skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One of the most impressive initiatives I discovered in England is a consortium of 16 museums in London who cater to the deaf and hearing impaired community called MAGIC (Museums and Galleries in the Capital). Some of the museums that participate on the MAGIC website are the British Museum, the Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, the National Gallery, the Royal Academy of the Arts, Tate Britain, Tate Modern, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and more. This organization has a website that posts all the events that each museum provides for the Deaf community in London, and it allows visitors of the website to provide feedback about these museums’ programming. MAGIC also has videos in BSL (British Sign Language) that explain information about the website. The events posted on this website consist of lectures and/or tours that either may be interpreted or conducted by a person who is Deaf. Some museums out of the 16 seem to provide more accommodations than the others; these museums do not all provide the same accommodations. This website is a wonderful way of consolidating information so that Deaf visitors can find programs for multiple museums at once.
After my search for a consortium of equal caliber in the United States, I walked away empty-handed. In the United States, a Deaf person must navigate art museum websites individually, contact them through TTY (a teletypewriter which is a telephone system connected to a keyboard), a rely service (a third-party operator service which allows people who are deaf/hard of hearing to make calls through TTY or via webcams and video phones to those who do not have TTY’s, webcams, or video phones), or through e-mail to discover whether a museum can provide accommodations such as an interpreter for a person who is Deaf weeks in advance of the person's visit.
Maybe this can happen in the United States...
Upon searching through museum websites in the United States, I have found that a few major art museums in New York City, other than the MET, have developed exemplary programming for members of the Deaf community. These museums include the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), the Whitney Museum of American Art, Guggenheim New York and The Frick Collection. With so many museums that offer regular programming for individuals who are Deaf, the city of New York comes closest to possibly creating a website that is equivalent to the MAGIC website in England. Perhaps the New York State Council on the Arts can partner with local Deaf organizations and New York museums to create a central website for Deaf programming.
Ann Silver
Deaf & Dumb, 1903, Deaf, 1993
Mixed Media
1993
References
National Council on Disability (NCD). (July 26, 2007). Implementation of the Americans with disabilities act: Challenges, best practices, and new opportunities for success. Retrieved April 2, 2009 from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2007/implementation_07-26-07.htm#_Toc167075604.
Bridging the Training Gap
In order to bridge this gap, museums can work with organizations or consulting companies that specialize in the area of disabilities. These disability organizations and consultants can help create and/or implement trainings for the staff in art museums and audit the museum’s accessibility practices. For instance, in the city of Chicago, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities provides disability awareness training for the workplace. Also, according to its website, the national organization Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC) is made of 10 regional centers in the U.S. that has trainings on several disability-related subjects and can create tailored trainings for institutions as well as provide people information, referrals, and resources about the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the case of university museums, since these museums are part of a university and serve the student population, university museums should develop a relationship with and consult the department for students with disabilities to assist in obtaining accessibility resources or creating a training program for employees. Once trainings have been established and implemented to appropriate (if not all) staff members and the art museum is equipped to accommodate members of the Deaf community, a marketing plan should be developed so that all efforts and preparations do not go unused.
Bridging the Marketing Gap
A very good way to advertise towards members of the Deaf community is through websites of local Deaf people and Deaf organizations, by sending museum representatives to Deaf churches and working with Deaf organizations and local Deaf art museum goers for marketing help and advice. It would also be wise for museums to acknowledge people of varying abilities in all advertisements through the simple use of logos such as the samples shown in this image:
Acknowledging accommodations in general advertising would create awareness about these services to everyone who looks at these advertisements, thus revealing this valuable information to friends and family members of someone who is Deaf or has a different type of ability (Deafworks, 2001; NEA, NEH, NASAA & JFK Center for Performing Arts, 2003). Such marketing initiatives can help create awareness about people with varying abilities and their rights to accommodations, and spread the word to the population at large that the museum provides such services.
