THE BRAILLE MONITOR PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS MAY, 1991 BARBARA BUSH INVITES FEDERATION LEADERS TO THE WHITE HOUSE by Marc Maurer CRISIS IN BRAILLE LITERACY AND CANE TRAVEL AIRED IN DENVER POST NAC TAKES BODY BLOWS: WARRANT ISSUED FOR GRANT MACK'S ARREST by Kenneth Jernigan THE OVERWHELMING QUESTION AIRLINES OUTFOXED by Marc Maurer RASPBERRIES FOR RASPBERRY by Peter Grunwald NO CHRISTMAS SPIRIT AT AMERICAN AIRLINES by Ted Young JUST SAY "NO!" by Bill J. Isaacs MAKING HIS MARK IN THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE PARENTING OUR BLIND CHILDREN by Shirley Baillif NEW LIBRARY FOR BLIND, PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED OK'D CHANGING DIAPERS INTO DOLLARS by Carol Coulter THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE by Jerry Whittle LOW-INTEREST LOANS FOR TECHNOLOGY NOW AVAILABLE RECIPES CONVENTION ATTRACTIONS MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1991 [LEAD PHOTO/CAPTION: On January 8, 1991, President Maurer presented the First Lady of the United States with a copy of our history, Walking Alone and Marching Together. Standing in front of the fireplace in the Diplomat Room at the White House (right to left) Marc Maurer, Barbara Bush, Peggy Pinder, and Barbara Pierce chat briefly before turning to the serious business of the crisis in Braille literacy.] BARBARA BUSH INVITES FEDERATION LEADERS TO THE WHITE HOUSE by Marc Maurer On January 9, 1991, five Federationists (Second Vice President Peggy Pinder, Associate Monitor Editor Barbara Pierce, Federation staff members Mrs. Tormey and Mrs. Miller, and I) went to the White House to meet with the First Lady of the United States. We went because Mrs. Bush had asked us to come to talk about the Federation and its objectives--about the problems, needs, hopes, and aspirations of the nation's blind. The fact of the ice storm on the previous night and the foggy dampness of the morning did nothing to diminish the upbeat nature of the occasion, which held such possible promise for the blind. Our appointment was scheduled for 10:00 a.m., but because of necessary security procedures, we arrived early. Our Social Security numbers were checked; we passed through metal scanners; and our briefcases and purses were examined--all very courteously, but also very thoroughly. We were then escorted from the East Gate of the White House to the First Lady's waiting room, where we were greeted by Mrs. Bush's secretary and another staff member. This is a most imposing room, with portraits of former first ladies displayed on the walls. In a few minutes we were taken through the corridors of the White House, past a display of Christmas cards which had been sent to President and Mrs. Bush, and into the Diplomats Room. This room has been given its name because it is where diplomats from foreign countries present their credentials to the President. It is also the departure point for the First Family when they go from the White House to the helicopter pad. As is true with every part of the White House, which in a real sense is the very symbol and focus of American history and tradition, the Diplomats Room is rich in memory. It contains the fireplace by which President Franklin D. Roosevelt sat to broadcast his fireside chats. We stood by that fireplace as we waited for the First Lady--and though I do not know what the others thought, I for one reflected on the continuity of what we are as a nation and a people. I also thought about how we who are blind are finally beginning to emerge as full participants in the American dream, struggling and hoping as other minorities before us have done. The White House, of course, is not just a monument to America's past. It is also the nerve center of the nation's present--and it is the home and work environment of President and Mrs. Bush. It is a mixture of ceremony and informality, activity and memory. But informality and straightforward business predominated when Mrs. Bush entered the room. Without preliminary pomp or circumstance she walked to where we were standing and began introducing herself to us. Still, the ceremony was there, for members of the White House press corps were present, their cameras whirring to record the event on film. We gave Mrs. Bush our book, Walking Alone and Marching Together, and she received it with obvious pleasure. We told her that it was the story of the struggle of the blind of America to achieve equal status and first-class membership in society. We told her of the 50,000-member National Federation of the Blind, of our dreams to have full lives and a chance to work and do for ourselves. We told her that we the blind want the right to succeed or fail like anybody else, the right to make the most of the talents we possess--and we told her we were proud of the United States and its leaders and traditions. We said that we were particularly proud to be meeting and talking with her because of her work in bringing literacy and education to focus in the public mind. I reminded her that she had taken a gift of Braille slates and styluses from the National Federation of the Blind for presentation to a school for the blind in Poland. She wanted to know how the slates worked, and I took one from my pocket and wrote her name for her in Braille. Mrs. Bush showed great interest in the Braille writing and invited members of the press corps and the White House staff to examine it with her. Along with our book, Walking Alone and Marching Together, we gave Mrs. Bush a copy of Dr. Jernigan's 1990 national convention banquet address, "The Federation at Fifty." I said that President Bush was mentioned in the address, and the First Lady told me she would give it to him and ask him to read it. Our visit with Mrs. Bush lasted for almost half an hour. She was interested in what we had to say, quick to understand the subtleties and nuances, and warmly congenial. Even though the crisis in the Middle East was developing at that very moment to a full crescendo, she gave us her full attention. She said that she was aware of the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind and that she admired our goals and programs. She said she would try to help us, and I believe she meant it. There is no doubt in my mind that America's First Lady is convinced (especially after our visit) that the dreams of the blind of this country for a better tomorrow are inseparably joined to the future of the National Federation of the Blind. We told her of our fifty-year struggle for equal treatment--of the longing of the blind to be free, to be treated as equals, and to have opportunity. These very aspirations are, of course, in a broader sense the essence of the spirit that has built America. Mrs. Bush pledged that she would try to help disseminate our message, promote our spirit of independence, and work for a climate of acceptance for the blind. She said it--and I believe she meant it. As we emerged from the White House on that morning of January 9, 1991, the ice of the night before was gone, and the fog of the early morning was only a memory. The sun was shining brightly. So may it be for the blind of this country--and, indeed, for the blind of the world. And so it will be if we make it happen. CRISES IN BRAILLE LITERACY AND CANE TRAVEL AIRED IN DENVER POST From the Associate Editor: Late in 1990 Ed Will, a staff writer for the Denver Post, decided to do a story on the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind. In the course of his research he contacted Diane McGeorge, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and Executive Director of the Colorado Center for the Blind. She explained that she did not have first- hand information about the school for the blind, but she could talk about general education issues concerning blind students. During the lengthy interview that followed she mentioned several other people who might be helpful to Mr. Will. He contacted them all and spent long periods of time talking with each. Then there was silence. Suddenly, on February 10, 1991, a story on the school for the deaf and issues of importance to the deaf community appeared in the Denver Post. The next day, February 11, two excellent stories appeared: one on the crisis in literacy among blind students and one discussing the unsatisfactory state of cane travel instruction for blind youngsters. The piece was picked up by the Associated Press, which put the story on its wire. The New York Times was only one of a number of newspapers around the nation that ran an abbreviated version of the Denver Post's story on Braille literacy. All in all, February was a good month for alerting the public to the problems that face blind students today. Here are Ed Will's two stories from the Denver Post: Braille Taking a Back Seat Inadequate Braille instruction from public schools has left most blind students illiterate, say activists in the blind community. "Illiteracy among blind children is a real crisis. I don't think it's adequate education if you let a student...get through college without the ability to read a sentence that they have written themselves," said Barbara Cheadle, President of the Parents of Blind Children Division of the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore. Nearly half of all blind and vision- impaired students, forty-eight percent, read Braille in 1965. But by 1989, the number had dropped to twelve percent, the American Printing House for the Blind reports. Of blind students in 1965, about forty-three percent read large type, four percent used both Braille and large type, and five percent didn't read. By 1989, ten percent used both and thirty-two percent didn't read. Cheadle traces the genesis of the decline to the 1950s, when parents began enrolling blind children in local schools rather than residential schools. "It's hard to find a blind twenty-year-old who can read as well as the average blind person in my generation," said Cheadle, who is forty. "Some parents think their children don't need Braille, but they would if they knew blind professionals and saw them struggle to learn it at midlife." The Federation's Colorado president, Diane McGeorge, also is executive director of the Colorado Center for the Blind, 2232 S. Broadway. Among the center's services are instruction in Braille, mobility, and the skills of daily living as a blind person. "We get students who have been through high school and can't write with a slate and stylus," McGeorge said. "These are basic tools for writing Braille. I carry a slate and stylus around.... With the advent of the tape recorder, the educational system said, `Kids don't need to know Braille because everything is on tape.' "We now have bright kids who can't take notes in the classroom." Colorado schools routinely provide Braille instruction. "But if children have even a minimal amount of sight, they make them use closed-circuit television, which enlarges print for the kids. These kids aren't taught Braille." Many Braille substitutes Eight-year-old Matthew Chadwick is such a child. Matthew is legally blind. His clear vision range is two inches--and those two inches may be his biggest educational handicap, said his mother, Deborah Chadwick. "There are so many blind and legally blind people that are illiterate that I felt it was very important to start him on Braille early," she said. But Adams County School District 12 balked, saying he should use magnifying technology instead, she said. As early as kindergarten, "I repeatedly asked about the Braille," she said. But she said the teacher would say, "Why do you want to do this to your child?...Look at this big machine (a Brailler) he would have to use. Why do you want your child to be different?" "My whole thing is that I am not trying to make Matthew different. He was born different. I have tried to get him as close to other kids as possible." When he entered first grade, the district agreed to let him learn Braille, but only after his mother requested a second meeting with educators responsible for creating the boy's yearly education plan, a federal requirement for all handicapped students. "They get you in those meetings," Chadwick said. "You are a mother by yourself against a social worker, a speech and language specialist, a learning-disabled teacher, a psychologist, a vision-impaired teacher, and a homeroom teacher." Reinforcements She brought reinforcements to the second meeting: McGeorge and Julie Hunter, whose blind teenage daughter Lauren attends Denver Public Schools. Diane came with her seeing-eye dog, Chadwick recalled. "I think they knew from the start things were different....At the first (meeting), no one listened to me. It lasted about twenty minutes. The second lasted about an hour and ten minutes." While Chadwick won Braille instruction for her son, an incident at the meeting foreshadowed more problems. McGeorge had brought a report in Braille by Lauren. She asked the teacher for the vision-impaired to read it. The teacher couldn't. "I thought, `Please read one word,'" Chadwick said. "But he didn't read even one word. He stumbled around a bit and said, `I am sorry. I am sorry.' I was actually embarrassed for him." Change of Attitude The other educators in the room also were embarrassed, and their attitudes changed. That's when they agreed to include Braille in the plan, she said. "I celebrated after I won the Braille for him. I was so excited. But it was such a joke." The man who could not read the report was Matthew's Braille teacher for the year. "That's who came in to my son's class for forty-five minutes a day for the rest of the year." Said Pamela Edinger, special education administrator for the district, "Teachers who are trained to educate visually impaired children learn Braille visually and don't learn to read with their fingers--that takes several years." A person's inability to read Braille doesn't mean he or she can't teach it, she said. Matthew's Braille teacher did not return to the district this school year. He has not been replaced, leaving the district without a certified teacher of the visually impaired. Edinger said the district is searching for such a teacher, but a shortage exists in the state. Meanwhile, a certified teacher from Boulder Valley School District works four hours a week in District 12. None of the district's eighteen visually impaired students studies Braille. No instruction In this year's plan for Matthew--drawn up almost two months late--the district again agreed to teach him Braille. But no such instruction has taken place. In the state's largest school district, Jefferson County, eleven of seventy-two blind or vision-impaired students receive Braille instruction. About half of the twenty-seven blind students in Denver schools take Braille. "If a child is totally blind, the need for Braille is definitely obvious," said Sara Officer, a Jefferson County teacher for the vision-impaired. "If they have a visual impairment, it would depend on what their future is predicted to be, what their interest is in Braille, and whether the need is seen educationally for the near future." "What does an eleven- or eight-year-old really want to learn?" McGeorge asked. "Do they want to learn spelling or math? But the teachers see those as important skills. "They don't recognize how important Braille is to a student with some residual vision." Officer doesn't disagree. "Students can read enlarged