Black and white photograph of a young woman dressed in a checked=A recent article in the New York Times highlighted a paid advertising campaign being pushed by agencies in 30 states that work with employment, health and human services aimed at citizens with disabilities (thanks to my friend Lindsay for passing it along!).

With an estimated $4 million budget, and hoping to raise $10 million for services, the ads are markedly different from traditional PSAs. Rather than moralizing, they use the humor of “normal” people’s eccentricities to argue that companies already hire people with various differences or disadvantages – so why not hire someone with a disability? There’s an emphasis on rejecting labels or stereotypes, as evidenced by the campaign’s website, Think Beyond the Label. The spots themselves show individuals including a girl who is “Pattern Deficient,” as well as a dancing man who is “Rhythm Impaired,” who are already hired and considered basically “normal. A television ad runs as follows:

a worker in a wheelchair points out her colleagues who “you could label as ‘different.’ ” Among them are a woman dressed in a nightmare wardrobe of clashing patterns, who is “fashion deficient”; a klutzy young man at the copier, who is “copy incapable”; and a shouting man who suffers from “volume control syndrome.”

The punch line of the commercial is that the worker in the wheelchair is different, too: Her skills at a basic office function are so bad that she is labeled “coffee-making impaired.”

The message, it seems, is one of tolerance – everyone is different in their own way, and we must accept others differences as potentially enriching (and at least irrelevant). The spots are aimed at HR professionals, managers, and other (presumably able-bodied) people with the power to influence hiring decisions. Disability, the spots imply, is just another quirky difference.

Though the ads may do a good job of cracking through public ignorance of the employment issues often faced by people with disabilities, and they have gotten positive responses from people with disabilities involved with the campaign, I doubt their potential to ameliorate workplace conditions. By placing disability on a level with various quirks, the realities of disability as a lived experience is erased. How will a hiring manager inspired by this campaign react when they realize that they hired someone who will need significant accommodations to succeed in the workplace? The question of ability or needs is conspicuously absent from the campaign, evidencing the desire to move beyond “labels” but not to address real physical or social challenges. Think Beyond the Label describes itself as “committed to making the business case for employing people with disabilities” – this is really similar to the dominant discourse on web accessibility (it can optimize your search engine results and bring new customers!). Where is the social justice case? The moral argument? The rights-based realities of the ADA and other legislation?

Plus, the ad can easily be read in reverse – rather than “people with disabilities are just different, like everyone else,” it could be seen to be asserting that the girl in mis-matched clothing is “disabled” – a move that minimizes the experience and voices of those who do face challenges due to disability. As Eva recently wrote about her experience being told “everyone’s retarded in their own way” – wow. There’s a sympathy toward disability in both instances, but the expression just doesn’t quite connect.

The commercial is set to run during most of the high-profile Sunday morning news shows, the web ads will appear at CNN.com, ESPN.com and WSJ.com, and the print ads will be in The Wall Street Journal, Time, and HR Magazine among other places. I’ll be keeping an eye out, and if you happen to come across one of these, I’d love it if you could send me a screenshot/video/etc!

P.S. The title is reference to Avenue Q song “Everyone’s a little bit racist” – not a serious question.

Heidi, a blonde white woman in a pink shirt, looks sad.Today, I’m stepping outside my usual zone a little bit and ruminating on television and celebrity at Anne Helen Petersen’s fantastic blog, Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style.

I’ve been a fan of The Hills since the beginning – though my viewing has dropped off lately – and after rewatching some early seasons, I suggest that Heidi can be read as a tragic character. With the benefit of hindsight, and the inundation of media coverage of Heidi and Spencer, her transformations over the past few years (including her recent extensive plastic surgery) take on a more sinister cast. I’m not wedded to this idea – it’s still floating around while I make sense of it, and this blog post is a start.

Check it out!

Garland-Thompson, a white woman with short white hair and dark glasses, speaking.Just a quick post today – I’m dying to read Rosemarie Garland-Thompson’s book, Staring: How We Look but couldn’t find a way to work it into the prelims reading lists that dominate my free time right now. Until I get around to reading it, though, this video is a nice introduction.* Would be great for teaching, but is also just a well-done blurb on the issue.

*Unfortunately, it is not part of YouTube’s attempted captioning program, and doesn’t have any captions of its own.

Just a quick hit to say happy birthday to Louis Braille and the written system he pioneered. There are a number of articles out there lately focused on how e-readers are supplanting Braille. E-readers, Kindles and screenreaders for the web are all exciting and useful technologies, and from a universal design standpoint, they do a lot of good crossover work as both assistive devices for people with visual impairments and as enhancing technologies for those with vision.

