There seem to be a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. Not to be
outdone:
Is it possible that the organizers asked the notsofleetoffoot participants
what their preference was? A rather outrageous suggestion I know, and so I
apologize now to those of you who thought that way, and - to be on the safe
side - to everybody else as well.
Have a good weekend, rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence Bathurst <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:05 AM
Subject: (Fwd) Stage Accessibility at the Oscars
> Hello everybody
>
> Jim has asked me to forward this response to the list after many attempts
> to do so himself. Technical glitches of some kind, it seems.
>
>
>
> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
> From: [log in to unmask] (Jim Davis)
> Date sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:42:08 -0500 (EST)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Stage Accessibility at the Oscars
>
> It is odd that DS has been recently characterized on this list, as a
> field "primarily" concerned with physical environmental barriers, over
> social kinds. And many others have insisted to me, that they're Social
> Model-ists who put an equal amount of attention into both social and
> physical barriers. Hmmmmm.
>
> This thread of posts on "King Gimp"s" award presentation, seems to
> (once again) indicate otherwise.
>
> Aside from the way the discussion blasted off, with assumptions that
> they guy in the wheelchair had to be one of the film's makers, and
> therefor was suffering from discrimination RIGHT THERE ON TEEVEE!!!, (he
> isn't, and he wasn't)..... none of the posts reveals even the slightest
> interest in actually verifying the other "discrimination" part of the
> story -- the "built environment" part.....the accessibility status of
> the theatre stage in question. Gee, if we're all so big on considering
> environmental-barrier factors, how did competent consideration of that
> area get left out of yet another discussion on this list? We even had
> a thorough thrashing out of the question of --" Should this guy have
> protested?".... (which in this case was a purely imaginary question,
> because he was in fact not suffering any discrimination to protest.)
> But the "built environment" half of the story, never got any
> consideration beyond the shallowest kind; mere assumptions.
>
> Accessibility in this building, at THIS event, has to be evaluated
> differently, than if this same theatre were being used for a play or
> say, a lecture-hall type event.
> Considering how that theatre is used for this awards show (nominees and
> others are all mixed in the audience, winners hear their names, bask in
> the applause etc. of all around them, and proceed directly & quickly up
> to the stage to get their awards, with a billion people watching, which
> puts a lot of eyeballs on the person who takes a lot longer to get up on
> that stage)... I would definitely NOT say that some sort of round-about
> "back-door" access route to that stage, would constitute "access that is
> truly equal in all regards" (my phrase; though such a back-way set up
> might meet "the letter" of how the ADA and other Calif. or L.A. access
> codes define the much much narrower legal definition of what they
> misleadingly term "equal access"). Mere "back door" access would be
> extremely unequal, for a ceremony orchestrated like the Oscars. Of
> course, if they pre-planted the mobility-disabled nominees backstage in
> order to have any who win, already up at that level so they can quickly
> go out and get the award, or if they were to take the award & a
> microphone directly to a PWD in the audience -- that sort of
> "alternative" arrangement would deprive these individuals of many of the
> joys that the AB nominees and winners take for granted.
>
> And let's not forget, that there is an equal-employment aspect to this
> accessibility question. This is not a purely social event. It's about
> people's work. This is a professional career-building type event, for
> people who in many if not most cases are essentially freelancers, with
> fragile careers. Supposing that white-haired cinematographer who won,
> had been less mobile, and had used a quad-cane, to very slowly and
> painfully get up those steps. Would this have affected the industry's
> perception of his continuing employability, for more films? Would
> some mogul have thought "too old" and crossed him off some list for an
> upcoming production? In a professional situation like this, one can be
> almost sure that nobody would ever file an ADA complaint against the
> Academy; that could be career-suicide. So the situation calls for the
> institution to do stuff beyond what the access codes contemplate (see
> below for explanation), in a situation in which there may never be any
> enforcement of even those weak codes.
>
> So I would say the proper question is this: Does this awards program, in
> that space, provide stage access that is "truly equal in all regards"?
> Many post-ers to this list claim to know the answer. I don't. I am
> trained as an architect, and have been working on building renovations
> for 25 years, and from the information available on my TV screen, I
> cannot answer that question. That building's old, but does the stage
> have lifts at either side of the front? (Or maybe even concealed, in
> locations closer to the middle of the stage front?) I don't know. Not
> enough information.
>
> If I can find out, maybe I'll write an article about it.
>
> PS: The 39 minute film "King Gimp" is described on the web site of the
> International Documentary Association. People wanting to show it can
> reach the distributor through them.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Laurence Bathurst
> School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
> Faculty of Health Sciences
> University of Sydney
> P.O. Box 170
> Lidcombe NSW 2141
> Australia
>
> Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
> Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Please visit the School's interim web site at
> http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