print, but if you can teach them Braille now, it really helps later." Karen Cox, a twenty-year-old student at McGeorge's center, used readers and magnifying systems to get through Pueblo public schools and two years at the University of Southern Colorado. "I always got work from the teacher and went back to the visually handicapped department or room and had a teacher or an aide read it to me or used a closed-circuit TV that would enlarge the print," she said of her early school years. She asked to be taught Braille when she was in elementary school. "They taught me the alphabet, which I forgot in two weeks. They figured I had some sight, so why not use it?" Karen learned to read, but very slowly. The effort strained her eyes, "so I would put off reading and my GPA suffered because of that. I always passed, but I never got higher than a 2.0. I missed out on a lot." McGeorge said, "Karen is a very insightful and intelligent person. It's just that no one ever talked with her about the fact: `You're not a sighted person, but that is okay. You just need some different tools to work with.' "People in the educational system think they are doing what's right for the kids, but then I get them (at the center), and they are trying to catch up." ____________________ That is what Ed Will of the Denver Post reported on Monday, February 11, and he accompanied this accurate assessment of literacy for the blind with an equally hard-hitting piece about cane travel. Here it is: Activists Say Cane Skills, Too, Neglected Cane training--a must for blind and vision-impaired children to become independent adults--has been neglected by most educators, says the Colorado chapter President of the National Federation of the Blind. "They don't teach them to have pride in their cane travel. Pride in using the cane for us as blind people is our key to independence," Diane McGeorge said. "It is a great feeling to be able to take your cane and get on a bus and take care of your own errands." Karen Cox now knows that feeling, but she was nineteen when she first boarded a bus by herself. "It was pretty scary at first, but I got used to it," said Cox, now twenty and a student at the Colorado Center for the Blind. In Pueblo public schools, she said, her mobility training lasted once a week for a month. She was taught how to get to school and to get around at school and in her neighborhood. "That's a common message: you will only be going around these prescribed areas, so you don't need to know any others," said McGeorge, executive director of the blind center. Neither Cox nor her parents sought more training. That was not the case for Lauren Hunter, a thirteen-year-old eighth grader at Kunsmiller Middle School in Denver. Julie Hunter started trying to get the Denver Public Schools to teach her daughter cane travel in the second grade. She was told Lauren was too young. "One reason they gave us was that a cane would be dangerous to other kids," Hunter said. "You can imagine what it would be like on the playground, having someone take you out and then come back and get you after recess. You would be unable to explore, to find the swings or the jungle gym." That summer, she took Lauren to an Albuquerque school where a mobility trainer taught young children cane travel. "We came back to Lauren's school and told them, `We really don't think you can say she is not ready to do this.' They acquiesced." Students in Jefferson County schools must learn several other things before they are introduced to the cane, said Sara Officer, a teacher for the vision-impaired. "Assuming that they have a good basic concept of direction; left and right; and position in space (front, back, and sides), you start out with what's called pre-cane technique, which is using your arms to protect yourself, trailing the wall with your hand, and learning how to recognize and familiarize a space. Such as when you enter a new room, you get a mental picture of what the room is like. After those are established, then you can introduce a cane." The National Federation of the Blind disagrees. "We very much recommend that children be given canes as soon as they can walk," said Rosemary Lerdahl of the Federation's headquarters in Baltimore. "They are not going to use it properly, of course, but they can get used to it and learn what it can do for them." [PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Kenneth Jernigan.] NAC TAKES BODY BLOWS: WARRANT ISSUED FOR GRANT MACK'S ARREST by Kenneth Jernigan In mid-February of this year the courts of Cook County, Illinois, issued the following document: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS People of the State of Illinois vs. Mack Case No. 90 122467 ARREST WARRANT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO ALL PEACE OFFICERS IN THE STATE--GREETING: We command you to Arrest Grant Mack (Defendant) for the offense of Chapter 38 Section 123, Battery. Stated in a charge now pending before this court, and that you bring him before The Circuit Court of Cook County at Branch 134, 155 West 51st Street, or, if I am absent or unable to act, the nearest or most accessible court in Cook County or, if this warrant is executed in a county other than Cook, before the nearest or most accessible judge in the county where the arrest is made. Issued in Cook County February 11, 1991 Bail Fixed at $3,000.00 Information and Description of Defendant Name: Grant Mack; Alias: ---; Residence: 2224 Panorama Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124; Sex: Male; Race: White; Weight: 170; Height: 5 feet, 7 inches; Age: 58. ____________________ The events leading up to this unusual document are as noteworthy as the fact of its issuance. As readers of this publication know (see the January, 1991, Braille Monitor), the group that calls itself the National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation met in Chicago on December 8, 1990. Regardless of what this committee may call itself, it is, of course, in reality only the administration of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC), desperately trying to keep itself alive--an increasingly difficult task. The Chicago meeting was a disgraceful display of NAC at its worst. The chairman of the meeting, Grant Mack, later admitted in writing that he grabbed a microphone out of the hands of Steve Hastalis, who was serving as a reporter for the Braille Monitor, and threw it to the floor, breaking it to pieces. Mack also publicly used disgustingly foul language and otherwise behaved in a manner not calculated to inspire respect either for himself or for NAC, the organization he was representing. Mack (a current member of the board of the American Foundation for the Blind, chairman of the board of National Industries for the Blind, and a past president of the American Council of the Blind); Dennis Hartenstine (NAC's executive director); Oral Miller (national representative of the American Council of the Blind); and the few other NAC stalwarts who were present made no friends for NAC in Chicago on December 8, 1990. Instead, they conducted themselves in such an objectionable manner that a number of those whom they had invited as guests and presumably hoped to convert were so embarrassed and humiliated that they came to the Federationists who were there and apologized for what had occurred. What NAC had intended to be a triumph became a fiasco. But this was not all. The consequences of Grant Mack's assault upon Steve Hastalis were not to end with the evening's activities. Hastalis went to the police and swore out a complaint, and a court date was set for January 3, 1991. When the date arrived, Steve Hastalis (as the complaining witness) appeared in the Cook County Circuit Courtroom. Grant Mack did not appear. Instead, he sent a local lawyer, George Weaver, to speak on his behalf. When Mack's assault and battery case was called in the usual morning court call (among the cases of persons who had spent the night in jail), Mr. Weaver walked to the front and asked that the case be dismissed. The judge declined and said that he would take the matter up after he had finished the other business of the morning. After all other cases were disposed of, the judge again called Mack's case. Attorney Weaver, carrying a big accordion file with Mack's name on its face in large letters, marched back up to the judge and renewed his efforts to put an end to the case. Mr. Weaver said that his client, Mr. Mack, was an elderly blind man who lived all the way out in Utah, implying that it would be a hardship for Mack to appear in court. Moreover, said Weaver, Mack had no intention of doing so. In an attempt to show mercy as well as justice, the judge set a new hearing date for February 11, 1991. When the date arrived, Hastalis was present, but neither Mack nor his lawyer was to be seen. At that stage the judge issued the warrant (printed at the beginning of this article) for Mack's arrest. If Mack is found anywhere in the state of Illinois (including the Chicago airport), he will be subject to arrest and will presumably either have to post bond or go to jail to await trial. Mack's debacle is not all that has been happening to NAC of late. Under date of January 16, 1991, Dennis Hartenstine (NAC's executive director) sent a statement to the National Council on Disability to try to enlist its help in getting Congress to tie the receipt of federal money to accreditation when reauthorizing the federal Rehabilitation Act. Hartenstine said that there were two objectives which could be achieved by such linking: "(1) Improving the quality of, and access to, rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities; and (2) Ensuring accountability for program performance in the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities and for proper and effective utilization of Federal funds." Later, on the same page, Hartenstine spelled out what he meant. His exact words were: "As discussed previously, the two objectives can be realized in part through a requirement that uniform standards be met by grantees under the Act, and that the continuous adherence to such standards is to be assured through accreditation. The linkage of Federal funding to accreditation will (1) improve the quality of services to individuals with disabilities; (2) provide a mechanism for monitoring of program performance; (3) ensure accountability for program performance; and (4) satisfy the Department of Education and the Congress that Federal funds are properly and effectively utilized." One would not expect such statements to endear Hartenstine or NAC to Nell Carney, the federal commissioner of rehabilitation, or to the regional officials of the Rehabilitation Services Administration or the state directors. It is doubtful that very many of those in the rehabilitation establishment feel the need for an outside private group (especially NAC) to monitor their work and assure Congress and the public of their accountability. As might have been expected, the repercussions have been widespread and numerous. With the poet, NAC might say that sorrows come not singly but in battalions. The following excerpt from the minutes of the February 4, 1991, meeting of Region 1 of the General Council of Workshops for the Blind (GCWB) is a case in point: The General Council of Workshops for the Blind Region 1 Meeting Lighthouse Industries for the Blind Long Island City, New York February 4, 1991 3. NAC Issues. The debate over the funding of NAC continues to be an issue within the General Council of Workshops for the Blind (GCWB). We do not have any indication this will come up at the next National Industries for the Blind (NIB) Board of Directors meeting, but in case it does, Region 1 wished to reiterate its position. A. Pressure on the issue is being brought by Grant Mack, Chairman of the NIB Board. Indications are that this is a personal issue for Grant, who is strongly affiliated with the American Council of the Blind, who has supported this program in the past. B. NAC has hired a lobbyist to attempt to bring political pressure to fund NAC through the RSA Appropriations Bill. RSA has questioned the wisdom of NIB money being used to lobby for RSA appropriations. C. The Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped (the Committee) has questioned NIB over this issue as well, having relatively the same concerns as RSA. This is a potentially embarrassing issue for the Committee. D. Both RSA and the Committee question NIB on pressing for legislation that prohibits a workshop from receiving government contracts under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program unless it is accredited by NAC. E. Region 1 maintains its position that NIB funds should not be used to support NAC. A copy of Charlie Fegan's comments regarding this issue is attached. Mr. Fegan's position was adopted without dissent by Region 1 at the GCWB Annual Convention in New Orleans in 1990. F. The Committee also asked that an informal meeting be held Saturday evening, May 4th, in Orlando with representatives of the other three regions, to discuss this and other relevant issues. G. Region 1 reaffirms its position that because of the conflict of interest issues involved, our position remains the same, namely: "NIB funds should not be used to support activities of any organization outside the GCWB/NIB family." (This position was adopted by Region 1 in Norfolk on 20 May, 1990.) H. We further recommend the GCWB press NIB to discontinue funding of such activities, specifically, support of NAC, effective immediately. ____________________ So said the minutes of region one of the General Council of Workshops on February 4, 1991, and the sentiment was a harbinger of what was to come. The Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped met in Washington on February 14, 1991, and National Industries for the Blind was called to account for its funding of NAC. RSA commissioner Nell Carney was not alone in expressing displeasure with NAC's behavior. Particularly, the chairman of the Committee (Rear Admiral D. W. McKinnon, Jr.) showed concern. By the end of the meeting it was clear how the tide was running, as indicated by the following letter: Arlington, Virginia February 15, 1991 Mr. George J. Mertz, President National Industries for the Blind Wayne, New Jersey Dear Mr. Mertz: I am writing with respect to concerns that have surfaced regarding the National Industries for the Blind's (NIB) financial support for operations of the National Accreditation Council (NAC). The concerns relate to NAC's efforts to persuade Congress to amend the Rehabilitation Act to require accreditation for State agencies and other recipients of funds authorized by that Act. As reported at yesterday's Committee meeting by Nell Carney, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and Committee member representing the Department of Education, there is widespread perception that NIB is financing this lobbying effort. During her remarks to the Committee, Commissioner Carney took strong exception to the NAC effort and expressed concern that the perceived link between it and NIB could jeopardize State Voc Rehab agencies' support for the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Program. Ms. Carney advised the Committee that the Executive Branch opposes the approach being advocated by NAC and that characterizations of RSA policies and procedures contained in a NAC statement