Common Sense Missing in Redskins Ruling

From Marc Fisher's blog, Raw Fisher

Redskins fan Shane Feldman, who is hearing-impaired, loved going to football games but felt left out. Unable to hear the public-address system, he couldn't understand the referee's calls or the announcer's description of plays.

Feldman and other deaf or hard-of-hearing fans complained and later sued the Redskins. The team agreed to post captions on the scoreboard, spelling out everything from the announcements naming the players involved in the last play to the penalty calls and even the ads read over the PA system.

But that wasn't enough for the fans who sued. Now, a federal court judge has ruled that the Redskins must go further, posting on the scoreboard the lyrics to any songs played over the loudspeakers.

Exactly what is so magical or essential about song lyrics is not clear from Judge Alex Williams's strangely reasoned opinion. Williams doesn't demand that the Redskins post descriptions of the musical style, beat or harmonies -- just that the lyrics be spelled out. Apparently the fact that many, if not most, hearing fans can't make out the lyrics either does not impress the judge.

It's only fair to post on the scoreboard the summary of each play that gets announced to the crowd -- indeed, the scoreboard version is sometimes easier to understand than the announced version, even for hearing fans.

But the songs played during timeouts and halftime are hardly crucial to understanding the game. Indeed, many fans find the constant blasting of music distracting and annoying.

The idea that the Redskins have "not made FedEx Field fully accessible" because they don't post song lyrics is so picayune, so petty as to drive other fans to wonder whether the motive is really to enjoy the game or merely to harass the team's owner.

More important, however, the court's ruling threatens every public performance by a sports team, musical group or any other artistic endeavor. If, as the deaf fans argue, it is "discrimination" to stage a football game without putting the lyrics of every song on the scoreboard, then the same reasoning would force concert halls to post lyrics as singers sing them. Would movie theaters have to erect a second screen on which to flash the lyrics of songs used in the background of a scene? Must stage companies now tear audiences' attention away from the actors by putting up screens spelling out the lyrics of incidental music?

Amazingly, Williams concluded that deaf fans "suffered injuries because they did not have access to music captioning." The judge did concede that the Redskins made "reasonable efforts" to accommodate fans who complained. But Williams says he can't be sure that the captioning the team now provides will continue indefinitely.

The football team's attorneys argue that "all information that is integral to the use of the stadium can be gathered solely from watching the game." But the judge says the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that all people be provided with "full and equal enjoyment," and he interprets that to mean not only the football game but also the announcements, music and ads.

The judge rejects the Redskins' argument that "bars and restaurants are not required to caption background music. . . . The Court believes there is a significant difference between a stadium that seats 91,000 people . . . and a bar or restaurant."

Williams never explains what that significant difference might be. In both cases, the primary service -- football, or food and drink -- could be offered without music. In both cases, the odds that anyone really listens to the lyrics are pretty slim. And in both cases, the chance that any appreciable number of people can actually understand the lyrics is almost nonexistent.

Most nonexistent of all in this case is any common sense. Disabled people should expect access to public places and activities without undue hardship. And it's fair to ask a rich organization such as the Redskins to make the game equally understandable to deaf fans, which the team has done for several years.

But no matter what the law might say or how any narrow-minded judge might rule, neither legal verbiage nor wishing it so will make all people identical. In any public performance, some people will get more of what's going on, and some will get less. Many blind people love going to baseball games; they don't expect the team to hire a guide to sit with them and narrate the action. They get out of it what their circumstance allows -- and from what blind fans tell me, that is something rich and extraordinary, an appreciation for the sounds and smells of the game that goes deeper than many seeing fans will ever know. Similarly, deaf fans might see a level of detail that eludes many hearing fans.

In sports, as in so many other areas of life, good people with admirable motives can usually work out problems just fine. It's when someone gets the lawyers involved that the whole enterprise goes off the rails.

Join me at noon today for a debate on the Wall Street bailout on "Raw Fisher Radio" at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rawfisherradio.