<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: University of Michigan + Ableism</title>
	<link>http://ericstoller.com/blog/2007/12/02/university-of-michigan-ableism/</link>
	<description>| social justice | higher education | technology |</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Eric Stoller</title>
		<link>http://ericstoller.com/blog/2007/12/02/university-of-michigan-ableism/#comment-17822</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ericstoller.com/blog/2007/12/02/university-of-michigan-ableism/#comment-17822</guid>
					<description>The issue from 1999 was never resolved even though the U of M had informed the OCR that things were going to be made accessible. It sounds like the U of M was saying one thing and then doing something else. The letter that was sent to Michigan lists a lot of accessibility issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue from 1999 was never resolved even though the U of M had informed the OCR that things were going to be made accessible. It sounds like the U of M was saying one thing and then doing something else. The letter that was sent to Michigan lists a lot of accessibility issues.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: FinanceBuzz</title>
		<link>http://ericstoller.com/blog/2007/12/02/university-of-michigan-ableism/#comment-17803</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ericstoller.com/blog/2007/12/02/university-of-michigan-ableism/#comment-17803</guid>
					<description>Just based on your summary, sounds like a reasonable complaint.  I do have a question however.  I was under the impression that older buildings were grandfathered in to the law.  Is this not right?  Was some level of retrofit required?  I know when Georgia Tech expanded Bobby Dodd in 2003, the reason I heard that our newly rebuilt, south, west and north stands were not tied into the older and not renovated west stands was because if we had done so, we would have had to have brought the entire west stands into ADA compliance.  The only thing we did to those stands during the renovation was to add a cosmetic brick face the grandstands at field level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just based on your summary, sounds like a reasonable complaint.  I do have a question however.  I was under the impression that older buildings were grandfathered in to the law.  Is this not right?  Was some level of retrofit required?  I know when Georgia Tech expanded Bobby Dodd in 2003, the reason I heard that our newly rebuilt, south, west and north stands were not tied into the older and not renovated west stands was because if we had done so, we would have had to have brought the entire west stands into ADA compliance.  The only thing we did to those stands during the renovation was to add a cosmetic brick face the grandstands at field level.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