on its proposal were erroneous. With respect to State agencies' support for facilities participating in JWOD, Ms. Carney noted that such agencies' extreme opposition to the mandatory accreditation approach sought by NAC, coupled with their perception of NIB's support for that approach, could influence their attitudes toward referring individuals not only to NIB workshops but possibly to National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) facilities as well. The Committee is cognizant of your directive that NAC not use any NIB resources for the effort to link Federal funding to accreditation. We know that the NIB Board shares the Committee's desire that this matter not have a detrimental effect upon the JWOD Program and the individuals it serves. We would appreciate your consideration of the Committee's concerns as you deliberate on continued support for NAC and the conditions under which any support is provided. As indicated at yesterday's meeting, we would like to be kept apprised of NIB's decisions on this matter, especially as they relate to the perception that NIB is now part of a lobbying effort that serves to discredit RSA and call into question the work of the Committee and the central nonprofit agencies. Sincerely, D. W. McKinnon, Jr. Rear Admiral, SC, USN Chair Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped ____________________ There is something which is called the bandwagon effect. This is not what is happening to NAC. More fitting are the proverbs about sinking ships. When the cause is obviously lost, very few feel called upon to stand on the deck and hold the flag high while the waves sweep them under. The following letter is illustrative: Wayne, New Jersey February 21, 1991 Dear Admiral McKinnon: This is to advise you that the Board of Directors of National Industries for the Blind (NIB) at its meeting held on February 16, 1991, voted to discontinue its budget support to the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). This decision to discontinue funding for the third year of NAC's plan to achieve financial independence was based on the fact that there was minimal progress reported by NAC in their goal of achieving this objective. It was also felt that this goal could not be accomplished during the third year of their plan. The Board also reviewed and discussed the Committee's concerns expressed in your letter of February 15, 1991, regarding the perceived link of NIB's funding for NAC and the issue of mandatory accreditation sought by NAC. While the Board remains unequivocally committed to the concept of accreditation as a means of insuring quality services to blind individuals, the NIB Board has not and never will advocate mandatory accreditation as a means for acquiring federal funds under the Rehabilitation Act. Also, the Board was very emphatic that NIB has not and will not be involved in any lobbying effort to promote this concept. Certainly there was no intention on NIB's part to discredit the work of the Rehabilitation Services Administration or any other government entity because of our support of accreditation. Admiral McKinnon, although the Board found it necessary to discontinue providing financial support for NAC for reasons stated above, NIB firmly believes in proper standards and voluntary accreditation for workshops and agencies serving blind and multidisabled blind persons and will continue to promote this important concept. Sincerely, George J. Mertz cc: Ms. Beverly L. Milkman Mr. Grant Mack ____________________ So regardless of the sugar-coated language, and despite the vehement protests of the chairman of its board, National Industries for the Blind left the sinking ship. And concern also began to be expressed by top officials of the American Foundation for the Blind, NAC's last remaining major financial supporter. There is only one more year left of possible AFB funding for NAC, and there are those who say that the funding will not materialize. Be this as it may, the behavior of NAC and its officials is now becoming a severe embarrassment to the American Foundation. This is evidenced by the fact that the Foundation had no representative at the latest meeting of the National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation--or, as one AFB official dubbed it, "Grant Mack's road show." The road show met in a suburb of San Francisco on Thursday, March 21, 1991, and Mack and Hartenstine were much in evidence; but the Foundation was not-- nor was most anybody else. The road show was sparsely attended. In fact, it may have been closing night. As Sharon Gold, the President of the National Federation of the Blind of California, reported: "There were approximately twenty-three people in attendance at the dinner. Two of these were Fred Schroeder and Joyce Scanlan, our representatives, who were permitted to attend the dinner. Two were Ruth Ann and Bob Acosta. Three were from the Don Queen family, and four were from the family of Allen Jenkins. Also present were Grant Mack and Dennis Hartenstine from NAC, and a staff member from the California Council of the Blind. This accounts for fourteen people. The remainder were from a handful of agencies. We outnumbered the dinner guests more than two to one." As Miss Gold said in her later report to the blind of California: "Thursday, March 21, 1991, will be remembered as yet another significant day in the history of the Federation and our determination to be independent blind people. On Wednesday we learned that the National Committee for the Advancement of Accreditation planned a dinner meeting for Thursday evening at the Holiday Inn Crown Plaza in Burlingame. To disguise their intent, the dinner was scheduled by the California Council of the Blind, and the letters of invitation were issued to agency heads by Robert Acosta. Grant Mack was to be the speaker and would enlighten all who attended on the value of accreditation--in other words, NAC. We had twenty-four hours to plan our own meeting, an informational meeting to be held outside the NAC meeting. Federationists from California and other states put aside their personal lives and came to San Francisco to join together to deliver once again our message to the public. More than forty of us were on hand." A final comment from Sharon Gold is worth mentioning. "Hostility and hatred," she said, "win few friends while good manners and a genuine concern for others win respect." These words are especially relevant when considering the appearance of the road show in California, for although there was some general talk about the value of accreditation, the principal focus of the meeting was a violent thirty-minute tirade of hate against the National Federation of the Blind, expressed by Bob Acosta. As in Chicago, the agency officials who had been brought to the meeting to be converted went away embarrassed and humiliated. Fred Schroeder and Joyce Scanlan, the two Federationists who were permitted to sit in the room and attend the dinner, were courteous and polite throughout the long attack, making no response at all. Later they were approached by some of the invited guests, who apologized for the boorish behavior to which the Federationists had been exposed. So we draw closer and closer to the demise of NAC, and it is hard to rejoice--for NAC is dying neither gracefully nor constructively. In its waning days it is doing what it has always done--hurting blind people and injuring programs established to serve the blind. It is damaging quality services and lowering standards. When NAC is gone (which will surely not be long), there would appear to be few issues left to divide the blindness field. May it be so--and may it be soon. [PHOTO/CAPTION: Portrait of Zach Shore.] THE OVERWHELMING QUESTION From the Associate Editor: Many of us have learned through hard experience to be cautious when reporters approach us with the idea of doing a human interest story about our lives as blind people or about some particular activity in which we engage. We know that the easy and obvious story angle is wide-eyed wonder at our overcoming obstacles and accomplishing our goals despite the heavy burden of blindness. The dilemma is to decide whether the advantages of showing the public a blind person living a normal life and of discussing frankly the profound problems that face us (unemployment, illiteracy, and discrimination, to name only three) outweigh the disadvantage of risking the dramatic, even heroic portrayal of our most ordinary actions and everyday accomplishments. Still more difficult is the decision about what to do when we read such stories about other blind people in the local newspaper. Should we respond publicly in an attempt to put the person's accomplishments in true perspective and thereby risk appearing to be a spoilsport? Alternatively, should we remain silent and allow one more layer of misconception, extravagant praise, and inappropriate flattery to settle over blind people, weighing us down on our slog toward truth and equal treatment? It takes courage and nerve to decide on action because one is bound to offend the newspaper, the featured blind person, his friends and relatives, those readers who know what they think and would rather not be confronted by the facts, or all of the above. This is precisely the quandary in which Federationist Zach Shore of Seattle, Washington, found himself on January 1, 1991. That day the Seattle Times published a story about a young blind lawyer, who is clearly making a success of his personal life and career. The piece got emotional mileage from the fact that the blind lawyer (Peter Dawson) lost his sight in an accident a week before high school graduation--admittedly a major setback to a young man planning an athletic career in college. The newspaper article went on to detail Dawson's skiing and climbing; his successful debut in a law firm; and his tenacity, patience, and sense of humor. The reporter, Sherry Stripling, did a fine job of bringing her subject to life, and the article was clearly viewed by most of her readers as an inspiring way to usher in the New Year. Zach Shore works at the Seattle Times in the Customer Service Department. He read the New Year's Day story and understood both what an admirable person Peter Dawson must be and what misconceptions about blindness the piece had reinforced in the minds of the public. He undertook to set the record straight if he could. He wrote an opinion piece, which was published on January 14, 1991, and waited to see what would happen. Here are the original story and Zach's as they appeared in the Seattle Times: Peter Dawson: He's Blind But He's Opened Others' Eyes Peter Dawson knew that as a blind man going into law, with its heavy requirement for reading, he would have frustrating days. And he does. But when the woman who has read aloud to him for thirteen years suggests he try an easier profession--such as brain surgery--she's only half kidding. She wouldn't bet money that he wouldn't or couldn't do it. Lillian Lipman has watched Dawson grow from a boy struggling with his sudden blindness to a man she greatly admires. He doesn't have wings, she said, but she has seen him soar. "He will pursue something until there's nothing left to pursue," said Lipman, who calls Dawson the most considerate man she's ever met. "He'll trace down details that other people didn't bother with. Consequently, he has found answers that have changed laws for the betterment of people." Sighted lawyers have an advantage in that they can skim through written material until they come to the segment they need to read in detail. Dawson must hear every word, which takes more time. He also is uncommonly thorough, which takes even more time. When Lane, Powell, Spears, Lubersky (then Lane, Powell, Moss, & Miller) took a gamble and hired him out of the University of Washington's law school, it sometimes took Dawson seven days to do the work a sighted lawyer could do in five. He did it, using high-tech scanners, word synthesizers, computer data bases, and people such as Lipman, who serve as personal readers. And he added a dimension to the firm. He picked up details about clients that other lawyers missed, said Jim Stoetzer, a partner, because his senses other than sight are heightened. But Dawson needed to become more efficient, and so he became more specialized, discovering a particular knack for personal injury liability cases, which gave him more client contact, another of his strengths. Last February he started a solo practice. He still wonders from month to month whether he'll make it, but few people associated with him have doubts. Dawson, son of a doctor and a nurse, did not follow a lifelong dream to become a lawyer. A week before his high school graduation, he lost his sight in a dirt bike accident while celebrating with other Mercer Island seniors. He had athletic scholarships waiting for him and had been accepted by the U.S. Navy flying program. "Everything was there for the taking, and the carpet was pulled out," said Dawson, thirty-one. Though that summer he began the first of some twenty eye and facial operations that are still ongoing, he was determined to take his place at the UW that fall. But he was ashamed of the white cane. He didn't know about technological aids. He found himself dependent on other people, and he hated it. "The stereotypes of blindness were so negative that I just didn't want to have anything to do with it," said Dawson. "All I could picture was people with tin cups selling pencils on the corner." The State Department of Services for the Blind coaxed him into coming to Olympia for a year to learn how to live independently. "It was the lowest point of my life," he said. But while there he met people struggling with other health issues, and he began to appreciate that he was still a strapping youth. He made friends. He regained confidence. As he prepared to re-enter the university, one of his Olympia teachers painstakingly carved a relief map of the 1,618-acre campus, which Dawson memorized. Dawson did better every quarter and learned to rely on his intelligence, where formerly he relied on athletic prowess. Not that he hasn't continued to enjoy his physical life. One of his five brothers skis with him, telling him through a headset what's coming. "Tree on your left." "Great-looking girl on your right." Still Dawson has fallen into his share of ravines. When his former associate, Stoetzer, followed him on the company climb of Mount Rainier, Stoetzer concluded Dawson had the will to do almost anything. That wasn't the common belief when Dawson decided to enter law school after graduating from the UW with distinction in history. He was told he would be eaten alive. He was told he would never keep up with the book work. Lipman, who by that time had been reading to Peter as a volunteer for four years, almost punched one naysayer in the nose. Lipman is now past retirement age but still takes the ferry and the bus from Bainbridge Island at least twice a week to read for Dawson. They are close enough that she feels free to size up his girlfriends. He appreciates her tenacity. She appreciates his sense of humor and patience. "I've seen him perturbed, but never angry," she said. "He has obviously accepted whatever has happened to him with good grace." While Dawson recalls undergraduate school fondly, law school was painful. He sent books to an association in the East