ABLEnews Extra

                        Woodstock: An Interpretation

         [The following file may be freq'd as SLWOOD.* from 1:109/909 and
         other BBS's that carry the ABLEFiles Distribution Network (AFDN).
         Please allow a few days for processing.]

    Recent discussion over the priority of sign language interpreters
    for the nouveau Woodstock struck some discordant notes on ADA-LAW.
    We bring you soem fo the the high and low lights for your own
    composition.

1)  Michael Masinter, at the Shepard Broad Law Center in Fort
    Lauderdale, FL,  sets events into  motion with this August 13 post:

Subject:      Woodstock

The New York Times reports that a federal judge refused to order the
Woodstock promoters to provide sign language interpreters to concert
goers who cannot hear.  The article notes that sign language
interpreters are on hand for the purpose of making public service
announcements and emergency announcements, but not, apparently, for the
purpose of interpreting the musical performances.  The Attorney General
of New York brought the lawsuit under the ADA.

Sign languange interpreters for a rock performance?  The ADA??? I can't
wait to see Louie Louie signed.

Why stop with rock?  How about opera?  What language should the
interpreter use for those operas inconviently written in Italian or
German?

The judge did not rule on the merits of the suit; he only held the state
Attorney General could not bring the suit.  Should the ADA require
someone to sign musical performances?

2)   Hawaii's Dick Burkhalter is the first to respond.

Boy are *you* gonna get flamed!

Michael, obviously you are not hearing impaired or you wouldn't have
made such statements. Signed performances happen all over the *world*
for rock concerts, operas, theater and other types of public
performances.  In fact, there are deaf rock groups who perform (and some
may argue that includes just about *all* groups who play heavy metal
music - if they're not deaf when they start, they soon will become so).

I think it is a legitimate complaint and I'm shocked that the judge made
such a ruling.  Can you expand on this and describe the judge's
rationale?  I think it's deplorable!

3)  From the Ozarks, Dan Carroll concurs with Dick's prediction:

This has to be the understatement of the year!!  And this will be a more
lop-sided fight than the Foreman vs Frasier fight.

I'm going to enjoy this!!  Get ready Michael.  You have really stuck
your head into a hornet's nest! !

Dan

4)  But it is Daniel Horsey who  really gets things going with this
    reflection:

This has got to be a classic! This is a wonderful example of why people
who really need help from the authorities cant get it.  Why? - is it
because there are not enough staff? No it's because the staff that
exists wastes time with this kind of nonsense.

In cases of ada discrimination, we're talking about people's lives here.
While this really is funny, it's saddening that folks are wasting away
unnecessarily, while energy is being wasted on nonsense like this.

5)  Dan pours gasoline on his fire in a subsequent post commenting on
    another ADA dispute

Subject: Re: EEOC settles ADA lawsuit

Now please compare the import of this matter to our woodstock debate.
That's what I'm talking about.  This is where the focus needs to be, on
things that have a lasting impact on people's lives!

6)  Fire brings heat...once again from our customarily candid Dick
    Burkhalter.

Your attitude really and truly offends me!  Who the hell are you to
decide what is "needed" vs. what is "nonsense"?  The ADA is intended to
give every American with a disability equal access to all areas of life,
and those areas include entertainment as well as anything you might
consider "needed".  I suppose you feel that closed captions on TV are a
waste of money for the same reason.

Please confine your comments to issues you have some knowledge of; it is
vastly apparent that you have neither knowledge of persons with hearing
impairments nor the ADA.


7)  Like a second in Dick's corner, Robert Mauro chimes in:

Right on, Dick!  No one should tell us what is worthy of interpretation
or brailling for us. Playboy, Woodstock, Opera, Henry Miller, the Bible,
the Koran.  Ideas are valuable.  Only we can decide what ideas are
important to us -- not some prude, conservative, or public censor.

-Bob

8)  As for EEOC, Dick doesn't see Dan's connection.

A>Now please compare the import of this matter to our woodstock debate. That's
A>what I'm talking about.  This is where the focus needs to be, on things that
A>have a lasting impact on people's lives!

Why compare apples and oranges?

There is absolutely NO connection between the rights of a person to get
and keep a job and the rights of people to attend a concert.  None
whatsoever.

Dick

9)  In a related thread, Emily Quast, at the University of Minnesota,
    broadens our discussion.

Subject:      terps and music

I just learned on another list that the Grateful Dead have their own
interp who gets his own place up in front, his own spotlight--the works.

Of course with priorities like that, they'll never make it to big time.
;)

10)       To which Dick responds:

Sweet Honey on the Rock has a signing member of the group.

A>Of course with priorities like that, they'll never make it to big time. ;)

Right.  Deadheads everywhere will agree with you.

11)  Meanwhile Dan Horsey protests:

I did not say that interpreters are a trivial matter.  What I DO say is
that this ought to fall WAY down on the list of priorities.  I dont
think that ANY group has a right to demand that their ENTIRE list of
life enrichment demands is met, while there are people whose highest
priorities (the ability to live with dignity, and provide for one's
family) are not being dealt with.

