moth@dartmouth.edu (Tom Leathrum) (08/23/90)
Index Number: 9940 It has been a while since I have put up a serious posting to this group (since January?), and I have accumulated a couple of interesting stories. I don't make any pretense of hoping that telling you these stories will cure anything, I just want to get them off my chest. This is going to be a bit long.... The first story is about something my mother and little brother (not so little anymore, really -- he'll be 18 in September) went through last Spring down in South Carolina. A year ago September, Roger began in a program which took students from the "Center for Exceptional Children" where he had been and placed him and several others from the Center in a class in the local high school. In the meantime, a lawsuit had been filed to get the Center closed down (its very existence is in violation of Federal law) and take all the remaining students from the Center into programs like the one Roger is in. The school district, becoming both more sensitive to the students involved and more aware of the laws they have been stepping on for far too many years, looked to this pilot program for some indication of what to do next. Based on the overwhelming success of my little brother's class, they agreed to shut down the Center effective *this* September. The parents of children still at the Center pitched a hissy-fit. It was all over the local television news programs for several weeks. Due to all the commotion, the district agreed to delay closing the Center for another year. The parents think of this as a victory -- the people involved in Roger's class, including the teacher, the principal of the high school, and many of the parents, think of this as a year to educate the remaining parents. One mother of a child still in the Center said, in front of the television cameras, that her own child "couldn't handle" a regular class. One of the girls in Roger's class can't feed herself, and has many problems which that mother probably would recognize from her own child. When she marched up to the stage at graduation to get her diploma, the entire senior class gave her a standing ovation. I wish that that mother could have been there. The second story happened to me last week. I have been volunteering since early July at a residence for severely handicapped near where I live here in New Hampshire. I haven't been doing much, really, just visiting for several hours on weekends and often taking some of the clients out to community events. (Understand, I have done this kind of work professionally before, and as the clients and staff there get used to me I am taking on a more active role at the residence.) Last week, the residence got a set of tickets to go see an opera in the nearby town of Lebanon, NH (I don't plan on pulling any punches here). We (myself and one full-time staff person) took two clients to the show. There are a few things that should be explained before I go on with the story. First of all, the Lebanon Opera House is inside the Lebanon Town Hall/City Offices building, and I believe that the theater is run by the town. If that building qualifies as wheelchair accessible, it does so by the skin of its teeth. We had to enter through the Lebanon City Offices entrance at the side of the building, then (with nothing to guide us) find the elevator and go up two stories. I will admit, the elevator was reasonably nice, even if it was a bit small for the wheelchairs. We reached the theater and were shown to our seats. The ushers were ill-prepared to deal with two people in wheelchairs and two attendants. Our seats were inappropriately placed near one of the narrow inner aisles -- the wheelchairs would block the aisle. Fire code, you know. So, with management approval, we moved to the side isle (which is much wider). We also moved back to within two rows of the back of the theater, away from the crowd, since we were expecting to leave around intermission anyway. After some arranging (to keep the aisle reasonably open -- fire code again), we settled into our seats and the music started. The overture was nice, and we all enjoyed the first part of the show. About fifteen minutes into the show, management confronted us, asking us to move the wheelchairs to the very back of the theater, saying we were being "disruptive." Both clients were enjoying the show, but they expressed their satisfaction with the performance by fidgeting in their chairs "rocking," some would say. This did present a bit of a problem for one of them, because the brakes on his wheelchair were slipping. The aisles are sloped. I spent what little of the show I saw with my foot under his wheel. About five minutes after we were asked to move to the back, management returned. Apparently, this wasn't good enough -- we were still being "disruptive." The woman who had asked us to move back asked us if "going outside for a minute would upset them." Enough is enough. We left. I am working on getting a formal complaint of some sort written by the administrative people at the residence. As a "mere" volunteer, my anger wouldn't do much good with the theater people, but I have gotten the right people at the residence involved -- something good will come of this yet. Oh, I still haven't given you the punchline: the performance we attended was a benefit for United Way. Regards, Tom Leathrum moth@dartmouth.edu
era@ncar.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) (09/04/90)
