Disabilities in technical theatre

[Ynot]

I can see why you might want the chef to have a good (native?) experience fo teh cuisine, but do the waiters, bar staff etc need to?

Actually, in some ways the serving staff might be considered as being more important to be of the 'right' ethnicity. After all, they're the public face of the restaurant, no?

[AndrewR]

...I can understand (and to be honest, accept) the 'restricted ethnicity of employees in a restaurant serving Indian, Thai or Greek food, as there are pretty good reasons why they would be better suited to the roles...

 

 

oh, really? Does that not seem a slightly.. hmmm... narrow minded view?

 

I can accept selection based on colour of skin/country of origin, when its a key job requirement (hiring a black guy to play a black character for example)

 

But the restaurant thing is down to people hiring only from within what is often a self segregated comunity, not some greater skill at cooking mystically bestowed by being born in india. They have the skills, its nothing to do with being 'better suited'.

[Ynot]

oh, really? Does that not seem a slightly.. hmmm... narrow minded view?

No, as it happens, I don't.

 

Look at it this way - you have an Indian restaurant. You're the proprietor. You want to make the whole experience as 'authentic' feeling as you can because you have pride in your country's heritage and cuisine.

 

Now - the chef is tucked away in the kitchen, mostly, and you could easily say that many English chefs (eg) can cook pretty darned good Indian meals, so there'd be no direct issues there employing one from any ethnic background.

But the serving staff (as I see it) should in this scenario be as close as you, the owner, can get to representing your country etc.

 

OK - you could say that an English (or Scot, or Welshman or one from Outer Mongolia) waiter may have just the same (or better) waiting skills but in this case it could be more about what the employer wants to give - the service, the authenticity, and so on.

 

So no - I don't believe that this is anything like a narrow minded view.

What would be narrow minded would be to suggest that ALL waiters in ethnic restaurants would have to be of that ethnicity - which by no means is what I am saying.

I just mean that there could easily be an understandable case where it could (and maybe should) be reasonably argued.

By 'better suited' I refer more to the suitability for the ambience of the place, which to be frank is just the same as employing a black guy to play a black part.

 

Now - on a similar but slightly different topic of positive discrimination, what about those movies where a black guy gets made up to look like a white guy?

The two films that occur starred Lenny Henry and (I think) Eddie Murphy...

If Hollywood had done it the other way around, with white guys blacking up, would there not have been an outcry?

In fact the entertainment industry HAS gone nuts in the past about whites masquerading as blacks - the B & W Minstrels, for instance. And the furore that surrounded the complaints that the negroes in "Showboat" should be played by, well, negroes, not white folks painted up...

 

THAT is something that smacks of positive (or reverse) discrimination.

[AndrewR]

Now - on a similar but slightly different topic of positive discrimination, what about those movies where a black guy gets made up to look like a white guy?

The two films that occur starred Lenny Henry and (I think) Eddie Murphy...

If Hollywood had done it the other way around, with white guys blacking up, would there not have been an outcry?

In fact the entertainment industry HAS gone nuts in the past about whites masquerading as blacks - the B & W Minstrels, for instance. And the furore that surrounded the complaints that the negroes in "Showboat" should be played by, well, negroes, not white folks painted up...

 

THAT is something that smacks of positive (or reverse) discrimination.

 

Well... no, not really... The problem with arguing that we should be able to mock black people in the same way they mock white people, (which is what people are really getting angry about. Not that it makes much sense.). Is that its not a level playing field... white people were never systematically enslaved by black people. And also, white people don't tend to riot over what some might see as oppression by the state (more fool us).

 

Its a matter of racial sensitivity. Is there anything to be gained by broadcasting something that many people will find very offensive? Occasionally, if it has enough merit. Beyond that its just lazy journalism.

 

Oh, and there was a very good film called 'White Chicks' by the Wayens Brothers (sp) that had two black men pretending to be thick white girls... and it featured lots of mocking of stereotypes...

[gareth]

Sex - Staff at an all-female health club would be more than justified in looking only for women

As I understand it, the laws governing discrimination and employment rights contain things specifically to deal with situations like that, and adverts for jobs which are so affected must state the particular bit of employment law which they are invoking in order to recruit someone who is of a specific gender.

Orientation - possibly a tricky one, but maybe a gay bar only wanted gay staff...

Turn that one around (to a non-gay bar attempting to recruit non-gay staff) and just imagine the furore that would ensue within the gay community!!

Disabilities - we've already covered this, but a wheelchair bound applicant shouldn't even be considering a serious application for a rigger's job.