If we lived in a situation where no one was tossed out of a job or a
school because of their disability, then I would be the first to support
moving down the priority ladder.  But when compared to some of the
things people have to deal with every day, and cannot get assistance,
yes, this IS trivial (in my opinion).

12)  Edward Bollenbach weighs in.

Dan.. You must be on line now judging by your quick response to my post.
I'm sorry to tell you this Dan but your opinion on this issue is Trivial
compared to the opinion of the deaf community. And, by the way, the
provision of interpretors at Woodstock does not weaken any complaints
that are judged by others to be more important in any way I can see.
Perhaps you can outline, in detail, your theory that important needs
suffer because the deaf want more enjoyment from a rock concert.

13)  Sword in hand, Dan parries.

Flame on! I can take it. obviously YOU are not a persone who believes
that people can disagree with you. That's okay, but there is no way that
i will agree that something like this should tke priority when there are
folks with many different disabilities who can not get the legal
assistance they need to earn a decent living and be real contributors to
society.

Wake up and smell the coffee! We're talking about life here!

Any more flamers out there, take your best shot!

14)  Ed tries a new tact.

Its not a matter of jumping all over someone who disagrees with me. Your
concern about the use of legal resources in short supply and the anger
you express is goofy. Think of the inappropriate frivilous law suits
that plague our society. Why pick on one class of people trying to enjoy
a concert.

Here is a principle I happen to believe in: any minority group or class
of people have a right to determine what is important to them. It is
logical to question someone outside of a group who gets so upset when
people in a group try to exercise their constitutional rights. I believe
you when you say you mean no offense to anyone who is deaf. You have to
see though that when you get involved, as you have, many will take
offense.

15)  And draws this reponse:

Ed, Okay, your not jumping all over me, I'm just goofy! But I'll tell
you this much, An attitude that says, evey one else is bringing
frivilous law suits, so why not us is of no help to anyone.  No I am not
deaf. What I am is the parent of a student with a learning disability,
and I sure cant get state resources to help me fight the battle  to get
my son an appropriate education.  On the contrary, I have to hire my own
lawyer to fight these same people. And it makes me just as angry as I
have apparently made you to see this type of case receiving these type
of resources.

Dont get me wrong, I  DONT mean offense to anyone except people who are
intolerant of other's opinions!

16)  Ed reaches out to Michael.

Michael...Did you ever see the Star Spangled Banner signed? Its quite a
sight and even more emotional in some respects to hearing it sung? ..Ed

17)  And once more addresses Dan:

OK Dan here goes. You continue to argue that interpreters are trivial
and that the people who argue for them and assert the ADA requires them
hurts other people with so called "real needs". Anyone who fights for
the implementation of the ADA to improve the quality of life for any
group is fighting the good fight and I don't understand your logic at
all.

You are saying that people won't get what they need and the ADA will be
less effective because a group feels interpreters are appropriate at
Woodstock. This is a non-sequitur. I continue to be intrigued by writers
who have strong opinions (negative opinions) about accommodations that
people living with a particular disability feel will improve their
quality of life. You can always tell they do not have the disability
they write about. If someone says seeing empty handicap parking spaces
angers them I know they can walk. If someone is angry at the provision
of interpretors at a concert I know two things: they can hear and they
have no knowledge of the power and beauty of sign language.

Further, the Woodstock concert is a huge financial venture. How much do
interpreters cost compared to the total cost? It seems to me that your
reactivity and the negative reactivity of others to people who assert
rights under the ADA is the most cumbersome barrier that people with
disabilities deal with. If you talk the talk then walk the walk... Ed

18)  Dan has a P.S. of his own:

By the way Ed, I neglected to mention - I DO know a little something
about hearing impairment - My grandmother is deaf, and yes she does have
a closed caption box. I bought it for her, the attorney general of new
york (where she lives) did not have to get involved.

19)  Karen Weber relates her experiences:

I saw Holly Near in concert several years ago. The best part of her
concert was the interpreter, and I say that as a hearing individual.
Also the church that I attend has an interpreter at one of their two
morning services. They interpret for the choral and solo vocal music as
well as for the spoken word. I believe that interpretation is a service
to the entire audience, besides being a necessity for the deaf - perhaps
the judge has never been exposed to the beauty of interpretative
signing.

Now, let's jump 50 years into the future when all of the workplace
issues that Dan is so concerned about are resolved. What happens when we
now attempt to address recreational/leisure issues? Guess what, the
precedent is there in this judge's opinion. If we limit our efforts only
to those things of major consequence (and let Dan define that), we will
lose forever our right to seek rights in other areas.

By the way, Dan, doesn't the constitution provide ALL people the right
to life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I believe that the
framers of this document recognized that part of being a complete human
being involves leisure and social activities. That, in and of itself,
should be a message to you.

Where does it say you can only do one thing at a time anyway? Does this
ruling somehow threaten your needs? Be concrete about how it does and
perhaps you may get more respect from the denizens of this list.