that read them onto tapes. But law books are huge and easily outdated, and Dawson was limited in how many books he could send and how often he could get them updated. It took him an extra year, but he made it. He passed the bar examination on the second try, after logistical adjustments were made to accommodate his disability. He worked at the attorney general's office while in school and could have kept on with the work, which he liked. But he chose to go into private practice, a more difficult path because the company can't charge customers more even though it might take Dawson longer to complete written research. Stoetzer remembers that his law firm was impressed that Dawson didn't promise more than he felt he could deliver. With technology catching up, one thing Dawson could promise was that he could do his own research. In his office now in the Westin Building, Dawson sits surrounded by machines. He has two tape players for dictating letters. He has a scanner that can read legal documents or mail and download the information onto his personal word processor. The information then comes to him by voice synthesizer. Five years ago, he listened to the same monotone voice for ten and eleven hours at a sitting until he thought he'd go crazy. Now there are a variety of livelier voices with handles such as Huge Harry and Whispering Wendy. Dawson can access data bases, like Westlaw, that have every new case from Hong Kong to London on line within twenty-four hours of the judgment. Lipman is impressed that Dawson goes to plays and films and comes back to tell about the nuances. There's not much he's missed in his travels either (he has ventured three times to Eastern and Western Europe); travel companion Per Danielsson says his optimism and spirit touched people's lives wherever they went. That and his sense of humor make him a valuable asset to the Community Services for the Blind and Partially Sighted. Next year Dawson will become the first blind president of the board in the agency's twenty-five-year history. June Mansfield, executive director, says Dawson is so open about his blindness that he makes people feel comfortable asking questions and dispels misunderstanding. In the beginning blindness was like living in a closet, Dawson said. His world was only as wide as his arms could reach. But, as the years went by, his sense of hearing and touch became more sensitive, and slowly the world expanded. "You become more aware of the wind and the sun and the moisture in the air and the sounds associated with different birds," said Dawson. "You grab at whatever you can to help you take in the world in a different way." ____________________ That is the way the article ended, and Zach Shore felt that it was too sentimentalized to go unchallenged. He felt that in and of itself the article was such that something had to be done to set the record straight. Here is what he wrote: Blind People Saddened, Angered by Times Article by Zach Shore I am the editor of "The Blind Washingtonian," the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington. I work as a customer service representative for The Seattle Times, and I am also blind. It doesn't take a master logician to discover that there is a direct correlation between the New Year's Day article in The Times on a blind lawyer and the fact that my phone has been ringing off the hook ever since. What's all the fuss about? The reactions I have heard to Sherry Stripling's piece entitled, "Peter Dawson: He's blind, but he's opened others' eyes," fall into two categories. Almost every sighted person who has read the article has remarked how impressed he or she was with this brave blind man's success. Every blind person I spoke with has had reactions ranging from outrage to disgust. What phenomenon can so impress the sighted and so depress the blind? I think the answer lies in an incident that occurred the other day. In fact, an incident just like it occurred the day before that, and similar incidents occur nearly every day. I walked into my bank to deposit my paycheck. When I was ready to endorse the check, I asked the teller to line up my Visa card with the line I needed to sign. Once I endorsed it, the teller remarked, "That's amazing." "What is?" I asked. "That you sign your name so well. It's just fantastic how well you do things." I told her that it really wasn't so incredible, but she insisted that it was. I smiled, thanked her, and wished her a good day. But I had to bite my lip to keep from saying,"If you think that's impressive, you oughtta see me tie my shoes!" If we were to draw up a list of the greatest challenges facing blind people in America today, we would probably include unemployment, poverty, and finding good rehabilitation and decent education. All these conditions afflict us as a minority. Yet, none is as crippling as the teller's kind words. These adverse conditions are not causes but effects. The reason for the second-class state of the blind is expressed in the sentiment, "It amazes me how well you sign your name." Most sighted people, like the teller, are astounded by such simple actions because they do not believe the blind are as capable as they are themselves. This is the real root of our problems: not blindness, but the public's misconceptions about us. It is also why blind people are so saddened by Stripling's piece. Throughout the article, numerous facts and quotes about Dawson's life are cited to stress his courage. Much is made of his recreation habits: skiing and climbing. His sighted reader states, "He has obviously accepted what has happened to him with good grace"--and "He has no wings; yet, I've seen him soar." Yet, all of Dawson's accomplishments are presented as exceptional because of his blindness. Many blind people find this demeaning because it suggests that when a blind person lives a normal life--working, playing, contributing to the community--he or she is automatically thought of as amazing, heroic, and unique. But blindness need not prevent anyone from living a normal life, and when we do the same things as everyone else, we are neither wondrous nor brave. Another falsehood in this piece is the notion that Dawson's loss of eyesight enhanced his other senses. A blind person's senses are no better than anyone else's. Some people cannot understand why we object to this age-old myth since it makes the blind appear more capable. We object for the same reason that most Asian Americans prefer the label Asian to Oriental. While Oriental sounds more exotic and intriguing, it is that very difference which most Asians eschew. The blind, like every other minority, want to get the same treatment as the majority, and the way to get equal treatment is not with exotic labels or false claims of superior senses. Many blind people took exception to the portrayal of Dawson as being less capable than his peers: "Sometimes it would take him seven days to do what other lawyers did in five." In no way do I wish to diminish Dawson's achievements as a lawyer. However, I know at least twenty blind lawyers, and I can assure you they are every bit as efficient as their sighted peers. If they were not, their employers would not have hired them, or their private businesses would have failed. The Dawson profile, though written with the best intentions, misled the public and hurt the blind. It left the impression that because he is blind, we applaud Dawson's courageous struggle to be almost normal. If The Times ran a similar profile on an African American lawyer and noted how amazing it was for that person to have managed to live a normal life despite his debilitating characteristic, the public outcry would be deafening. We in the National Federation of the Blind are proving daily that blindness is just a characteristic: nothing more or less. Dawson, Stripling, and all of us have, at one time or another, fallen victim to the fallacy that equates blindness with helplessness and incompetence. Whenever a blind person disproves these notions, we are tempted to glorify him as the exception and profile him as a credit to his kind. When we spotlight a special person to praise for his achievements, and the fact of his blindness is mentioned only in passing, then we will truly have done a deed worth writing about. ____________________ That is what Zach Shore wrote, and as soon as it was published, the feathers (as the saying goes) began to fly. There were letters to the editor, including one published on February 6, 1991, written by Jane Malbon, a woman who had known Dawson for years and viewed Shore's piece as a personal attack on her friend rather than as a thoughtful discussion of a systemic problem facing all blind people. Her argument seems to be that her friend has accomplished impressive things and is a wonderful human being. He has done all this while overcoming blindness, and that makes him heroic. The heart of her argument would appear to be this section of her letter: "To dismiss the struggles involved in attaining his considerable success is to diminish in a way his achievements. The real value of achievement reflects the amount of effort put into it." This is what Mrs. Malbon says, and I am not sure what she intends by the word "reflects" in her last sentence; but I assume she means that the real value of achievement can only be assessed by measuring the amount of effort that goes into it. This is certainly the case when one deals with young children or adults with debilitating mental illness or mental retardation. Out of compassion and in recognition that it is inappropriate to expect real achievement from such people, we take into consideration how hard they work and how much they want to succeed. But in the competitive world of adult achievement, success has always been measured in accomplishment. The average college student who works hard for C's does not win admission to Phi Beta Kappa or medical school. The A student, on the other hand, who finds time for student government, theater performance, and tutoring inner city youngsters can write his or her own ticket, regardless of how little time is spent on studying. In cosmic terms this may not seem fair, but it is the way things have always worked. The fact that Ms. Malbon presumes that blind people should be measured by the amount of their effort rather than by their actual achievement reinforces Zach Shore's point. Here is what Ms. Malbon wrote to the editor on February 6, 1991: No Insult Lawyer Who is Blind Also Happens to be Heroic Editor, The Times: In response to Zach Shore's January 14 opinion piece, "Blind people saddened, angered by Times article," Mr. Shore argues that the article written about a blind attorney, Peter Dawson, is an insult to the blind community at large because "all of Dawson's accomplishments are portrayed as exceptional because of his blindness." The original article was a part of an ongoing series entitled, "Ordinary People," designed to show the aspects of interest and heroism that can be found in everyday people. Having known Peter Dawson for many years, I have seen what he's had to overcome and what he has achieved, and he is indeed heroic. No one who knows Pete applauds his "courageous struggle to be almost normal." People applaud his ability to be exceptional-- and we're not talking about the ability to sign his name. To dismiss the struggles involved in attaining his considerable success is to diminish in a way his achievements. The real value of achievement reflects the amount of effort put into it. Shore was upset by the statement that when Pete first started working for a law firm, it "sometimes took Dawson seven days to do the work a sighted lawyer could do in five." He, and many blind people evidently, translated this one statement into the perception that the article portrayed Pete as "less capable than his peers" and thus shed a poor light on all blind attorneys. I don't believe the article implied anything but that Pete is extraordinarily capable. Acknowledging that blind people may encounter difficulties is not to fall victim to the fallacy that equates blindness with helplessness and incompetence, for every person, blind or not, has his or her own special set of "limitations" with which they must deal, and certainly all people encounter difficulties. To acknowledge that someone has overcome a terrible adversity (and literally losing both eyes at age eighteen certainly qualifies) and has come out so wonderfully is a story that deserves to be told. ____________________ That's what Ms. Malbon had to say to the editor of the Times, and a week later Peter Dawson weighed in with his own comments. He fastened on an argument made late in Shore's article as the main point of the piece. Zach pointed out that he had no intention of undercutting Dawson's abilities as a lawyer, but that the author made an issue of his requiring seven days when he began working for the law firm to do what sighted attorneys did in five. Shore went on to talk about his observation that good blind lawyers are just as efficient as sighted ones and that it is demeaning when readers are left to infer that blind people are necessarily slower than their sighted competition. Dawson, however, assumes that Shore is criticizing him. The defense he makes of his methods and strengths as an attorney sound fair and accurate; his only mistake is in assuming that Shore intended to insult him. Dawson concludes his piece with his version of the old "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" argument. He interprets as bitterness Shore's recognition of the public's misplaced admiration for everyday competence of the blind. He forgets that Shore did not snap at the bank teller. He smiled and wished her a good day. Dawson is right in thinking that bitterness corrodes the soul and incapacitates the body, but until blind people face the fact that the public holds us down and keeps us out with their admiration of the commonplace as surely as they do with insults and hatred, we cannot move forward into first-class status. Zach Shore was on target when he identified our response to stories like the New Year's Day one as sadness and anger, both healthy emotions, and ones Dawson would do well to look for in himself. He is obviously too intelligent not to experience them occasionally, and he would be stronger and more effective if he could admit them. Here is the article he wrote for publication on February 13, 1991, in the Seattle Times: Bitterness Doesn't Help Blind or Sighted by Peter G. Dawson Zach Shore's January 14 Special to the Times, entitled "Blind people saddened, angered by Times article," was written in response to a January 1, Times article about a blind lawyer in Seattle. Shore made some good points about important issues affecting the blind. However, as the subject of his response, I was also offended by Shore's inference that I was less efficient than other blind lawyers and therefore a damaging example for the blind. In my opinion, the primary focus of Shore's response was the statement in the original article, "Sometimes it would take him seven days to do what other lawyers did in five." This statement was made in reference to my last job, at a large private firm in Seattle. Shore indicated that as editor of the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington, his telephone "rang off the hook" with calls from blind people whose reaction to the original article