Bridging the ADA Enforcement Gap
There are some changes that could be made to improve the enforcement methods prescribed by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to enhance the law’s effectiveness. One of these possible changes is to create a committee in each state that would provide assistance to cultural institutions such as museums and their level of ADA compliance. A good example of such a committee is the New York State Council on the Arts’ access advisory committee. This committee provides arts organizations in the state with resources on how to be more accessible to people with disabilities. For individual museums, access advisory committees can be formed at the local art institution, as well. (The publication titled Accessibility Planning and Resource Guide for Cultural Administrators has a section specifically about creating an access advisory committee and is available for download at http://www.nea.gov/resources/Accessibility/Planning/index.html.) An access advisory committee can be made up “of board member(s), executive director, program directors, Accessibility Coordinator, and consultants who represent and/or have disabilities. The consultants may be artists, cultural administrators, educators, accessibility experts, interested legislators, participants and audience members” (National Endowment for the Arts, 2004). Another way to bridge the ADA gap in art museums is to have museum organizations such as the American Association of Museums (AAM) create more stringent accessibility standards for physical and educational access when considering museums for accreditation or membership. Additionally, local Deaf and/or arts organizations can create an accessibility report card that grades the accessibility methods and programs of art museums in the area. (A great example of a report card can be downloaded and read using Adobe Acrobat Reader. It can be found at http://www.illinoissafeschools.org/page_attachments/0000/0030/VisibilityMatters_ReportCard.pdf. This report card evaluates lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) issues in programs that prepare educators to work in schools across Illinois.) A report card can be an effective way for Deaf organizations to evaluate websites, educational programs, and physical accessibility of a museum; it lets the institution know what is being done well and what can be improved in the area of accessibility, while empowering Deaf organizations and community members. Enforcement methods such as these would allow public and private institutions in our society as a whole to take more responsibility in providing equal educational access for members of the Deaf community.
References
Deafworks. (2001). Access for deaf people to museums and galleries: A review of good practice in London. London: Deafworks.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Nation Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), & The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. (2003). Design for accessibility: A cultural administrator’s handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) (December 14, 2004). Accessibility planning and resource guide for cultural administrators. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from http://arts.endow.gov/resources/accessibility/Planning/index.html.
Through my research in literature and through a focus group I conducted with Deaf adults, I have discovered 3 main gaps in museum accessibility. In this post I will explain these gaps. In the following post, I will discuss methods of bridging these gaps.
Gap #1: Training
The members of a museum’s staff who deal with the public the most are those who work at the entrance of museums, gallery guards, docents and other education staff. I have discovered a gap in the training of these staff members in the matter of accommodating individuals with different abilities. According to the Director of Education at an Illinois university museum, museum staff and docents have received little or no training in working with visitors who are disabled during her time of employment at her current university museum and at her previous art museum of 
employment (S.Prajapati, personal communication, October 29, 2008). It is hard to imagine how welcome visitors with disabilities feel when visiting institutions that are not prepared to communicate with and provide accommodations for them. For instance, there is a woman in Massachusetts who frequents museums and has a hearing dog; she constantly deals with explaining the presence of her dog to the staff at entrances of museums, throughout galleries to the guards, and to members of the public while in galleries (Cassedy, 1993). This situation is created when members of the entire museum staff are not oriented on disability accommodations available at the museum. Coming across so much resistance during museum visits can discourage visitors from attending museums.
Gap #2: Marketing & Advertisements
An additional gap I have noticed between art museums and accessibility practices is the lack of targeted marketing geared towards members of the Deaf community. Art museums that have difficulties attracting Deaf audiences to scheduled programs may have flaws in their methods of marketing these programs. Just as art museums have different marketing strategies for school programs, community programs, family programs and adult programs, these institutions should also consider making advertisements that are targeted towards members of the Deaf community. People with disabilities are a growing demographic that businesses such as art museums gloss over as potential visitors, customers, audience members, etc. According to Solutions Marketing Group, a marketing company that specializes in consumers with disabilities, people with disabilities in the United States have $220 billion in discretionary income (2008). Although I could not find statistics specific to the Deaf community, the reader can imagine that even a 1% portion of $220 billion is a considerable chunk of income. Additionally, considering the fact that anyone can become or develop a disability at any point, preparing and advertising educational programs for people with disabilities is not something that is so irrelevant to any service provider looking to increase revenue and attendance.
Gap #3: ADA Enforcement
Since the ADA was passed in 1990, books and other resources have been printed about making private and public cultural institutions accessible to people with disabilities. If this is the case, why are there still issues with providing accommodations to museum goers with disabilities nineteen years afterwards? I believe that the largest gap between art museums and providing accessibility for visitors with disabilities is the level of enforcement of the ADA. According to the ADA, institutions are excused from providing an accommodation for patrons with disabilities if the accommodation causes an undue burden financially (Jasper, 2008). This burden is loosely defined, which is perfectly understandable since each institution’s ability to provide accommodations may differ. Nonetheless, this room left for interpretation should not be used as a way for institutions to wiggle out of their responsibility towards providing equal experiences for visitors with disabilities. Also, within the ADA, there is no method of enforcement that makes service providers directly responsible for minimizing barriers for people with disabilities. However, there are two other methods of enforcement stated by the Americans with Disabilities Act; one method is reporting discrimination instances to the Department of Justice, and the other method is filing an individual lawsuit with the U.S. District Court. If one files a complaint to the Department of Justice, the complaint is assessed through an investigation, leading to a settlement of the situation. If it cannot be settled, then the complaint will be taken to court on behalf of the government (Jasper, 2008). One of the main problems with these two types of enforcement of the ADA is that the court cases may take a long time to settle. In addition, these methods of enforcement fail to put the responsibility of compliance on the institutions; it is the person with a disability who is held accountable for reporting an institution that does not comply with ADA laws. These two types of enforcement do not directly motivate art museums or any other institution to prevent accessibility barriers. As a result, different terms of enforcement and accountability need to be established in order for institutions such as art museums to become more proactive in changing their accessibility practices. Concerned citizens and members of the Deaf community can play a role in improving ADA enforcement.
