The Foreign Service Journal, May 2013

54 MAY 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL AFSA NEWS All Overseas Positions Should Be Language Designated STATE VP VOICE | BY DANIEL HIRSCH AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. Rickie Ricardo, the Cuban bandleader character on the “I Love Lucy” television show, spoke fluent English. He ran a business in New York City, spoke English with his wife and friends, and read an English-language newspaper. But when he was upset, or counting beats, or discussing a matter with his band members, he spoke his native Spanish. Why? Because when people are emotional, or lost in thought, or sharing a private thought with some- one from their own native country, they speak their own language. Moreover, where cultures differ significantly, there are often terms or even whole concepts that can get, as they say, “lost in transla- tion.” Foreign Service members perform the bulk of their service overseas, in countries where, for the most part, host country nationals speak a language other than English. Accordingly, the ability to speak a foreign language is a primary skill requirement for Foreign Service officers, and a core precept for retention of all FS members, regardless of cone or skill code. However, because lan- guage training costs money and can sideline an employee for months, deciding who needs what language—and to what degree—has become one of the most contentious issues affecting an employ- ee’s career. It is a primary factor in allegations of elitism by some FS groups when compared to others, a pri- mary factor in low morale for many, and an issue that has been flagged by Congress as a weakness in our Service. Still, every position in an embassy or consulate requires some degree of interaction with host-country counterparts. Officers and specialists alike are required to negotiate in a foreign language and maintain work- ing relationships with their local contacts as a basic component of the job. Yet for a variety of reasons, the department is reluctant to designate language desig- nated positions. First, there is the assump- tion that because an embassy’s locally employed staff speak English, a foreign language is not required in the office. That may be true in some instances. However, during my management career, I have fired LES members for malfeasance, detected only because I understood statements they made in the office in their native language. In addition, an LES member’s ability to trans- late could be hampered by limited English-language skills or lack of technical knowledge. We have all been in the position of listening to a host-country interlocu- tor speak energetically for two or three minutes, only to have the entire speech sum- marized as “He disagrees.” Even professional translators sometimes have difficulty doing simultaneous transla- tion, while technical jargon outside their field may be unfamiliar to many. Another reason is staff- ing. Designating a position as LDP requires that priority be given to those who already speak the language. (Indeed, those who do not already have the language cannot list those positions as core bids.) At posts that are already hard to staff, or for positions in skill groups with a small number of members, that requirement can severely limit the ability to staff those jobs. Because the department makes decisions about language training based on the number of LDPs in each language and skill group, and the percent- age of qualified applicants who are available to bid on those jobs, this becomes a vicious circle. Reducing the number of LDPs translates into a reduction of resources for training in the relevant language, eventually reduc- ing the number of speakers of that language among the skill group associated with the job. This can lead to a cycle of further reduction in LDPs, because there are not enough language-trained applicants to fill them. Language training require- ments in the career develop- ment plans for Office Man- agement Specialists, among others, have been reduced in part because so few OMS positions are language desig- nated. This affects decisions about Language Incentive Pay, as well. Both of these issues are currently under discussion between AFSA and management. If the department were serious, it would require lan- guage skills as a requirement for every job, and ensure that every member, regardless of skill code, learn a language before tenure. It would use the current LDP process solely to designate levels of proficiency required for each position. State should also make the language designation process completely indepen- dent of resource or staffing factors, basing it on actual desk audits and observa- tion of the full range of an employee’s activities. Does failure to speak the language hamper daily activities? Does it make the employee or fam- ily members more vulnerable to terror threats or crime? Those factors, and those factors alone, should result in not just a recommenda- tion, but a determination, that a position should be designated at a given level. Only then will we be able to fully engage both diplomati- cally and socially overseas, and meet our stated goal of truly representing the United States around the world. n