The year 1990 was a landmark in disability rights history. With unprecedented force, groups published, petitioned, and protested for the recognition and protection of the disabled community. On July 26, 1990, these nationwide efforts culminated in the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the world’s first comprehensive legal protection for disabled people. Accessibility advocacy at the University followed the national trend, effecting a monumental year of protest and reform.
May 9, 1990: Hunger Strike Commences
At 9:10 a.m., Laura Ruderman ’92 and Andrea Harris ’93 shared a document listing eight core demands to then-President William M. Chace’s office, according to a May 9, 1990, article titled “Students Threaten Fast if Their Demands Are Not Met” by then-News Editor Alex Navarro ’90.
“‘The administration must act now to reconcile its commitment to non-discrimination and diversity,’” Harris said in the article. “‘As it stands now, students will begin a hunger strike at 4 pm. They will continue to strike until the university has reached an agreement with a group of student negotiators.’”
Prospective strikers professed their goals to a congregation of students and reporters.
“‘We are students who have dedicated ourselves to restoring Wesleyan University to a productive and principled environment,’” Kofi Taha ’92 was quoted as saying to the crowd. “‘We opt to sacrifice ourselves if necessary.’”
As Navarro reported, the activists’ petition document designated space for Chace, then-Dean of the College Edgar Beckham ’58, and then-Chair of the Board of Trustees Steven Pfeiffer ’69 to sign and indicate “acceptance of the proposals set forth therein.”
Eleven students fasted, while several others acted as spokespeople to the University. The protest erupted into a multidimensional struggle which made headlines in The Argus through December.
“Most of the issues covered in the demands are of particular importance to the minority community,” Navarro wrote. “Other issues include investment policy, accessibility for the disabled, and financial aid.” They also demanded a committee be created to form a “plan for complete accessibility to all campus areas for the disabled.”
It would be inaccurate to attribute the strike to the disabled community alone, as Navarro noted. Students of color were among the organizers of the demonstration, sustained its momentum, and contributed heavily to the demands document. Activists suggested several policies to respond to specific injustices that students of color experienced at the University, including the graffitiing of racial slurs onto the Malcolm X House four days prior.
May 31, 1990: Hunger Strike Ends, Mediation Begins
In a May 31, 1990 article titled, “Strikers End Fast as Consensus Found; Chace Pushes Divestment,” Navarro wrote an update on the situation.
“Eleven students ended a nine-day hunger strike on May 18 after an ad hoc student-faculty-administration group reached agreement on a wide-ranging set of policy recommendations to President William Chace,” Navarro wrote.
The signed agreement promised universal accessibility on campus, but students and administrators disagreed on the character of their negotiations.
“The hunger strikers called the students their ‘negotiators,’ while administration officials called those involved ‘discussants.’ Similarly, The students characterized the talks as ‘negotiations,’ while the administration used the term ‘discussions,’” Navarro explained.
Though subtle, the semantic shift reveals the parties’ differing understandings of the strike’s significance.
“‘I never wanted to give the impression that university policy even could be made as a result of such discussions,’” Chase said when asked to comment.
Given this uncompromising position on policy, the meeting had limited results.
“The final agreement called for an assessment of ‘anticipated and achieved projects’ but included no commitment from the university to the goal of complete accessibility,” reported Navarro. “…. Renovations are scheduled this summer to make accessible North College, the Chapel, the Health Center, and possibly Mocon.”
The renovation goals were a far cry from the striker’s policy proposal, yet they were still promising.
Sept. 11, 1990: Fall Semester Starts, Summer Success Summarized
Moving into the following school year, the May 9 strike remained prominent in campus politics. Nearing the two-month anniversary of the ADA’s ratification, then-Staff Writer William Howell ’93 reported on progress made over the break in the Sept. 11, 1990 article entitled “Projects Pending After Spring Strike.”
“Work toward improving disabled access was begun this summer,” Howell wrote. “A ramp into the chapel was installed and the entrance to the Health Center was renovated to accommodate those with physical disabilities. In addition, an architectural firm is being consulted about making Fisk Hall accessible.”
The completed summer construction projects were commendable steps toward ADA compliance. Then-Campus Planner Michael Curtis credited the results to the May 9 strikers’ resilience, a rhetorical shift from other officials.
“Curtis said the ad hoc committee ‘reinforced and reminded us of the interests at stake,’” Howell wrote. “‘It was the first time student voice specifically addressed this issue,’” Curtis was quoted as saying in the article. “‘But this has been an ongoing issue with our office and we’ve been trying to make progress on it for a number of years.’”
Sept. 28, 1990: Beckham Upholds Diversity, Potential Workshops
In his final speech at the University, Dean of the College Edgar Beckham ’58 championed campus diversity and active discourse, reported then-Staff Writer Laura Lanzisera ’92 in the Sept. 28, 1990 article titled, “Beckham Calls for Understanding, Tolerance in Last Speech at Wes.”
“‘There seems to be a growing tendency to reject everything that’s different,’” Beckham was quoted as saying in the article. “‘I find it very disturbing.’”
The same edition of The Argus contained a University advertisement encouraging students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities to attend a workshop discussing potential support programs. The post represented significant outreach to students with mental disabilities.