Index Number: 10045 In article <13649@bunker.UUCP> moth@dartmouth.edu (Tom Leathrum) writes: |Index Number: 9940 | |It has been a while since I have put up a serious posting to this |group (since January?) Welcome back. |[story about parents of handicapped children who are against inclusion, |who want their children in institutions] It's amazing how many people there are who are against inclusion. Sometimes I think we need to bring in gay activists to give them lessons in how to come out of the closet. :-) I was reminded of this just today, as I'm holding a legislative alert about Senator Chaffee's Medicaid Reform Bill (S.384). This bill would help pay for services outside of institutions. But many parents who think their kids would be thrown out of institutions, are bombarding their legislators with mail opposing the legislation. It isn't going to pass unless a lot of people write Senator Lloyd Bentsen, and their own senators, real soon ... like by Labor Day. |[story about problems encountered in taking persons with severe |disabilities to a local opera house] | |We reached the theater and were shown to our seats. The ushers |were ill-prepared to deal with two people in wheelchairs and two |attendants. Our seats were inappropriately placed near one of the |narrow inner aisles -- the wheelchairs would block the aisle. Fire |code, you know. So, with management approval, we moved to the side |isle (which is much wider). We also moved back to within two rows |of the back of the theater, away from the crowd, since we were |expecting to leave around intermission anyway. After some |arranging (to keep the aisle reasonably open -- fire code again), |we settled into our seats and the music started. The overture was |nice, and we all enjoyed the first part of the show. About fifteen |minutes into the show, management confronted us, asking us to move |the wheelchairs to the very back of the theater, saying we were |being "disruptive." Both clients were enjoying the show, but they |expressed their satisfaction with the performance by fidgeting in |their chairs "rocking," some would say. This did present a bit of |a problem for one of them, because the brakes on his wheelchair |were slipping. The aisles are sloped. I spent what little of the |show I saw with my foot under his wheel. About five minutes after |we were asked to move to the back, management returned. |Apparently, this wasn't good enough -- we were still being |"disruptive." The woman who had asked us to move back asked us if |"going outside for a minute would upset them." | |Enough is enough. We left. Sounds like Lebanon hasn't changed a whole lot, attitude wise, in 20 years. Two comments: 1) In situations like this, I would call ahead and explain to the theater manager that I would be coming with wheelchairs that would need a wide aisle. At least they would be forewarned and couldn't make excuses. 2) However, even if I hadn't done that, I think I would stick in there. Yes, hindsight is 20-20 and I've made mistakes like this, but ... I think I would have stayed, and let the management call the cops, if that's what they wanted to do. |I am working on getting a formal complaint of some sort written by |the administrative people at the residence. As a "mere" volunteer, |my anger wouldn't do much good with the theater people, but I have |gotten the right people at the residence involved -- something good |will come of this yet. Make a nuisance of yourself! |Oh, I still haven't given you the punchline: the performance we |attended was a benefit for United Way. That reminds me: the greatest thing to come down the pike since sliced bread, is the new United Way regulation for business givers, that allows individuals to make their contributions directly to non-profit organizations of their choices, rather than funneling it through the UW bureaucracy. There's something very satisfying about short-circuiting the allocation decisions made by the front-office wingtips at UW. BTW, did you see the article "Neither Morons, Nor Imbeciles, Nor Idiots" in the June 1990 issue of Harper's Magazine? If so, what did you think of it? -- Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(voice) 303-497-1137(fax) * era@ncar.ucar.edu [128.117.64.4] * era@ncario.BITNET era@ncar.UUCP * Edward.Arnold@f809.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (09/17/90)
Index Number: 10385 Jeff.Salzberg@f729.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Jeff Salzberg) writes: >[...] > The safety of 1500 audience members (which, of course, includes those > in wheelchairs) is more important than anything else. If reasonable > efforts to insure that safety leave some patrons feeling that they are > being discriminated against, that is regrettable. To say nothing of, in all likelihood, illegal. A situation has been created here whereby the disABLED patrons are categorized as being, BY DEFINITION, a hazard to other patrons. That is intorerable. It was probably not the *intent* of the actions mentioned (re: fire codes, etc.) but nevertheless that is the *effect*. Yes, I will concede that you are caught in the middle between State and Federal Civil Rights legislation, fire codes, etc., but is that sufficient mitigation to justify the situation? Probably not, if the matter were ever to be adjudicated. "That was, I say, that was a commentary, not a flame; flame, that is." W. K. "Bill" Gorman