Breaking News
Loading...
Wednesday 21 November 2007

Info Post
Cilla Sluga at Big Noise and Justice for All blog have both written recently about an ad for Accessible Cities Alliance that appeared in the Herald News in Joliet, Illinois. The intent of the ACA is to "promote disability compliance in the business community," and to that end, the ad pictures four older white guys -- business leaders in the Joliet community -- using assistive equipment they don't actually need.

The ad's text reads (click on the photo of the ad to enlarge it):
Got Access?
We do. You should, too.
By 2010, it's likely that one in three Americans will have a disability.
That's a lot of purchasing power! Is your business ready?

We encourage business owners and property managers to create and promote full access for consumers with disabilities. What does this mean? It means providing equal access to parking, entrance, goods and services and restrooms. Consider how you can increase the value of your business and expand your customer base.

The Accessible Cities Alliance is a broad coalition of local leaders and disability advocates working to create access and opportunity. ACA offers valuable information and resources. If you need assistance, let us help. If you offer full access, let us know, and then make sure your customers know, too!

Good access is good business.

Accessible Cities Alliance
Promoting disability compliance in the business community.

www.ada.411.com
815-729-0162 v
815-729-2085 tty

A message sponsored by The Herald News
The discussion at Big Noise and Justice for All has been concerning the use of nondisabled men with props suggesting their status as disabled -- or future disabled people. Cilla says:
None of the people pictured have a disability in the picture. The guy with the white cane is sighted; the guy in the wheelchair and the one using the walker are ambulatory without assistance; the guy using the TTY does not have difficulty using the phone. They are local politicians who should fire their campaign managers for bad judgment.

Who thought it would be a good idea to have able-bodied people representing someone with a disability?
She also notes that they are all white men of about age sixty -- a fairly limiting representation of "access for all."

Comments at both blogs raise the key arguments surrounding honest and real representation: This tactic would be obviously inappropriate for messages about other minority groups. (Though, remember this German Unicef ad using white kids in blackface to promote help for African children?) The men depicted may have invisible disabilities -- you cannot assume they are nondisabled. The purpose of the campaign is to show how permeable (and growing) the disability category is. Disability simulations are ultimately destructive and do little to really show what the disability experience entails. The ad means well, wants to help, and these men aren't actors paid to fake disability.

I think the most important point to be made about this ad is that it never mentions that businesses need to comply with the law. It never mentions that there are state and federal laws requiring what the ad cajolingly promotes. It never offers information in compliance. It never notes that failing to promote accessibility through accessible parking, entrances, goods and services and restrooms is illegal.

I'm all for voluntary compliance, but shouldn't the smart business sense the ad hopes to appeal to also consider complying with the law?

0 comments:

Post a Comment