My Commonplace Book

There are at least a few creative judges out there!

Logical consequences and embarrassment will always work better than unrelated punishment. In the second case, the guy did get some richly deserved jail time, but the length of his sentence was reduced in return for accepting the alternative punishment. (I think it was reduced a little too much, but maybe he'll remember it better this way.)


Public apology ordered for man who parked in handicapped space

( Text )


Man to Wear Pup Costume for Shooting Dog

( text )

The Sun has an update on Tatyana McFadden that's a little more balanced -- well, a little less unbalanced.

The article says that the school system's policy "appears to fly in the face of accommodations made by some school systems around the country that have come up with ways to let disabled and able-bodied athletes compete in the same events." But then it goes on to cite only two, neither of which seems to describe disabled and able-bodied athletes actually competing in the same events.

I thought the word "competing" has been thrown around very loosely by the Sun, but I was surprised to find that Merriam Webster says it means "to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or a prize)", and that the idea of "[being] in a state of rivalry" with another appears after that. The definition in yourdictionary.com is the more traditional one:  "To strive against (others) for victory: contend, contest, emulate, rival, vie. (See conflict.) In that sense, compete is being used very wrongly for what Tatyana wants to do on that track with her teammates, but I suppose I can't complain if Merriam Webster okays the way the Sun is using the word.

I thought this passage from the article is very telling:

Not everyone agrees that such mixed events are a good idea.

Susan Oglesby, director of BlazeSports Georgia, a program of the U.S. Disabled Athletes Fund that promotes community sports, clinics and competitions for disabled athletes, opposes letting wheelchair and able-bodied athletes compete simultaneously.

"If it's not the same competition, they shouldn't be on the track at the same time," Oglesby said. "I do believe that the high schools need to offer more opportunities, meaning more distances, for wheelchairs, and we need more training for the coaches because there are certifications available." (emphasis added)

Note that it's an advocate for disabled athletes who is saying that!

The school system's lawyer says:

"Wheelchair racing involves athletes using their upper body, arms, shoulders and no use of the legs. We feel it is material alteration of the sport to have a wheelchair athlete in a running event."

He noted that the county has added five wheelchair events - 100 meters, 200 meters, 400 meters, shot-put and discus - to overall team scoring when track and field meets get under way Tuesday.

So it's not like wheelchair athletes are being shut out.

I disagree with the adjunct law professor the reporter interviewed, Marc Charmatz, who said:

"The whole tenor of this is to ensure that disabled athletes have the same opportunities to participate in programs and activities as nondisabled athletes to the maximum extent appropriate," said Charmatz, who teaches a clinic on civil rights of people with disabilities.

Charmatz said he sees no reason for "separate but equal" programs for disabled athletes.

"Why can't a person participate equally?" Charmatz asked. "I think that participation is so valuable to a person with a disability. It's difficult to come up with a reason why someone shouldn't be able to have a chance."

Excuse me? Tatyana doesn't want to participate equally! She wants her own separate timing. If she wants to participate equally -- and if it's safe for the runners on the track, as deidei pointed out in her comment yesterday, then I think she should be allowed to! But then, as conuly said, "no school lets every child participate. You get onto the team by doing better than everyone else trying out. You have to compete to earn your slot, which allows you to, well, compete."

Tatyana wants to have it both ways, and I simply don't feel that's fair. One of her teammates said she can beat Tatyana in the shorter events, but "She has to build up speed. When it's the longer distance, she usually kicks our butts." If that's the case, I'd advocate allowing her to compete exactly as conuly described, with the requirement of keeping her wheelchair out of the inner lanes for safety's sake as Oregon does.

But if she wants to have her cake and eat it too, I'm opposed to it.

( Full text )

A girl on her high school track team who uses a wheelchair is seeking a federal court order that would let her take part in the same races as her fellow students. She's allowed to be in the team's practices, but the school system requires her to participate in separate races during official events. Since she's generally the only one at the meets in a wheelchair, her mother says, "Everybody has to stop and wait for her to [go] around the track."

But Tatyana doesn't want to actually compete with her able-bodied teammates -- she just wants to go around the track with them. She would still be timed separately from the other athletes. When asked why she wanted to compete with her teammates, she said: "It's not about winning or losing, it's about being a part" of the team.

But are you really part of the team if you're being timed separately?

"An advocacy group said the law requires that students with disabilities be offered equal opportunities to participate in interscholastic athletics and to be with students without disabilities as much as possible. Separate athletic programs are acceptable only if necessary to protect student safety, the center said." Does that mean a blind student must be allowed to compete on a softball team, if he can run in a straight line to get around the bases and a special whistling ball is used? Does that mean a little person must be allowed to compete on the basketball team? Where does one draw the line?

