THE BRAILLE MONITOR Kenneth Jernigan, Editor Barbara Pierce, Associate Editor Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, and cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT National Office 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, orders for NFB literature, articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor should be sent to the National Office. * * * * Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ISSN 0006-8829 THE BRAILLE MONITOR PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS JUNE, 1992 THE EASTERN EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON DISABILITIES by Kenneth Jernigan EQUALITY, DISABILITY, AND EMPOWERMENT by Kenneth Jernigan BLINDNESS: IS HISTORY AGAINST US? by Kenneth Jernigan BRAILLE BILLS: WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN? by Fred Schroeder BRAILLE BILL UPDATE REACTION TO AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND ARTICLE ON TEXAS BRAILLE BILL VARIATIONS ON A THEME: ILLINOIS FEDERATIONISTS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO BRAILLE LITERACY REFLECTIONS FROM IDAHO: THE ROLE OF BRAILLE LITERACY DIRTY TRICKS AND PRESSURE TACTICS IN OHIO by Barbara Pierce MISSISSIPPI GOVERNOR REDEFINES BLINDNESS by Kenneth Jernigan THE FEDERATION ON PARADE by Kimberly McCutcheon FEDERATIONIST HONORED BY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1992 [3 LEAD PHOTOS/CAPTION: On May 6, 1992, nearly 200 librarians attending the Biennial Conference of Librarians Serving Blind and Physically Handicapped Individuals visited the National Center for the Blind for a tour and luncheon. They arrived in five buses (above) and poured through the Johnson Street building to gather in the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind for a brief welcome from President Maurer and Dr. Jernigan. Then they were divided into six groups for tours of the National Center. With only a little over an hour to devote to these tours, they were forced almost to trot, but many took the time to pick up order forms and literature. One of the most popular stops was the Technology Center (lower left). Everyone was in the dining room by 12:30 (lower right), ready for a delicious lunch prepared by Marie Cobb with help from several members of the Center staff. We were delighted to welcome the librarians. The entire staff worked hard to get ready for the visit and to display our wonderful facility. Many librarians took an opportunity to tell members of the staff how impressed they were and how surprising it was that so few people could entertain them with such efficiency and graciousness.] [PHOTO/CAPTION: Dr. and Mrs. Jernigan found a little time for sightseeing while they were in Czechoslovakia. They are pictured here in Prague's famous Wenceslaus Square.] THE EASTERN EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON DISABILITIES by Kenneth Jernigan Sometime toward the middle of March this year, Sandra Parrino (who is the chairman of the National Council on Disability and who spoke at our 1990 convention in Dallas) called to ask me to participate in a conference on disability which was to be held in Prague, Czechoslovakia, April 13-15. She said that the conference would be called the Eastern European Conference on Disabilities and that it would include Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland. She wanted me to represent the blind and, particularly, to speak about empowerment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. I told her I would, so on April 10 Mrs. Jernigan and I headed for Prague. We arrived on the afternoon of the 11th, and I had some preliminary conversations with blind persons. The next day (Sunday, April 12) we met with leaders of the Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted of Czechoslovakia. These were truly the leaders of the blind of the country. Present were the only blind member of the Czech Parliament; a college professor, who teaches interpreting and whose English was at least as good as mine; and seven or eight other people who were equally impressive. They told me that during the 1930s and '40s the blind of Czechoslovakia had made great progress in establishing independent organizations of the blind. They said that when the Communists took control in 1949, the organizations of the blind were required to dissolve and merge with all other disability groups into what was called "The Union of Invalids," or (to put it more politely) "The Association of the Handicapped." The organizations of the blind apparently had a good bit of property (including the building where Parliament now meets), and this property was largely confiscated. It was clear that the people with whom I was meeting were tough, knowledgeable, and self- reliant. They said that when the Communists were overthrown in 1989 (in what they called the "velvet revolution"), they immediately re-established their independent organizations-- probably before it was legal to do so. They gave me a Braille summary of facts about the Federation, which said in part: The Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted of Czechoslovakia is a collegiate, incorporating three nation-based member organizations: Society of the Blind and Partially Sighted in Czechoslovakia (claiming 12,000 members), Czech Blind and Partially Sighted Union (with approximately 3,000 members), and Union of the Blind and Partially Sighted in Slovakia (having approximately 4,500 members). These organizations cultivate everyday contacts with their membership and provide various special services. The fundamental mission of the Federation lies in the following: (1) To represent the blind and partially sighted community in dealings with both the federal administration and the federal parliament; (2) To coordinate international relations; (3) To gather, process, and disseminate relevant information on blindness and visual impairment from home and abroad; (4) Effectively to influence the newly created legislation related to the handicapped in general and the blind in particular. The Federation is governed by the Executive Council, consisting of an equal number of representatives from each member organization. The Council is headed by the president. The Executive Council appoints the Federation's executive secretary-- who, together with his secretariat, runs the day-to-day business of the organization. The head office of the Federation is located in Prague. The Federation represents organizations of the Czechoslovak blind in matters outside of Czechoslovakia, which is a member country of both the European Blind Union and the World Blind Union. The Federation leaders with whom I talked elaborated on this outline. They said that although they had formed independent organizations in 1989, they had not come together as a Federation until July 1, 1991. It is clear that they are proud of what they have accomplished, and they have reason to be. They told me that the old Union of Invalids (or Association of the Handicapped) still exists and that the same bunch that has always run it still pretty much does. It still includes blind people, but they and their interests seem to be submerged in the larger entity. The leaders of the Federation said they were getting back some of their property, but they doubted that they would get it all, especially the building where Parliament meets. As to the Eastern European Conference on Disabilities, the leaders of the Federation had some interesting things to say. They said that many months ago the Czech government had told the various disability groups that a private American organization would be making funds available for certain projects in Czechoslovakia and that the various groups should submit proposals. They said that sometime later the organizations were unofficially and individually told that instead of funding projects, the Americans would be funding the Eastern European Conference on Disabilities. One of them remarked that this was a disappointment to them, more what they would have expected from the former regime. I explained to them that although the conference was being held under the auspices of the National Council on Disability (a government agency), it was being privately funded. They indicated that they would send representatives to monitor the conference. Subsequently at the conference I met a representative of the Association for the Handicapped and was asked by him for an interview for the magazine of that organization. The Federation leaders advised me to give the interview, and I did. As to the conference itself, Sandra Parrino organized and chaired it with real efficiency. Most of those who made presentations were either government officials or representatives of the disabled. There was simultaneous translation into English, Czech, Hungarian, and Polish; and there was also interpretation for the deaf. There was not, however, any Braille, a fact which caused some remark. Besides appearing on a panel, I gave a brief address entitled "Equality, Disability, and Empowerment." We are printing my address immediately after this article, and Federationists will recognize portions of it from other speeches I have made. However, much of the material is new, and in any case I thought Monitor readers might like to know what I said and how I said it. There are other things about the visit to Prague that I think Federationists will find of interest. One of the people who took part throughout the entire meeting and made at least one formal presentation was the wife of Lech Walesa, the Polish leader. Also the conference participants were invited to the Palace for dinner on Tuesday evening, April 14, at which time we were addressed by Vaclav Havel, the President of Czechoslovakia. Mrs. Jernigan and I found this to be an extremely interesting experience. The Palace (which is not always so in such cases) is exactly what the name implies--a magnificent building beautifully and ornately furnished. In view of the 1973 NFB banquet speech, "Blindness: Is History Against Us," there is at least one other experience that we had in Prague that cannot go unmentioned. Zisca is the national hero of Czechoslovakia--and placed in a prominent position on a hill atop an impressive stone column, under which is the grave of Czechoslovakia's unknown soldier, there is a huge bronze statue of Zisca riding a horse. As you would expect, I went to visit the statue and tried my best to get at it for a touch. Alas! The stone column was surrounded by a high metal fence, and even though I tried, there was simply no way to get over or through it. If I could have got past the fence, it was my intention to try to find a way to get up the column to the statue; but since I didn't get past the first hurdle, there was no point in worrying about the second. I know that many Federationists have read or heard "Blindness: Is History Against Us," but in the context of the Prague visit I think it is worth reprinting in this issue of the Monitor. It follows immediately after the speech on "Equality, Disability, and Empowerment." Incidentally, I shared the history speech with the Czech leaders of the blind, and they said that even though they all knew Zisca as a national hero and a blind person, they had never thought of using him to promote their own organization or self- image. I think that will change. They said they would send me additional material on Zisca, and I certainly hope they will. Because of the timing of the conference program and the airline schedules, I was unable to come straight from Prague to Baltimore, so Mrs. Jernigan and I spent one night in Amsterdam. That, too, was a worthwhile experience. In fact, except for the problems I have with flying (which are not inconsiderable) the entire trip was both enjoyable and productive. As to flying, I have found myself compelled to do much more of it of late than I care to think about. However, I can only repeat that the Prague experience was productive and helpful in forwarding our goals. [PHOTO: Inside of Prague palace dining room--some conference attendees are taking photos. CAPTION: The Eastern European Conference on Disabilities was held in the medieval palace which serves today as the home of the President of Czechoslovakia and the seat of government. Pictured here is the state dining room, known as the Spanish Gallery, where conference participants were entertained to dinner by President Vaclav Havel (far left).] [PHOTO: Kenneth Jernigan stands in the reception area of the Prague palace with eight other gentlemen. CAPTION: Dr. Jernigan (center) is pictured here with the Polish delegation to the Eastern European Conference on Disabilities. Standing immediately to Dr. Jernigan's right (third from left), is Zygmunt Lenyk, who is a member of the Polish Parliament and who is blind.] EQUALITY, DISABILITY, AND EMPOWERMENT An Address Delivered By Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director National Federation of the Blind at the Eastern European Conference on Disabilities Prague, Czechoslovakia April 14, 1992 The man was old and senile, and he ate without manners or grace. His daughter was ashamed and ordered him to eat in a corner apart from the others. There came a day when he broke his plate, and the daughter was angry. "My son shall not see such disgusting behavior," she said. "Since you eat like a pig, you shall be treated like a pig. In the future you shall eat in the yard from a trough." Her son