Games like wheelchair basketball, wheelchair tennis, sledge hockey, disabled swimming, and “track and field for everyone” are not the games that normally come to mind when one thinks of athletics. But when dean Bruce Kidd of the Faculty of Physical Education and Health (FPEH) says he’s taking proposals to implement such games “seriously,” he’s, well, serious.

The faculty-commissioned Accessibility Audit Report calls for implementing sports at U of T for the disabled or handicapped. It is the most recent in a string of audits that have yielded administrative and facility changes in the faculty. The goal of increasing accessibility through sport is one that, so far, both students and faculty seem to want to pursue.

The report makes a series of recommendations and sets out a five -year plan. In addition to improved building accessibility and enhanced staff training, the report calls for the introduction of various activity programming for special needs students and AC members, along with accessible programming implementation at Camp U of T.

While he admits that the task of implementing programs like wheelchair basketball or tennis is intimidating, Kidd remains optimistic that the report’s recommendations are practical ones. “The mission of the faculty is to give opportunities for healthy physical activity to all U of T students and faculty,” he explained. “It can be very discouraging to be given a huge list of requirements all at once…we felt this more gradual approach is more realistic.”

The dean is certainly not the only person who is enthusiastic about creating a vibrant athletic environment for everyone at U of T.

“There is no doubt that ensuring accessibility is important,” maintains U of T varsity track and field head coach Carl Georgevski. “If you look at the number of young people participating in Variety Village [a local charity that runs athletic programs for special needs children] and other such programs you get an idea of the sorts of students that an inaccessible program loses out on. The entire student body within the FPEH would benefit from the enhanced diversity that an entirely accessible program would bring.”

But the optimism of FPEH members masks some menacing obstacles. Funding is hard to come by, and any proposals to change existing facilities and programs necessarily entails budgetary changes.

“If there was a pot of money sitting around we would have made these changes 10 years ago,” Kidd notes. But the truth remains that even today there is no pot of money, and what the faculty decides to give to meeting the suggestions of the audit report, it must take away from something else.

While FPEH employees spout their support for the audit’s recommendations, it seems that little has been done in the way of putting these recommendations into practice. The two committees who would be responsible for deciding the monetary side of the process, the Equities Issues Committee and the Budget Committee, have yet to look over the report, let alone convene.

Furthermore, there is the problem of reconciling well-meant intentions with practical and monetary dilemmas. Few U of T students would openly disapprove of implementing accessible physical activities on campus. But when it means adding yet another student fee to already hefty payments, goodwill goes down the drain.

In its 2001-02 annual report, Accessibility Services at U of T listed 79 students with mobility disabilities, 26 blind/low vision, 13 deaf/hard of hearing, and 75 who suffered from multiple disabilities. The audit’s suggested programs, such as disabled swimming, would only benefit approximately one per cent of the student body.

“I fully support having accessible classrooms and buildings,” said one fourth-year student, “but I think that the implementation of some of the more specific programs needs to be driven by the students who want them…I want to know that people will participate before my money is used.”

Aside from the debate over allocation of student funds, the question of the number of students who would partake in the special needs programs raises other considerations.

“I’ve learned that you can’t wait for the demand to generate before implementing important programs like these,” Kidd explained. “We’ve got to reach out and bring these people in. My guess is that if we implement these programs we will have participants-it may just take some work on the part of the program director.”

Facility time and space is another glitch in the implementation process. Competition for facility time at the Athletic Centre is fierce, and varsity teams often share their practice hours with the general public. Other teams, who can’t share space, are forced to practice at designated hours rather than choosing their own practice times.

“I think our facilities our definitely stressed,” admits men’s basketball head coach Ken Olynyk. “This is something that is worth finding time for, but I think that won’t be easy. For me, as the basketball coach, there really isn’t a lot of time that I get for my practices as it is.”

Paul Dutchak, facilities manager at the AC agreed that it is not easy to find time to schedule additional programs. But, he added, if the decision is made then you find the time. As it stands now, the Athletic Centre is open from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekdays but closes earlier on weekends. Dutchak suggests extending the AC’s weekend hours to make room for the new programs.

They say that where there is a will there is a way, and so far the faculty is showing a fair amount of will. The question becomes whether, with all of the obstacles still in their way, the faculty can remain committed to its current position.