There are two levels at work in these videos and in any discussion of accessibility and intersectionality. At one level there are structural and institutional considerations. UAL proclaims their use of the social model of disability – a pretty low bar.(University of the Arts London 2020) Ade Adeptian talks about transport and employment issues.(ParalympicsGB 2020) Christine Sun Kim talks about all the “no”s she heard while studying because the resources weren’t made available.(Art21 2023) Chay Brown talks about trade unions organising conferences and accessibility budgets.(ParaPride 2023) All of those points refer to how the conditions to create accessibility require policy, budgets and labour which need to be valued.
On the other hand, there is a engagement with accessibility that needs to occur at a personal level. Adeptian hints towards the person who decides not to employ someone because of access issues or racism, or both. Sun Kim talks about members of her family not learning sign language. Brown talks about the Trade Union using a person-centred approach, which requires a logic of intimacy and care.
Most of the intersectional issues, how the disability of the speakers intersects with their other identities, are hinted towards but not addressed directly. How does Sun Kim’s deafness intersect with her identity as an Asian American, women, or mother? Did not having to think about the costs of childcare and public healthcare impacted her experience of deaf motherhood? Did Adeptian’s blackness impacted his access to disabled spaces or opportunities? Brown is more open about specific barriers to LGBTQ spaces that can trigger extreme anxiety.
I think that an intersectional approach to disability require both levels to work in parallel because it is in large policy gestures like the proclamation of generalities as if they were actions, that large groups of people can be made invisible. Mia Mingus, who self-defines as a queer physically disabled woman of colour adoptee, outlined Access Intimacy as a core principle of disability justice, a suggestion on how to reframe the tension between those two levels.
“The power of access intimacy is that it reorients our approach from one where disabled people are expected to squeeze into able bodied people’s world, and instead calls upon able bodied people to inhabit our world.It challenges able bodied supremacy by valuing disability—not running from disability—but moving towards it. It asserts that there is value in disabled people’s lived experiences. In this way, it reframes both how and where solidarity can be practiced. Access intimacy is shared work by all people involved, it is no longer the familiar story of disabled people having to do all the work to build the conversations and piece together the relationship and trust that we know we need for access—that we know we need in order to survive. I know this has been the story of my life, especially with able bodied people of color and able bodied queer people of color.“
(Mingus 2017)
But as Mingus says, someone has to do that work. As Brown mentions, there has to be an accessibility budget. As Sun Kim mentions, you need the budget to pay for the Sign Language Interpreter to join the night class session. As a course we aim to make the course as accessible as possible which has meant that we have a high number of disabled students accepting our offers. But every access issue that we embrace, requires an increase amount of staff time that is not recognised or budgeted by UAL. Each access choice is more and more dependent on staff volunteering time. Each tutor group leader has at least 25% students with ISAs and different requirements, and that proportion increases every year, while the number of extra hours that are not specifically assigned to curriculum delivery has been reduced to almost zero. Not to mention that we all have a number of black, brown, Asian and working-class students who should have an ISA but don’t feel entitled or have the time or emotional energy to engage with disability services.
Who is affected by those reductions? Who volunteers that time? Mainly disable staff themselves, who practice access intimacy even if it isn’t named but as an everyday practice of political solidarity. UAL proudly proclaims to embrace a social model of disability while squeezing resources and support in order to increase profits[i].
[i] See UAL’s Size and Shape policy for more details in the plans to keep increasing number of students and reducing staff in the next five years, without increasing spatial or support infrastructure.
Bibliography
Art21, dir. 2023. Christine Sun Kim in “Friends & Strangers” – Season 11 | Art21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpRaEDlLsI.
Mingus, Mia. 2017. ‘Access Intimacy, Interdependence and Disability Justice’. Leaving Evidence (blog). 12 April 2017. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/.
ParalympicsGB, dir. 2020. Ade Adepitan Gives Amazing Explanation of Systemic Racism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsxndpgagU.
ParaPride, dir. 2023. Intersectionality in Focus: Empowering Voices during UK Disability History Month 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yID8_s5tjc.
University of the Arts London, dir. 2020. The Social Model of Disability at UAL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdnjmcrzgw.
Hi Andrea
Yes …
There is an enormous gap between discourse and practice at institutional level happening at UAL, and I am seeing that gap increase year after year at an accelerated pace. For years I’ve been “volunteering time” to practice what I called “filling the cracks”, literally doing extra hours (outside my hpl contract) to compensate for the lack of resources and institutional support, and create a challenging and highly supportive learning environment in my studio.
The problem is that now we have reached a point where the landscape is so dry (under-resourced in terms of time and space for teaching and learning) that everything and everyone are under stress, and it became simply not possible or effective to practice “access intimacy” at an individual level only.
The cracks will show very quickly.
Andrea.
I always find your writing engaging and thought-provoking. Here you write about disability.
You make a good point about the two layers of this issue that you noticed in all the videos. You also mention that the intersectionality of the disability and other speakers’ identities is hinted towards but isn’t addressed directly at. This statement really made me think of the videos and the people speaking, because, honestly, until you mentioned it, I hadn’t noticed it.
Thinking about it now, I wonder if the speakers avoid being direct because they’re simply tired. Tired of repeating the same truths without seeing real change or rarely seeing it. Or perhaps they’re being polite, trying to fit in, and trying not to be labeled as complaining, demanding, or any of the other dismissive things that (some) able-bodied people say when they feel uncomfortable or challenged.
I think that it’s even more obvious now, that their intersectionality plays a huge part, for example the Adeptian’s blackness without doubt impacted his access to disabled spaces or opportunities.
Also, a great quote by Mingus and a great suggestion that access intimacy could be the solution.
On UAL context:
Before coming to CSM, I’ve worked at another HE institution where it was very similar to UAL: students’ numbers gradually rising, diversity and inclusivity improving, until the numbers were too much and we ended up with a lot of student complaints and even more unhappy and overworked staff and forgotten and disappointed students. It looks like UAL is going in that direction.
But between the students’ numbers going from “not enough students and too many students”, I would like to say, even if it sounds naive, something magical happened. Staff, academic and technical, together with students, found new ways of teaching, embracing diversity and embracing students and their ideas.
I have seen students’ collaborations and work that was inventive and crazy good. It was hard, challenging, and personal. But I was blown away daily by ideas and creative solutions that happened due to diversity, inclusivity and a lot of dedication from the staff. Not the institution.
Hopefully, WE can also be the change at the UAL.
Apologies for the laaaaate reply…
This is eye opening and very relevant. Intersectionality is obviously such a complex concept especially if you do a case by case study on particular individuals lived experience. When you have so many students that come into the institution and so many staff members that dedicate their time to the institution and the students, how much data is being collected and what is that data being used for? Especially if its a creative institution, how is it supporting its marginalised teaching and student base properly? As I have been working more closely with UAL in the last 2 years and I have noticed and been made aware of UAL’s shortcomings and what some might call performative action because it still keeps a status quo attitude to academia. How much money can the university make without spending too much money on supporting the seen/unseen conditions that students and staff have and the spaces that they require to fulfil their studies. Food for thought!!