was five, the thing in life she loved most. He asked for a hammer and boards. "For what purpose?" she asked. "To build you a trough," he said, "so that I may feed you when you are old." So it has been through the generations, each teaching the next and then doubling back on itself for reinforcement--change coming slow and learning difficult. Yet, there come bends in the road, shifts in direction. It is not inevitable that each generation take hammer and boards to build troughs for the next. Among times there is a time that turns a corner, and everything this side of it is new. Times do not go backward.1 For people with disabilities the corner has been turned, and the time is now. Today I want to talk with you about the Americans with Disabilities Act, the first truly comprehensive piece of legislation enacted in the current climate of social upheaval by any country to help those with disabilities achieve full membership in society. But I want to talk with you about more than that. I want to talk about the true meaning of empowerment-- the method by which a group or segment of the population moves from second-class citizenship to first-class status in society. No issue is of greater urgency to persons with disabilities anywhere in the world than erasing the stigma of inequality--the devastating imagery of what a sociologist once called "spoiled identity"--which in varying degree descends upon all of us who present a different appearance to the world, a visage or behavior that departs in some observable way from what is regarded as "normal." When that difference corresponds to a stereotype already in place--such as the "helpless blind," the "deaf and dumb," the "senile oldster," or the "pathetic cripple"--the result traditionally has been abrupt dismissal from the ranks of the so-called "normal" and forced exile (psychologically if not physically) to the outer margins of the social order--the dumping ground of public consciousness, wherein are confined the unacceptable, the unfortunate, the unlike, and the unequal. Inequality, now as in the past, is an ascribed attribute--a stigmatic condition attached to the disabled by virtue of their perceived difference. This inequality is not a product of the disability itself but of the labeling, as one theory has it. Or, to put it another way, the condition of inequality is not a feature of the disability but of the handicap. That verbal distinction is a crucial one. For while the disability is physical in origin, lodged in the body of the person, the handicap is social, lodged in the body of society. If we are to deal realistically with our problems, we must go to basics. So let us consider the nature of disability--or, in my case, let me talk with you about the nature of blindness; for that is the disability I know most about. Keep in mind, however, that what I say about blindness could be said about many (if not most) other disabilities--for very often the problems are the same. The first thing I would say is that with all of our efforts to educate the public, we still have a long way to go. The average citizen's notions about blindness (whether in the United States or elsewhere) are still predominantly negative. In 1976 a Gallup poll showed that in my country blindness was the second most feared condition which might occur to an individual. Only cancer came ahead of it. Blindness was more feared than deafness, more feared than mental illness, more feared than heart attack, or anything else. But that was sixteen years ago. What about today? Well, there has been a change--and one which at first glance might seem to be positive. Blindness has now dropped to the third most feared condition. But before we begin to cheer, perhaps we had better consider what outranks it--AIDS and cancer. And this general verdict is confirmed in specifics. A few years ago a teacher wrote to me: "Dear Sir," he said, "I can find no criminal statistics in the Annual Uniform Crime Report in which blind people are a part. I have assumed for twenty-five years that blind people cannot become criminals due to this sight limitation. "I teach a course in the correction and prevention of delinquency and crime. A twenty-six-year investigation of criminal phenomena has confirmed the Bible's statement that, 'If ye were blind ye should have no sin (crime): John 9:41'... "If you have any statistics relative to either delinquent or criminal behavior among the blind, I shall greatly appreciate a review of them." By way of answer I sent this teacher a newspaper headlined, "Blind Man Kills Landlady." I don't know what his reaction was. Not long ago the project coordinator for the National Council of Teachers of English in the United States wrote to me asking that I send material about blindness so that English teachers throughout the country could help their students learn proper attitudes. Naturally I was pleased. However, my enthusiasm cooled when she went on to say that she felt it was important for children to learn compassion while they were young. A few weeks ago I received from a blind man a letter, which said in part: My niece's teacher (my niece is thirteen and sighted) gave the class a homework assignment of blindfolding themselves for half an hour that evening. The stated purpose of the assignment was to provide the children with some idea of what it would be like to be blind. As background information the teacher explained that some of the things blind people are unable to do include the following: 1. Blind people are unable to have children because they are unable to cope with bringing them up. 2. Blind people are unable to travel alone or live alone. 3. They cannot watch or enjoy television. 4. They cannot tell the time. Furthermore, the teacher said, blind people would experience difficulty achieving academic success. Therefore, good jobs are largely out of their reach. The teacher also mentioned (and here quite correctly, but not for the reasons she gave) that the blind experience high levels of unemployment. This is the letter, but I don't have to depend on letters to confirm the truth of what I have been telling you. It happens every day in my own experience. At the annual conventions of the National Federation of the Blind when we go to the newspapers to talk about blindness as a problem of civil rights and try to get coverage, we are more often than not referred to the medical reporter; and when I go to the washroom in a restaurant, someone usually tries to show me to the toilet stall for the handicapped. Likewise, when I register at a hotel, the person at the desk tries with increasing frequency to give me the room especially designed for the handicapped. This points up a problem which we must recognize and try to solve as we deal with the Americans with Disabilities Act and with other attempts around the world to help people with disabilities gain empowerment. There is, of course, nothing wrong with having toilet stalls specially designed for the handicapped or rooms for the handicapped in hotels. Quite the contrary. But there is a great deal wrong with assuming that every person with a so-called handicap needs exactly what every other person with a handicap needs. When the Americans with Disabilities Act was being considered by Congress, we of the National Federation of the Blind insisted that it be amended to provide that no person could be required to use the specially designed facilities, devices, or alternatives required by the Act. Thus, certain seats on buses or trains may be reserved for people with disabilities, but persons with disabilities may not be forced to use those seats. Rooms in hotels may be altered to meet the needs of certain portions of the population with disabilities, but no person with a disability may be denied the right to use other rooms in the hotel. The Americans with Disabilities Act (though it is the most far-reaching) is not the first attempt by the government of the United States or by the private sector to deal with the problems of the disabled. The experience we have had with the airlines is a case in point, and it is instructive as to what we should try to avoid as we implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar legislation in other countries. Before the early 1970s people with disabilities in the United States (when they wanted to travel by air) had comparatively few problems with airline personnel. Some segments of the population with disabilities had problems with the physical configuration of airplanes and airports, but in general not with airline personnel. Then came the stirrings of federal legislation to give empowerment to the disabled, and there was a great deal of talk about affirmative action. One would have thought that affirmative action would have been a positive step, but it wasn't--at least, not for the blind in dealing with the airlines. Airline personnel did not become knowledgeable overnight or lose their prejudices just because somebody told them to engage in affirmative action. Mostly (with respect to air travel) the blind didn't need any affirmative action. We were doing fine just as it was. But the airlines were into affirmative action, so they had to think up something to do to help us--whether we needed it or not and, for that matter, whether we wanted it or not. They began by lumping all of what they perceived to be the handicapped together--wheelchair users, the blind, the deaf, the quadriplegic, the cerebral palsied, and everybody else they could think of--including, very often, small children. Next they cataloged what they believed to be the problems, needs, and characteristics of each of these groups, and then assumed that each item on the list applied to every member of every group they had included in the category of the handicapped. The resulting mythical composite was a monstrosity--totally helpless, totally in need of custody, and totally nonexistent except in the minds of the airline officials. There is not now (nor was there ever) any such person as the "airlines' standardized handicapped air traveler," and the problem comes from the fact that the airlines (and, to some extent, the federal regulators) persist in acting as if there is. So even though we have had in the United States almost two decades of accelerated attempts to help people with disabilities gain empowerment, culminating in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, problems with the airlines have not stopped. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that they have increased. The shameful treatment (as recently reported in the New York Times) of Justin Dart, Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, is a striking case in point. Mr. Dart, who uses a wheelchair, was (in violation of public policy and federal law) denied the right to board an airplane despite the fact that he protested vehemently and was thoroughly articulate and knowledgeable about his rights under the law. The Dart case underscores the fact that the passage of a law is not enough. Even the determined implementation of that law is not enough. There must be vigorous public education, leading to a change in the attitudes of society as a whole. And, above all, we must reject the sophistry which would lump all segments of the disabled population together, the sophistry which assumes that the problems of each are the problems of all, the sophistry which then uses this fallacy as an excuse to keep old attitudes intact by arguing that people with disabilities are not capable of competing. Let me not be misunderstood. The Americans with Disabilities Act can be a positive step forward--but it is not the total solution to our problems. It (and similar legislation in other countries) is only the foundation upon which we can and must build. The real solution to our problems cannot be achieved until there is a widespread change in public attitudes. Let me give you an illustration. The legal doctrine of Contributory Negligence, as applied to the blind in the United States, holds that if a blind person travels outside his or her home and becomes involved in an accident, the blind person (simply by being present) is automatically considered to be negligent regardless of the circumstances of the accident. For example, if a blind person were to cross a street in a pedestrian crosswalk in accord with the traffic signal and were to be hit by a car, the driver of that car might not be held responsible even though the driver had disobeyed the traffic signal. That was the law in most parts of the country until the blind (acting through the National Federation of the Blind) secured passage by state legislatures of what is called the White Cane Law, which specifically strikes down the doctrine of Contributory Negligence. Every state in the nation now has such a white cane law. Yet, hear the testimony of Barbara Pierce, the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio. "Having the White Cane Law on the books," she says, "is not enough. I am reminded of this truth every time a motorist leans out of a passing car to inquire of me when I am walking along a street in my small town, 'Where are you trying to go?' First of all, it is none of his or her business. Second, I am not trying to go; I am going. When I am lost (if that should occur), I take responsibility for asking directions. "There is," she goes on, "still a malignant manifestation of the contributory negligence doctrine floating around in the