Help me compose a rant.... I mean rebuttal.

[selkiechick]

I am on a committee of a conventions and we are talking policy. We are talking about medical documentation requirements for accommodations, and I am having a hard time finding the right words to tell them why this is a /terrible/ idea, and as a newb of sorts, I'd love to have some authority to stand on. Is there a good blog post or website out there already outlining the reasons why that is a bad requirement, and why?

Thank you.

(I promise, my next post will have content)

Comments

[wordweaverlynn]

Medical documentation requirements for accommodations????

1. It's expensive to con members.

2. Also humiliating.

3. Also difficult -- people who need accommodations face enough daily challenges; even if they have the extra spoons to produce their documentation, they certainly won't look forward to spending their time and money that way.

4. This policy sends entirely the wrong message: "You're a burden and you're probably lying, so we need to make you jump through hoops to prove you really need help, which we will furnish begrudgingly. Because people like you are not worth our time, energy, and accommodation."

5. Has anybody worked out the logistics of this? Who's going to check all that medical documentation? Who will check the passes to allow the hard-of-hearing into seats up front? How will you issue those passes? Or do you plan to make the disabled brand themselves in some way? Moreover, many ways of making a con accessible are part of structural planning -- like making aisles in the dealers' room 60 inches wide at a minimum (so wheelchair users can pass safely), or hanging signs at both wheelchair-level and standing-adult level, or having ingredient lists in the consuite.

6. If your convention goes with this policy, it will stir up a shitstorm of Biblical proportions. Have your fellow con members forgotten Racefail? and the recent scandals in sexual harassment? Believe me, the community of people with disabilities will rise up on the Internet and totally freaking trash the con, the concom, and anybody who supports such an inane and idiotic policy. And I can guarantee you that I will be one of the most vociferous.

7. Why would anyone think it's a GOOD idea?

ETA: My qualifications: I have been on the concom of FOGcon from the beginning, and I ran Access for several years. I also run the website.

[boxofdelights]

It's a bad idea because the goal of an access committee is to remove barriers, not invent new ones... isn't it?

[rydra_wong]

In addition to what's already been said:

*It forces people to disclose private medical information.

*Disabilities don't actually come with nice neat little information packs explaining all the situations in which someone may need accomodations. Demanding that people visit their doctors/healthcare providers in order to request a letter of some kind to "prove" that they need X is imposing a substantial extra burden on them.

*Seriously, why the hell should people have to "prove" their disability in order to use accommodations? What's the point, even? What sort of unfair advantage do they imagine that people are somehow scheming to get by pretending to have disabilities? It's not like people are generally going round going, "hey, I hear perfectly well, but I'm going to ask for a sign language interpreter just for shits and giggles."

*Is the con planning to not provide accommodations unless attendees send in information in advance "proving" that they need them? E.g. "we'll be in a wheelchair-inaccessible building unless someone books in advance and proves they need ramp access". Because that says very strongly "our default is to be inaccessible". And obviously effectively guarantees that people with disabilities can't choose to attend the con on the day.

[jadelennox]

In the united states, it may be so difficult to ask for the documentation legally that the lawyers' fees to protect the con from an ADA lawsuit will be more money than the free aide membership. Requiring documentation for accommodations is legally fraught (as it should be).

[sasha_feather]

The idea behind this is that someone might be "faking" a disability in order to get a free membership for their friend.

If they are-- big deal. Let it go. How much money is the con actually losing if someone actually does this? (Which is an unlikely scenario!)

If you force someone to prove their disability, it's a much greater risk, as jadelennox said above. It's basically about balancing needs-- the convention's need to protect itself from supposed fraud, vs. the member's need to feel safe and respected. The need to feel safe and respected wins out.

[automaticdoor]

36.302(a) here likely applies, as I'm almost positive the con is considered a public accommodation.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm#a302

[soc_puppet]

A couple years back, I found out that one of our registration people had interrogated an attendee's staff assistant over their right to be there as an adult-in-tow (which is a great name and I'm implementing it in our con ASAP) while I was away for a bit. I was furious, not only because I had assured the attendee over e-mail that it wouldn't be a problem, but because this same person had been the one to advocate against explicitly stating on our website that we comp badges for staff assistants of attendees. How the hell else would the attendee have found out that we comp badges for attendants, huh?

(I may have told this story here before, but only because it pisses me off.)

Ahem. That is to say, I know where you're coming from. I have in the past made the argument that an adult-in-tow is effectively necessary equipment for the attendee to actually attend, even if they do come with a brain installed. If the adult-in-tow also happens to enjoy anime, goody for them! They're still there to help the attendee in the first place.