Category: equality and diversity

what goes around comes around

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity

What goes around comes around and here we are, 100 years on from the report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law (1910) looking once again at welfare reform. The rhetoric of benefit dependency, or benefit scrounging depending on your philosophy,  informs current government policy aimed at getting the nation back to work. Being employed is going to be made the most attractive option.

Do some simple deconstruction and look at the background, lifestyle and income of those making these statements. Then put them into white wellies and leave them in a wet fish factory or get them into the industry of the 21st century – a call centre – either cold calling where your wage depends on meeting your targets or customer services where the ‘care’ ethos has gone to extremes – give Iain Duncan Smith the experience of verbal abuse on a shift rota that includes bank holidays and weekends. Will he still see work as the ‘more attractive option’?

Its all about getting people back into work and nothing about support for those who have always been in work, who spend their lives doing the low paid routine jobs that the government is trying to make more attractive than benefits. Ensure those citizens have contracts that protect them, not cut their wages if they’re genuinely ill, and most of all create affordable education opportunities so work chances can be improved. The cost of part time education is exorbitant and contributes to the trapping of young single people into dead end jobs where opportunities are locked down and there are too few rewards for taking the ‘more attractive’ option.  

Then there is the issue of incapacity benefit – and ensuring protection for those genuinely excluded from social, economic and cultural participation. Not because they are unable to take part – but because society is not designed for them to be able to. A separate blog post I think. If you have any concerns about these issues then watch this space…

Alphabetical irony

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity, nothing to do with work

The Coalition Programme for Government is available.  Firstly I’m on my soapbox about it only being provided in pdf format. The support information is inadequate i.e.  three links away from a 30 page Adobe Document which guess what – is also a PDF – like I didn’t have a problem first time round!

But secondly, what did catch my eye was the structure of the contents. The first of 31 items is Banking (Das Kapital?)  Then I noticed that Social Care and Disability is at 28 while Universities comes in at number 31 and I was amused in an ironic ‘TFIF’ sort of way…

muses on misleading titles

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity

The Centre for Social Justice  makes out it’s for the benefit of society but whose society is it benefiting?

On the title alone, it sounds like my kind of organisation. Focus on social exclusion and favouring collectivism over an ‘each to their own I’m all right’ politics.  But titles can be so misleading. There’s something not ‘I’m all right’ here. For starters, it was founded during the time of ‘Margaret – there is no such thing as society – Thatcher’. It alleges independence but what does that mean? Everything is political. We’re all political. It’s impossible not to be. Informed and framed by social location, we reflect past and present environments. I prefer to think I’m capable of independent and critical thought but I accept the influence of cultural expectation. It’s recognising it that counts.  For me social justice has two strands; identifying and changing the structures that lead to social exclusion and using education to promote acceptance of diversity.  

The Centre for Social Justice is a government ThinkTank so any talk of independence is an anomaly. Their position,  left or right of centre,  contains inherent political bias and they would do better just admitting it rather than disguising their intentions in false consciousness. The thinkers in the tank are products of their own environment so the chances are high that recommendations will have individualist or collectivist roots – never the twain shall meet. This bloggolage has come about through media coverage of Phillipa Stroud,  Executive Director of the Centre for Social Justice. Even allowing for media bias, there is something uncomfortable about social justice being headed up by anyone with extreme views. In this case homophobia to a degree that shouts Clause 28  all over again.

The Observer article  attracted a range of media responses; here’s a selection from the The Guardian,  The Telegraph and The New Statesman. Couldnt find anything from The Times.

Equity of access as well as provision!

Sue Watling / / digital exclusion 2010, equality and diversity

Government digital plans are back in the news. Lack of media acknowledgment of digital exclusion continues to exist.  It’s ok to mention exclusion through provision but not through access.  The Guardian makes this distinction explicit. Unemployed/jobseekers to sign on from home  and citizen personalisation of MyGov web services  Quote GB “MyGov dashboard will … allow citizens to shape information for their own needs” and “… manage their pensions, tax credits and child benefits, as well as pay council tax, fix doctors or hospital appointments, apply for schools of their choice and communicate with children’s teachers.”  No GB. This can only happen for those privileged through means of access.

Ofcom announced plans for superfast broadband. While government excludes mention of its own link between digital and social exclusion (Digital Britain), and the implication that those who would benefit most will be denied access,  Ofcom make explicit the equivalent of digital exclusion through lack of service provision.  “…large numbers of homes and businesses are in locations which cannot get any sort of broadband, either because they are too far from an exchange or because the lines are of poor quality.” I have family in rural Holderness with a half MB connection, yet still pay a similar amount as myself for their ISP connection. That’s inequitable but not as much as being denied access to the digital data itself.  

