![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
natalyadJust catching up with the Internet this evening and I see this Limping Chicken article We were just looking at how to possibly catch you our, or restrict you. Access to Work Adviser talks to BBC News
I see a number of deaf and disabled people saying "My advisor didn't know or understand very basic things about my disability or impairment needs". I've experienced that myself, with my one-time named adviser demonstrating that she didn't know the difference between a textphone/minicom and palantypy/STTR.
What if this "ignorance" or lack of knowledge isn't actually genuine?
If if this "ignorance" is a way of stonewalling applicants.
It wouldn't be the first time I've seen claimed-ignorance used as a way of delaying or refusing to make adjustments for deaf and disabled people.
Think about it. It's very clever for at least two reasons:
The wider non deaf and disabled world doesn't know much either, so they may be inclined to sympathise with the "lack of knowledge" and reinforce that paradigm of "It's unreasonable to expect an adviser to know everything about every disability".
It adds another hurdle or barrier to the process, every barrier reduces the number of people able to overcome it. That barrier puts the onus back on US as deaf and disabled people to educate, explain and justify ourselves and our unreasonable requests to them.
Even when I have very carefully and politely educated and explained with all the power that my privilege of education, experience, nature of my job and sheer stubbornness give me; the access to work advisers have still stonewalled me in other ways.
It's very similar to the "disablist hatecrime barge", a very specific *shove* with the shoulder which when the perpetrator is challenged is excused as "an accident". It's not accidental, it's very very obviously not accidental, it's very specific and very intentional and extremely insidious because the disabled person who has been assaulted will often not be believed "Oh, they said it was an accident" "they didn't mean it"...
By FOIing the DWP asking for training materials, we allow them to distract us with the idea that more or better training might fix this problem. But if the issue is that they are directed to evade and stonewall us then no amount of 'training' and "consultation" will make any difference to a systematically and institutionally disablist system.
I see a number of deaf and disabled people saying "My advisor didn't know or understand very basic things about my disability or impairment needs". I've experienced that myself, with my one-time named adviser demonstrating that she didn't know the difference between a textphone/minicom and palantypy/STTR.
What if this "ignorance" or lack of knowledge isn't actually genuine?
If if this "ignorance" is a way of stonewalling applicants.
It wouldn't be the first time I've seen claimed-ignorance used as a way of delaying or refusing to make adjustments for deaf and disabled people.
Think about it. It's very clever for at least two reasons:
Even when I have very carefully and politely educated and explained with all the power that my privilege of education, experience, nature of my job and sheer stubbornness give me; the access to work advisers have still stonewalled me in other ways.
It's very similar to the "disablist hatecrime barge", a very specific *shove* with the shoulder which when the perpetrator is challenged is excused as "an accident". It's not accidental, it's very very obviously not accidental, it's very specific and very intentional and extremely insidious because the disabled person who has been assaulted will often not be believed "Oh, they said it was an accident" "they didn't mean it"...
By FOIing the DWP asking for training materials, we allow them to distract us with the idea that more or better training might fix this problem. But if the issue is that they are directed to evade and stonewall us then no amount of 'training' and "consultation" will make any difference to a systematically and institutionally disablist system.