References
Cassedy, S. (1993, January/February). The hearing dog’s tale: Campaign to raise awareness in the museum community about hearing dogs and the laws pertaining to them. Museum News, 72, 14-16.
Jasper, M.C. (2008). Americans with disabilities act. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Solutions Marketing Group. (2007). Disability facts. Retrieved on November 15, 2008. http://disability-marketing.com/facts/.
Adrean Clark
iPain
Digital Photo Manipulation
2005
To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate?
Although the Disability Rights and Deaf President Now movements created more avenues towards equality for Deaf people, there are still issues that the community faces today. One of these issues is whether or not institutions should be legally obligated to provide accommodations for the culturally Deaf. As mentioned before, members of the culturally Deaf community do not feel that their deafness is a disability, but a form of identity and way of life. If this is the case, some people feel that Deaf people should not advocate accommodations through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, Tucker (1997), who is deaf, mentions, “Deaf people cannot claim to be disabled for purposes of demanding accommodations under laws such as the ADA, yet claim that deafness is not a disability…” (p. 36). Tucker as well as other people, both deaf and hearing, feel that Deaf culturists are living contradictions, and that the Deaf community should not ask for accommodations under the ADA. Nonetheless, there are others who oppose this view. Humphries et al. (1994) state:
Deaf people may, at times, allow themselves to be categorized as ‘disabled’ out of social, economic, or political necessity. However, this adoption of a seemingly contradictory view of themselves does not diminish their sense of themselves as a culturally and linguistically sophisticated people (p. 10).
This view validates the Deaf community as a cultural entity, and supports their choices in requesting governmental support for equal access opportunities. Smith and Bienvenu (2007) compare Feminist Theory to the issues of the Deaf community and suggest developing a Deaf Theory based on the Feminist Theories that have already been developed. One of their points is based on the dichotomy between Deaf and hearing people, which states, “Deaf individuals (like women) can strive to have equal political/social power, while simultaneously being different than hearing (male) individuals” (p.61). The authors embrace this difference and believe there is nothing wrong with needing accommodations from institutions in order to create equality amongst people who are Deaf and hearing.
Cochlear Implants
Another issue that exists today in the Deaf community is curing deafness through the use of cochlear implants in children. A cochlear implant is a technological device that alleviates nerve deafness and is placed in the inner ear through surgery, which allows sound to travel straight to the brain rather than from the ear to the brain (Tucker, 1997). Deaf culturists feel that parents should not decide the fate of their young deaf children by fitting them with cochlear implants before they are at an age to make the decision on their own – they feel it is a violation of a child’s human rights. On the other hand, those who support the decisions of parents to provide cochlear implants to their young children cite scientific research that shows the earlier a child gets a cochlear implant, the more effective it is against deafness (Tucker, 1998). Also, Tucker (1998) poses the following argument about allowing deaf children to decide whether or not to receive a cochlear implant when they are older:
A person who is deaf does not learn to speak at the age of twelve or older, the age at which the child is arguably old enough to decide for herself how she wants to live her life. But a child who is deaf who learns to speak and is part of the hearing world during childhood can learn to sign later in life and join the Deaf world (p.8).
The arguments that these two opposing parties make are to this day, about ten years later, still being discussed, which shows how important an issue cochlear implants continue to be in our society.
