guantanamo Bay, and for heads of state during the Cold War era.

Like members of many professions, interpreters must also protect confidentiality — another core ethical principle that interpreters take very seriously. In most settings, compromising confidential information can cost an interpreter not only a job, but a lifelong reputation. It can also be a violation of contractual obligations, depending on the employment relationship in place.

The crux of the matter is this: Interpreters are allowed to talk and write about their work, so long as they do not violate confidentiality or share information that is otherwise not available to the public.  Personal ethics vary from one person to another, and opinions about what a person should do in such a situation will be as diverse as the individuals themselves. When interpreters believe that individuals’ rights have been compromised, such as in the case of Dr. Camayd-Freixas, they can do more than speak — they can speak out.