public mind. It may have vanished from the law books with the passage of the White Cane statutes, but there are plenty of people who have not yet got the word. "Early in March of this year," Barbara Pierce continues, "an Ohio Federationist who uses a guide dog was crossing a busy street in her small town. She had the green light, so she and her dog stepped out boldly to cross the intersection. A young man, who was not watching carefully, turned right on the red light and struck both the woman and the dog. Neither was hurt badly, but the woman was taken to the emergency room, where her husband (a physician) eventually found her. "The attitude of the officials who dealt with the case is demonstrated by one question the police officer who wrote up the accident report asked the victim's husband: 'Can the dog read traffic signs?' No one from the district attorney's office ever contacted the woman to determine how serious her injuries were. All of this should have prepared her for what happened in Mayor's Court a few weeks later. "Pronouncing it as his opinion that no blind person could independently cross streets safely, the mayor fined the driver a nominal $10 and warned the blind woman not to travel alone in the future. No one knew or cared about white cane laws or their protection. It was obvious to the mayor, the district attorney, and the defendant that somehow the blind woman had caused the accident just by being on the street even though she had the right of way and the legal right to be there. She is herself an attorney by training, and you can be sure that she did not remain silent. "She attempted to interest area newspapers in her story. They were not interested. She and the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio wrote letters to the mayor, the district attorney, and the police urging in-service education programs for public officials. They could not be bothered." So says Barbara Pierce, president of the Ohio affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, and her testimony is an unpleasant reminder to all of us that it is not enough to be in the right. Sometimes it is not even enough to have the law on your side. It is important to keep in mind that we are farther along the road to freedom than we have ever been--but it is equally important to remember that we are not yet there. As with many so-called disabilities, the real problem of blindness is not the physical loss of sight but the misunderstanding and misconceptions which exist in the public mind. It is not conjecture but fact that the blind (given equal training and opportunity) can compete on terms of equality with others. In short, the average blind child can hold his or her own with the average sighted child; the average blind adult can do the average job in the average place of business and do it as well as a sighted person similarly situated; the average blind grandmother of eighty-four can do what the average sighted grandmother of that age can do. Of course, the above average can compete with the above average, and the below average will compete at that level. The techniques may be different, but the overall performance and the ability to live a full life are comparable. There are blind mathematicians, blind factory workers, blind dishwashers, and tens of thousands of just ordinary blind citizens to prove it. If the blind have reasonable training and opportunity, blindness can be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance. This is what I as a blind person representing the largest organization of blind persons in the United States know, and I repeat that much of what I have said about blindness also applies to broad segments of the population of people with disabilities. Yet, people with disabilities have traditionally and consistently been excluded from the main channels of economic and social participation in our society. With monotonous sameness we have been put down and kept out. This is why we have found it necessary to organize for collective action. This is why it was important that the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended) be passed; why similar legislation in other countries should be passed; and why these laws must be implemented, discussed, and brought home to the conscience of the decision-makers and the public at large. But this type of legislation is not a cure-all. At best it is a catalyst and a foundation on which we can build. We have turned a corner of time, and there is a newness, a window of opportunity for action. We must use the current period of social change and re-examination of values as a means of focusing public education and changing public attitudes--but unless we act decisively and imaginatively, the window will close. What good will the elimination of architectural barriers do if we cannot eliminate the barriers in the minds and hearts of our fellow citizens? It is a natural tendency for human beings to resist change by rationalizing and building troughs, but it must be our task to overcome that tendency. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar legislation in other countries and with the accompanying climate of inquiry and new beginnings, I believe we will succeed. Surely the hope which has been kindled in millions of hearts will not permit it to be otherwise. As we approach the beginning of the twenty-first century, we throughout the world who have disabilities confidently look forward to a day at hand when we can truly have first-class citizenship and real equality in society, just like the rest-- when we can have a good-paying job and the joys of a home and a family of our own, just like the rest--when we can hold our heads high in self-respect and the respect of others, just like the rest--when we can earn our way and pay our dues and live our freedom, just like the rest--when we can wake in the morning without fear or poverty, just like the rest--when we can hope and believe and dream, just like the rest--and especially when whatever we have is ours as a matter of right, whether it be great or small, not a dole portioned out to us by agencies of government or private charities. We look forward to that day, and we intend to have it because we have found the power of collective action. And one thing more: We are absolutely determined to put behind us forever any notions of second-class status and custodial care. We are no longer prepared to eat from troughs. But this is not a dream which we have for ourselves alone. It can only come true if it is shared by those who are not classified as disabled--by you in this room who do not have disabilities and by others like you throughout the world. It is a dream of a better, more caring, more just society than we have ever known--and it is a dream that can come true. Let us look to the future in partnership; let us live in mutual respect; let us work together to make real the promise of equal opportunity for all. This is the true meaning of empowerment. This is also the true meaning of humanity. FOOTNOTES 1. C. S. Lewis, Perelandra (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1944), page 62. [PHOTO: Statue of Zisca, seated on horse. CAPTION: This equestrian statue of Zisca, Czechoslovakia's national hero, is a famous landmark in Prague. Mrs. Jernigan took this picture when the Jernigans visited the popular tourist attraction.] [PHOTO/CAPTION: Dr. Jernigan made an effort to reach the statue of Zisca. He got to the top of the wall, but the metal fence proved to be unscalable. He is pictured here on the wall with the statue of Zisca visible over his left shoulder.] BLINDNESS: IS HISTORY AGAINST US? An Address Delivered by KENNETH JERNIGAN President, National Federation of the Blind At the Banquet of the Annual Convention New York City, July 5, 1973 Experts in the field, as well as members of the general public, have differed greatly as to what the future may hold for the blind. Some, seeking to tell it like it is, see us blundering on forever in roles of economic dependency and second-class citizenship. Others, more hopefully, predict a slow but steady progress toward independence, equality, and full membership in society. My own view is that this is not a matter for prediction at all, but for decision. I believe that neither of these possible outcomes is certain or foreseeable, for the simple reason that the choices we make and the actions we take are themselves factors in the determination of the future. In short, we the blind (like all people) confront alternative futures: one future in which we will live our own lives, or another future in which our lives will be lived for us. But if the future is open and contingent, surely the past is closed and final. Whatever disputes men and women may have about the shape of things to come, there can be no doubt about the shape of things gone by--the permanent record of history. Or can there? Is there such a thing as an alternative past? We all know what the historical record tells us. It tells us that, until only yesterday, blind people were completely excluded from the ranks of the normal community. In early societies they were reputedly abandoned, exterminated, or left to fend for themselves as beggars on the lunatic fringe of the community. In the late Middle Ages, so we are told, provision began to be made for their care and protection in almshouses and other sheltered institutions. Only lately, it would seem, have blind people begun stealthily to emerge from the shadows, and to move in the direction of independence and self-sufficiency. This is what history tells us--or, rather, that is what histories and the historians have told us. And the lesson commonly derived from these histories is that the blind have always been dependent upon the wills and the mercies of others. We have been the people things were done to--and, occasionally, the people things were done for--but never the people who did for themselves. In effect, according to this account, we have no history of our own--no record of active participation or adventure or accomplishment, but only (until almost our own day) an empty and unbroken continuum of desolation and dependency. It would seem that the blind have moved through time and the world not only sightless but faceless--a people without distinguishing features, anonymous and insignificant--not so much as rippling the stream of history. Nonsense! That is not fact but fable. That is not truth but a lie. In reality the accomplishments of blind people through the centuries have been out of all proportion to their numbers. There are genius, and fame, and adventure, and enormous versatility of achievement--not just once in a great while but again and again, over and over. To be sure, there is misery also--poverty and suffering and misfortune aplenty--just as there is in the general history of mankind. But this truth is only a half-truth--and, therefore, not really a truth at all. The real truth, the whole truth, reveals a chronicle of courage and conquest, of greatness, and even glory on the part of blind people, which has been suppressed and misrepresented by sighted historians--not because these historians have been people of bad faith or malicious intent but because they have been people, with run-of-the-mill prejudice and ordinary misunderstandings. Historians, too, are human; and when facts violate their preconceptions, they tend to ignore those facts. Now, we are at a point in time when the story of the blind (the true and real story) must be told. For too long the blind have been (not unwept, for there has been much too much of that) but unhonored and unsung. Let us, at long last, redress the balance and right the wrong. Let us now praise our famous men and celebrate the exploits of blind heroes. Rediscovering our true history, we shall, in our turn, be better able to make history; for when people (seeing or blind) come to know the truth, the truth will set them free. Let us begin with Zisca: patriotic leader of Bohemia in the early fifteenth century, one of history's military geniuses, who defended his homeland in a brilliant campaign against invading armies of overwhelming numerical superiority. Zisca was, in the hour of his triumph, totally blind. The chronicle of his magnificent military effort--which preserved the political independence and religious freedom of his country, and which led to his being offered the crown of Bohemia--is worth relating in some detail. Need I add that this episode is not to be found, except in barest outline, in the standard histories? Fortunately it has been recorded by two historians of the last century--James Wilson, an Englishman writing in 1820, and William Artman, an American writing seventy years later. What do you suppose these two historians have in common, apart from their occupation? You are right: Both were blind. The account of the career of Zisca which follows has been drawn substantially from their eloquent and forceful narratives. The Council of Constance, which was convened by the Pope in the year 1414 for the purpose of rooting out heresy in the Church--and which commanded that John Huss and Jerome of Prague be burned at the stake--"sent terror and consternation throughout Bohemia...."1 In self-defense the Bohemian people took up arms against the Pope and the emperor. They chose as their commanding general the professional soldier John de Turcznow-better known as Zisca, meaning "one-eyed," for he had lost the