Deaf Organizations & Preservation of Deaf Culture
There are two deaf organizations that continually battle over the preservation of Deaf culture versus the promotion of cochlear implants and other such technologies, and their positions are made quite obvious in their missions. The mission of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is “to preserve, protect and promote the civil, human and linguistic rights of all deaf Americans” (2008). The opposing organization, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell), states that its mission is “Advocating Independence through Listening and Talking” (2008). These two organizations butted heads recently in regards to the PepsiCo’s Super Bowl pre-game commercial advocating the use of American Sign Language aired on February 3, 2008. This commercial can be viewed at http://www.pepsiusa.com/index.php?panel=bobshouse. When the AG Bell organization found out that this commercial was going to be aired on a day with so many viewers, they wrote a letter to the Senior Vice President of PepsiCo Communications expressing how the commercial would promote a single stereotype of the diverse deaf community and that the money used to pay for this commercial could be used to provide hearing aids and other services for the deaf. This letter can be downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document at www.agbell.org/uploads/Pepsi3ltr.pdf. The NAD responded to AG Bell in a letter that expressed the organization’s disappointment for the lack of support for the rights of members of the Deaf culture. The NAD’s response can be seen at http://blogs.nad.org/president/?p=14. From the conflict surrounding this Super Bowl advertisement, one can see that the issues of preserving Deaf culture and curing deafness are ongoing, and have yet to be resolved.
References
AG Bell. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Home Page. Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.agbell.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?linkid=1.
Humphries, T., Padden, C., O’Rourke, T. (1994). A basic course in American sign language. (2nd ed.). Silver Spring: T.J. Publishers, Inc.
NAD. National Association of the Deaf Home Page. Retrieved April 21, 2008 from http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=91587.
Smith, K.L., Bienvenu, M.J. (2007). Deaf theory: What can we learn from feminist theory? Multicultural Education, 15(1), 58-63.
Tucker, B.P. (1997). The ADA and deaf culture: Contrasting precepts, conflicting results. Annals for the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 549, 24-36.
Tucker, B.P. (1998). Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. The Hastings Center Report, 28(4), 6-14.
Sandi Inches Vasnick
Silence
Batik
1989
The Disability Rights Movement
In retrospect, the community has come a long way in terms of establishing rights for themselves. Since the 1850’s, before the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950’s, people with disabilities have been fighting for equality in society; this movement is known as the Disability Rights Movement, which was inspired by the Civil Rights and Women’s Liberation Movements in the 1960’s. Through protests, civil disobedience, boycotts and organizations, people with disabilities have caught the eyes of policymakers in the United States government. Since the beginning of the Disability Rights Movement, there have been a string of laws enacted to help make equality a reality. I would like to give a brief overview of the Disability Rights Movement and governmental policies so that the reader can understand the struggle of people with disabilities who have been and continue to fight for equality. One of the first laws to directly address access issues for people with disabilities was passed in 1968 and was known as the Architectural Barriers Act. This act required facilities funded by the Federal Government to be physically accessible for individuals with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, more specifically Section 504, prohibits discrimination by the Federal Government and whatever they fund in the areas of facilities, programs and employment. This act was a pivotal civil rights law that led to the creation and development of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is more specific about how disability is defined; it branches outside of the Federal Government to include public and private institutions and transportation and telecommunication services. More recently, in 2008, amendments were made to the ADA to increase protection for people with disabilities by creating a broader definition of the word “disability” and the phrase “major life activities” within the document. Along with these national laws, some states have created their own accessibility codes, as well. The existence of these laws and the 2008 amendments signal a need to improve accessibility in order for people with disabilities to obtain equality in societal services.
The Deaf President Now Movement (DPN)
Despite all the effects of the Disability Rights Movement, it was not until 1988 when Gallaudet University (the first deaf and hard of hearing university in the U.S.) selected their first Deaf president in its existence since 1864 – not through elections, but through protests and demonstrations (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). Initially, the board of directors selected a hearing president over two additional equally qualified deaf candidates. This election stirred uprisings in the student community of Gallaudet University known as the Deaf President Now (DPN) movement. Since DPN, Gallaudet University’s board of directors must be at least 50% Deaf (Brueggemann, 1995).
References
Brueggmann, B. (1995). The coming out of Deaf culture and American sign language: An exploration into visual rhetoric and literacy. Rhetoric Review, 13(2), 409-420.
Fleischer, D.Z., Zames, F. (2001). The disability rights movement: From charity to confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
One of the most impressive initiatives I discovered in England is a consortium of 16 museums in London who cater to the deaf and hearing impaired community called MAGIC (Museums and Galleries in the Capital). Some of the museums that participate on the MAGIC website are the British Museum, the Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, the National Gallery, the Royal Academy of the Arts, Tate Britain, Tate Modern, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and more. This organization has a website that posts all the events that each museum provides for the Deaf community in London, and it allows visitors of the website to provide feedback about these museums’ programming. MAGIC also has videos in BSL (British Sign Language) that explain information about the website. The events posted on this website consist of lectures and/or tours that either may be interpreted or conducted by a person who is Deaf. Some museums out of the 16 seem to provide more accommodations than the others; these museums do not all provide the same accommodations. This website is a wonderful way of consolidating information so that Deaf visitors can find programs for multiple museums at once. 