Years of international standards designed to increase web accessibility still fall short of ensuring equal access for assistive technologies.  Open Source, which the government plans to use, is less regulated than traditional ‘closed’ web environments. By definition, open source encourages repurposing. This may be for the common good but if responsibility for accessible content shifts from the designers to the users, then it effectively escapes regulation. Politics of freedom aside, the socially disempowered need support. Web standards were an attempt to ensure equitable access. They might not be 100% effective but remain a matrix against which inclusive design and practice can be measured. We are all living through a digital revolution. There needs to be much greater acknowledgment of the needs of those who stand to benefit most.

BBC’s Virtual Revolution

Sue Watling / / digital divide, digital exclusion 2010, equality and diversity

The first of four programmes in the BBC’s The Virtual Revolution was called the Great Leveller.  It sounded promising but it wasn’t. The script was full of cliches such as empowering everyone and giving equal access to information while neatly sidestepping all the issues around barriers and inaccessible websites. It did get one thing right, when they said  ‘the potential of the technology was to offer a paradigm shift on a par with the invention of the printing press’. It was a shame it didn’t go on to acknowledge those who have always been excluded from analogue text who will continue to be excluded from digital unless access technology gets cheaper and content produced inclusively.

The programme ended by suggesting that the original bottom-up democratic vision of the Internet was being undermined. Focusing on the domination of organisations such Google and Amazon, it claimed the web’s inherent inequality is a reflection the hierarchical nature and inequalities in the world. Well, at least that was one point you can’t argue with!

Hunt the ICT Strategy

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity, inclusive design

The governments ICT strategy was launched yesterday. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places, but I expected to see a bit more publicity heralding the event. As it was I saw nothing.  Same again today. Not the BBC news, or Technology pages, no mention in the Guardian Online. So I turned to Google and eventually, after following several links to non-government pieces referring to it, I finally arrived at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/cio/ict.aspx

My point is on the one hand we have a government promoting digital inclusion and on the other it doesn’t seem to be aware of what it’s like to be digitally excluded. Having to search to find its own ICT Strategy suggests it’s not that bothered about it being found. In digital Britain, it won’t be enough to have access, it’s not even the skills and the confidence that makes the difference. It’s the format in which digital information is provided and promoted.  

 Once you get there then Write to Reply encourages audience participation and the text enlarges well – although if you were unfamiliar with the format then navigation becomes problematic. I’d like to see the statutory button called Accessibility. Even if it can’t offer anything alternative it would at least show awareness of the issues. The home page graphic has no meaningful Alt text; ‘Wordle’ doesn’t count; it means nothing if you are unfamiliar with the concept. Again, sometimes it’s what you don’t do that often says more about you that what is done.

Deja vou

Sue Watling / / digital divide, digital literacy, equality and diversity, inclusive design

As part of the Digital Britain campaign,  Online Basics has been launched, designed to create confidence with using the Internet. Peter Mandelson  says:

Everyone should be a confident user of the internet if they are to participate fully in today’s digital society. Being online brings a range of personal benefits, including financial savings, educational attainment, improved salary prospects and independent living for older people.

Déjà vou! In the 1990s I worked in adult and community education when much the same things were being said about computers. I set up computer courses for the ‘terrified’ (no longer allowed under pc rules) and for teaching literacy and numeracy.  Our software was MS Works, Adobe Pagemaker and Paint and we had multimedia cd-roms. No Internet. You learned the basics about using a computer. Today, as a volunteer support worker, I’m frequently asked to visit a service user who is ‘really good with computers’ to find someone can send and receive emails through a learned sequence of steps; they have no holistic knowledge with which to troubleshoot and may have to wait days or even weeks for someone to sort out a problem.

How realistic is the expectation that you can learn to use the Internet effectively when you have never used a computer? Or is it merely like learning to use a library without really understanding the Dewey classification system (which I don’t). Maybe times are changing and I need to change with them.

But one thing remains the same; digital exclusion is still about access. It would take too much space to list all my criticisms of the site but I would suggest it was designed by an ME-user (Mouse and Eyes) and not tested with alternative users. Why isn’t this site a leading example of digital inclusion? Changing text size fails to alter the menu text, links are indicated with mouse-over and new windows open without warning. Aside from DDA requirements, the typos show a lack of proofreading and an exercise on searching has you keying in tesco.com with a further screen advertising Virgin Atlantic – mmm…neat piece of advertising.