sight of an eye in the course of earlier battles. At the head of a force of 40,000 citizen-soldiers--a force not unlike the ragged army that would follow General Washington in another patriotic struggle three centuries later--Zisca marched into combat, only to be suddenly blinded in his remaining eye by an arrow from the enemy. Here is where our story properly begins. For Zisca, upon his recovery from the injury, flatly refused to play the role of the helpless blind man. "...His friends were surprised to hear him talk of setting out for the army, and did what was in their power to dissuade him from it, but he continued resolute. `I have yet,' said he, `to shed my blood for the liberties of Bohemia. She is enslaved; her sons are deprived of their natural rights, and are the victims of a system of spiritual tyranny as degrading to the character of man as it is destructive of every moral principle; therefore, Bohemia must and shall be free.'"2 And so the blind general resumed his command, to the great joy of his troops. When the news came to the Emperor Sigismund "he called a convention of all the states in his empire ...and entreated them, for the sake of their sovereign, for the honor of their empire, and for the cause of their religion, to put themselves in arms.... The news came to Zisca that two large armies were in readiness to march against him.... The former was to invade Bohemia on the west, the latter on the east; they were to meet in the center, and as they expressed it, crush this [rebel] between them."3 By all the rules of warfare, by all conventional standards of armament and power, that should have been the end of Zisca and his rabble army. "After some delay the emperor entered Bohemia at the head of his army, the flower of which was fifteen thousand Hungarians, deemed at that time the best cavalry in Europe. ...The infantry, which consisted of 25,000 men, were equally fine, and well commanded. This force spread terror throughout all the east of Bohemia."4 The stage was set for the fateful climax--the final confrontation and certain obliteration of the upstart rebel forces. "On the 11th of January, 1422, the two armies met on a large plain. ... Zisca appeared in the center of his front line [accompanied] by a horseman on each side, armed with a poleax. His troops, having sung a hymn,... drew their swords and waited for the signal. Zisca stood not long in view of the enemy, and when his officers had informed him that the ranks were well closed, waved his saber over his head, which was the signal of battle, and never was there an onset more mighty and irresistible. As dash a thousand waves against the rock-bound shore, so Zisca rolled his steel-fronted legions upon the foe. The imperial infantry hardly made a stand, and in the space of a few minutes they were disordered beyond the possibility of being rallied. The cavalry made a desperate effort to maintain the field, but finding themselves unsupported, wheeled round and fled ... toward ... Moravia."5 It was a total rout and an unconditional victory, but, "...Zisca's labors were not yet ended. The emperor, exasperated by his defeat, raised new armies, which he sent against Zisca the following spring.... But the blind general, determined that his country should not be enslaved while he had strength to wield a sword, gathered his brave army "and met the enemy yet again, despite fearsome disadvantages in numbers and equipment. "An engagement ensued, in which the [enemy] were utterly routed, leaving no less than nine thousand of their number dead on the field."6 The remaining branch of the grand imperial army, under the command of Sigismund himself, next met a similar fate, and the mighty emperor was compelled to sue for peace at the hands of the blind general. Then there occurred the final magnificent gesture of this extraordinary human being. As the historian Wilson recounts the episode: "Our blind hero, having taken up arms only to secure peace, was glad for an opportunity to lay them down. When his grateful countrymen requested him to accept the crown of Bohemia, as a reward for his eminent services, he respectfully declined."7 And this is what Zisca said: "While you find me of service to your designs, you may freely command both my counsels and my sword, but I will never accept any established authority; on the contrary, my most earnest advice to you is, when the perverseness of your enemies allows you peace, to trust yourselves no longer in the hands of kings, but to form yourselves into a republic, which species of government only can secure your liberties."8 That is the true story of Zisca--military genius, patriot, freedom fighter, statesman, and blind man. Extraordinary as his heroism was, it exceeds only in degree the story of yet another blind Bohemian--King John, the blind monarch who fell in the historic Battle of Crecy, which engaged the energies and cost the lives of many of Europe's nobility. This king had been blind for many years. When he heard the clang of arms, he turned to his lords and said: "I only now desire this last piece of service from you, that you would bring me forward so near to these Englishmen that I may deal among them one good stroke with my sword." In order not to be separated, the king and his attendants tied the reins of their horses one to another, and went into battle. There this valiant old hero had his desire, and came boldly up to the Prince of Wales, and gave more than "one good stroke" with his sword. He fought courageously, as did all his lords, and others about him; but they engaged themselves so far that all were slain, and next day found dead, their horses' bridles still tied together. In the country of the blind, it has foolishly been said, the one-eyed man will inevitably be king. This, of course, is nonsense. In fact, the very opposite has often been true. History reveals that in the realm of the sighted it is not at all remarkable for a blind man to be king. Thus, in 1851, George Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, first cousin to Queen Victoria, ascended the throne of Hanover under the royal title of George the Fifth. That this blind king of Hanover was no imcompetent, but distinctly superior to the ordinary run of monarchs, is shown by the words of a contemporary historian, who said: "Though laboring under the deprivation of sight, this Prince is as efficient in his public, as he is beloved in his private, character; a patron of the arts and sciences, and a promoter of agricultural interests...he has acquired a perfect knowledge of six different languages."9 A strikingly similar account has been handed down to us of the blind Prince Kitoyasu, who reigned as a provincial governor in Japan over a thousand years ago and "whose influence set a pattern for the sightless which differed from that in any other country and saved his land from the scourge of beggary."10 Thoroughly trained in both Japanese and Chinese literature, Prince Hitoyasu introduced blind people into society and the life of the court. In ninth-century Japan, when the blind led the blind, they did not fall into a ditch, but rose out of it together. Let us turn now from the records of royalty to the annals of adventure. Perhaps the most persistent and destructive myth concerning the blind is the assumption of our relative inactivity and immobility--the image of the blind person glued to his or her rocking chair and, at best, sadly dependent on others for guide or transport on routine daily rounds. "Mobility," we are led to believe, is a modern term, which has just begun to have meaning for the blind. To be sure, many blind persons have been cowed by the myth of helplessness into remaining in their sheltered corners. But there have always been others--like James Holman, Esquire, a solitary traveler of a century and a half ago, who gained the great distinction of being labeled by the Russians as "the blind spy. "Yes, it really happened! This intrepid Englishman, traveling alone across the steppes of Greater Russia all the way to Siberia, was so close an observer of all about him that he was arrested as a spy by the Czar's police and conducted to the borders of Austria, where he was ceremoniously expelled. Here is how it happened. Holman lost his sight at the age of twenty-five, after a brief career as a lieutenant in the Royal Navy; but his urge to travel, instead of declining, grew stronger. He soon embarked upon a series of voyages--first through France and Italy, then (at one fell swoop) through Poland, Austria, Saxony, Prussia, Hanover, Russia, and Siberia. His real intention, as he later wrote, was to "make a circuit of the whole world," entirely on his own and unaccompanied--an ambition he might well have fulfilled had it not been for the Czar's police and the Russian spy charges. He later published a two-volume account of his travels and observations, and his own reflections upon his Russian adventure are worth repeating: "My situation," he wrote, "was now one of extreme novelty and my feelings corresponded with its peculiarity. I was engaged ... in a solitary journey of a thousand miles, through a country, perhaps the wildest on the face of the earth, whose inhabitants were scarcely yet accounted within the pale of civilization, with no other attendant than a rude Tartar postillion, to whose language my ear was wholly unaccustomed; and yet, I was supported by a feeling of happy confidence...."11 As Federationists know, there have been other blind travelers in our own time quite as intrepid as James Holman. Yet, Holman's story--the case of the "blind spy"--is important for its demonstration that blind people could wear such seven-league boots almost two centuries ago--before Braille or the long cane, before residential schools or vocational rehabilitation, before even the American Foundation for the Blind and its 239-page book on personal management for the blind. But there is a more basic side to mobility, of course, than the opportunity and capacity for long-distance traveling. There is the simple ability to get about, to walk and run, to mount a horse or ride a bicycle--in short, to be physically independent. The number of blind persons who have mastered these skills of travel is countless, but no one has ever proved the point or shown the way with more flair than a stalwart Englishman of the eighteenth century named John Metcalf. Indeed, this brash fellow not only defied convention, but the world. Totally blind from childhood, he was (among other things) a successful builder of roads and bridges; racehorse rider; bare-knuckle fighter; card shark; stagecoach driver; and, on occasion, guide to sighted tourists through the local countryside. Here is an account of some of his many enterprises: "In 1751 he commenced a new employment; he set up a stage wagon betwixt York and Knaresborough, being the first on the road, and drove it himself, twice a week in summer, and once in winter. This business, with the occasional conveyence of army baggage, employed his attention till the period of his first contracting for the making of roads, which engagement suiting him better, he relinquished every other pursuit.... The first piece of road he made was about three miles ... , and the materials for the whole were to be produced from one gravel pit; he therefore provided deal boards, and erected a temporary house at the pit; took a dozen horses to the place; fixed racks and mangers, and hired a house for his men, at Minskip. He often walked to Knaresborough in the morning, with four or five stone of meal on his shoulders, and joined his men by six o'clock. He completed the road much sooner than was expected, to the entire satisfaction of the surveyor and trustees."12 The story of "Blind Jack" Metcalf, for all its individuality, is far from unique. Rather, it underscores what even we as Federationists sometimes forget, and what most of the sighted have never learned at all--namely, that the blind can compete on terms of absolute equality with others--that we are really, literally, the equals of the sighted. We have been kept down by the myths and false beliefs about our inferiority, by the self-fulfilling prophecies of the custodial system which has conditioned the sighted and the blind alike to believe we are helpless, but not by any innate lacks or losses inherent in our blindness. Metcalf's accomplishments in applied science were probably matched by those of a French army officer more than a century before. Blaise Francoise, Comte de Pagan, was blinded in the course of military service, shortly before he was to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. He then turned his attention to the science of fortifications, wrote the definitive work on the subject, and subsequently published a variety of scientific works, among which was one entitled "An Historical and Geographical Account of the River of the Amazons" (which included a chart drawn up by this military genius after he became blind)! Like the sighted, the blind have had their share of solid citizens, namby-pambies, strong-minded individualists, squares, oddballs, eggheads, and eccentrics. The sixteenth-century German scholar James Shegkins, for instance, refused to undergo an operation which was virtually guaranteed to restore his sight: "In order," as he said, "not to be obliged to see many things that might appear odious and ridiculous."13 Shegkins, a truly absent-minded professor, taught philosophy and