I suppose that's an extreme example. But realistically, the venue at which I work might advertise a job in the electrics department, and it's quite conceivable that we'd have an application from a wheelchair user. Now, the majority of our department's work areas are only accessible via stairs or ladders - and these are areas in which an electrician in our building would be expected to spend a large amount of time in order to carry out the duties of their post. Hypothetical questions :

* Would we be allowed to say "I'm afraid we can't offer you the job because you wouldn't be able to access several important areas in which you'd need to work"?

* If not, would we be forced, by law, to make alterations to the building so that a wheelchair could access these areas?

* If so, would we also be required to make modifications to the technical infrastructure such that someone who couldn't move out of a wheelchair could carry out the work that normally goes on in those areas?

* Who would pay for these alterations and modifications? Bearing in mind that facilitating wheelchair access to places like the studio grid (accessed via cat ladder or steep, narrow staircase), main house control room (narrow staircase), dimmer room (narrow passageways between dimmer racks), FOH bridges (staircases) and so on would require quite a bit of structural alteration to the building ; and making things like patch panels, mains switchfuses, houselight and working light controls, safety curtain controls, plugging panels, etc. accessible to someone who was restricted to working at the level of a wheelchair user would entail significant alteration to the building's technical infrastructure. Both of these items would entail spending a huge amount of taxpayers' money (we're a local authority venue).

 

In other words, how far does an employer actually have to go to appease the politically-correct brigade?

 

Oh, and in response to the question of the ethnic background of waiting-on staff in restaurants serving foreign cuisine - as long as I'm looked after well, the service is good and the food is up to scratch, I really couldn't care less whether or not the person serving me is of the same ethinicity as the food I'm eating. And I suspect most people would probably feel the same way. After all, if I was going to open a restaurant specialising in British cuisine, I very much doubt I'd get away with narrowing my search for employees such that it only encompasses white British candidates! So why should it work the same way when the situation's reversed?

[Ynot]

Turn that one around (to a non-gay bar attempting to recruit non-gay staff) and just imagine the furore that would ensue within the gay community!!

In other words, how far does an employer actually have to go to appease the politically-correct brigade?

After all, if I was going to open a restaurant specialising in British cuisine, I very much doubt I'd get away with narrowing my search for employees such that it only encompasses white British candidates!

All of which sort of go to show my point :D

 

You'd probably 'get away' with the gay bar and ethnic waiter, but try turning the situations round.

 

Don't get me wrong - I do not and would not support discrimination on either side, but like many others, I'm sure, I'm unlikely to get upset or object to the scenarios I quote.

And no, like you, I don't really care who serves my food (within obvious caveats) but it's almost 'expected' to have 'native' staff in such restaurants.

[roryfm]

Now - on a similar but slightly different topic of positive discrimination, what about those movies where a black guy gets made up to look like a white guy?

The two films that occur starred Lenny Henry and (I think) Eddie Murphy...

...

the B & W Minstrels, for instance.

 

Just to play devil's advocate...

 

Lenny Henry actually performed in the club tour of the Black and White Minstrels Show

 

(God I'm ashamed I know that...)

 

No other point to add really.

 

roryfm

[djw1981]

IIRC a straight male sued a gay bar because they wouldn;lt employ him. He won under equal op's. The tribunal said that if he was turned donw prior to interview purely on the basis of sexual orientation then he had been discriminated against. Th guy in question wasn't a skinhead or anti-homosexual, but a well qualified barman with lots of experience.

[JimWebber]

(Snip)

* Would we be allowed to say "I'm afraid we can't offer you the job because you wouldn't be able to access several important areas in which you'd need to work"?

* If not, would we be forced, by law, to make alterations to the building so that a wheelchair could access these areas?

* If so, would we also be required to make modifications to the technical infrastructure such that someone who couldn't move out of a wheelchair could carry out the work that normally goes on in those areas?

* Who would pay for these alterations and modifications? Bearing in mind that facilitating wheelchair access to places like the studio grid (accessed via cat ladder or steep, narrow staircase), main house control room (narrow staircase), dimmer room (narrow passageways between dimmer racks), FOH bridges (staircases) and so on would require quite a bit of structural alteration to the building ; and making things like patch panels, mains switchfuses, houselight and working light controls, safety curtain controls, plugging panels, etc. accessible to someone who was restricted to working at the level of a wheelchair user would entail significant alteration to the building's technical infrastructure. Both of these items would entail spending a huge amount of taxpayers' money (we're a local authority venue).