Digital Britain is about digital inclusion and the reports make explicit the links between social and digital exclusions. But unless digital data is provided in formats that enable flexible delivery and content customisation, exclusion will continue across all social strata. We have the technology to enable access; what is needed now is to flip the coin and ensure that content is accessible too. Déjà vou again.

Public journalism is best

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity

You can learn more from the comments than news items themselves. Journalism should be impartial; a balanced account of the issues without emotive vocabulary.  The BBC have posted the headline ‘Should homosexuals face execution?’

The beeb say they wanted to “reflect the stark reality” of a Ugandan bill being debated in their parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death. Comments left the reader in no doubt that homophobia is alive and well and living in the UK. The decision to print this headline was considered permissible. Substitute homosexual for a medical condition, an ethnic minority or a religion, and it would not be. The same applies for the comments. If the context was another section of society supposedly protected by equality and diversity legislation, they would have been moderated out..  

Bias and prejudice are expected in some areas of the media but you would hope for impartiality with the BBC and the Guardian (where I picked this up). Thankfully most comments were rational and reflected a more tolerant society. The contrast between the news report and reader’s opinions offers the best combination of left and right thinking creating a perfect journalistic balance.

The BBC have (as I write!) changed the headline to Should Uganda debate gay execution? The original screenshot can still be seen on the Guardian link. A response to the power of public journalism?

Digital copy right or wrong?

Sue Watling / / digital divide, equality and diversity, visual impairment

What rights do you have when you own a book? Daniel Reetz has built his own book scanning device (Wired) and comments show how other people routinely make digital copies. Does ownership give you the right to do this? Is there a difference if you’ve borrowed a book from a library, or a friend or found it on the train Bookcrossing style  It’s clear I need to get my head around the law on digital copyright; like using Refworks, or accessing the electronic journal database, it’s not one of my strongest points so any suggestions of where to start will be most welcome.

What I am clear about is that those who have control over access to information have power but it’s those who have the least power in society who seem to be most affected and have the quietest voice. As a result we hear less about the text discrimination they suffer on a daily basis and most about corporation fears regarding revenue losses. The Association of American Publishers (AAP) want the blind to pay for any additional means of access and the US Authors Guild argue that a speaking e-reader counts as an ‘unauthorized public performance’ so should be banned. Amazon are no better; offering authors the option of disabling Kindle’s read-aloud function and I’m totally unimpressed by them saying they will soon produce ‘a blind-accessible Kindle’ – why haven’t they done so already!

Google are going to  pay $125 million to resolve claims by authors and publishers of Google-scanned books and will pay legal fees, as well as create a Book Rights Registry where copyright holders can register works to get a cut of Internet advertising revenue and online book sales. Why can’t Google simply pay what it takes to ensure virtual text can be listened to as well as seen? Why can’t Amazon put the needs of the visually impaired first instead of last? Why can’t there be some joined up thinking on access to digital data to end the current discrimination?

Yes, this is procrastination as the assignment is still largely undone, but it needs to be said and we all need to take responsibility for adding our voices to raise awareness of these issues.

nuff said…

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity

December 3 was International Day of People with disabilities. You could be excused for not noticing. A quick survey of online newpapers revealed the following:

  • The Guardian reported on an enquiry into disability related harassment, mentioning in the penultimate paragraph that the inquiry was announced on the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
  • The Independent celebrated 1000 days to the paralypics saying ‘Fittingly, today is also International Day of People with Disability (IDPwD) … a worldwide celebration recognising the contributions and achievements of people with disabilities…’  The UN say the day is about achieving ‘human rights and participation in society by persons with disabilities’ so it’s about dignity and justice for all rather than just the Paralympian elite.
  • The best the Telegraph could do was a story about an Australian budget airline refusing a blind passenger and guide dog board a domestic flight with a strapline reference to the International Day of Disabled Persons.
  • In the Daily Express you could read how Stevie Wonder is now a United Nations Messenger of Peace, with a special mission to help people with disabilities, but no mention of the significance of printing the story on December 3rd.

The Times and the Daily Mail seemed to have forgotton the day altogether and I didn’t anticpate missing much by stopping there. The British press could have done so much more to highlight the inequalities of daily life for those with sensory, motor and cognitive impairment. Lets hear it for the voice of the people rather than the voice of the establishment performing yet another cover up job.