medicine over many years with great success, and left behind him influential monographs on a dozen scientific subjects. The success story of Dr. Nicholas Bacon, a blind lawyer of eighteenth-century France, somewhat resembles that of our own beloved founder, Dr.Jacobus tenBroek. Both were blinded in childhood by bow-and-arrow accidents, and both went on to high academic achievement in law and related studies. The strenuous exertions which Bacon was forced to go through at each stage of his climb are indicated by the following account: "When he recovered his health, which had suffered from the accident, he continued the same plan of education which he had before commenced.... But his friends treated his intention with ridicule, and even the professors themselves were not far from the same sentiment; for they admitted him into their schools, rather under an impression that he might amuse them, than that they should be able to communicate much information to him." However, he obtained "the first place among his fellow students. They then said that such rapid advances might be made in the preliminary branches of education, but not ... in studies of a more profound nature; and when ... it became necessary to study the art of poetry, it was declared by the general voice that all was over.... But here he likewise disproved their prejudices.... He applied himself to law, and took his degree in that science at Brussels."14 Years earlier--in the fourth century after Christ--another blind man made an even steeper ascent to learning. He was Didymus of Alexandria, who became one of the celebrated scholars of the early church. He carved out of wood an alphabet of letters and laboriously taught himself to form them into words, and shape the words into sentences. Later, when he could afford to hire readers, he is said to have worn them out one after another in his insatiable quest for knowledge. He became the greatest teacher of his age. He mastered philosophy and theology, and then went on to geometry and astrology. He was regarded by his students, some of whom like St. Jerome became church fathers, with "a touch of awe" because of his vast learning and intellect. Didymus was not the only blind theologian to gain eminence within the church. In the middle of the seventeenth century, at almost the same moment Milton was composing Paradise Lost, a blind priest named Prospero Fagnani was writing a commentary on church law, which was to bring him fame as one of the outstanding theorists of the Roman faith. At the precocious age of 21, Fagnani had already earned the degree of doctor of civil and canon law, and in the very next year, he was appointed Secretary of the Congregation of the Council. His celebrated Commentary, published in six quarto volumes, won high praise from Pope Benedict XIV and caused its author to become identified throughout Europe by a Latin title which in translation signifies "the blind yet farseeing doctor." These few biographical sketches plucked from the annals of the blind are no more than samples. They are not even the most illustrious instances I could have given. I have said nothing at all about the best known of history's blind celebrities--Homer, Milton, and Helen Keller. There is good reason for that omission. Not only are those resounding names well enough known already, but they have come to represent--each in its own sentimentalized, storybook form--not the abilities and possibilities of people who are blind but the exact opposite. Supposedly these giants are the exceptions that prove the rule--the rule, that is, that the blind are incompetent. Each celebrated case is explained away to keep the stereotype intact: Thus, Homer (we are repeatedly told) probably never existed at all--being not a man but a committee! As for Milton, he is dismissed as a sighted poet, who happened to become blind in later life. And Helen Keller, they say, was the peculiarly gifted and just plain lucky beneficiary of a lot of money and a "miracle worker" (her tutor and companion, Anne Sullivan). Don't you believe it! These justly famous cases of accomplishment are not mysterious, unexplainable exceptions--they are only remarkable. Homer, who almost certainly did exist and who was clearly blind, accomplished just a little better what other blind persons after him have accomplished by the thousands: that is, he was a good writer. Milton composed great works while he was sighted, and greater ones (including Paradise Lost) after he became blind. His example, if it proves anything, proves only that blindness makes no difference in ability. As for Helen Keller, her life demonstrates dramatically what great resources of character and will and intellect may live in a human being beyond the faculties of sight and sound--which is not to take anything at all away from Anne Sullivan. In the modern world it is not the poets or the humanists, but the scientists, who have held the center of the stage. As would be expected, the stereotyped view has consistently been that the blind cannot compete in these areas. How does this square with the truth? Consider the case of Nicholas Saunderson--totally blind from infancy--who succeeded Sir Isaac Newton in the chair of mathematics at Cambridge University, despite the fact that he had earlier been refused admission to the same university and was never permitted to earn a degree! It was the great Newton himself who pressed Saunderson's appointment upon the reluctant Cambridge dons; and it was no less a personage than Queen Anne of England who made it possible by conferring the necessary degree upon Saunderson. Later he received a Doctor of Laws degree from King George II, a symbol of the renown he had gained as a mathematician. Among Saunderson's best subjects, by the way, was the science of optics--at which he was so successful that the eminent Lord Chesterfield was led to remark on "the miracle of a man who had not the use of his own sight teaching others how to use theirs."15 For another example, consider John Cough, a blind English biologist of the eighteenth century, who became a master at classification of plants and animals by substituting the sense of touch for that of sight. Or consider Leonard Euler, a great mathematician of the same century, who (after becoming blind) won two research prizes from the Parisian Academy of Sciences, wrote a major work translated into every European language, and devised an astronomical theory which "has been deemed by astronomers, in exactness of computation, one of the most remarkable achievements of the human intellect."16 Or, for a final illustration, consider Francois Huber, blind Swiss zoologist, who gained recognition as the pre-eminent authority of the eighteenth century on the behavior of bees. The famous writer Maurice Maeterlinck said of Huber that he was "the master and classic of contemporary apiarian science."17 Even after all of this evidence, there will be many (some of them, regrettably, our own blind Uncle Toms) who will try to deny and explain it all away--who will attempt to keep intact their outworn notions about the helplessness of the blind as a class. So let me nail down a couple of points: In the first place, is all of this talk about history and the success of blind individuals really valid? Isn't it true that most blind people throughout the ages have lived humdrum lives, achieving neither fame nor glory, and soon forgotten? Yes, it is true--but for the sighted as well as for the blind. For the overwhelming majority of mankind (the blind and the sighted alike) life has been squalor and hard knocks and anonymity from as far back as anybody knows. There were doubtless blind peasants, blind housewives, blind shoemakers, blind businessmen, blind thieves, blind prostitutes, and blind holy men who performed as competently or as incompetently (and are now as forgotten) as their sighted contemporaries. "Even so," the doubter may say, "I'm still not convinced. Don't you think the track record for the blind is worse than the track record for the sighted? Don't you think a larger percentage of the blind have failed?" Again, the answer is yes--just as with other minorities. That's what it's all about. Year after year, decade after decade, century after century, age after age, we the blind were told that we were helpless--that we were inferior--and we believed it and acted accordingly. But no more! As with other minorities, we have tended to see ourselves as others have seen us. We have accepted the public view of our limitations, and thus have done much to make those limitations a reality. When our true history conflicted with popular prejudice, the truth was altered or conveniently forgotten. We have been ashamed of our blindness and ignorant of our heritage, but never again! We will never go back to the ward status of second-class citizens. There is simply no way. There are blind people aplenty--and sighted allies, too-- (many of them in this room tonight) who will take to the streets and fight with their bare hands if they must before they will let it happen. And this, too, is history--our meeting, our movement, our new spirit of self-awareness and self-realization. In our own time and in our own day we have found leaders as courageous as Zisca, and as willing to go into battle to resist tyranny. But we are no longer to be counted by ones and twos, or by handfuls or hundreds. We are now a movement, with tens of thousands in the ranks. Napoleon is supposed to have said that history is a legend agreed upon. If this is true, then we the blind are in the process of negotiating a new agreement, with a legend conforming more nearly to the truth and the spirit of the dignity of man. And what do you think future historians will say of us--of you and me? What legends will they agree upon concerning the blind of the mid-twentieth century? How will they deal with our movement-- with the National Federation of the Blind? Will they record that we fell back into the faceless anonymity of the ages, or that we met the challenges and survived as a free people? It all depends on what we do and how we act; for future historians will write the record, but we will make it. Our lives will provide the raw materials from which their legends will emerge to be agreed upon. And, while no man can predict the future, I feel absolute confidence as to what the historians will say. They will tell of a system of governmental and private agencies established to serve the blind, which became so custodial and so repressive that reaction was inevitable. They will tell that the blind ("their time come 'round at last") began to acquire a new self-image, along with rising expectations, and that they determined to organize and speak for themselves. And they will tell of Jacobus tenBroek, how he, as a young college professor, (blind and brilliant) stood forth to lead the movement like Zisca of old. They will tell how the agencies first tried to ignore us, then resented us, then feared us, and finally came to hate us--with the emotion and false logic and cruel desperation which dying systems always feel toward the new about to replace them. They will tell of the growth of our movement through the forties and fifties, and of our civil war--which resulted in the small group that splintered away to become the American Council of the Blind. They will tell how we emerged from our civil war into the sixties, stronger and more vital than we had ever been; and how more and more of the agencies began to make common cause with us for the betterment of the blind. They will tell of our court cases, our legislative efforts, and our organizational struggles- -and they will record the sorrow and mourning of the blind at the death of their great leader, Jacobus tenBroek. They will also record the events of today--of the 1970s-- when the reactionaries among the agencies became even more so, and the blind of the second generation of the NFB stood forth to meet them. They will talk of the American Foundation for the Blind and its attempt (through its tool, NAC) to control all work with the blind, and our lives. They will tell how NAC and the American Foundation and the other reactionary agencies gradually lost ground and gave way before us. They will tell of new and better agencies rising to work in partnership with the blind, and of harmony and progress as the century draws to an end. They will relate how the blind passed from second-class citizenship through a period of hostility to equality and first-class status in society. But future historians will only record these events if we make them come true. They can help us be remembered, but they cannot help us dream. That we must do for ourselves. They can give us acclaim, but not guts and courage. They can give us recognition and appreciation, but not determination or compassion or good judgment. We must either find those things for ourselves, or not have them at all. We have come a long way together in this movement. Some of us are veterans, going back to the forties; others are new recruits, fresh to the ranks. Some are young; some are old. Some are educated, others not. It makes no difference. In everything that matters we are one; we are the movement; we are the blind. Just as in 1940, when the National Federation of the Blind was formed, the fog rolls in through the Golden Gate. The eucalyptus trees give forth their pungent smell, and the Berkeley hills look down at the bay. The house still stands in those hills, and the planes still rise from San Francisco to span the world. But Jacobus tenBroek comes from the house no more, nor rides the planes to carry the word. But the word is carried, and his spirit goes with it. He it was who founded this movement, and he it is whose dreams are still entwined in the depths of its being. Likewise, our dreams (our hopes and our visions) are part of the fabric, going forward to the next generation as a heritage and a challenge. History is not against us: the past proclaims it; the present confirms it; and the future demands it. If we falter or dishonor our heritage, we will betray not only ourselves but those who went before us and those who come after. But, of course, we will not fail. Whatever the cost, we shall pay it. Whatever the sacrifice, we shall make it. We cannot turn back, or stand still. Instead, we must go forward. We shall prevail--and history will record it. The future is ours. Come! Join me on the barricades, and we will make it come true. FOOTNOTES 1. Wilham Artman, Beauties and Achievements of the Blind (Auburn: Published for the Author, 1890), p.265. 