I'm finding a big disconnect between doesn't require a venue or service to be fundamentally altered and "totally change the experience to avoid the things my son can't handle".

Wouldn't giving him a recording of the show meet that criteria?

I would hope that a judge would decide this, but this doesn't seem like reasonable accommodation to me.

I understand that Zack's vocalizing and others' behaviors affect the experience and service of those around him. But there's a simple workaround to this problem: designated, sensory-friendly offerings. Setting aside a regular number of theater performances or flights or movie showings or restaurant hours to give my son and others like him equal access and opportunity should be regarded as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

So, we're talking about selling tickets, and giving performances to a segment of the population that cannot even fill a house. And how many of these performances should they give? We can't have just one, as that would be unfair to those who cannot make that one date.

And "Zack's vocalizing"??? Zack's vocalizing would probably also disrupt the experience of those around him, even those that have a similar issue. Ultimately, we would have to accommodate Zack by giving a special performance just for him.

Broadway shows also make their performances available in digital format. Zach will simply have to watch the performance from the comfort of his living room. He will be able to see the show just the same and hear the audience reaction, without disrupting their experience.

Problem solved.

"...sensory-friendly is a civil right."

"I place the responsibility with vendors who can afford to provide sensory-friendly opportunities but still do not."

This woman presumes a great deal. If "sensory-friendly" is a civil right, that means we as a society, all 300 million of us, have an obligation to provide it.

And, she knows that the theater can afford to put on a customized performance solely for children like hers; that there are enough of those children whose parents will be able to bring them to the theater on that day and at that time, paying for ticket, to justify a customized performance.

She further assumes that no other disability will subsequently demand equal time with its own customized performance.

"...neuro-typical...."

I guess, if you deal with autism, you do need a phrase with which to describe the rest of the world from the perspective of autism, but this still sounds clunky.

It joins "heteronormative" and "cisnormative" as words that seem designed to make the rest of the world twist itself into knots to accommodate one distinct digression from the norm.

"One in 59 children in the United States has autism....

While that statistic is correct, according to the CDC, her use of it here is misleading. 1 in 59 is on the autism spectrum. That does not mean 1 in 59 needs a "sensory-friendly" environment or is incapable of functioning in "neuro-typical" society.

She has a number of different versions of this story.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/25/can-forcible-exposure-help-kids-with-autism/

It is easy to demand things but not so easy to provide them. Many broadway shows are barely breaking even. Providing special shows is right out. Now imagine you put on such a special show and have 4 kids like hers who are shouting and screaming (with joy I assume)--that is it for the show, finished, unwatchable.

I get ringing in my ears from loud music so I bought custom ear plugs. I can't ask people at a party to turn down the music, and these are friends, not even a concert.

You could equally argue that the PRICE of a musical is a barrier that is "unfair" but we have found that on certain days or at the last minute you can get tickets for 50% or 80% off. My friend signed up for orchestra last-minute text notifications that they had unsold tickets and took their family for pennies on the dollar many times.

There are solutions to many problems that do not put demands on others. In fact if other people are required to do something then you are a bully. If other people voluntarily do something for you, be grateful.

Where's Snoopy?

In the 1960's, a family friend with an autistic child was endlessly annoyed by illiterate, presumptuous, intrusive dorkweeds insisting that the kid should be forced to this-or-that.

This pattern continues.

"...the person who complained about her kid's noisemaking was a lady in a wheelchair..."

My disability is greater than yours! So my demands are more important than your demands!

Yeah, this is going to end well...

> Yeah, this is going
> to end well...

Your sarcasm is fine, if you're promising that it will, in fact, end.

Patrick said: "And how many of these performances should they give? We can't have just one, as that would be unfair to those who cannot make that one date. So, we're talking about selling tickets, and giving performances to a segment of the population that cannot even fill a house."

IF there are really so few families that have an autistic child and can afford the cost of a big show, maybe the theatre could charge extra to cover the costs of a second performance? Maybe there are more such families than you think. See below.

(I WILL say that I don't have that much sympathy for those parents who seem to think that their children are entitled to ANY kind of passive entertainment or "civil right." It's not that good for them anyway. As Alexander Pope wrote: "Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot think." I.e., kids would be a lot happier if they were forced to use their imaginations and entertain THEMSELVES.)

If anyone's interested, here are the top-rated comments at the WaPo:

Fdbb5000: I understand the writers concerns and grief. However forcing movie theatres to hold showings for a very few people robbing them of much needed revenue is not a Civil right . This is the type of attitude that will cost many businesses a fortune to benefit a very small few. We have to be careful when we start carving out a multitude of “civil rights” where they’re not appropriate. Sorry.

Austism Uncensored: Not a very few people - check the numbers. As of April 2018 now 1 in every 59 children born. Not to mention the entire disability community, people with sensory problems, folks with PTSD...it's actually a huge population begging for access to public venues on terms they can actually attend. Same charge, not asking for discount. And if you check with the businesses that do provide SF events, you'll find it's a huge financial profit precisely bc our numbers are so large - and growing. The alternative is my son and others like him don't get to go to the same public spaces everyone else does - sorry, that's unacceptable. ADA creates civil rights for the disabled to prevent that injustice, not carving out anything magical here....