Oct. 9, 1990: Destabilized Accessibility Funds and Focus
After the Investment Committee (IC) relayed to the Board of Trustees that there had been a 27 million dollar loss from the University’s endowment over the summer, the future of campus accessibility hung in the balance, reported then-Staff Writer Steve Levin ’93 in the Oct. 9, 1990 article entitled, “Trustees Discuss Agendas, Curriculum and Finances.”
“‘The financial problem of the university is one that can be solved only by defining priorities,’” then-Vice President Bro Adams said in the article. “‘Plans to make Fisk Hall, North College and MoCon accessible to the handicapped were discussed by the Facilities Committee,’” Adams said later in the article.
Regardless of the deficit, construction plans remained active. As the epicenter of academic life, renovations to Fisk Hall were a critical undertaking.
“[Adams] said the renovation would be done ‘with the view of enhancing classroom space’ and would involve ‘a complete rethinking of the way that space is used academically,’” reported Levin.
Nov. 20, 1990: Deficits Pile Up, Fisk’s Future on the Horizon
With winter break approaching and financial losses compounding, Fisk Hall’s redesign was in question, reported then-Contributing Writer Jon Dube ’94 in the Nov. 20, 1990 article titled “Deficit Reported to Trustees.”
“Vice President and Treasurer Robert Taylor reported a 1990-91 budget deficit of $350,000 to the Financial Planning Committee of the Board of Trustees at the board’s second meeting of the semester,” Dube wrote.
The Facilities Committee, organized after the May 9 hunger strike, collaborated with the University and outside experts to construct the renovation plans.
“A report on the complete renovation of Fisk is scheduled to be released later this week,” Dube wrote. “For a future meeting, Rowland Towers, a landscape architecture firm, is currently preparing a ‘survey of campus architecture and landscaping that will inform us of lots of issues in the future,’ according to Adams.”
Nov. 30, 1990: ADA Accelerates Access Across Campus
In a Nov. 30, 1990 article entitled, “Plan to Widen Disabled Access Presented,” then-Staff Writer Marc Steinberg ’93 reported that the University intended to expand their renovations.
“The Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees presented a plan to make the university more disabled accessible at its meeting earlier this month,” Steinberg wrote. “The proposed changes, to several campus buildings and pathways, will be the university’s first step in meeting the legal requirements for disabled access. Along with many other schools, Wesleyan has been in violation of federal laws since they passed Congress in 1973. The laws, which were reviewed by the university once in 1977 and again last summer, state that educational institutions must be accessible for disabled students and faculty.”
May’s strike made it impossible to ignore the needs of the disabled community at Wesleyan. On a national level, the ADA built upon legal precedent to legitimize student efforts in the eyes of administrators.
“‘There’s been no pressure until now on the university,’” Noah Rosen ’93, a student representative to the Facilities Committee, said in the article. “No one bothered to explain why…so I assumed they just didn’t care.”
Pressure applied, campus architects began to draft the necessary accessibility modifications.
“According to Rosen, capital funds have been set aside for the necessary modifications to campus buildings and pathways,” Steinberg wrote. “Rosen added that student housing is also a concern. Two rooms in Foss 1 are currently the only ones on campus accessible to the disabled…. Other buildings designated for work include North College, Judd Hall, Fisk Hall, and MoCon.”
Nearly every major structure needed to be reworked.
“‘These were all built long before [disabled access] was important,’” Rosen said in the article.
Now, we may contend that the University’s plans did not prioritize the needs of disabled people. Despite creditworthy progress toward reversing the precedent, limitations to the Fisk plans were apparent.
“Rosen said these modifications represent improvements only for those who have difficulty with mobility,” Steinberg wrote. “No plans have yet been made for people with other types of disabilities such as deafness.”
In the same issue, Levin investigated the nine-member faculty committee reimagining Fisk Hall in the article entitled, “Committee To Outline Fisk Hall Improvements.”
“‘They will be responsible for making recommendations for the programmatic aspects of the renovation,’” Campus Architect Michael Curtis said in the article. “‘They’ll be defining the needs for the future use of the building.’”
The Facilities Committee joined the professors in ensuring the new Fisk Hall was functional and accessible.
“The Facilities Committee report offers two potential renovation options, according [to] Curtis,” Levin described. “The first is a $5 million renovation of the current structure, including disabled accessibility, the addition of an elevator, improvements to parking and windows, and a restoration of the exterior brownstone. A $10 million plan would provide for an addition to Fisk, allowing for more classroom and faculty office space.”
In conclusion, 1990 saw long-standing accessibility concerns at the University transformed into results. To an extent, the University was a microcosm of national contestations over notions of access and power. In both worlds, much work remains to be done.
Hope Smith can be reached at hnsmith@wesleyan.edu.
“From the Argives” is a column that explores The Argus’ archives (Argives) and any interesting, topical, poignant, or comical stories that have been published in the past. Given The Argus’ long history on campus and the ever-shifting viewpoints of its student body, the material, subject matter, and perspectives expressed in the archived article may be insensitive or outdated, and do not reflect the views of any current member of The Argus. If you have any questions about the original article or its publication, please contact Head Archivists Sida Chu at schu@wesleyan.edu and Maggie Smith at mssmith@wesleyan.edu.