2. James Wilson, Biography of the Blind (Birmingham, England: Printed by J.W. Showell, Fourth Edition, 1838), p.110. 3. Artman, 3. op. cit., p. 265. 4. Ibid., p.266. 5. Ibid., p.267. 6. Ibid., p.268. 7. Ibid., pp.268-269. 8. Wilon, op.cit., p.115 9. Mrs. Hippolyte Van Landeghem, Exile and Home: Advantages of Social Education of the Blind (London: Printed by W. Clowes & Sons, 1865), p.95. 10. Gabriel Farrell, The Story of Blindness (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p.7. 11. Wilson, op.cit., p.262. 12. Ibid., pp.100-101 13. Artman, op.cit., p.220. 14. Wilson, op.cit., p.243. 15. Farrell, op.cit., p.11. 16. Artman, op.cit., p.226. 17. Farrell, op.cit., pp.12-13. [PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Fred Schroeder.] BRAILLE BILLS: WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN? by Fredric K. Schroeder From the Associate Editor: Fred Schroeder has been a leader in the organized blind movement for a number of years. He currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind. He is also an experienced professional in the field of work with the blind. Trained as a teacher of blind children and an orientation and mobility specialist, he directed the low incidence programs in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, public school system before becoming the Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. He is a professional in the blindness field with excellent credentials, down-to-earth common sense, and a sense of humor that gives him perspective. But first and foremost, he is a blind consumer, and his ability to remember that truth keeps his feet planted firmly in reality. In the following article he describes what Braille bills are and places them in the context of the struggle of blind people for equal opportunity. Here is what he has to say: In 1940, when the blind organized to promote their social and economic integration, there was a dramatic albeit predictable response from the field of work with the blind. Professionals harbored real resentment against clients who presumed to speak out on their own behalf. The conflict centered on the simple question of who would speak for the blind. Would it be the blind themselves, or would it be those in the blindness profession, who through training and practice had come to regard themselves as the true experts on the needs of blind people? For more than fifty years this conflict has continued focusing on a series of issues which in turn have represented the latest battleground in the ongoing conflict. We have struggled over freedom of association; the institutionalization of oppressive practices through the creation of the National Accreditation Council; minimum wages for blind workers; and, most recently, freedom of choice in the provision of rehabilitation services. In each case and at each step, the right of self- determination has been at the center of the fray; yet as blind people we have never faltered in our conviction that we alone are best able to appraise our own needs and determine our own futures. In the late 1970s the National Federation of the Blind began to call for the teaching of cane travel to young blind children. What appeared to skilled cane travelers to be the self-evident advantage of teaching young children to travel independently escaped most blindness professionals, who met our demands with open hostility. The orientation and mobility professionals believed that cane travel should be restricted to high-school-aged students and perhaps the occasional middle school student. The concept of training young children to use the white cane was viewed as irresponsible and denounced as the political agitation of a radical group of malcontents. Yet the blind, recognizing the importance of self-confidence and the skills to put that confidence into practice, began working with parents and young children to show them the advantages of independent travel. Finally the self-evident benefits of early cane training began to penetrate the orientation and mobility profession. Eventually, the idea of early cane training ceased to be radical as mobility professionals began tentatively experimenting with the idea. At the end of a decade of blind people's pressing for early cane training, the orientation and mobility profession announced a startling revelation: the profession--all by itself, without any help from anyone--had miraculously discovered that young children could in fact master independent cane travel. Late in 1988 the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, a publication of the American Foundation for the Blind, carried an article discussing cane training for young blind children. Incredibly it was purported that this article was the first time anyone had discussed the possibility of cane training for preschoolers. It is disappointing that progress in the field of work with the blind seems always to follow the pattern of blind people's pressing for change and the professionals' stubbornly resisting progress. The most recent example of this pattern can be seen in the Braille literacy controversy. In the early 1980s the National Federation of the Blind began drawing attention to the increasing level of illiteracy among blind students graduating from our nation's schools. Much of the decrease in literacy can be traced to the low vision movement of the 1970s, which inculcated in modern pedagogy the age-old myth that to see a little was somehow better (almost more virtuous) than to see not at all. For twenty years young blind children were dissuaded from learning and reading Braille in favor of relying ineffectively on limited vision to read print. While it is not necessary to catalogue this tragedy in detail, it is fair to say that a whole generation of blind people have suffered diminished opportunity as a result of inadequate Braille training. Needing a mechanism for focussing public attention on the Braille crisis, the National Federation of the Blind created the concept of Braille legislation, which would establish public policy on the right of blind persons to become literate and productive. The first Braille bill was passed in Minnesota just five years ago in 1987. As with other controversies throughout the years, the blind have led the fight while professionals denied that a problem existed. In the five years since the first Braille bill was passed, eleven states have followed suit: Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have joined the ranks of states committed to greater opportunities for blind children. Not surprisingly, a number of myths have developed concerning Braille bills and their effects. The most common of these is the charge that Braille bills mandate Braille instruction for all legally blind children. While this charge is intended to demonstrate the irrationality of the Federation's viewpoint, one is tempted to ask what is wrong with wanting legally blind children to learn Braille. Neither parents nor teachers cringe when they realize that sighted children are expected to learn print, nor is there a passionate demand to consider the sighted child's individuality. Yet the concept of teaching legally blind children to read Braille is offered as another example of the radical and irrational nature of the organized blind. Regardless of whether all blind children should or should not be taught Braille, none of the nation's twelve Braille statutes contains such a requirement. No Braille bill in any state requires the teaching of Braille to all legally blind children. The strongest legislation sets forth a presumption that legally blind children will read Braille unless the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team determines otherwise, while other legislation mandates only that Braille be considered in the educational planning for blind children. The real purpose of Braille bills is to serve as a statement of public policy, recognizing the need for literacy among the blind, paralleling the need for literacy among the sighted. As Braille bills have developed, a number of logical extensions have become incorporated into more recent pieces of legislation. One of the most controversial is the requirement for competency testing for teachers of blind children. With the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) on the verge of releasing a Braille competency test, such a requirement has become practical and easy to administer. While it is intuitively reasonable that teachers of blind children should be able to read and write Braille, it must be remembered that the educational establishment has de-emphasized the code for more than twenty years. As a result many teachers of blind children are no longer able to read and write Braille efficiently and have been trained to believe that Braille is the least desirable choice. Teachers trained during this period probably received poor training in Braille reading and writing initially and subsequently found little if any use for it in their teaching. Braille legislation requiring competency testing strikes a responsive chord among many of today's blind children and their parents. Predictably, significant numbers of teachers of blind children oppose Braille bills, asserting that their competence to read and write Braille is unrelated to their ability to teach blind children. As a result these teachers have testified in opposition to competency testing as an unimportant and counterproductive element in Braille legislation. A relatively new element appearing in Braille legislation concerns a requirement for textbook manufacturers to produce material in electronic media in a form readily translatable into Braille. This provision first surfaced in the Texas Braille bill in May of 1991. While it was anticipated that this provision would spark serious opposition from textbook publishers, in fact the opposite has proven to be the case. Although a number of technical problems still exist, the concept of computer- translatable texts promises to make Braille more readily available than ever before. As with other controversies throughout the past half- century, the pattern remains consistent. First the blind promote an idea which sparks professional opposition. Through perseverance the idea achieves some implementation and success. After a while, the validity of the idea is recognized, and finally members of the profession jump on the bandwagon, eager to take credit for having thought it up themselves. In 1987 the idea of Braille bills was strongly opposed by many in the blindness profession, yet the National Federation of the Blind persisted in carrying the first one through the Minnesota legislature. Gradually Braille bills became less controversial, and today large segments of the blindness field have ceased opposing Braille bills and, in fact, have formed coalitions to work cooperatively toward promoting them. Progress does occur, albeit slowly and painfully. The pattern of the blind's pressing for change and the profession's resisting that change continues. As blind people we refuse to suffer another lost generation. Literacy is a fundamental right, and we will not have our potential and that of today's blind children artificially depressed through inadequate training. Blind children can compete and assume a productive role in society. Generations of blind people have proven the truth of this statement, and the next generation must be given the tools to continue the struggle for true equality. Braille bills are an expression of public policy and a manifestation of blind people's determination to live normal lives as fully participating members of society. Momentum is gathering as more and more states enact Braille legislation, thereby joining the growing Braille literacy movement. In many ways this movement has become an expression of our confidence in the true ability of blind children and our willingness to ensure them equality of opportunity. We must translate this commitment into expressions of public policy and, perhaps more to the point, into the day-to-day training that blind children receive. [PHOTO/CAPTION: On April 14, 1992, Kentucky's Governor signed the state's Braille literacy legislation into law. At the ceremony which marked this momentous occasion for Kentucky's blind children, those who were chiefly