ranged from "outrage to disgust." He followed by stating, "I know at least twenty blind attorneys, and I can assure you they are every bit as efficient as their sighted peers. If they were not, their employers would not have hired them or their private businesses would have failed." The original article was not about Shore, his twenty friends, or blind people as a category. It was a story about one young man who was blinded in an accident at age eighteen and happened to go on to be a lawyer. The transition from sight to blindness was difficult for me. I worked extremely hard to get where I am today. It hurts me that these blind people were outraged and disgusted by my best effort. This effort included the fact that a certain type of work "sometimes" took me longer. I believe blind professionals can be just as good and efficient as their sighted peers, and two things should be clarified. First, dictating a letter, meeting with a client, taking a deposition, or negotiating over the phone generally takes me no longer than anyone else. I believe I am just as fast or faster on shorter legal research projects. Secondly, as far as I know, I am the first totally blind attorney ever to have been hired by a large private law firm in this state. I don't know what kind of work Shore's twenty friends are in, but I would make a good guess that the majority of them are solo practitioners or work for the federal, state, county, or city government. I know of only two other blind attorneys in the rest of the country who were hired as associates in established large private law firms. Like them, I tried to break through the ice into the private sector. New associates in these private firms often spend most of their time on legal research and writing. One of the reasons I obtained my job at the firm and my previous job in the Washington state attorney general's office was my ability to independently do complex legal research through the use of computer legal data bases in conjunction with a voice synthesizer. Most legal materials have large amounts of citations, numbers and footnotes. Although special software allows me to skip around the text to a certain degree, I must listen to most of this extraneous information so I don't miss any important text. Hence, on long research projects in particular, voluminous amounts of reading "sometimes" took me longer than my sighted associates. Live readers could somewhat alleviate this problem, but the ability to anticipate and schedule them is limited, and I could not count on them to be there late at night or on weekends so I could meet project deadlines. I doubt very much that any of Shore's friends could have done these particular projects any faster. On the other hand, future advancements in software and other technology, allowing us to do things such as skip legal citations, will make it faster. I thought obtaining an associate position at a large private law firm would help other blind people. I am disappointed that Shore took facts about my life and compared them to "almost everyday" incidents that "so depressed the blind." The incident Shore used as an analogy was a bank teller who was amazed that Shore could sign his name on a check. It is wrong for Shore to be depressed about the particular facts of my life. It's unfortunate that he and the blind people who called him feel bombarded by depressing incidents on an almost daily basis. And it's unfortunate that he felt he had to bite his tongue in order to hold back a snide comeback to the bank teller. This bitterness expressed by Shore doesn't help the blind or the sighted. It only creates a bigger void between the two groups and causes the sighted to be hesitant about asking questions or trying to understand how blind people function in the world. I agree that the public needs to be educated about blindness and blind people's ability to live a "normal" life. The best way to change any public misconception is to have examples such as Shore and I leading that life. However, I also believe any public misconception will change even faster if addressed with a more positive and understanding attitude. ____________________ There you have Dawson's response and the end of the public debate. It is fair to ask what Zach Shore achieved from all of this. Of course the obvious answer is that every time we get our story and point of view into print, we accomplish something positive. Some members of the public will understand and grow as a result of thinking about the issues we raise--and, indeed, we ourselves will profit from such discussions. In this case a television producer called Shore to discuss doing a story that he would consider to be positive. After a lengthy discussion they agreed to do a series on the real problems faced by Seattle's blind population. That will be beneficial to the blind and, assuming that it is done well--a long step forward in helping the public to view blind citizens as normal people who cannot see. The exchange of ideas in print may also have opened new channels of private communication. Zach Shore wrote a letter to Jane Malbon, whose February 6 letter to the editor we have already quoted. Who knows what understanding will come from this effort? No one can be sure, but it is certainly through such warm, thoughtful, and respectful communications as Shore's that we will educate the public. Here is Zach Shore's letter: Seattle, Washington February 9, 1991 Dear Ms. Malbon: I have read your February 6 letter to the Editor, and I commend you for it. I thought it was extremely well written. You articulated your views in a clear, coherent manner. I also believe that your views quite accurately reflect those of the overwhelming majority of Americans. My views on blindness differ from yours in some fundamental ways, and mine are shared by only a tiny minority of Americans-- but it is a steadily growing minority, nonetheless. Since you have demonstrated an interest in my views (first by your phone call to me at the Times, and then by your letter), I would like to elaborate more fully on what I believe about blindness, and why I believe it. I want first to say something about my feelings toward Mr. Dawson. I have none--primarily because I have never met the man. Therefore, I bear him no ill will. In fact, if he is half as interesting and articulate as I have been told, I believe I would greatly enjoy meeting and getting to know him. I hope I will have that opportunity. When you called me at the Times, you said that my article was "a cheap shot." You seemed to think that I was making a personal attack on Mr. Dawson. I was not, and I am sorry that you read my article that way. The intent of my editorial was not to attack or criticize Peter Dawson or Sherry Stripling. It was, rather, to dispel some myths about blindness. Because I did not expect that many people would understand or accept my view, I was surprised to receive a great deal of positive response. A number of readers called me at work to express their support and agreement, including a Washington State Representative and a news producer at KOMO-TV. I interpret this positive response as evidence that slowly but surely the public is coming to have new attitudes about the blind and the disabled in general. I want to discuss the part of your letter which states: "Shore was upset by a statement that when Peter first came to work at a law firm, `It sometimes took him seven days to do the work a sighted lawyer could do in five.' He, and many blind people, evidently translated this one statement into the perception that the article portrayed Pete as `less capable than his sighted peers,' and thus shed a poor light on all blind attorneys. I don't believe the article implied that Pete is anything but extraordinarily capable." You say that you don't believe the article portrayed Pete as anything but extraordinarily capable. Yet, you cite a statement which clearly says that Pete is less capable. If the article states that Mr. Dawson takes two extra days to complete his work, how can that portray him as extraordinarily capable? Again, I am not trying to fault or attack Mr. Dawson. Why was it important for me to cite this particular statement? When you called me to discuss my editorial, I suggested to you that members of minorities are unfortunately subjected to stereotyping. This is particularly true with the blind. Since most people do not know and have never even met a blind person, they tend to classify all members of that group as sharing certain characteristics, which they may or may not share. Many people who read Sherry Stripling's profile will believe that blind people (not just blind lawyers) are slower than the sighted; blind people's senses are superior to the sighted; the blind never get angry, only perturbed; they fall into ravines; they need intricate maps of an area before they can travel independently in a new environment; they "have to grab at whatever they can to help them take in the world in a different way"; and a host of other untruths which I never mentioned in my editorial. If these things are true, then no harm is done, and no response from me was called for. But if they are not true, what should be done about it? We could ignore it, hoping against hope that it won't really matter what the public thinks about the blind, or we could respond to it and try to educate the public. I, obviously, chose to respond--and in doing so I risked offending some, diminishing others, and angering still more. I also jeopardized my job by publicly criticizing my employer for running the story in the first place. Would it not have been easier and much more pleasant to have ignored it altogether? It would have been, if the cost of remaining silent were not considerably higher. Ms. Malbon, have you ever been to the Lighthouse for the Blind in Seattle or talked with blind people who work there? I have. Do you know that the Seattle Lighthouse, and workshops like it across the country, are employing blind people and paying them sub-minimum wages? The justification for this practice is that blind people are less efficient than the sighted and, therefore, should not be paid the minimum wage. The saddest part of this scenario is that many blind people have been told for so long that they cannot be expected to work as quickly or efficiently as the sighted that they have come to believe it and have made it come true. The United States Department of Labor tells us that over seventy percent of the nation's working-age blind are unemployed. Many who are employed are working in sheltered shops and in some cases being paid as little as fifty cents an hour. But what do sub-minimum wages have to do with Sherry Stripling's piece? Several months ago a few blind people I know went to a club to dance. After they entered, the owner refused to admit them unless they agreed to sign waivers of liability and consent to have one of his sighted staff members lead them to the bathroom. They did not agree to sign. The owner called the police and had them handcuffed and removed from the club. More recently, a close friend, who is blind, and some of her blind friends went to ValleyFair Amusement Park in Minnesota. After waiting in line to ride the roller coaster, they attempted to board the ride but were blocked by park officials. The officials explained that it was the park's policy to have all blind people accompanied by a responsible adult while on any ride. A "responsible adult" was defined to mean any sighted person over four feet tall. This group of blind persons assured the officials that they were responsible adults and did not need any supervision. The standoff lasted for one hour until the park officials decided to shut down the ride altogether and send the crowd away. A peculiar thing happened in this instance. Instead of becoming angry, the crowd supported the blind people--chanting, "Let them ride! Let them ride!" I conclude from instances such as this that the public is beginning to see these issues in a new light. What do all these things--widespread unemployment, sub- minimum wages, and barred entrance to clubs and rides--have to do with calling Peter Dawson heroic? All these things are inextricably linked to the two-sided coin of discrimination. The circumstances and events I have recounted to you represent one side of the discrimination coin: the one which is clearer and more easily identifiable. The Stripling piece represents the other side of discrimination: the one which is cloudy and harder to recognize. Let me try to explain. Most people believe that blindness necessarily alters one in a dramatic way. It makes one less efficient, less safe, less competent in travel, etc.; and thus the discrimination I have been describing is a natural result. Therefore, when a blind person succeeds in earning a good living and leading a full life, he or she must be extraordinarily capable and heroic. You say that overcoming the struggle of blindness is an heroic feat. On the other hand, if one believes that the blind are every bit as capable as the sighted, then living a full life is not heroic, but rewarding and pleasant. You contend that Peter Dawson is amazing because he is blind and successful. I contend that he may be amazing, but not because he is blind. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whenever we get something, even when it seems good, we must give up something else in return. If you marry, you gain a lifetime companion, but you lose the freedom of single status. If someone offers me a free piece of blueberry cheesecake (a thing I can rarely refuse), I risk gaining weight. Since everything on earth has a cost, what then is the price for calling a blind person heroic--and, more to the point, who must pay it? The benefit of calling a blind person heroic for overcoming his blindness and succeeding is immediate: It makes him feel good, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But the cost is the assumption, even if unadmitted, that blindness brings inability--so an able blind man cannot be average but must be uncommon and extraordinarily capable. The moment we portray a blind person's achievements as exceptional in light of his blindness, the discrimination coin is tossed. No matter how it lands, both sides will have their effect. The up side may make the recipient of the compliment feel good, along with a lot of bystanders. But the down side is that the public will go on believing that the profiled individual is the exception and that most blind people cannot be expected to be equal to the sighted. As long as the public clings to this notion, it will keep the vast majority of blind citizens unemployed, underpaid, and unaccepted. The compliment of heroism is a two-sided coin. In the short run it benefits a few, but the long-term effect is negative. The cost is second-class status, and it is all blind people who must pay. Ms. Malbon, I have taken considerable time to respond to your letter because I believe you are open and willing to consider a viewpoint which differs from your own. I welcome and encourage you to come to any of our Federation meetings and to write to me with your thoughts on what I have said. I would like to meet you and talk with you in person. Again, I thank you for writing your letter and furthering discussion of these issues which affect us all. Sincerely, Zach Shore ____________________ From the Editor: There you have the currents and cross currents of the newspaper articles and correspondence surrounding the story of Peter Dawson. It almost reminds one of T. S. Eliot's famous line about a "tedious argument of insidious intent to lead you to an overwhelming question," for the letters and articles are often wordy and even, now and then, a bit pompous. This is a long Monitor article, one not as sprightly as we usually hope to print. Well, then, why did we print it? Because if the argument is at times tedious (which, indeed, it is), it does lead to an overwhelming question--one that is at the center of the problems faced by blind people in this country today. First let me separate the wheat from the chaff. Dawson is wrong in saying that Shore expresses bitterness. He doesn't. On the other hand, if I had been writing the Shore response, I might not have reacted in exactly the way he did concerning the original newspaper article. Nevertheless, Shore's response is right on target in identifying the "overwhelming question." Dawson's irritated counterattack is just that, irritation. It totally misses Shore's point. This in no way detracts from Dawson's accomplishments, but the overwhelming question remains an overwhelming question. It has to do with how the members of a minority should approach the problem of changing their second-class status to first-class membership in society. By and large, those who make up the majority are satisfied with things as they are. This is true even of the liberals who say otherwise. Why shouldn't the majority feel that way? They take equality for granted and don't see why anybody need make a fuss about it. It is always that way with something we have had from the day we were born and have never had to think about. If the members of the underclass (blacks, women, blind people) push too hard, they encounter backlash; and if they don't push hard enough, they stay where they are forever. Moreover, this is not all. There are members of the minority who become embittered, and there are members of the majority who accuse members of the minority of bitterness when none exists. There are members of the majority who claim to have no prejudice when in reality they are full of it, and there are members of the minority who accuse members of the majority of prejudice when it isn't there. There are members of the minority who try to dissociate themselves from the rest of the group, thinking thereby to gain status with the majority but succeeding only in emphasizing their insecurity. There is also the question of how to minimize the hostility of the majority when those they have regarded as their inferiors begin to want equality instead of charity and condescending good-will. Complicated? Of course it is complicated. How could it be otherwise? The social structure of ideas and beliefs which constitutes our cultural fabric was not built in a day or a year or a century, and it won't be changed overnight. The remarkable thing is that we have made as much progress as we have, not that we have taken so long to do it. This brings me back to Peter Dawson and the controversy surrounding him. Yes, the argument can be tedious--and if we are not careful, it can have insidious intent. But only if we fail to meet the challenge and answer the overwhelming question. Be this as it may, it is worthwhile (perhaps even essential) for us to deal with such matters as those raised by Shore; for he is absolutely right in his underlying premise--which is that the principal component of the formula which has made it possible for the blind to come from second-class status to the threshold of first-class membership in society in less than a century is the National Federation of the Blind. This is true regardless of whether we admit it or not and, for that matter, whether we know it or not. It is true for Dawson even if he has no idea at all of what part the Federation has played in his success--and it is true of Shore and all of the rest of us who are blind in this country. So let us ponder the overwhelming question and hope that we have the clarity of judgment to arrive at the correct conclusion. The argument is only tedious if we fail to understand it. [PHOTO: Marc Maurer standing at podium with gavel in hand. CAPTION: Marc Maurer.] AIRLINES OUTFOXED by Marc Maurer As Federationists know, most of he airlines in this country now uniformly practice discrimination against the blind, and they are supported in this behavior by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Because of the growing public outcry against this treatment of the blind and other disabled people, Congress adopted in 1986 the Air Carrier Access Act, which was meant to end such discrimination. Regulations to implement the provisions of the Air Carrier Access Act were to be adopted by the Department of Transportation within 120 days, but this was not done. In an effort to minimize conflict and ensure the viability of its proposed regulations, the Department of Transportation convened a so-called regulatory negotiation (reg-neg) to write the first draft of the proposed rules. The Federal Aviation Administration was not invited to participate in the reg-neg, but its lawyers were present throughout the entire process. In September of 1987 officials from the FAA Office of the General Counsel indicated that blind people would be prohibited from sitting in all emergency exit rows. Other provisions in the rule- making process might be negotiable--but this one, they said, was not up for discussion. In October of 1990 the final rules became effective. There were two sets. The first of these, issued by the Department of Transportation, declared unequivocally that no discrimination against the handicapped would be tolerated. The second set (promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration, a segment of the Department of Transportation) did not contradict that principle. However, the rules did say that any person seated in an emergency exit row must be able to perform several functions or tasks. Among those listed was the requirement that the individual be able visually to assess conditions outside the plane. This, of course, was not a prohibition directed at the blind, they said. Apparently, they were taking the position that any blind person who could see--that is, could assess visually certain conditions outside the plane--would be permitted to sit in the exit row. This cute trick of flim-flamming was apparently an attempt by the federal officials to get themselves out of a tight corner by having their cake and eating it too--in other words, to make a rule against discrimination and then continue the practice through a second rule couched in fancy terminology. So the Department of Transportation and the FAA adopted their regulations, and since that time there has been very little official assessment of the legal implications. However, Robert Spire, the Attorney General of the state of Nebraska, has now performed that task. Mr. Spire, who completed his term of office in January of this year and moved to a new job in Washington, wrote (as one of his final acts as Nebraska Attorney General) to airport authorities in the state, outlining his assessment of the legal requirements regarding the air transportation of blind people. His review of these requirements was made with the Department of Transportation regulations in hand, provided by Aloma Bouma, one of our leaders in Nebraska. Attorney General Spire took the Department of Transportation at its word. It said the no discrimination is tolerable, and the attorney general agreed. The Department of Transportation and the FAA wanted it both ways, but the attorney general was not willing to participate in the flim-flam. He did not specify his method of reaching his conclusions. However, the Department of Transportation is the federal department in which the FAA is located. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that a department's regulations control those of a subsidiary agency-- and the Department of Transportation has said that no discrimination is tolerable. Here is the letter from Attorney General Spire: Department of Justice State of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska To: Commissioner--Airport Authority From: Robert M. Spire, Attorney General Date: January 7, 1991 Re: Rights of Visually Impaired Persons on Airplanes and in Airport Facilities The Nebraska Department of Justice understands that visually impaired persons are encountering some difficulty in seating arrangements on commercial airlines in our state. I want to assist you and others involved in airline operation in being aware of the rights of the visually impaired, and other persons with disabilities, in the provision of transportation services. Federal law prohibits discrimination against the blind and other persons with disabilities who use air transportation. Section 404(c) of the Federal Aviation Act states that "no air carrier may discriminate against any otherwise qualified handicapped individual, by reason of such handicap, in the provision of air transportation." 49 U.S.C.  1374(c)(1). In addition, Neb.Rev.Stat.  20-127 (Reissue 1987) states: (1) The blind, the visually handicapped, the hearing impaired, and the otherwise physically disabled shall have the same right as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, and other public places. (2) The blind, the visually handicapped, the hearing impaired, and the otherwise physically disabled shall be entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes (emphasis added), motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, street cars, boats or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. (3) Every totally or partially blind person shall have the right to be accompanied by a dog guide and every hearing impaired person shall have the right to be accompanied by a hearing aid dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any of the places listed in subsection (2) of this section without being required to pay an extra charge for the dog guide or hearing aid dog; Provided, that such person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by such dog. (4) Every totally or partially blind person shall have the right to make use of a white cane in any of the places listed in subsection (2) of this section. Neb.Rev.Stat.  20-129 (Reissue 1987) states: Any person, firm, or corporation, or the agent of any person, firm, or corporation who denies or interferes with admittance or enjoyment of the public facilities enumerated in section 20-127 or otherwise interferes with the rights of a totally or partially blind, hearing impaired, or otherwise physically disabled person under section 20-127 or sections 20- 131.01 to 29-131.04 shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor. There is no federal law or regulation that requires the seating of a visually impaired person in any special position on an airplane, or requires that a visually impaired person cannot be seated in certain positions. For example, there is no requirement that a visually impaired person cannot sit by an exit door on an airplane. There may be airline policies to this effect, but these policies must be governed by the fact that both state and federal laws bar discrimination against visually impaired persons and other persons with disabilities. This means that a visually impaired person may not be denied an exit door seat unless a legitimate safety or other reason can be demonstrated for the denial. I am not aware of any valid evidence justifying such a denial. If you are requested by airline or airport security persons to arrest a visually impaired person who is asserting his or her right to equal treatment on board an airline, you should decline to use your powers of arrest. Visually impaired persons are not to be given any additional or other extraordinary rights beyond those given to any other citizen. However, visually impaired persons, as are all other citizens, are subject to arrest for disturbing the peace or violating any other laws. I believe this information may be useful to you and all persons and organizations concerned with airline operation. cc: Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission Rehabilitation Services for the Visually Impaired ____________________ So says the Attorney General of the state of Nebraska, and it will be interesting to see whether the attorneys general of other states will reason likewise. It is also worthwhile to speculate about the conclusions which might be reached by the federal courts in a test case. Perhaps the airlines and the government defenders may have outfoxed themselves. [PHOTO: Portrait of Peter Grunwald. CAPTION: Peter Grunwald is a leader in the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois.] RASPBERRIES FOR RASPBERRY by Peter Grunwald From the Associate Editor: On October 24, 1990, William Raspberry, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote a piece decrying our national inability to suppress our individual or interest-group wishes in order to benefit the larger society. Though his general argument may be sound, one of his illustrations was most unfortunate and served to display his ignorance about the underlying issues in the example he chose. It was our insistence that blind passengers should not, based on blindness, be refused access to aircraft exit row seating. Raspberry's attitude is both surprising and disturbing because, as a member of a racial minority himself, he has undoubtedly faced discrimination arising from ignorance and misinformation posing as common sense and self-evident truth that should be obvious to everyone. Members of minorities have always suffered at the hands of people making this error, and there is no way to win relief from this manifestation of discrimination except to call attention to the mistake whenever and wherever it occurs. Pete Grunwald is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois, and he takes his responsibilities as a Federationist seriously. He read William Raspberry's column, and he sat down immediately to write a response. We can only hope that Mr. Raspberry learned something about this issue and himself from Pete's letter. All of us can learn from Pete's integrity and discipline in calling the matter to the columnist's attention. Here are both the relevant portion of William Raspberry's article and Pete Grunwald's response: A Painful Sight by William Raspberry ...The legislator who puts the national interest above the interests of his constituents risks being turned out of office. But I think it is bigger than that, and not limited to the federal budget. The whole society seems to be disintegrating into special interests. Minorities press for affirmative action less (it seems to me) out of a desire to increase the amount of justice in the land than to guarantee special consideration for themselves. College campuses are being ripped apart by the insistence of one group after another on proving their victimization at the hands of white males, and therefore their right to special exemptions and privileges. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration recently adopted a rule that would bar emergency-exit-row seating to passengers who are blind, deaf, obese, frail or otherwise likely to inhibit movement during an emergency evacuation. Common sense? Only if you think of the common interests of all the passengers. Surely it is reasonable to have those emergency seats occupied by the people who can hear the instructions of the crew, read the directions for operating the emergency doors and assist other passengers in their escape. But some organizations representing the deaf, blind and otherwise disabled reacted to the regulation only as a form of discrimination against their clients who, they insist, have a "right" to the emergency seats. It is true that the majority must never be allowed to run roughshod over the rights of minorities. That is one of the tenets of the American system. But the notion of fairness to particular groups as an element of fairness to the whole has been perverted into a wholesale jockeying for group advantage. Mutual fairness, with regard to both rights and responsibilities, can be the glue that bonds this polyglot society into a nation. Single-minded pursuit of group advantage, whether on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, threatens to rip us apart at the seams. ____________________ The Editor Washington Post Washington, D.C. Dear Editor: I am writing in response to William Raspberry's column entitled "Promote Mutual Fairness, Not Group Advantage," which appeared October 12, 1990. I concur heartily with his general premise that our society and our leaders have lost much of the desire to put the general welfare ahead of individual benefit. However, the fact that blind persons oppose the newly adopted regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration which bar them from exit row seating on airplanes, does not prove his point in the least. Mr. Raspberry states his belief that it is "common sense" that, since a blind person cannot read the instructions, clearly such a person poses a liability in an emergency exit row seat. He does not consider that few, if any, sighted passengers assigned to exit row seats bother to read the instructions, despite the fact that they can easily do so. On the other hand, I, who am blind, have always made sure to have the person in the neighboring seat read me the instructions on those occasions when I have been assigned the seat by the emergency exit. Thus I would be prepared to act in the event of an emergency, whereas a sighted passenger who has not read the instructions in advance would not. Mr. Raspberry equates the ability to read print with the possession of knowledge. Yet the person who fails to read information does not possess the knowledge, while one who gathers the information by other means, although being unable to read print, does possess the knowledge. Mr. Raspberry also states that it is "common sense" that a blind person seated at the emergency exit would be unable to assist other passengers in the evacuation process. Yet I myself know of at least one instance in which a blind person vitally assisted in an emergency evacuation of a darkened aircraft by directing passengers (all sighted) to the exit. Mr. Raspberry's "common sense" assumes blindness as a characteristic, isolated from all other characteristics. Yet would it not be better, for example, to have a cool and level-headed blind person at the emergency exit than an irrationally panicked sighted person? Other blind persons and I certainly do assert that the new FAA regulations are discriminatory. They deny us the luck of the draw, guaranteeing that we are never first off in an emergency. But we do not do so as an assertion of "group advantage" to the detriment of the common welfare. Blind persons are no less likely than sighted persons to have the manual dexterity and strength necessary to open the door, the ability to understand what needs to be done, the capacity to remain calm in difficult circumstances, the leadership to assist others, etc. Furthermore, the ability to function efficiently in the dark or in a smoke- filled cabin (not at all an uncommon situation in an airliner emergency) is certainly an advantage. The FAA regulations effectively prevent all aircraft passengers from the possibility of ever benefitting from the capabilities of blind passengers and are thus themselves contrary to the public welfare. If the FAA, the airlines, or anyone else could produce any credible evidence to prove this is not so and to back up the "common sense" argument that Mr. Raspberry repeats in his column, then our position would clearly be unreasonable. But of course there is no such evidence, and once again we are dealing with damaging misinformation having no factual basis. Sincerely, Peter Grunwald [PHOTO/CAPTION: Kathleen Spear (right) converses with a friend, using finger spelling.] NO CHRISTMAS SPIRIT AT AMERICAN AIRLINES by Ted Young From the Associate Editor: Ted Young is the energetic president of the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania. The following article appeared in the December, 1990, issue of "The Activist," the newsletter of the NFB of Pennsylvania. Here it is: Meet Mrs. Kathleen C. Spear, a well traveled, well educated, professional woman. She has traveled so often that she is a Frequent Flyer on USAir. So why should the story of her Christmas travel plans be noteworthy enough to appear in print? Here is the tale as Kathleen tells it in her own words: Encounter with American Airlines On the evening of December 21, 1989, I learned in a telephone conversation with my daughter-in-law that the submarine on which my son, Ensign Paul Dana Spear, is serving was experiencing problems. For this reason, it seemed doubtful that he would be home with her and their two young sons for Christmas. Since the children were upset, she said it would help if I could be with them. I began calling air carriers to see if I could get a flight that I could afford. American Airlines was the first air carrier I was able to reach using my telecommunication device for the deaf-blind. It was after 9:00 p.m. The person who took my call at American told me her name was Becky. She said there was a flight at 7:15 a.m. on Saturday, December 23, and there were seats available. She also explained that, in order to enable more people to travel for Christmas, the Airline was offering a special rate, which was $228. Needless to say, I was delighted and asked her to process my reservation. According to the schedule, I would take a flight out of Harrisburg to Raleigh, North Carolina, and transfer to a different flight for the remainder of the distance to Charleston. I have never been to Raleigh airport. Consequently, I asked if Becky could arrange for assistance to make the transfer in Raleigh. I explained that I am not familiar with Raleigh and also that I am deaf-blind. At that point she asked me if I read Braille, and I answered in the affirmative. In hopes of setting the record straight, I volunteered the information that I travel extensively, use a dog guide, and have speech as well as several other means of communicating with people. Becky said that there was a problem in that I could not purchase a ticket without the approval of the Coordinator of Passenger Acceptance. When asked for an explanation, she told me that "passenger acceptance" was required for those with a medical or medically related problem. My response was to point out that deaf-blindness is not a medically related problem and I am not ill. Although Becky stated that she understood the point and was somewhat puzzled by the rule, she had no authority to do anything about it. Unfortunately, it was the afternoon of the last working day before Christmas that this problem came to my attention. I was frustrated and angry that a competent, well trained professional was being refused the right to be with her family on Christmas because of archaic and backward thinking. However, at that time we could find no one able to change American's policy, and it was too late to get another flight. There you have what happened to Mrs. Spear, and needless to say, the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania fought this case at the first opportunity. We wrote to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who agreed with us that this was blatant discrimination and joined in filing the case with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Much time and frustration have passed since that filing. However, the Human Relations Commission has now rendered its judgment, and Mrs. Spear has won. American Airlines apologized in writing to her for the humiliation and inconvenience she suffered. They have also agreed to allow her to fly to Charleston, South Carolina, any time during the first six months of 1991 at the cost of an airline ticket on the date she was refused service. In addition American has presented Mrs. Spear with a $500 travel voucher to be used within one year of issuance. No, the victory will not replace the warmth of a Christmas spent with her family. No, the victory will not resolve the many hours of frustration caused a person simply because she happens to be deaf-blind. However, Kathleen knows what many other people need to learn--to do nothing when faced with injustice simply perpetuates second-class citizenship for all of us. We in the National Federation of the Blind are pleased to have done our part to bring about this victory. We will continue to be there and to assist when people like Kathleen Spear are willing to demand fair and equal treatment. ****************************** If you or a friend would like to remember the National Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing the following language: "I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or "_____ percent of my net estate" or "The following stocks and bonds: _____") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind persons." ****************************** [PHOTO: Portrait of Bill Isaacs. CAPTION: Bill Isaacs is the President of the Kankakee-Heartland Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois.] JUST SAY "NO!" by Bill J. Isaacs From the Associate Editor: Bill Isaacs is President of the Kankakee Heartland Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois. He is also a leader in both the National Association of Blind Educators and the National Association of Dog Guide Users. Wherever Bill is and whatever he is doing, he recognizes that we may be called upon to stand up for our beliefs and fight for our principles. Here is his latest report on where his convictions have led him: In late June, 1990, my wife, Ruth, my dog, Cliqo, and i boarded a plane at Midway Airport in Chicago for a long- anticipated trip to the national convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Dallas, Texas. When my wife picked up the tickets from the local travel agency several weeks in advance of the trip, she did not mention that I had a guide dog. She did ask that we not be assigned to a seat in the bulkhead or the exit row. We pre-boarded the plane, settled ourselves in seats 7A and C (there was no B) and neatly parked Cliqo under the seat in front of me next to the window. Had no one seen us pre-board, it is unlikely that passengers who boarded later would even have known there was a dog on the plane. Thus far, just fine! As everyone was buckling up, ready for the takeoff, a flight attendant came walking down the aisle, looking for luggage or other materials requiring placement in the overhead storage. She spotted my dog and said, "Sorry, you're going to have to move to the bulkhead." Ruth, seated on the aisle side and being the sighted one, was naturally the person addressed. She politely told her no, that we were comfortable the way we were and had flown this way before. (We had done so but had been asked several times if we would not be more comfortable in the bulkhead. After saying no to these inquiries about three times, the crews in each case dropped the matter.) The flight attendant this time became insistent, stating that it was a rule. We both explained that it was not a regulation. She then trotted back to get her supervisor and we went through the same rigmarole again. After running through the same questions we had answered the first time around, the two strode off to tattle on us to the pilot. Needless to say, our adrenalin was running at full capacity. We were wondering if we were going to be dragged off or other passengers would be removed, leaving us in our seats on an empty aircraft. Because the episode had already held up the plane ten or fifteen minutes, we were bracing ourselves for the angry howls and hisses arising from our fellow passengers in response to our stand for our basic civil rights. I began trying to muster my courage in order to explain our concerns to our fellow passengers. But, much to our relief, the two somewhat ruffled attendants never returned, and the pilot began to roll to the runway. We thought perhaps we would not get our dinners, but that was not the case. We were treated very courteously for the rest of the flight even though no one apologized for the embarrassment and humiliation. We did not know at the time that there were six NFB delegates from New Jersey going to the Dallas convention, and perhaps there were others that we did not know about. If the situation had come to a tumultuous conclusion, I am sure we would have had some much needed support that would indeed have been greatly appreciated. Thanks to the work of the National Federation of the Blind, we were able to say "No" and mean it. On our return trip with the same airline, despite some anxieties, we experienced no difficulties. We have had another reason to say "No" in recent months as well. In fact, the very agency that sold us the tickets for the Dallas trip also informed us that the AAA Limousine Service in Momence, Illinois, which also serves travelers from Kankakee, would not pick up a person with a guide dog unless private service ($100) was ordered. A $25 fee for transporting an animal was also added. If you are willing to let someone else ride with you in the limo to the airport, the round trip from Kankakee is $70. Ruth told the agency that such a price structure was discrimination and was illegal under the White Cane Law of Illinois. But, since we didn't plan to use that service anyway, I didn't bother to follow through on the matter. However, in November of 1990 a schoolteacher friend of mine, a member of the local Kankakee Heartland Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, phoned me about a matter. She and her mother planned to fly to Las Vegas during Christmas season. She has a guide dog, and she was told the same old story about the policy of the Momence AAA Limousine Service. She was incensed and thought something ought to be done about it. The time had come to take stronger steps against the limousine service and the agency which was transmitting its position. Finally, I called the AAA Limousine Service office but had to leave a message on the answering service. When my call was returned, I was not home and my wife answered it. One of the owners, the wife, related a very sentimental sob story about her experience with a pet dog that had ridden in one of her cars, which was taking a passenger to the airport. Allegedly, in order to forestall a lawsuit, she eventually paid a big hospital bill as a result of returning from the airport with another passenger who, she claimed, passed out from a severe allergic reaction. She didn't want to go through that again. Later, when I called her back, she repeated much of the same woeful story