KRMD: Actually, the few sensory friendly showings my family has attended (usually at times that the theater doesn't have regular showings) were very well attended. Unfortunately, they don't work for my daughter. She needs the lower sound and gentle lighting, but is unable to deal with noisy children and adults. But I wonder if there isn't a larger market for selected showings of lower-volume movies? Until then, we will stick to watching movies at home.

Shelley Ann: I have read thousands of comments on hundreds of articles in the WP but have never felt compelled to write a comment before (feeling it was unnecessary as there were plenty of more articulate folks who accurately expressed my opinion.) However, the number of people who responded unkindly to this article just blew me away! IMO the author didn’t demand access at a public performance (she only attempted to have him enjoy the experience, hoping it wouldn’t be too disruptive but accepting the risk that it might be and that they would have to leave.) What she is advocating for are more opportunities for her child and others like him to participate in sensory friendly experiences. If businesses are willing to take the financial risk to provide such a service, why not? Where I live there are few such opportunities but, when they happen, they often sell out quickly. And if they don’t but the business continues out of a sense of compassion and community responsibility, this is the kind of business I want to frequent! To parents of children with autism: every time you have to remove your child from a venue due to disruptive behavior, please know that there are many of us who are not judging you; rather, we are admiring your strength and willingness to risk that judgement for the sake of your children.

Dr Hank: Having worked with individuals diagnosed with autism for many years, and taught hundreds of students to do so, all I can say is that the simplest solution would be not to take him to events that are likely to evoke such behavior. You wouldn't bring a baby to such an event, would you? I have an eight-year-old son who I would like to take to a symphony concert, but I don't because I know he would likely be bored after a while and may engage in behaviors that would interfere with others' enjoyment of the music. There are plenty of venues where a child with autism can go and not be seen as disruptive. Finally, the phrase "sensory friendly" bothers me to no end, partly because it implies that there is some kind of sensory deficit that defines autism. But that is not supported by any credible scientific evidence. In fact, it is more likely that children with autism learn to act out in the presence of certain stimuli because parents reinforce such behavior. And, finally, we live in a culture of entitlement. I am sorry that you have child with autism, but that does not mean that he--or others like him-- is entitled to a special showing of any production.

Liparus Junior: ...When you arrange for every kid who might be entertained by The Lion King to attend the Broadway show, regardless of income, regardless of geographic distance to the venue, have it performed in the language they know, well, then I'm going to start maybe caring about your son's "civil right" to see it.

A coworker had fear of clowns (yeah, sounded like a joke to me, too). Should circuses be REQUIRED under the ACA to perform clown-free performances? Should there be a different version of IT made that is clown-free? Maybe we should require roller-coasters to move slowly and close to the ground for those who are disabled with motion sickness. I mean, shouldn't they have the same right to enjoy every roller-coaster out there? Is it fair that we create thrill rides that exclude this "disabled" population...

Whoops - I should have said:

"...those parents who seem to think that their children are entitled to ANY kind of passive entertainment as a 'civil right.'"

So... not explicit said, but implied, is that Ellenby wants the artwork itself to be altered to suit her preferences. "Hey, I'm of such a highly privileged status that I demand that you create a work of art to my specifications, and you bear all of the costs!" Ha. Ha. Ha. Given that Broadway writers and performers these days are almost universally hard left, and support this kind of thing in any other context, this is going to be fun to watch.

How would extra shows help?

I mean, wouldn't the autistic kid vocalising bother the other autistic kid next to him?

You can get a lot of musicals on DVD, not just recordings of the show but actual, good movies... Annie (3 versions!), Sound of Music, Phantom of the Opera, Les Mis, Singin' in the Rain, etc....

Yes, they tend to be tamer than the stage versions due to censors, but you can watch them in the privacy of your home.

Your sarcasm is fine, if you're promising that it will, in fact, end.

I alternate between hope and despair.

Some days, I think we'll move out into the stars.

Other days, I'm afraid the first EMP will collapse civilization and cast us into a new Dark Age.

Those who can not fend for themselves in some manner or form will find life in the latter to be short, brutish and nasty.

Listen, I made a living in teevee, okay? (As we used to tell the bumpkins while shooting commercials for farm-implement dealers back on the prairie: You know, the one with the PICTURE....)

So, like, my Creator will have some questions as I approach the Pearlies. (I'll be ready.)

But I've just started working with a new set of people, folks from whom I could be demographically distinguished in any number of ways. So to speak.

And so I say to you:

People take tawdry entertainment far too seriously.

People want to be flattered through trite, easily digested narratives.

They will INSIST on it.

I really don't like the ADA. Physically challenged psychopaths seem to be fond of using it to force public places to do various things, possibly ruining them in the process.

I personally think that the ADA pyschopaths should go to into gay-owned bakeries and force them to make Braille wedding cakes. How intersectional would that be, right?

Actually, the few sensory friendly showings my family has attended (usually at times that the theater doesn't have regular showings) were very well attended. Unfortunately, they don't work for my daughter. She needs the lower sound and gentle lighting, but is unable to deal with noisy children and adults.

