Entitlement or insensitivity??

Veteran Denied Access to Amusement Park
Amusement Park Enforces Policy

This is an interesting story. It seems that the heart of the issue is whether or not the family was demonstrating entitlement (expecting that the park should let Hoffman enter the park without paying) or the park was being insensitive by having rules that they were unwilling to bend.

I don't want to get too bogged down in who was right or wrong in this story because I wasn't there and I don't know all the details. All I know is what was reported in the media and that is simply not enough to make a judgment from. I think that the larger issue that is in play here is how to handle people with disabilities who create situations that were before unencountered or unanticipated (e.g. paralyzed marine arrives at the park and will not be admitted).

In looking at a situation as presented in this news story, I would like to think that an agreement could have been made, but think about this---how many times has a "disability" been abused? Case in point...at a previous university where I spent time, athletes would be provided with handicap hang tags when they were injured. These tags allowed injured athletes the opportunity to obtain priority parking due to their medical condition. When used correctly, I have minimal issues with this; however, when I watched athletes with handicap tags park in a handicap spot, JUMP from their cars, RUN into the building so they are not late for class, my mind innocently wonders whether or not they truly need the advantage that is legally provided for people with disabilities. (Please note the sarcasm here. In these cases, I immediately called parking services and told the students' adviser because of this flagrant abuse.) Likewise I have met individuals who need wheelchairs for mobility who refuse to park in handicap parking spaces because those spaces are for "people with disabilities."

As I look at this story, I found myself quickly frustrated with the park, but then I thought more about it and found myself thinking about the family. I don't know the family and I don't know the situation, but I do wonder about the concept of entitlement (you OWE this to me). I don't know about anyone else, but when someone tells me that I owe them something, it makes me start to wonder and kind of puts me in a bad mood (I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying...). Whether you have a disability or not, acting entitled to services or experiences is just bad business. It makes people unhappy and less likely to work with you. Of course this is very easy for me to say when I am sitting in the comfort of an office without any real life situation pressing on me.

I guess the moral of the story is that we need to be more thoughtful and considerate. The amusement park could have handled the situation differently and the family could have handled the situation differently. Having policies that have some "wiggle room" or having hired staff that are allowed to use their judgment in situations can prevent situations like this. However, being understanding of organizational structure and established rules and guidelines and recognizing the larger implications of a "one-time" decision will also help prevent situations like this.

The moral of the story...think twice before you park in that handicap spot if you don't need it :)

One final thought...the two headlines that I developed for the story link offer insight into how media can bias the reader SO easily!