responsible for accomplishing this milestone gathered to celebrate the event. Pictured here from left to right are Will Evans, Superintendent of the Kentucky School for the Blind; Hilda Caton, Coordinator of Programs for the Visually Impaired, University of Louisville; Betty Niceley, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Kentucky; Brereton Jones, Governor of Kentucky; Robbie Castleman, the State Representative who introduced House Bill 370; and Charles Allen, Legislative Chairman of the NFB of Kentucky.] [PHOTO/CAPTION: NFB of S.C. Braille bill signing.] BRAILLE BILL UPDATE In November of 1990 the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind decided that the organization should develop language for a model Braille bill that could be used by state affiliates around the country in working with their legislatures to create laws that would protect the right of blind children to full literacy. Since then several state affiliates have succeeded in achieving passage of the model Braille bill, and a number of others are working on the project. Of course, several states had passed Braille Bills prior to the development of the model bill language, and some of these are now working to strengthen their laws. Here is a list of the states with Braille literacy legislation on the books: Arizona, July 1, 1991; Kansas, 1991; Kentucky, signed into law April 14, 1992; Louisiana, 1988; Maryland, passed April 2, 1992; Minnesota, 1987; Missouri,1990; South Carolina, signed into law May 20, 1992; South Dakota, 1991; Texas, September 1, 1991; Virginia, 1990. Here is the list of states with Braille bills currently under consideration: California; Colorado; Connecticut; Illinois; Iowa; Louisiana, considering amendments to the current act; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota, amendments to make current law conform to the model Braille bill have passed the Senate; Nebraska; Ohio; Washington State; and Wisconsin. Here are reports on the most recent successes: TEXAS by Glenn Crosby July 31, 1991, was proclaimed Braille Literacy Day in the State of Texas by Governor Ann Richards. The official proclamation, written in both print and Braille, was presented to members of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas during a celebration in the Lieutenant Governor's Reception Room in the state capitol. The news media were there in force to see President Glenn Crosby thank Senator Mike Moncrief, Representative Elliott Naishtat, and the scores of Federationists who had worked hard to see that the Braille Literacy Act was passed during the regular session of the Texas Legislature, which ended in May of 1991. More than fifty representatives and senators were present to celebrate the fact that the Texas Braille literacy legislation has become the model for the rest of the country. Many professionals have attempted to take credit for the hard work done by the blind in Texas, but everyone who worked on passage of this piece of legislation recognizes that the Federation was the moving force behind it. If members of the NFB hadn't written a model law and if many other state affiliates had not worked so hard to pass Braille laws before we did, the Texas law would probably not have been adopted. Dr. Phil Hatlen, superintendent of the Texas School for the Blind, presented testimony in favor of the legislation, and the National Federation of the Blind of Texas appreciates his support on this issue. But the testimony of blind people who had been denied Braille training because they had some residual vision and that of the totally blind people who demonstrated that proficiency in the use of Braille allowed them to be credible witnesses because they were able to read from notes as efficiently as other witnesses are what made the real difference. The legislature knows that the blind of Texas are the reason that this law was enacted, and so does the governor. They all thanked the blind for bringing the problem to their attention, and the proclamation was presented to the National Federation of the Blind of Texas. It will grace the Federation's office wall rather than that of any professional in the state. Since the law was adopted last May, the NFB of Texas has been working with the Texas Education Agency to implement the law's provisions dealing with the definition of functional blindness, certification of Braille proficiency for teachers of the blind in Texas, and availability of textbooks in electronic media so that they can be translated into Braille. Jeff Pearcy and Tommy Craig of Austin have served on committees which dealt with the first two items, and Eura Mae Harmon of Amarillo serves on the Texas Commission on Braille Textbook Production, which will work on making Braille textbooks more available. Aside from the work with the Texas Education Agency, the affiliate is also working with the sponsors of the Braille literacy law, Senator Mike Moncrief and Representative Elliott Naishtat, to make several public service announcements to be used on television stations throughout the state. These will inform the public that this law has been passed and will provide the toll-free number of the NFB of Texas so that parents and teachers who have questions about the legislation can contact us. We also hope to promote the use of Braille with these messages by showing blind people using Braille in various circumstances while the announcement is being made. SOUTH CAROLINA by Donald C. Capps The NFB's model Braille bill passed the South Carolina General Assembly on February 27, 1992, and was signed into law in a public ceremony by the Governor on May 20. The South Carolina affiliate arranged to have the model Braille bill introduced into the joint House Senate Committee on People with Disabilities in January of 1991, but complications developed during the year when the parent of a blind child decided that the law would mean that her child would be compelled to learn Braille against her wishes. She then disseminated a good bit of misleading information throughout the legislature and stirred up what opposition she could in an effort to derail the bill. In early January of this year the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina shifted into high gear to insure that the bill would be passed. Each of the thirty-four Federation chapters spoke with local legislators, and the affiliate developed a Braille literacy brochure, which was given to each lawmaker who attended the organization's annual legislative dinner on January 15. The brochure was also sent to every representative and senator who had not attended. Ample use was also made of Braille Monitor articles about the importance of Braille literacy, and letters and other contacts by Federation experts on Braille literacy from across the country poured into legislators' offices. The result of all this effort was that in less than six weeks from the date of the legislative dinner the bill had passed both the House and the Senate and was on its way to the Governor for signing. The South Carolina affiliate worked hard to pass this law, but we could not have done it without the expertise and support of the entire membership of the National Federation of the Blind. KENTUCKY by Betty Niceley On March 30, 1992, the Kentucky Senate passed the state's version of the Federation's model Braille bill. By that date every committee and both houses of the legislature had passed the bill unanimously. Governor Brereton Jones signed it into law in a public ceremony on April 14. The explanation for all this unanimity was simple: the National Federation of the Blind of Kentucky had been working for many months behind the scenes to bring all the parties into agreement. As frequently happens, the special education teachers who work with blind and visually impaired youngsters had been extremely nervous about the legislation. Recognizing that their own Braille skills were weak or, in some cases, non-existent, they began by opposing the bill. But Dr. Hilda Caton, Coordinator of Programs for the Visually Impaired at the University of Louisville and a Braille researcher at the American Printing House for the Blind, was enthusiastic about the proposed legislation from the beginning. She said repeatedly and publicly that "the Federation has been right about Braille literacy all along." Her vocal support was extremely helpful, for she has trained most of the teachers of blind students working in the state today and is therefore highly respected by them. Will Evans, Superintendent of the Kentucky School for the Blind, invited representatives from the Federation to a meeting to discuss with teachers the provisions of the bill. David Murrell, one of the authors of the bill's language; Dr. Caton; and I, as President of the NFB of Kentucky, attended the meeting to address teacher concerns. We had expected to face the teachers from the School for the Blind only, but the twenty-one vision teachers from Jefferson County were there as well. The entire meeting lasted about four hours. One young teacher complained that she would have to return to school to master Braille sufficiently to become certified. Who was going to pay for that? The Superintendent suggested that she could surely study on her own to get the necessary practice. At that she began a long recital of her duties and said that she did not have the time to do work independently, to which Dr. Caton replied in her gentle drawl, "Honey, if you don't have time to learn Braille, you're in the wrong job." Another teacher stood up at one point and said that he was legally blind, but he would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into learning Braille. My response was a statement to the entire group that this teacher's negative attitude was the best reason I could think of for beginning early Braille instruction with legally blind children. Eventually a small group retired to work on compromise language that would reassure the teachers without diluting the bill. Several times Dr. Caton was appealed to by the teachers to suggest new language. She kept repeating, "I thought the original language was fine." At last, however, everyone agreed on a text, and letters of endorsement were submitted by the School for the Blind and by the Jefferson County teachers. The model bill sailed through the legislative process under the skillful and watchful supervision of the NFB of Kentucky's invaluable Legislative Chairman, Charles Allen and his equally dedicated wife Betty. MARYLAND by Sharon Maneki The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland first introduced a state Braille bill in 1986. The concept was violently opposed by the staff of the Maryland School for the Blind and by the state's Department of Education, and because of the opposition the bill was defeated. During the intervening years a great deal of patient effort has gone into educating Department of Education personnel about the issue of literacy for blind children and about the National Federation of the Blind. Recently the Department established an advisory committee to develop guidelines for determining which students should be taught Braille and which should be taught print. The NFB agreed to work with this committee, and at the same time the Department agreed to send a representative to be a part of a task force formed by the Federation to write a literacy bill for blind students. Representatives from the School for the Blind, from the special education programs of the three largest school systems in the state, and from the American Council of the Blind, as well as from the Department of Education, joined with the NFB in writing the bill, completed late last fall. In January the Federation devoted its annual legislative day in the state capital to talking about Braille literacy with Representatives and Senators. Two members of the ACB spent a couple of hours working on the bill that day alongside the forty Federationists, and the School for the Blind representative to the task force visited a Senator or two, but most of the work was done by the Federation. The Department of Education had helped to write the bill, and though no one stepped forward from the Department to discuss the issue with legislators, it was commonly understood that the bill would not be opposed by Department officials. Then, two days before Senate committee hearings were to begin in mid-February, the Department introduced several amendments, the most important of which would have altered the bill's presumption that Braille would be taught unless print was clearly indicated; the Department version provided merely that Braille would be considered. The amendment struck at the heart of the Federation's legislation, and the amended version was the one that the Senate passed. In the meantime a House committee was preparing to hear the original version, which had been introduced simultaneously in that chamber. The Department of Education indicated to House committee members that it would like its amendments to be added to the House version, but this time the legislators asked for an opinion from the Attorney General about whether the presumption- of-Braille provision of the NFB bill conflicted with the federally guaranteed right to an Individual Education Plan. The Attorney General ruled that it did not, and as a result the House passed the bill without the weakening amendments that the Senate had attached. Next each chamber considered the