Hello everybody
Jim has asked me to forward this response to the list after many attempts
to do so himself. Technical glitches of some kind, it seems.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: [log in to unmask] (Jim Davis)
Date sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:42:08 -0500 (EST)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Stage Accessibility at the Oscars
It is odd that DS has been recently characterized on this list, as a
field "primarily" concerned with physical environmental barriers, over
social kinds. And many others have insisted to me, that they're Social
Model-ists who put an equal amount of attention into both social and
physical barriers. Hmmmmm.
This thread of posts on "King Gimp"s" award presentation, seems to
(once again) indicate otherwise.
Aside from the way the discussion blasted off, with assumptions that
they guy in the wheelchair had to be one of the film's makers, and
therefor was suffering from discrimination RIGHT THERE ON TEEVEE!!!, (he
isn't, and he wasn't)..... none of the posts reveals even the slightest
interest in actually verifying the other "discrimination" part of the
story -- the "built environment" part.....the accessibility status of
the theatre stage in question. Gee, if we're all so big on considering
environmental-barrier factors, how did competent consideration of that
area get left out of yet another discussion on this list? We even had
a thorough thrashing out of the question of --" Should this guy have
protested?".... (which in this case was a purely imaginary question,
because he was in fact not suffering any discrimination to protest.)
But the "built environment" half of the story, never got any
consideration beyond the shallowest kind; mere assumptions.
Accessibility in this building, at THIS event, has to be evaluated
differently, than if this same theatre were being used for a play or
say, a lecture-hall type event.
Considering how that theatre is used for this awards show (nominees and
others are all mixed in the audience, winners hear their names, bask in
the applause etc. of all around them, and proceed directly & quickly up
to the stage to get their awards, with a billion people watching, which
puts a lot of eyeballs on the person who takes a lot longer to get up on
that stage)... I would definitely NOT say that some sort of round-about
"back-door" access route to that stage, would constitute "access that is
truly equal in all regards" (my phrase; though such a back-way set up
might meet "the letter" of how the ADA and other Calif. or L.A. access
codes define the much much narrower legal definition of what they
misleadingly term "equal access"). Mere "back door" access would be
extremely unequal, for a ceremony orchestrated like the Oscars. Of
course, if they pre-planted the mobility-disabled nominees backstage in
order to have any who win, already up at that level so they can quickly
go out and get the award, or if they were to take the award & a
microphone directly to a PWD in the audience -- that sort of
"alternative" arrangement would deprive these individuals of many of the
joys that the AB nominees and winners take for granted.
And let's not forget, that there is an equal-employment aspect to this
accessibility question. This is not a purely social event. It's about
people's work. This is a professional career-building type event, for
people who in many if not most cases are essentially freelancers, with
fragile careers. Supposing that white-haired cinematographer who won,
had been less mobile, and had used a quad-cane, to very slowly and
painfully get up those steps. Would this have affected the industry's
perception of his continuing employability, for more films? Would
some mogul have thought "too old" and crossed him off some list for an
upcoming production? In a professional situation like this, one can be
almost sure that nobody would ever file an ADA complaint against the
Academy; that could be career-suicide. So the situation calls for the
institution to do stuff beyond what the access codes contemplate (see
below for explanation), in a situation in which there may never be any
enforcement of even those weak codes.
So I would say the proper question is this: Does this awards program, in
that space, provide stage access that is "truly equal in all regards"?
Many post-ers to this list claim to know the answer. I don't. I am
trained as an architect, and have been working on building renovations
for 25 years, and from the information available on my TV screen, I
cannot answer that question. That building's old, but does the stage
have lifts at either side of the front? (Or maybe even concealed, in
locations closer to the middle of the stage front?) I don't know. Not
enough information.
If I can find out, maybe I'll write an article about it.
PS: The 39 minute film "King Gimp" is described on the web site of the
International Documentary Association. People wanting to show it can
reach the distributor through them.
Best regards
Laurence Bathurst
School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Sydney
P.O. Box 170
Lidcombe NSW 2141
Australia
Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Please visit the School's interim web site at
http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|