that she told Ruth, except that the pet dog in a little cage had become a guide dog. (I understand the allergy excuse is becoming typical.) She told me that she didn't discriminate against the blind because she made people with wheelchairs pay a higher cost as well. (Apparently there are people wandering around this world with allergies to wheelchairs as well.) I let her know that those who encounter discrimination because of disabilities could bring lawsuits as well as those who have allergies. Furthermore, I suggested that she charge the higher fee to people with allergies who require a controlled environment rather than making the innocent dog guide owner pay the cost. Oh, she couldn't do that. Her excuse reminded me of the air carriers who will not refuse exit row seats to boozers. I could not get the AAA Limousine Service to put anything in writing about changing its policies, even after I had written a long letter including the White Cane Law of Illinois, which clearly demonstrates the legality of my position on the subject. I next called the Attorney General's office here in Kankakee. We discussed the matter at some length. As a result, the Attorney General's office then called all the limousine services and travel agencies in the area to set forth the guidelines concerning dog guides' traveling in public conveyances. Since there are only a few dog guide users in the community, we were afraid that the company would always find it convenient to be booked up when we called to make a reservation. The Attorney General's office made it clear to them also that, if discrimination of this sort seemed evident, a prosecution could still take place. Now we have to wait and see if any dog guide user has a problem in the future. I hope not! I am hoping that just saying no to discriminating practice will end this unjust policy. [PHOTO: Portrait of Richard Edlund. CAPTION: Richard Edlund is a newly-elected representative to the Kansas Legislature.] MAKING HIS MARK IN THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE From the Associate Editor: For nearly twenty years, Richard Edlund served as President of the National Federation of the Blind of Kansas. During fourteen years of that time he was also the Treasurer of the National Federation of the Blind. But in January, 1991, Dick took up a new challenge; he was sworn in as a member of the Kansas Legislature. (See the February, 1991, issue of the Braille Monitor.) He has already begun as he intends to go on. One of his first acts was to introduce our Braille Bill for consideration by the Kansas legislature. Dick has always been one to get things done without making a fuss about them. The following article, by Donald Williams, appeared in the February 16, 1991, edition of the Wichita Eagle. Those who know Dick Edlund will recognize him in the portrait drawn here. Dick continues to serve as a leader and role model for blind people, and he continues to educate the public about our abilities. Here is the news story as it appeared in the Wichita Eagle: Legislator Sees All He needs by Donald Williams From where I sat at the press table in the Kansas House of Representatives, the most striking face at the legislators' desks was that of a tall man with thick gray hair and a dignified bearing. He also looked as if he was having trouble staying awake--nothing unusual in that setting. After a while he leaned his large head leftward to listen, nodding gravely, while Diane Gjerstad, a representative from Wichita, talked to him. Later I found out who the man was: Richard J. Edlund, very likely the only blind legislator Kansas has ever had. He says he is, and I could find no one who remembered another. This is Edlund's first year in the Legislature but not by a long way his first in the Capitol. For more than twenty years before his election last fall he had gone all over the building talking to legislators as a lobbyist for the blind and for certain labor causes. Navigating those marble whorls without confusion is a fairly good trick. I get to the Capitol for only a few days each year, and I keep having to lean over the center rail and read the N-S- E-W marks on the titles beside the ground-floor visitors' booth to figure out whether the chamber on my right is the House or the Senate. (House west, Senate east--that much I can remember.) When I visited Edlund in his office, I asked him if he gets lost too. I thought I knew the answer, because earlier, walking down the wide hall toward his office with his cane poised quivering out ahead of him, the point barely off the floor as if sniffing its way, he had turned at exactly the right spot, stopped at the door, and put his hand directly onto the knob. I was right--he doesn't get lost. "I've always had an exceptionally good built-in sense of direction," he said. "Just like a homing pigeon." He was a licensed pilot before he lost his sight, he said. Maybe that training helped. Then there's the cane. "That's my radar," he said. He doesn't count steps to get to his office or wherever he's going. "You do it with hearing," he said, "and with feel, or something." Also, he said, after so many years without sight, you train yourself to remember where you've been. He told me about attending a convention at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles in 1956 and, twenty years later, going back for another convention. "As soon as I walked in that hotel," he said,"something shifted into place. I knew where everything was." Edlund must have been a good lobbyist. He has the strong voice and the imposing presence, for one thing. I asked him how tall he was. "Six-four," he said, "or, as I told a guy in a New York bar once, 5-foot-16. He said, `I'd a sweared to Christ he was over 6 feet.'" Also he has the background for both his causes; having been blinded in a construction explosion when he was not quite twenty- - he has light perception, nothing more--and having grown up among relatives who were labor union activists. For fifteen years, he was treasurer of the National Federation of the Blind, and for longer than that he was president of the Federation's Kansas branch. He was a businessman, too. He owned and ran a hardware store in the western part of Kansas City for forty years, working fifteen-hour days and six-day weeks, he told me. He said he ran for office because his customers and others wanted tax relief. I noticed that the desk in his office, like his desk in the House chamber, was uncluttered, with the few folders and papers stacked neatly in a corner. How does he learn what's in bills? He goes to committee meetings, he sometimes gets people to read legislation to him, and he's familiar with a lot of issues. "What I do and what I guess any busy legislator does," he said, "is take advice from older heads." To keep informed in general, he reads an average of two books a week--reads them by hearing the tapes. His favorite subject is history, and he says he has read fifty books about Thomas Jefferson. He even gets Playboy on tape. "It doesn't work out for the centerfold worth a damn," he said. Back in the House chamber, I watched Kathleen Sebelius, a representative from Topeka, as she stood in front of his desk. She talked with him a moment--he leaned forward with that courteous, attentive look--and laid a paper down for him to sign. It was a list of House members joining her in a bill to put legislators on a standardized pension plan, like other state employees. He held a pen ready and she tried fumblingly to guide his hand. "Just start the pen right on the line," he told her. Edlund likes to know about things he can't see. It delighted him to learn about the compass points on the Capitol floor. In the House, Diane Gjerstad told me, he knew that Speaker Marvin Barkis' voice was coming through the amplification system, and early in the session he asked her where Barkis was really standing. Thereafter he faced that way. He quickly memorized the positions and functions of the four square buttons on his desk in the House, though for the first few votes he would turn to Diane Gjerstad or to Kent Campbell, the Miltonvale representative on his right, and ask if he had hit the right one. All he had to know was what the buttons were for--the left one for "Yea," the next for "Nay," the third to declare himself present in the morning, and the fourth to call a page. But I guess he had learned something extra about them, too, just to be in the know. Sure enough, when I mentioned the four buttons to him, he said: "On the left is green, and then red, and...." [PHOTO: Shirley Baillif seated in lobby of 1990 NFB convention hotel. CAPTION: Shirley Baillif.] PARENTING OUR BLIND CHILDREN by Shirley Baillif From the Associate Editor: The following remarks were made by Shirley Baillif during a panel presentation by parents of blind children at the 1990 National Federation of the Blind of California Convention. Mrs. Baillif is the mother of Michael Baillif (past president of the California Association of Blind Students and current president of the National Association of Blind Students, the student division of the National Federation of the Blind). Michael is also a second year student at Yale University School of Law. This article is reprinted from the Winter, 1990, issue of "The Blind Citizen," the publication of the NFB of California. Years ago there was a popular song that said in part: You've got to accentuate the positive, Eliminate the negative, Latch on to the affirmative, And don't mess with Mr. In-between. If I were asked to give one piece of advice regarding parenting our blind children, that little ditty would express my philosophy. When our son became totally blind at age thirteen, one month before entering high school, we felt we were in an abyss--lost in a situation we knew little or nothing about. When Michael, who was an active young teenager, more interested in sports than academics, turned to me and said, "Mom, what will I do now?" the Good Lord gave me the sense not to see a dismal picture of a young boy growing old, ineffectually striving to eke out a living. Instead I answered him honestly by saying in effect, "Michael, I have never known a blind person well enough to know how the blind accomplish the tasks they do, but I have encountered a few blind people indirectly, and I know they have not only graduated from high school, but gone on to graduate from college, become professionals in various fields, or build their own businesses. Honey, if they can do it, so can you--you just have to learn how." And that is exactly what we set out to do. As soon as Michael was released from the hospital, I called our local high school, explained the situation, and received a response of absolute dismay. This was a new situation to them. The few blind students they had had in the past came to the high school from the elementary program, where they had learned basic skills--the officials would have to get back to me. Michael was then fortunate enough to be contacted by two positive-thinking special ed teachers--one for instructing him in handling his classroom studies and one for mobility. All through his high school years, Nancy, his classroom special ed instructor, kept reminding me of the fact that I should protest if his IEP's (Individual Education Plans) weren't what I thought they should be. But how could I protest something I knew little or nothing about? Michael was progressing in his skills and doing more than quite well academically. In retrospect, however, I can see where Michael missed out on some phases of his special education. His teacher insisted he learn Braille, which he did, reluctantly. He thought Braille was old-fashioned, out-dated by tape recorders and talking books. You see, he was never introduced to the slate and stylus, so he saw no practical use for Braille. How this opinion has changed, and how we have learned! Also Michael never ate in the cafeteria during his high school days, so this phase of mobility was never touched upon. He missed more than one meal during his first year of college. This happened whenever he missed contacting a friend who was willing to help him with his tray, so Michael would not trip someone with his cane. His friend would guide him through the crowd to find an empty table. I learned about the technique used to accomplish this feat independently through a video of elementary school children shown at an NFB Convention! They made it look simple. Our family was introduced to the NFB when Michael was searching for college scholarships. Michael is not a joiner just for the sake of being part of a group. He has to be interested in the organization for one reason or another. He made one exception, though. After receiving a scholarship from the NFB of California, he felt he was obligated to give back $5.00 of it and become a member of the Student Division. It turned out to be the best investment he ever made or ever will. There is no way I can even begin to express how much the NFB has meant to our family or how much Michael has been influenced by the positive role models of the NFB leaders, both on the state and national levels. And I cannot tell you how much his peers within the Federation have become, not only special friends of Michael's, but like a close-knit family to his father and me. We watch their lives unfold as they strive for and accomplish their individual goals, overcoming the stumbling blocks that have been thrown in their paths. I have learned so much since those days spent with Michael at UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute, and now I want to share this knowledge with other parents as they come face to face with the destinies of their blind offspring. This is why I am so excited about starting a support group for Parents of Blind Children in our area. I have a young mother of a newly blinded child, whom I met through a mutual friend, to thank for showing me this need; and I have the NFB to thank for giving me the encouragement and positive attitude to meet it. Mary Willows asked me to read the flyer I have made up to be passed out through the school system to the parents of blind children. It reads: "A Support Group for Parents of Blind Children is being formed in North County. First meeting [then the day, date, time, and place will be inserted]. You are invited to come as we share our concerns, experiences, problems, and victories. Our goal is to see that our children will lead full, independent, and productive lives. For further details please contact [then I have given my name and one other with telephone numbers]." The day before I left to come to the Convention, I received a phone call verifying permission to use the Fellowship Hall of our church as the meeting place for this group. When I get home, I will call the young mother in Oceanside who will be a contact person in that area, and we will set the date for our first meeting. Whether there are four or forty in attendance, we will, in true Federation Spirit, relay to them the message that You've got to accentuate the positive, Eliminate the negative, Latch on to the affirmative, And don't mess with Mr. In-between. [2 PHOTOS: One photo shows a room at the library with books on shelves and in carts and a bucket to catch water from the leaky ceiling, and the other photo shows the ceiling falling due to water damage. CAPTION: In September of 1987 these pictures first appeared in the Brai