It's a shame that Sara Crewe can't discuss the ADA and handicapped access
without resorting to name-calling and a variety of intemperate nastinesses:
what ever happened to civility?  I would urge her to moderate her approach.
 Please chill out, Sara.

At the risk of having my own views lumped in with Sara's wrongheaded,
inflammatory rhetoric, I would suggest, however, that there may be a small
kernel of justification in her outrage, that over-zealous accommodations for
the handicapped can at times lead to costly and unreasonable solutions.
 While I don't consider "TAB" (temporarily able-bodied) a "stupid" label, I
think that making too much of it can produce a misguided emphasis which can
unduly penalize the majority.  The "TAB" phrase began as a clever
observation, a variant on the truism that "there, but for the grace of God,
go I."  It recognizes that in the wink of an eye, a swimming pool accident or
a stray bullet can transform a "normal" walking person into a permanent
wheelchair occupant.  For too long the needs of the handicapped were totally
disregarded; it's not surprising that well-intended corrections can lead to
over-compensation.  Just this week I met a visitor to my museum, an elderly
physician, who said that only two weeks ago a disc problem suddenly put him
in a wheelchair, where he expects to spend the rest of his life.  He was
grateful that many labels and exhibits in our museum are at a convenient
height for him to enjoy from his chair, but his walking companions, of about
the same age, complained that THEY were unable to read some of these same
labels because they were at an inconvenient height; they didn't think they
should be forced to stoop and contort themselves, at their age, to read
labels that seemed too low!  What to do?

I'm woefully ignorant about specifics of the ADA, but I've been hearing some
horrific interpretations that affect the way museums do business, and I
wonder if anyone can speak knowledgeably (and civilly) about these issues.
 (It would be nice to get this back on a museum track anyway, instead of
dwelling narrowly on political and economic philosophy.)  As a visually
oriented person (especially photographs), I'm particularly interested in the
implications of the ADA for the way museums can (or can't) serve visually
handicapped people.  A few months ago a museum official surveyed our archival
research center for handicapped access, and asserted that our textual
collections (several million pages' worth) ultimately would all have to be
translated into Braille to accommodate the blind for compliance with ADA.  I
didn't even broach the subject of our pictorial collections (Braille
photographs?), but strongly doubted the existence of sufficient funds (public
or private), space, or time to accomplish such a Herculean task; I said that
if the ADA specifically mandated such a solution, it clearly was not possible
and quite absurd, if not insane.  Has anyone ever had any experience with
this issue?

Trying to accommodate museum exhibits for the visually handicapped can run
squarely into conflict with conservation policy.  While conservators are
pushing for low light levels to prevent damage to museum artifacts,
provisions of the ADA would require brighter illumination.  Then we can fall
into what I consider the replica "trap": if original objects cannot be
illuminated brightly, then there is a temptation to show copies and
surrogates, thus denying viewers with "normal" vision the opportunity to see
the "real thing."

I used to argue with a former lighting engineer in our museum, who professed
to love photographs so much that he contended original or "vintage"
photographs should NEVER be displayed in a museum, lest they suffer light
damage; therefore only copies should be placed on exhibit.  Apparently, in
his view, only the staff and a minority of the potential public--reasearchers
and scholars who took the time and trouble to make appointments in collection
research rooms--could be allowed to see the original images.  Talk about
museums as "elitist" institutions!  If you catch my drift, I find this
implication that considerations of accommodating the visually impaired while
safeguarding the original objects, by displaying surrogates, tantamount to
denying the exhibition visitor the right to see original artifacts.  What
practical compromises are possible?

If anyone would care to address this topic, I'd ask that those in the
"What's-So- Great-About-Original-Artifacts?" camp to refrain from trotting
out the old polemics: humor me and assume there's some value in making
original historical objects available to the maximum number of viewers.

--David Haberstich