During the induction, I was feeling very tired, almost delirious, and my eye was struggling with a rapidly flickering projector. I have a coloboma in my right eye [see RNIB (N.D.)]. This birth defect means that I struggle to regulate light intake in this eye, and it can trigger serious migraines. In most contexts where I can regulate light, I am not Disabled under the social model of Disability [Scope (2024)]. I can make a series of adjustments so that the environment is not disabling. I can turn off lights or use a dim computer screen or draw the blinds or wear sunglasses… In this context, despite asking, there was nothing that could (?) be done and the screen was left flickering in a way that meant I struggled to participate or stay in the room.
I became Disabled by the environment and the lack of reasonable adjustments that were put in place. I found this a weirdly hostile experience for my first induction into the PGCert. It made me reflect on how important these interactions are and how quickly certain ‘scripts’ can get set within teaching environments. I found initially being vocal about my visual impairment meant that I felt vocal about other things, and I ended up feeling like I had been quite disruptive.
I wonder about being the disruptive one. Rigid environments demand a certain kind of behaviour; compliance. But what happens when you can’t be compliant?
I ended up wanting to sit with my back to the class because the flickering light, even in my peripheral vision, was so difficult to manage. When I wanted to be there, facing backwards felt like a pretty strong statement which I was almost forced into making.
Articulating access requirements is a kind of rupture – a refusal to participate in the way everyone else is. And this articulation is a rejection of a status quo, which automatically sets you at loggerheads with all kinds of power dynamics. I didn’t feel like my concerns about the projector triggering a migraine were taken seriously, and this also felt like a different kind of refusal. This, likely, was not because the staff didn’t take them seriously, but because the layout of the room was so rigid as to not allow alternatives. It may have been because of other factors as well, perhaps I didn’t articulate my own access requirements clearly enough? Whatever the reasoning, it made me wonder, how many of our interactions with ‘difficult’ or ‘disruptive’ students are because we are forcing them to be compliant to an environment or system which they fundamentally can’t participate in?
There’s a lot of potential to create or drive change by being forced into the position of the ‘difficult’. Writing about the decision to title a symposium about diversity and disability ‘Awkward Bastards’ Craig Ashley reflects “By taking a position of awkwardness, we are empowered to ask difficult questions, to challenge the legitimate ground where it is assumed or outmoded, and to propose alternative territories for the mainstream.” [in DASH (2016) p.13].
511 words
References
DASH ed. (2016) ‘The incorrigibles : perspectives on disability visual arts in the 20th and 21st centuries’ Publisher: MAC Birmingham, 2016.
Gevers, I. (2009). Difference on Display. Nai010 Publishers.
RNIB. (n.d.). Coloboma. [online] Available at: https://www.rnib.org.uk/your-eyes/eye-conditions-az/coloboma/.
SCOPE (2024). Social Model of Disability | Disability Charity Scope UK. [online] www.scope.org.uk. Available at: https://www.scope.org.uk/social-model-of-disability.
