opinion__
Fishbowl magnifies accessibility issue
The new EMU Fishbowl is an embarassment
to the University.
University officials should take whatever
steps are necessary to make the room accessible
to wheelchair-confined students, regardless of
the Affirmative Action Committee’s recommenda
tion.
The committee is considering the legality of
building an upper level of Fishbowl seating with
out providing access to handicapped students.
But if University administrators are serious about
their pledges to improve handicapped.acessibility,
they should look beyond the legal question and
take immediate steps to right an obvious blunder
in the renovation project.
Their first consideration must be increasing
handicapped accessibility on campus. The
University already has fallen behind schedule on
accessiblity projects planned in 1977 for comple
tion this June.
The effect of that lag is heaviest not on the 60
wheelchair-confined students on campus, but on
the scores of handicapped students for whom the
lack of accessibility is a very real barrier to at
tending the University. Every year that passes
without improving building accessibility is a year
in which dozens of handicapped students desiring
a college education are denied that opportunity.
But as if it isn’t bad enough that University
planners are behind their own accessibility
schedule, they now have gone one step further —
they made an accessible building inaccessible to
students in wheelchairs. And the project cost
$167,000.
It’s almost incomprehensible that the bogus
renovation plans could go through all the chan
nels inherent in the bureaucratic jungle without
catching a discerning eye. Mistakes do happen,
however, and when they are honest mistakes we
expect the responsible parties to take immediate
steps to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, that
has not been the case in the Fishbowl debacle.
On the contrary, the reaction of University
officials to the problem has been even more
disturbing than the initial lack of foresight in
approving the plans.
University planner Dave Rowe says the ren
ovation project had reached its maximum limit on
change orders before the problem was dis
covered. But Bob Schutz, assistant EMU director,
implies wheelchair access was considered when
planning the renovation but not incorporated into
the final plans.
The room was designed so wheelchair access
could be provided at minimal cost if it proved
necessary, he says.
It’s been almost a week since the complaint
was filed, and still University officals have avoided
taking any firm stand on the issue. If Rowe’s
assertion that “there is no problem about getting
this resolved” is correct, then Acting University
Pres. Paul Olum should not wait for the Affirmative
Action Committee’s report but should immediately
voice his regrets about the oversight and pledge
to modify the construction.
In the meantime, the Fishbowl continues to be
an embarrasment.
yours
On good authority
In response to David Ruekberg’s letter,
“For the Bible...” (Jan. 8), I would like to
make a couple of points clear.
First, I would like to point out that few
people reject Christ because of an intel
lectual reason. The majority of people
reject Christ because either they’re
searching with a closed mind and are not
willing to give up their life to Christ when
they find out who He says He is, or
because they’re too lazy to seriously
investigate the evidence of the claims of
Christ. “The best proof” is fact; the life,
death and resurrection of the Son of God
is fact! Dr. Clifford Herbert Moore of
Harvard University said, “Christianity
knew its Savior and Redeemer, not as
some god whose history was contained
in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive,
and even offensive elements. The Chris
tian’s faith is founded on positive, his
torical and acceptable facts.” The rejec
tion of Christ is not a result of intelligent
reasoning, but due instead to ignorance,
or stubborn self-will (or both).
Second, in the case for the Bible, I
would ask Mr. Ruekberg to check the
facts. The Bible was written over a span
of 1,500 years in three languages, with 40
authors, all writing on the same central
theme, that being God’s love and plan of
salvation for mankind through the life,
death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus
Christ. What makes “Willy, Chpt. IX, v. 3“
different from John 3:16 is simply a mat
ter of Divine Inspiration. In II Peter
r
1:20,21, the Apostle Peter writes, "But
know this first of all, that no prophecy of
scripture is a matter of one’s own inter
pretation, for no prophecy was ever
made by an act of human will, but men
moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from
God.” Therefore, I can quote and claim
John 3:16 with the authority of God. Mr
Ruekberg can quote "Willy, Chpt. IX, v.
3” with the authority of (Willy?).
