Now that conferences are virtual. But I really do think each conference should have an #ADA expert on the team. As a deaf attendee, I request captioning for full access b/c I want to learn more about medicine just like everyone else. But one conference first said "No" to me.(1/n)
At first, I was disappointed in their response bc it's a constant remainder that I have to deal with limited access all the time. BUT, it's an opportunity to educate them about access. Perhaps they never had deaf attendees before despite being a well-known association. (2/n)
I emailed them back and briefly explained the law - but no response. I called them instead and explained the law again. As I expected, the conference didn't know how to provide accessibility, nor was aware of the law. I was asked if I know any services. So they seemed nice (3/n)
Fortunately, virtual sessions will be recorded. The conf organizer says the recordings can be captioned. But they tried to give me the responsibility of paying for captioning. But I gently reminded them that it is their responsibility to provide access bc of ADA. Silence. (4/n)
The organizer broke the silence by saying they would talk to their supervisor and send a follow-up email. I thanked them for their time and waited for their response. Then they sent a positive(?) email yesterday, which was the 30th ADA anniversary - what a funny coincidence (5/n)
In their email, they advised me to contact a captioning company and they will cover their invoices. In other words, they ARE paying to give me full access. Great news? Yes. BUT, it is a really big conf, meaning tons of sessions every day. It could be a problem (6/n)
Bc the conf has a limited budget for accessibility, I had to choose which session to go per day. Many, many sessions are rly interesting, but I had to make thoughtful and wise choices. In this sense, why can't I have full access to ALL sessions like a hearing person could? (7/n)
This is the definition of hearing privilege. Hearing people have no problem accessing the recordings w/o captions, but I would feel excluded. What if a session I chose isn't good quality? What if a session I didn't choose is rly amazing? How is that equitable? (8/n)
Honestly, I do think captions benefit everyone. It's an INTERNATIONAL conf where English is the primary lang. Some non-native English speakers might rely on captions to understand the content. Deaf, hard of hearing, and ppl w/ auditory processing disorders do as well. (9/n)
Yes, the conf budget might be tight rn (perhaps bc of pandemic?), but there's $$$ somewhere. It's an international organization w/ a HUGE database of paid members & donors. I don't appreciate that money is constantly valued over access. Access is a HUMAN right. (10/n)
While I make a list of choices, I plan to contact the org again after their conf. Based on the website, it looks like there is no ADA expert. I'm (un)surprised to see tons of MDs on the board. Medicine has a long history of bias against minorities. We have more work to do. (11/n)
What I can do is to initiate a thoughtful discussion with the org about the importance of access. Compel them to empathize the marginalized. Advise them to hire an ADA expert, so that their future confs will be more accessible and inclusive. Education is rly the key here (12/n)
Parting words: don't just give up when your right to access is not recognized. Engage in problem-solving w/ the conference bc they might appreciate it, esp when they are not familiar with access. If all else fails, it might not be a bad idea to hire an ADA lawyer. (13/13)
