Read on Twitter
As a book review editor and reviewer myself, it has been just appalling to me that certain presses are refusing to send hard copies to reviewers even after those reviewers have disclosed access needs. A press just questioned why an electronic copy "isn't accessible enough."
This is all familiar territory: I know presses are really strapped right now and mail has been particularly unreliable. But I have a real problem with the use of COVID-19 to get around accessibility, especially when the press benefits from the free labor of reviewers.
Since when do presses get to adjudicate what are "reasonable" access needs? This sounds exactly like the accommodations issue, where institutions get to demand forms of biocertification (thank you @ehlastigirl) and get to interrogate disabled people presumed to be lying.
As the pandemic continues, it is fascinating to me to see how much "reasonable" accommodations has changed in meaning. What has suddenly become an issue to a majority of people also suddenly becomes recognized as worthy of accommodation.
When a press refuses to accommodate a reviewer's access needs, what you're essentially saying is that you don't want disabled people engaging with your work. You don't want disabled people as your authors' interlocutors. You don't think disabled scholars offer enough to merit it.
And to the person who just DM'ed me to tell me I probably shouldn't say this because presses might punish me for calling this out: if a press thinks retaliation is the proper response to access, I don't know if I want to have your books reviewed or subject my reviewers to you.
Some people have asked me to name and shame the presses that have done this. To me, this would be unfair and cruel to colleagues and friends, especially those who are contingent, who have published with these presses. They should never feel shame for having published work.
Having been shamed for being associated with a press that somebody felt was "canceled," I felt like it discredited my work rather than held the press accountable. This is not about authors who after all want their work to be read and shared widely.