So rich it ought to be fattening.

It reminds me of what a bechilded acquaintance told me when the subject of childfree sections on airplanes was raised: "Fuck, I don't want to sit around anyone else's kids, either."

Is there any child who wants to go to Broadway? Even the theatre version of The Lion King is a multicoloured bore.

This sounds more like it is she the one who wants to go but it's stuck with a very vocal kid with autism; and she seems eager to spread her mysery to everyone.

Maybe she should get a DVD of a play that she wants to see and check if the kid is entranced by the play. If not, well, there's nothing a bottle of prosecco can't fix for the evening.

IF there are really so few families that have an autistic child and can afford the cost of a big show, maybe the theatre could charge extra to cover the costs of a second performance?

It's not the mere fact that the child is autistic that makes him require a special accommodation. Many autistic children would be able to attend the production without disrupting the experience for others. It's the fact that this particular child makes too much noise.

Which brings me to the point I made previously. If this child yells too much, then he's going to disrupt the show for the other patrons, even those whose autism prompts them to do the same thing. You'll have a theatre full of children whooping and hollering it up, so that none of them will be able to enjoy the show.

The only recourse is to give him a digitalized version that he can enjoy at home.

It is more-than-implied regarding altering the production. There was a reference to making the sound/lighting more sensory-friendly.

So... what about choreography that may be frenetic? Or sopranos/tenors who vocally 'wail' at the high end of their range? Or a costume that may appear ominous?

Hmmmm,

A small community theater where I used to live (this was at least 10 years ago) did a play and had several varied performances for various personal limitations. I only read a review and interview with the producer in the local weekly.

Most things went well. As others have said before me, the problem shows had individuals that would re-act to something and that would trigger more to re-act. Oh, and the showings for the blind didn't work but the producer thought with more time or a more appropriate play it would work -- there were a couple of crucial scenes that they just hadn't figure out how to translate into a none visual format.

I am blind, deaf and numb and mobility imparted.
I went to my rural public library and was shocked, shocked, I tell you to discover that the visual, auditory and Braille media was useless to me and that non of the facilities accommodated me. I therefore demanded that I immediately be accommodated or that the discriminatory library be shut down because if I cannot use it I don't see why anyone else should be able to use it. I demand that 99.9999 percent of the population bend over backwards to accommodate me and if they do not I want them all to be as effed over as I am.

This is very probably a nonstarter. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a baker cannot be compelled to provide content that is repugnant to them.

To analogize, Bruce Springsteen cannot be told what to play, even as he is told he cannot exclude anyone from the audience.

Therefore, a Broadway company cannot be compelled to provide special content, even as they are limited in whom they may remove from a performance for being disruptive.

Do you know what? Some things are simply not for you, however you have been conditioned by political panderers to think that you are the most important thing on the planet.

The complainant may actually be doing her fellows a disservice: others are claiming their special needs children are indeed special - to the point of being superior to normal people. What would they need from “normal“ performers?

Finally, a reminder from Mother Nature, and her henchman, “Fate“: There is a reason for the word, “handicapped”. No amount of attention from or effort by others will ever make that go away. The sooner you say that out loud, the better off you are going to be. You, not others, must deal with it, because “fair” is a totally fictional term used in games and by the slow.

On the 1/59 kids being autistic--sorry, not buying it unless they are all kept home all the time. I regularly see downs syndrome with parents at the store. We have one across the street. I rarely see autistic kids out. So less than the Downs cases which is one in 700. The only way you can get that figure is by counting kids who learn to talk late or who are what used to be called Auspergers. The kid who cuts my grass would fit that description but he drives, makes tons of money doing lawns and is fine in school. I think this statistic is inflated.

"Conforming with the law this way would require so much money that Berkeley responded by yanking the free content from everyone."

Berkeley's capitulation was a craven act of cowardice, a venal example of virtue signaling, or both. They would have prevailed on First Amendment grounds had they cared to push back.

On the 1/59 kids being autistic--sorry, not buying it unless they are all kept home all the time. I regularly see downs syndrome with parents at the store.
________________________________________

Well, that wouldn't be too surprising. People with Downs are often known for being sweet-tempered, so it's easy enough to take them out in public. Not the case with other syndromes, necessarily.

On the 1/59 kids being autistic--sorry, not buying it unless they are all kept home all the time. ~ cc at February 16, 2019 4:43 PM

While that statistic is correct, according to the CDC, her use of it here is misleading. 1 in 59 is on the autism spectrum. That does not mean 1 in 59 needs a "sensory-friendly" environment or is incapable of functioning in "neuro-typical" society. ~ Conan the Grammarian at February 15, 2019 7:50 AM

According to the CDC, it's 1 in 59 on the spectrum, not 1 in 59 with full-blown autism.

According to NIMH, "Autism is known as a “spectrum” disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience."

It's a pretty wide spectrum, encompassing everything from ADHD to OCC to Asperger's. People estimated to have been on that spectrum in some way include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jerry Seinfeld, Dan Akroyd, Bobby Fischer, Thomas Jefferson, Emily Dickinson, Lewis Carroll, and others.