[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

I agree that "Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced." I would also suggest that there are two types of prejudice; positive and negative. There are a lot positively prejudiced people who don't believe they are prejudiced. The fact is that people in wheelchairs, or on crutches, ARE different than people who don't need either of these aids. Sure, they are still people with all their attendant wants, needs and desires. They are just not as capable of some tasks. That's a simple fact, not a statement of prejudice. To argue otherwise is to be deluded by a positive prejudice. I'm perfectly willing to see "past" the crutches and the wheelchair, where the circumstances allow me to do so without putting others at risk. However, I cannot blind myself to the all the possibilities simply because there is a wanting, needing individual who is desirous that I do so.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

Sure, I can happily go with the individualised assessment, and not mentally place all people with wheelchairs or crutches in the same category as each other. That's easy. However, all people with wheelchairs or crutches ARE in the same category with respect to each other for at least one thing; they ALL NEED that individualised assessment or they don't bring their wheelchairs or crutches onto my field. If that represents prejudice, then so be it. I have no qualms being positively prejudiced toward the well being of ALL participants on my diamond.

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA.

Now, see Dennis, THAT'S prejudice! No-one here, including me, has put themselves "above the law" on this issue. You are still finding it difficult to acknowledge that the Law speaks to people and groups of people differently. Yes, Dennis, the Law discriminates. If the ADA in this case says to the PIAA that they can't exclude Mr Oddi, that is NOT the same as saying that the umpire association must accept Mr Oddi too! Can you at least understand and accept that?

When and if the ADA speaks directly to the umpire association and its members, or indirectly by direction of the PIAA, demanding they accept Mr Oddi then the individual umpires will have one last decision to make; either obey the law or stop officiating baseball. Until then, however, the law has NOT spoken to the umpires and they remain entitled to make their individual choices without being accused of contempt for the law! The direction it gave, after all, was NOT to them!

As to Casey Martin, I still can't figure out why the PGA claims that golf carts are inconsistent with the game of golf when every golf course makes me rent one.

Again, Dennis, you are refusing to see the wood for the irons. The PGA deals with Professional golf, and your golf course is dealing with an amateur golfer. Professional golfers do NOT use golf carts. Anyone who has ever watched tournament golf can attest to that fact. You will notice that professional golfers don't use hand buggys either! It's just not part of the professional game. If you start making a "special" exception for one golfer because he has a disability, you have disadvantaged ALL of the others who aren't disabled unless you also give them the right to use the aid. Yes, a golf cart is an aid. Why? Because it helps to keep the golfer fresher and fitter for longer.

Dennis, I can appreciate and respect your enthusiasm to play your part in ensuring that negative prejudice and unfair discrimination does NOT figure in our great game. I share that desire. I do so with my eyes open, however. I am not blind to the valid consideration that must be given to the differences these people must deal with in order to participate. If that is all you are asking, you have your agreement. However, in providing the "individualised assessments" of which you speak, please don't ask me to put other participants at risk in the process. That would defeat the whole purpose of the having the assessment in the first place.

In terms of understanding the risk, BTW, rolling the dice is a simple analogy. If you roll the dice a thousand times and do not roll a six even once, the overall risk that a six will be rolled next time around is MUCH GREATER, even if the individual probability remains 1:6 that a six will be rolled. That mathematical principle applies to Mr Oddi, too. If there is any geniune risk, however small its individual probability, that an injury will occur, that otherwise might NOT occur but for the presence of Mr Oddi's crutches in the coach's box, the fact that he has carried them on the diamond for 5 years only INCREASES that risk rather than reducing it.

Cheers,