Don’t frame Concordians with disabilities as ‘pitiable’ or ‘litigious’ in restroom debate
I am disturbed by some of the rationale for approving a new amenities building at Memorial Field.
As a Acton resident with a physical disability, I am disturbed by some of the rationale for approving a new amenities building at Memorial Field put forward by School Committee Chair Julie Viola in the May 9 edition of The Bridge. I refer in particular to her depictions of disabled people as simultaneously pitiable (“we are literally getting letters from people who are in wheelchairs being carried to the toilet”) and litigious (“it’s a matter of how much risk we want to take…”). People with disabilities are not the problem here.
Viola rightly points out that this is a question of what kind of community “we want to be.” But the long-standing issue of non-accessible restrooms at Memorial Field is also a comment on the kind of community we actually are. An ADA-compliant amenities building has been in the planning stages for a decade, yet this year the School Committee missed the CPA deadline which would have halved this project’s costs for taxpayers. Viola refers with sympathy to letters from disabled people, but nowhere does she mention the committee taking any action to rent an additional, ADA-compliant, portable toilet to join the others at Memorial Field. This makes it hard for me to accept that a deep commitment to the needs of the disabled is the priority driving this project.
I appreciate the hard work of the volunteers on the School Committee and understand that they would like to complete this project. But it is profoundly unfair to people with disabilities to use us as a cudgel to move this article forward. Rather than supporting people with disabilities, this rhetoric does exactly the opposite, implying it is “our fault” that this project must be done now, no matter the cost to taxpayers.
Sandy Crawford
Laurel Street