As a partially disabled person myself, I'm unquestionably in favor of disability rights -- but I think it's possible to go too far, and I think this may be one of those cases. I'm in favor of requiring businesses to make accommodations for handicapped customers and employees, but within reason. Blind people make the best transcriptionists because they're not distracted by what's going on around them, but a deaf person can't be a transcriptionist, period. There are a great many historic buildings in the downtown area of old, small towns housing businesses that can't be made wheelchair-accessible without destroying most of the main street. I can't go on many of the field trips with my local bird club because they're on terrain rougher than I can negotiate without help but I don't expect them to have all their trips on paved paths. There are some things that handicapped people simply can't do, and I think demanding unreasonable accommodations hardens people against the ADA and makes it harder to get reasonable ones. Application of the ADA is already being limited more and more by the courts as it is.

But I have mixed feelings about this issue, so I'd like to hear what others think. Please read the whole article first, but keep in mind that it's extremely slanted. For example, the first paragraph -- which I paraphrased at the beginning -- actually says:

A Howard County high school track star who competes in a wheelchair and who won two medals at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens is seeking a federal court order that would let her take part in the same races as her fellow students.

All the italicized words are emotionally loaded to generate sympathy. Starting out by calling her a "high school track star" implies that she helps her team win meets. Is that really true? She's a medal-winner, but is she really a track star in the context of the high school team? Is she actually competing if she's timed separately? Is the fact that she won medals at the Paralympics so relevant that it should be in the lead paragraph, or is it just color that belongs further down in the story? Is she really "taking part in the same races" as her fellow students if she's timed separately?

After I read that paragraph I really thought she was trying to compete along with them and wondered if it was possible to be so fast in a wheelchair that one could do that. It wasn't until I read further that I understood what was really being demanded. The article gave almost no space to the school system's point of view. This is it, in totality: "Mark Blom, the Howard school system's general counsel, said the system 'completely denies any allegation that we have violated federal law - or any law, in fact. We have extended ourselves in many significant ways to accommodate Tatyana, and we're pleased to do that,' Blom said. He called the lawsuit 'a case about a parent trying to trail-blaze, and people are entitled to do that, but she has no law or authority to support her position.' "

That's it. Except for that brief quote, the entire article comes strongly from the girl's viewpoint, describing her in extremely sympathetic terms and liberally quoting her, her mother, and the advocacy group. (The Sun is often slanted, which is one reason why I don't read it much any more.) But with that caveat, try to take a neutral viewpoint when you read the story and then tell me what you think.

( Full text )

In woofiegrrl's Quicklinks for 2006-02-22 there is a link to nothandicapped.com. Meredith added the comment, "I actually really disagree with this. It's good that they're not permanent stickers, but it's inappropriate for people to presume the person using the car is able-bodied."

it's inappropriate for people to presume the person using the car is able-bodied.

She is so right! Many people who need handicrap* parking have invisible disabilities.

I look fine to many people, and I've occasionally been yelled at for taking up a handicrap spot.  (On the other hand, when I'm having a good day and use a regular space so I can leave the handicrap spots for those who need them more than I do, I've been scolded for not using them and thereby taking up a good space that "regular people" could have used!)

What about those people who use their relative’s placard, when their relative is not even with them? This is definitely immoral, selfish and disrespectful as well as being illegal; there is NO excuse of this dishonest behavior. However, unless you know them and know without a doubt is not their placard, it is in the best interest of those of us who suffer from invisible disabilities to just smile and assume they have a right to be there.

Common but completely invisible reasons a person may need handicrap parking include arthritis, asthma, back injury, brain injury, bone disorders, chronic pain disorders, heart disease, muscular disorders, neurological disorders, oxygen impairment, pregnancy problems, seizure disorders, spinal disorders, recent surgery, and many others. The shortened distance from the parking lot allows people who need accommodations to walk into a building to use an electric cart or wheelchair; to reduce exposure to heat, cold and/or exhaust fumes; to save their energy for the purpose they drove there; to get back to their car when they have used up all of their energy inside; to get heavy items out to their car; or even to be able to find their car.

I would be livid if I found one of those "not handicapped" stickers on my car. If I could find the person who put it there, I can only hope I would have the presence of mind to remember a retort published by Ann Landers and quoted on a page devoted to this issue:

On one online message board, a member posted a letter to Ann Landers written by someone who'd had back and knee surgeries, but looked to be healthy. One day when she used her parking placard in a handicapped space, a man approached her and said, "You certainly don't look handicapped to me.  You should not be parking in that space."  She replied, "And you, sir, look intelligent, but I guess looks can be deceiving."

On rare occasions I've even resorted to carrying a mobility cane for the same reason this woman sometimes uses her white cane.

Or maybe I should just get one of these shirts to wear.


ADDED: Here's a great counterpart to those Not Handicapped stickers: a sticker chastising a car owner/driver for blocking a handicrap space or access point. I wish they weren't so expensive -- $3 each is pretty pricey just to stick on someone else's car. But I'm considering getting some print-it-yourself stickers and making some!

---

*This coined word reflects the opinion that it's crappy to need a handicap parking permit, not a privilege as so many temporarily able-bodied people think when they angrily drive past empty close-in spaces on their way to the only open regular spots at the far reaches of the parking lot.