Guy Cooksey
Junior, physical education
Fishbowl project
The Emerald quotes the associate
provost of student affairs as saying the
people who designed the new Fishbowl
"aren't in the right place in our thinking"
about handicapped issues. That’s the
biggest understatement made since the
captain of the Titanic announced there’d
be a change in travel plans.
It’s infuriating! For at least five years,
disabled students have sat on commit
tees, worked on self studies, written
letters and articles to the University to
educate the administration on the need
to eliminate architectural barriers. Al
ways the answers have been that of
course they understood. Of course, they
were working day and night to help. But
there just wasn’t the money.
And now they’ve spent $167,000 to
make the most popular meeting spot on
campus less accessible than it was
before! After all these years, and after
both state and federal legislative
guidelines, you’d think even the most
impossibly dull-witted bureaucrat would
begin to get the message.
Of course, as they say, new wheelchair
ramps can be made "at minimal cost.”
They could have been included in the
original design at even less cost. Or the
Fishbowl could have been left alone at
no cost at all.
After two years of planning and
$167,000, the Fishbowl looks like a slum
bus station in Newark, New Jersey. All
that’s needed to complete the resemb
lance are "No Loitering” signs and some
resident dope dealers in the men's room.
Neon lights? And whose bright idea was
it to move the west doors away from their
logical place in front of the west
entrance? Freshman architects are
flunked for lesser blunders!
And that raised platform! Other than
frustrating students in wheelchairs, it
seems to serve only three purposes: (1) it
keeps out the sunlight, (2) it blocks the
view towards the windows for anyone
less than nine feet tall, and (3) it makes
the poor galley slaves on clean-up carry
their equipment bumpity bump up and
down stairs 10 times a day.
Considering how much inconvenience
we've bought for only $167,000, thank
God the University didn’t spend a million!
For disabled persons, it would have
been much better if their share of the
$167,000 had been spent on ramps and
elevators. Or if that weren’t possible, the
money should have been tossed into the
Willamette.
1
k
'SAY, WHO WAS m MASKED MAN? . AND WHAT THE WELL IS HE DM3 HERE WffHOJT WfOUO,,':
^wsi iMubuwefoii v
*»*>?&[ n&KKHUi*r(
s«a
Of course, that would have done us no
good, but at least we would have been no
worse off.
Kent Patterson
University graduate of 1963
Senate motions
At the last senate meeting we found
ourselves talking about two quite differ
ent things in connection with my second
motion. This was my fault, as I did not
make the intent completely clear. Mr.
Olum was right in stating that if my mo
tion were strictly applied to the day-to
day operation of the University it would
create serious problems.
The second motion was intended to
apply only in the event that things come
to pass that a state of financial exigency
is delcared, making it possible either to
lower everyone’s pay and restrict ex
pensive programs, or to lop off substan
tial personnel and program areas. I was
simply proposing, that in such an event,
we all try to weather the crisis together as
best we can, rather than sacrificing
everyone and everything that is most
vulnerable.
I realize that the University can't do
everything, that it must evolve and
change with time, emphasizing par
ticular areas of strength as they emerge
or are needed, and curtailing or elimin
ating other activities at times.
But I don’t think the crisis atmosphere
of a financial emergency is the appro
priate time to consider and effect such
cl^ges. Decisions as to what is to be -■
lofPro off and what supported, made at
such a time, are likely to follow lines of
personal power at the moment, or of
vulnerability rather than be based on the
long term social value of the programs
being considered. The process would in
any event be highly devisive, lead to deep
feelings of guilt, frustration, embitter
ment etc. resulting in more long term
damage to the institution than would a
general tightening of belts.
At the assembly meeting Wednesday I
will introduce amending language to
make the motion clear.
Bayard H. McConnaughey
Professor, biology
letters policy
The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters
containing fair comment on ideas and topics or
interest to the University community Letters must be
typewritten, using 65-character margins and should be
triple spaced
Letters must be signed, the author's field of study (or
faculty status) noted and should include address and
phone number where possible.