But, as is pointed out in FWD’s link round-up, these technologies are only useful for visually impaired people with normal hearing abilities. Even more troubling, from some research I did on screenreader technology a few years ago, these audio technologies are difficult to learn, synthesized speech is still imperfect, and the temporal element of having written material read aurally means that progress and comprehension can be very slow. Thus, a number of people still prefer screenreaders that create Braille output – it can be skimmed, revisited, and stored much more easily than audio formats.

So, hooray for Braille and ongoing advances in making the written word available to all! Blogging will continue to be light around here, as I’m travelling more in January, so here’s a thematically appropriate web comic from XKCD to wrap things up!

A stick figure reads a sign in Braille - the Braille does not match the written text, but begins to say "Sighted People Suck"

Britain's Missing Top Model castLast night, BBC America began airing Britain’s Missing Top Model, prompting a wave of media attention on this side of the pond. Focusing on eight women with disabilities who aspire to be models, and seemingly based on the international hit America’s Next Top Model format, the series originally aired in the summer of 2008 on BBC 3.

A lot of press on this show, in 2008 and today, has focused on the potentially inspiring element of the competition. Presenting disabled women as sexually desirable is still a rarity in most television and mass media, and thus the self-confidence, beauty, and audacity of the contestants has been applauded. Yet, no coverage seems untroubled by the premise of the show. Questions of exploitation, ongoing discrimination, and possible offensive content have been raised both in 2008 and again this week.

In TIME’s 2008 coverage, for instance, the author points out that the guaranteed modelling contract associated with Top Model programs is notably absent, as the winner merely got the chance to be considered by an agency. And Liz Carr, of BBC’s Ouch! radio program, adds

I’m not sure that seeing disabled women prance around in lingerie and having their bodies objectified is the best way to change representation.

In the transition to American cable television, The New York Times, online newsmagazine Salon and Gawker blog Jezebel have taken up the contradictions and mixed messages in the program. NYT gets off on the wrong foot entirely, claiming modeling as the “last bastion of prejudice” in which people are discriminated against because of their looks. Of course, many people including those with disabilities do face discrimination and/or harassment because of their appearance in many walks of life. Of course, modeling is an industry based on upholding standards of beauty, but even the Grey Lady recognizes that the contestants of BMTM are more conventional than not. Young, thin, white and confident, these women very nearly meet conventional standards of beauty, as Kate Harding snarks in Salon – “Now it’s just about the 100 or so demerits the show deserves for sexism, exploitation, cluelessness, condescension, etc. — and I feel perfectly confident docking those points without having seen the show.” Jezebel’s pre-show coverage and later review have the same takeaway – thin is still in!

Concerns about exploitation of the models run high in the NYT, as the show “makes a spectacle of their hunger for acceptance.” Reality TV is villianized, of course, for its reliance on highlighting the insecurities of participants, and a paternalistic thread runs through the article. Harding, as well, insinuates that the show designs challenges to demoralize each contestant in turn – a tactic that traditional Top Model has always used, as well.

A final controversy centers on the inclusion of women with invisible disabilities, including two deaf women. The judges, and media coverage of the show, can’t decide whether a disability that is not noticeable in a photograph “counts” toward their stated mission of finding a model with a disability to celebrate. In such concerns, it’s hard not to think of Heather Kuzmich, a contestant on cycle 9 of America’s Next Top Model who was open about her Asperger’s.

I haven’t seen Britain’s Missing Top Model yet – it’s on the DVR! and I love shows about models! – but I’m curious about how these intersections of disability, gender, beauty, and fashion will play out. And, I’d add, the intersection of British television and culture with American audiences looks to be another possible site of controversy. Though none of the above sources mention it, the cultural environment around BMTM is quite different from the American media landscape. Produced by a public service broadcaster (BBC 3) with a mandate regarding inclusion, it seems unlikely that exploitation or fetishism is the primary motivation behind the show. Furthermore, from its online presence on the BBC site, BMTM prominently links to Ouch!, “the BBC’s disability website.” Ouch! has forums, a blog and podcasts – it’s an integrated part of the media landscape in a way that disability certainly isn’t by American networks. The UK has its own vibrant history of disability theory and activism, as well, and I can’t help but be interested in the cultural differences that may shape reception of this show in the US, under a different set of discourses and expectations around disability.