Access Barriers: Conference Proposal Edition

Honestly there is so much that could be written about this week, and yet at the same time nothing at all, you know? So instead of focusing on what is and could be I want to write a bit of a shorter post this week and publish it early because I genuinely want to crowdsource what to do about a conference proposal situation I have discovered.

So there is this education conference that I have always wanted to attend because to be honest they desperately need more conference papers on accessibility, accessible pedagogy, and disability. Almost all mentions of "access" in previous conference schedules over the last forever years have been to "access programs" and not accessibility in relation to disability. Because as I have said before and I will say again many times access is not necessarily accessibility and institutions and associations using those words to mean the same thing causes real harm.

They definitely need a more inclusive perspective at this conference and I would love to actually give a paper about that exact thing actually. So here is where I need your insight and perspective. For this particular conference you need to join their association to even be able to send in a proposal. So I need to pay $120 CDN or $86USD just for the pleasure of submitting a conference proposal that may or may not be accepted. What do I get return for that if it is not accepted you ask? Well I get the pleasure to vet at least 3 conference paper proposals for them (even if mine is not selected as good enough for the conference).

So basically I get to pay to vet proposals for them and the actual return on my monetary investment is zero. I may be selected to go to the conference, or I paid them over a hundred dollars to do work for them. I get nothing else in return for this money. Now you will notice that I called this an access barrier in the title, because it is. They are literally gatekeeping even the process to be considered for the conference, let alone the vetting of the proposals.

The kind of paper I am proposing for this conference is actually the exact kind of paper they need to make them see how exclusionary and ridiculous their set up is. I know there has been a lot of conversations about how peer review should be paid so that folk take it more seriously, but I don't think there has been a case made that we should actually pay for the pleasure of vetting proposals. Until now.

This is also of course an accessibility issue and I am sure they also know this on some level. So first you need to have the money to play the game, then you need to have space and an abled bodymind to play their game on their time frame with possibility an inaccessible conference proposal system (I need to pay to see if this is true but I feel like it may be the case). So my question to you is, should I bother or have they already demonstrated with this system that they are not interested in having conversations about disability and barriers to knowledge mobilization?