May Balls are some of the longest, most intense events many of us will ever attend. Extensive queues, a wealth of standing-based entertainment, and the cacophony of noise are bound to leave us all a little worse for wear. Unsurprisingly, it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to make such events accessible to disabled students. We’ve taken huge strides towards this, but, every year, we are still too far from the mark. As a disabled finalist who has worked, attended, and helped organise May Week events, this is my plea for the Cambridge community to do better.

In 2020, the year I matriculated, the Access-a-Ball scheme was launched by the Disabled Students’ Campaign. The scheme is a brilliant collection of access advice and training given to committees who sign up, to help them make their ball accessible. Yet, disabled students are still encountering many problems during May Week.

“While I personally enjoy a challenge, napping on a chapel pew just isn’t fun”

Quiet rooms for resting and low stimulation are often laughably unfit for purpose, with no attendant to keep out rowdy drunks, and bright overhead lighting with uncomfortable seating. While I personally enjoy a challenge, napping on a chapel pew just isn’t fun. Strobe lighting is still used without warning, an incredibly dangerous access mishap. Sensory disabilities are rarely even considered. Wheelchair access can be a catastrophe; it is often partial at best, with some event spaces being completely inaccessible. Wheelchair routes are often the long way round, through service lifts or waste exits – a common issue for wheelchair access generally – with ramps less functional than a chocolate teapot. From pervasive absences of seating to last minute dietary requirements, many of these access issues affect able-bodied students too.

We can do better. First, all committees should sign up to the Access-a-Ball scheme and appoint a designated access officer. Committee members are full-time students who are unlikely to be aware of all, or even most, of the barriers facing disabled students. Executive committee must make sure each individual has read the scheme document in its entirety and is committed to its aims. Although there is room for development, the document is extensive, so failures to meet requirements are usually due to either poor planning or a lack of commitment to accessibility. The latter cannot be accepted.

“Disabled customers should be able to make informed decisions about attending balls”

To improve planning, we need to bear accessibility in mind from the start. The scheme was late in being delivered to committees this year, which will likely have ramifications for disabled students this May Week. Planning for access does not need to be difficult, but trying to retrofit inaccessible entertainment and event spaces is. The Student Union will not have a Disabled Students’ Officer next year, so the implementation of the scheme must continue to be led by non-student staff.

If the scheme can reach committees at the point of ball conception, committees will be much more able to meet access needs, and to release as detailed an access statement as possible when ticket sales start. Disabled customers should be able to make informed decisions about attending balls, especially if we are expected to pay the same price for an event we will have less access to. In turn, treasurers should ensure a substantial budget is set aside for access early on. There should be enough funds to cover all anticipated access needs, so that the only remaining access issues will be structural and predictable.

Treasurers and ticketing officers should also consider extra ticket options for disabled attendees. Committees could release cheaper tickets for access customers, in recognition of the financial disparity disabled students experience and the limitations of the event. If a considerable amount of entertainment or venue space is going to be inaccessible this should be seriously considered. At the least, committees should consider offering reduced or free companion tickets for customers who need a personal assistant, which is common practice in the rest of the events world.

One of the biggest things committees, and the scheme, can do is continue to listen to the disabled community. Feedback forms about what went well and what could be improved could be invaluable for committee handovers and updating the scheme documents.

At times, hoping for truly accessible May Balls feel like wishful thinking when the Cambridge institution itself is often flailing behind access standards. If the Access-a-Ball scheme has taught us anything, though, it’s that there are dozens of easy, practical steps we can take to increase participation and fairness. With commitment and empathy from our community, I know we can continue to build on our progress.

I hope that, somewhere down the line, access issues at May Balls will be a rare blip, rather than a normalised and dreaded anticipation for our disabled students.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.