 

In other words, how far does an employer actually have to go to appease the politically-correct brigade?

 

(Snip)

 

I think the word you are looking for is "Reasonable" - Or some such similar phrase.

 

There is government money available for such alterations, how readily available it is I do not know.

 

When I applied for my job, it was stated in the advert that because of access difficulty to the equipment involved, the job was not suitable for a disabled person (Or a wheelchair user, I'm not sure which...) So there is obviously some legislation out there that enables such selection in certain circumstances.

 

Obviously this does not get away from the need to recruit the best person for the job, regardless of gender, race, disability etc. etc.

 

Jim

[DaveBeattie]

* If not, would we be forced, by law, to make alterations to the building so that a wheelchair could access these areas?

It gets even more interesting when your venue is listed and English Heritage won't let you make the alterations.

 

Dave

[Sam Whitehead]

Dyslexia topic

 

Discussion about dyslexia, and how dyslexia and disabilities are treated in theatre.

 

An interesting off-shoot of this is, if in the majority of our industry you work your way up to higher levels of responsibility by starting at the bottom, how can someone who is physically disabled, and therefore unable to rig, focus, fly, etc. work their way up in the industry?

 

Hi, this is a really interesting point and I'd like to add to this by questioning the people using this forum if they would treat someone with physical disabilities in the same discriminatory fashion as dyslexia has been treated? If these anti-dyslexia forum users were running a theatre production and someone physically disabled could not access the theatre would they condemn them by saying 'able-bodied people make the effort to access the facilities-why can't you?'.

 

People on this forum need to be aware that while I am dyslexic I do try very hard and do not use this as an excuse. I have not let my dyslexia hold me back and I'm sure that anyone who is physically disabled would not let thier situation hold them back either. I am 18 and have set up my own business and won apprentice of the year with Thameswater. It would be nice to see people being accepted on this forum regardless of their difficulties, and their technical achievements and talents celebrated rather than dismissed because of their physical or learning difficulties.

 

It would also be nice to get back to the technical forum and all help each other based on our skills and experience rather than our difficulties.

 

Thanks

[JimWebber]

I'll be honest Sam, I don't think anyone here has a problem with dyslexia.

 

Peoples main gripe is Laziness - Which last time I looked was not a disability...

 

Most posts from (genuine) dyslexics, are so well written (Because they take the time to get it right) - So well written in fact that it comes as a surprise to me when later on they say "I have dyslexia".

 

Your post is a fine example - If you hadn't admitted to dyslexia would anyone have noticed?

 

On the other hand, posts along the lines of

 

I have this light that dont work my m8 sez its becase of the cabeling but I dont now if their teling the trooth and wot is the best microphone 2 use

 

And then the person claims dyslexia is not really the same thing at all!

 

Just my 2p

 

Jim

[paulears]

Jim's post is right on the mark. We don't allow any 'ism' here. The comments on SPAG - great word, isn't it that relate to Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar - never, from what I can see have anything at all do do with dyslexia. It's very unfortunate that some people get offended because they cannot cope with writing properly. Jim's quote is funny - but shouldn't be, because that really is how some people write. A long while ago I taught A level communication studies, and the one thing that matters is that communication should be in a form that ensures the person at the other end can understand it. Writing in the weird style we see so often is poor communication and as such, has no place in a technical world where correct interpretation is vital.

 

If people are poor communicators then they need to know before they start looking for jobs. If I cannot understand somebody either verbally or in written form - would I give them a job? I doubt it. Would I give a disabled person the job - if they were an asset, of course I would! Dyslexia in my book is a condition, not a disability, as with some effort it is perfectly possible to mask t.

[Ynot]

Yup.

Agree with both of the last two posters. Especially with dyslexia not actually being a disability!

I'd also agree that your own posts are a testament to what can be overcome with just a little effort and good on you for that.

 

I'd add that what usually happens here in the BR (and another couple of forums I use) is that dyslexics are not treated in the way that you perceive - it's the lazy b'stards that are jumped upon.

Another analogy if you will...

There's this pub, in the country, where the majority of the patrons are of a like-minded attitude, are well-spoken (though not 'posh') and enjoy each other's company and get along, mostly, with the majority of their peers.

Occasionally a newcomer arrives and walks up to the bar and using street-slang and odd gestures asks for an alco-pop (which the landlord doesn't stock because there's no call for them here in the country!).

I can imagine the reaction of the locals, can't you?

 

The BR is that pub, the locals are the regulars, and if the newbie continues to use his street-talk then he's likely to be politely asked to vacate the premises.