Bad Translation

My father, a translator, was hired by a man who suspected that his wife was unfaithful and married him only to get a green card. He had my father translate photocopied pages from her diary. Family members think this was unethical. My father maintains he simply did his job. You? (Incidentally, the diary confirmed the devastated man’s suspicions, and he is initiating divorce proceedings.) — Nicole Schou, San Francisco

Although your father was only following orders (sorry, just doing his job), he must subject his actions to moral scrutiny. Because those pages were ill gotten and their possession violated the privacy of the diarist (albeit a two-timing diarist), your dad should have declined the job. The diary’s revelations are beside the point. What’s at issue is his abetting the misconduct of the understandably dismayed but unduly snooping cuckold.

The code of ethics of the American Translators Association requires a member “to refuse any assignment he believes to be intended for illegal or dishonest purposes, or against the public interest,” an impressively broad proscription. (The public interest might be affronted by sentimental folderol like “Chicken Soup for the Nascar Soul,” but the A.T.A. would not bar anyone translating it or its companion volume, “Chicken Soup for the Soul Nascar Xtreme Race Journal for Kids.”) While this taboo does not quite describe this situation — the diary contains no industrial secrets or military plans — the dubious way in which it was obtained forecloses your father’s involvement. The law may allow translation — he has a photocopy; he is not in possession of stolen goods — but ethics does not.

A translator can not investigate the source of every document he encounters, but if he knows that he’s perusing a purloined letter, he should demur. A clerk at a copy shop must perform only the mechanical function of reproducing whatever he is handed; he need not actually read it. But a translator cannot avoid scrutinizing the document put before him and, in many cases, inferring how it was obtained. That knowledge compels him to make ethical choices.

My son is an athlete at a small college. He and many teammates have jobs supervised by assistant coaches who encourage them to “round up” the number of hours they work — to say they worked longer than they did. My son is efficient enough to finish his work faster than the time allocated. Is he an “honest sucker” if he alone reports accurately? — name withheld, San Francisco

It is reasonable for an employer to calculate a partial hour worked as a full hour — i.e., to pay X dollars for each hour or portion of an hour worked. Reasonable, but foolish. Who’d work two hours when he could receive the same pay for working an hour and a half? (An employer may not round down, of course; all time worked must be compensated.) If the college has such a (silly) policy, nobody is doing anything unethical; if not, the coaches should be rebuked for encouraging deceit. But your son’s conduct should not be contingent on the honesty of others.

A better approach for the school: pay not by the hour but by the task — thus your son would not be penalized for his efficiency. Another way employers respond to excellent workers: promote them and give them raises. (As opposed to the way some corporations respond to ineffectual bosses: retire them and give them millions of dollars.)