Quote:
Originally posted by DJWickham
It's pretty arrogant to say that you won't follow the law as long as you are an umpire. Only a few years ago, umpires were refusing to call games where minorities sought to play with white men. I suspect that eventually we'll learn to deal with our fears about the disabled. But, unless we are willing to assess risk based on the individual involved, we're simply dealing with prejudice.
|
I'm sorry, Dennis, but I can't agree with your assessment here.
First of all, the law has NOT been tested against an umpire's responsibilities to administer the rules of baseball on the field. It has only been tested against a
governing Association's right to decline Mr Oddi the initial opportunity to participate.
Secondly, I would suggest that while there may be no specific safety issue involved with able-bodied minorities playing baseball THESE DAYS, I can certainly understand that there might have been such an issue when the umpires originally made the decision you mentioned. Was it a legitimate concern for them then, or only an excuse? Probably not, but I'm not in any real position to judge. In any event, the issues here are entirely different. In this case the individual or group seeking inclusion is NOT the only one at risk from the consequences.
Thirdly, this isn't about fear of the disabled. It is about consideration for the well-being of ALL participants, including the disabled.
It has been my experience of umpires in general that, by and large, they have an advanced sense of justice and fairness that is almost unsurpassed in any other sport. The reason may well be that they have far more power to decide what is just and fair than those officiating in any other sport, and so must think more carefully about the concept in order to exercise that power responsibly. We don't always see eye-to-eye on how to do that, as this forum and others show, but we certainly agree that it must be done.
Most umpires with whom I am acquainted have a great deal of respect for the law. They are charged with enforcing it in a miniscule corner of life; the baseball diamond. They also have a highly developed sense of balance, and an understanding that having respect for the law doesn't require the abrogation of the dictates of your conscience in its enforcement. Heck, Dennis, even the Marines can disobey orders these days, under the right conditions! And conscientious objection has a much more respectable face today.
I'm sure that almost without exception every person here, who has expressed their concerns about having Mr Oddi on their diamond, would be willing to accept the findings of a truly independent assessment of the risks involved in having him participate in a game. I doubt that the subject court decision constitutes that independent assessment of those risks, however. How could it, unless the court was somehow possessed of the umpire's experience in the game to see how quickly problems can develop even for able-bodied participants. It would certainly have been charged with determining,
in theory, whether or not the PIAA decision had infringed Mr Oddi's rights under the ADA, but perhaps not whether that infringement appeared to be in the best interests of the other participants. Were the interests of those "other participants" even independently represented in this case?
Finally, Dennis, unless I am mistaken the direction of the court was to the PIAA and not to the umpires. Umpires making their own assessment of risk is a part and parcel of officiating in these days of indemnity cover. Personally I would rather infringe Mr Oddi's rights, and deny him access to my diamond during live ball action, than have to live with my conscience following a serious injury to some participant that could easily have been avoided had I the courage to stand up against the dictates of a politically correct climate upholding the rights of an individual against the rest of society at ALL costs.
Find a way to assess the risk from Mr Oddi's participation, without first exposing other participants to that risk, and I would be the first to cheer him on. OTOH, don't ask me to accept that no risk exists until some fateful event happens. As umpires, our Duty of Care requires us to
foresee such risks, and so prevent them, rather than to observe the consequences first before acting. That, too, is a law that must be obeyed!
Cheers,