Taking a break from writing tonight. Settled in with my yuzu tea and listening to this lecture by Tanya Titchkosky:
As she's discusses accessible toilets, I'm flashing back to my own ex-institution that added in one accessible toilet (for the NAAC points) but insisted on keeping it locked with the key in the principal's office. Despite all my efforts, I could not get them to leave it unlocked.
Their assumption was that it would be non-viable to keep the toilet clean if all students could access it (ridiculous), and cleanliness was repeatedly used as justification for inaccessibility (eliding the real reason: it was serving as a private toilet for the vice principal).
This was even while we had people who likely needed to use that toilet on campus but who felt that it being locked meant an additional barrier that was embarassing/ awkward/ hard to overcome (as not everyone is always in their office and students are not allowed in then).
There's something to hearing Tanya Titchkosky ask how we're supposed to keep a job or soul in a situation like this: where the institution is proclaiming access and using it as a particular kind of social currency, while all the while undermining any access with stubborn ableism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