Karen

20)  No quitter--even in a revolving door--Dan persists:

My theory is a very simple one: There are limited resources to go
around. Therefore we (everyone in every situation) must make prudent use
of those resources.  One doesn't have to be on this list long to hear
about folks who have some pretty shady things being done to them, and
there's not much help for them when it comes to representing them.  As I
recall from the orignal mail, we're talking about the attorney general
of New York.  This is a public resource that is in short supply.  If
some F. Lee Bailey offered his services Pro Bono to bring this
complaint, I would have no problem, but i DO believe that the Attorney
General of New York should have some slightly higher priorities than
this.

By the way, I do appreciate your reasoned reply to my thoughts. Any one
else care to endulge in a rational discussion?  Or if you just want to
hop all over anyone who disagrees with you, fine!

I certainly mean no offense to anyone who is deaf.  But I do belive in
setting priorities, and using resources where they will accomplish the
most good for all concerned.

 21)  Donna Dickenson decides to toss her two cents in the pot...no pun
      intended, albeit it's Woodstock.

Dan:

I'm from New York State, and have a brother who is both deaf and
physically challenged.

While he wasn't at Woodstock (not his type of music), I'm putting in my
two cents.

Trust me, we pay enough taxes in this state to provide the Attn. General
with the resources to pursue any case he wants to!  So, thank you for
your concern about his priorities, but I'm sure we as a people did not
suffer because of this litigation.

As someone who may be facing my own ADA fight with my company (for a
later posting), I'm glad to have an Attn. General who will fight for the
smaller points of the law.

I'm sorry that having a deaf person enjoy a concert is not important to
you.  Maybe if you knew deaf people, you would feel differently.

22)   Writing from St. Peter's College, Michale Gehm attempts to set the
      debate in context.

Daniel wrote :

> Now please compare the import of this matter to our woodstock debate. That's
> what I'm talking about.  This is where the focus needs to be, on things that
> have a lasting impact on people's lives!

You know, it just totally amazes me to no end how this whole issue about
Woodstock has seemingly exploded.  It appears as if all of a sudden this
group of such helpful and informative individuals have suddenly decided
that there should be some sort of division of which disability deserves
more 'attention' or should be regarded as more 'important' than the
other!

I've been on this board for a couple of months now and I don't believe
that I've ever seen such down right stupidity!  Daniel, I sure hope
you've really sat down and thought about what you are saying, because to
be honest, it sure sounds like your talking off the top of your head,
instead of thinking about just what the ADA, and all the other landmark
cases that have benefited the disabled (OF ALL TYPES) really stand for.
I can give you a prime example of your oversight.

I personally am not hearing impaired, just in a WC, but I have two
friends that are and one of them is a EXCELLENT dancer.  No, she can't
hear the music, but she can 'feel' the music and she has OFTEN made the
comment that she wished that there was some way for her to 'see' the
words while at a concert, especially for the words to new music, ones
that she hasn't had the chance to have someone write them down for her
or dig them up on her own.

Ok, so you think it was silly and a WASTE OF TIME for the AG of NY to
stand-up for the rights of the hearing impaired.  What's next?  Oh no, I
can't get my WC up over a little old curb!  Oh well, guess I'll just
have to take my wheels and run out there in the street with the big
cars...wouldn't want to bother anyone about my rights, no sir...just
another waste of TIME over something that really isn't that IMPORTANT...

Did anyone consider instead of a signer, maybe a large teleprompt?  I've
seen it done!

OPINIONS ARE OF MY OWN...(Daniel, please, just take a moment and think
about what you're saying, honestly, one disability is any greater or any
less than the next...because I can tell ya, to feel shut out hurts!)

MIKE GEHM

ABLEnews Editor's Note: While  "Dan said...Dick said" continued, .we
close our Woodstock concert with notes from some players yet to be
heard.

23)  Karen Grosz, Dean of Language Arts at San Jose City College,  asks Dan:

What about the interpreters who might have been paid to do the
interpreting?  Because of your insistence on your own priorities, the
interpreters are losing job opportunities.  Don't they count???

24)  While Scott Lissner raises yet another point in favor of action.

While access to entertainment might seem to pale next to access to
employment consider the potential for education and awareness that a
such a suit might have.

Scott Lissner

     A Fidonet-backbone echo featuring disability/medical news and
     information, ABLEnews   is   carried by more than 325 BBSs in the
     US, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Greece, New   Zealand, and
     Sweden. The echo, available from Fidonet and Planet Connect, is
     gated to  the ADANet, FamilyNet, and World Message Exchange
     networks.

     ABLEnews text files--including our digests: Of Note and Mednotes
     (suitable for bulletin  and file use) are disseminated via the
     ABLEfile Distribution Network, which is available  from the
     filebone and Planet Connect.

...For further information, contact CURE, 812 Stephen Street, Berkeley
Springs, West Virginia 254511 (304-258-LIFE/5433).