other's version of the bill. The House of Representatives passed the Senate bill after it removed the amendments, but the Senate passed the House bill without insisting upon adding them. The blind had won! The legislative roller coaster ended on April 2, and the Governor is scheduled to sign the bill into law in early May. It will take effect on October 1, 1992. The law is not everything that the organized blind wanted. National Library Service competency certification has not been mandated in the legislation, but Federationists are prepared to go back to strengthen the certification standards if necessary. In addition, the law does not address the question of requiring publishers to provide text materials in electronic media for rapid Braille production. But the heart of the model Braille bill is intact: legally blind and functionally blind students now must be offered Braille in Maryland. There you have the report on the most recent victories in the NFB's battle for Braille literacy. Twenty states have Braille legislation on the books or are considering it, and several other NFB affiliates are getting ready to have literacy bills introduced. Increasingly these bills are versions of the model Braille bill first written by the Federation. State by state blind people are taking responsibility for seeing that the next generation of blind students will not face the functional illiteracy that has plagued so many blind adults and children today. More and more, and with increasing authority, we are changing what it means to be blind. [PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Norma Crosby.] REACTION TO AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND ARTICLE ON TEXAS BRAILLE BILL From the Editor: As the new balances of influence and action take shape in the blindness field, it would be surprising indeed if some turbulence did not occur. A case in point involves the Texas Braille Bill. Norma Crosby (who, as Monitor readers know, is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas) expresses in the following letter to President Maurer her annoyance with what she perceives to be inaccurate claims and inappropriate reaching for credit by the American Foundation for the Blind. Here without editorial comment is what she has to say: Houston, Texas March 18, 1992 Dear President Maurer: Enclosed you will find a copy of the Fall, 1991, AFB News (a publication of the American Foundation for the Blind). It is a dreadful piece of journalism which is filled with inaccuracies. It implies that the Texas Braille Bill Literacy Act was more or less the idea of the American Foundation for the Blind, and if you didn't know better, you might think that the whole concept of Braille literacy in Texas was theirs. Needless to say, we of the NFB of Texas are not amused by this slanted journalism. In discussing Braille bills the Foundation says, "In another literacy initiative, AFB played a major role in advocating for a Braille bill which was signed into law in the state of Texas in June." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when AFB discovered that this piece of legislation had been introduced, Mary Ann Siller, Southwest Regional Educational Consultant for AFB, made contact with the sponsor of the bill and indicated that they had some major problems with it, and she indicated that they were opposed to the proposed law because it "didn't take into account the rights of teachers." AFB only became involved with the law when we, in an effort to assure passage, agreed to meet with all parties who had concerns about the bill. They never played a major role in advocating for this legislation. In fact, when it was time for testimony on the issue, they were not present. However, they did show signs of claiming credit early on by calling the proposal "our bill." But Jeff Pearcy set them straight by pointing out that the NFB of Texas had brought the bill to the legislature, and he and Tommy Craig let them know that we would make the final decision about which proposed changes were acceptable. The article also indicates that AFB did the organizing of meetings relative to this bill. In fact, it says: "In another distinction from other Braille bills, Siller notes that the final law brought a diverse constituency together around a complex issue. AFB organized meetings and teleconferences among representatives from AFB, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Association of Publishers, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Texas Education Agency, University of Texas at Austin Special Education Department, the American Printing House for the Blind, and other producers of materials in Braille and alternative formats." They did no such thing. They did attend some of those meetings, and to that extent they were involved in the process. But, once again, I point out that they only became involved in the process as participant with negative feelings about the proposed legislation. The only "professional" who was willing to stand up and be counted on this issue was Dr. Phil Hatlen of the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. He supported the legislation from the beginning, and he worked in good faith to insure that it would become law. He testified on behalf of the bill, and at every opportunity, he gives (and has consistently given) the NFB credit for having brought the bill to the legislature. There may be times in the future when we will have disagreements with Dr. Hatlen. However, in this instance he worked well with the members of our organization to pass a good piece of legislation. The AFB should be ashamed for taking such liberties with the truth. This is a major piece of legislation, and the blind of this state and this country are the ones who caused it to be law. The tide is turning, and we are winning the law for literacy. I am very proud to have been a part of the battle. But I am equally concerned by the fact that we still have a long way to go in being able to work constructively with some of the professionals in the field. Sincerely, Norma Crosby There was a time (and not very many years ago at that) when the blind of this country were in what can only be called a state of war with the American Foundation for the Blind and a number of other agencies. Happily (with notable exceptions) that time no longer exists. Increasingly cooperative relations are being established between the organized blind and a growing number of the public and private agencies, but there are still bumps in the road and problems to be solved. Hopefully we can go the rest of the way to substantial unity in the blindness field. Otherwise, the prospects for the blind, and especially for the agencies, look less than promising. We have printed Norma Crosby's letter, pointing up a troublesome situation. To achieve balance and in order that Monitor readers may judge for themselves, we also print the material from the Fall, 1991, AFB News to which she refers. Here it is: AFB Develops Long Range Literacy Plan by Fay Jarosh Ellis NEW YORK--When AFB first announced the launch of a public education campaign to create awareness about literacy for persons who are blind or visually impaired, individuals--from U.S. Senators to teachers and literacy volunteers--called and wrote to pledge their support. In view of that support, and what it reflects about the needs for such a focus, AFB has established a task force to develop a long-range literacy plan. Chaired by Mary Ellen Mulholland, director of publications and information services, and Kathleen M. Huebner, Ph.D., director of national consultants, task force members include Susan J. Spungin, Ed.D., associate executive director for program services; Scott Marshall, governmental relations director; Diane Wormsley, Ph.D., Western Regional Center director; Mary Ann Siller, Southwest regional education consultant; Dawn Turco, Midwest regional education consultant; Leslye Piqueras, national low vision consultant; Doris Dieter, director of planned giving; Alberta Orr, national consultant on aging; and Glenn M. Plunkett, governmental relations specialist. The National Braille Literacy Mentor Project, spearheaded by AFB's Western Regional Center, is one of several agencywide initiatives included in the literacy plan. Conceived as a vehicle for developing and disseminating materials to support instruction in Braille, the project aims to establish a national database of expert Braille users and Braille teachers, publish a book which includes successful Braille teaching and learning strategies, and create a model for Braille instruction that will be used in summer training programs at residential schools for the blind. In addition, project staff hope to establish a mentor program by matching expert Braille users and teachers with others in their area who need to learn or refine their Braille skills. Dr. Diane Wormsley, who is administering the project, reports that the initial call for expert Braille users and teachers has met with enthusiastic response from professionals all over the country. And queries about the project steadily increase. In the next stage of the project, each database participant will be surveyed and interviewed to solicit their successful instructional methods. Says Dr. Wormsley: "There is a vast oral tradition among our teachers, some of whom have since retired, about how to teach Braille. We hope to glean these tips from our surveys, techniques which may have once been passed along from one teacher to the next in an informal way without ever being recorded in written form. Through the database, our publication, and summer training programs, we hope to make it easier for teachers, parents, and blind and visually impaired persons to learn and teach Braille to others." Braille Bills In another literacy initiative, AFB played a major role in advocating for a Braille bill which was signed into law in the state of Texas in June. "The Texas law is decidedly different from other Braille bills now pending in other state legislatures," said Mary Ann Siller, "because it does not categorically mandate Braille instruction for all legally blind students, and it addresses the problem that many blind students face in getting Braille textbooks in a timely manner." (See "Excerpted Provisions from the Texas Braille Bill.") Specifically, the law requires that teachers of blind children be assessed and evaluated on their Braille skills, and that a special committee be established to study and design software to facilitate the production of print materials in the literary Braille code. In another distinction from other Braille bills, Siller notes that the final law brought a diverse constituency together around a complex issue. AFB organized meetings and teleconferences among representatives from AFB, the National Federation of the Blind, the American Association of Publishers, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Texas Education Agency, University of Texas at Austin Special Education Department, the American Printing House for the Blind, and other producers of materials in Braille and alternative formats. "For professionals, the new law provides standards for assessing the appropriate learning media for students; and for students, the law will make it easier to get Braille textbooks on a timely basis," said Siller. "More importantly, this law puts the literacy needs of our blind and visually impaired kids on the front burner of domestic issues and policy. That has not happened in Texas since the 1970s." Indeed, making literacy a national priority is the goal of the AFB literacy plan which will include future projects in the area of information exchange, research, program models, publications, videos, technological access, public education, public relations, and government relations. Excerpted Provisions from the Texas Braille Bill  Each functionally blind student's individualized education program shall specify the appropriate learning medium based on an assessment report, and ensure that instruction in Braille will be provided by a teacher certified to teach students with visual handicaps.  The Texas Education Agency shall determine the criteria for a student to be classified as functionally blind.  As a condition of certification to teach students with visual handicaps, the State Board of Education by rule shall require satisfactory performance on an examination prescribed by the board that is designed to assess competency in Braille reading and writing skills according to standards adopted by the board.  The Texas Education Agency shall require a publisher of a textbook adopted by the State Board of Education to furnish the agency with computer diskettes for literary subjects in the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) from which Braille versions of the textbook can be produced. The publisher will furnish the agency with computer diskettes in ASCII for nonliterary subjects, e.g., natural sciences, computer science, mathematics, and music, when Braille specialty code translation software is available.  The State Board of Education shall appoint a 12-person commission consisting of computer software developers, producers of Braille textbooks, specialists in Braille education, publishers of elementary and high school textbooks, representatives of the Texas Education Agency, and at least one consumer or an advocate for consumers of Braille materials to expedite the implementation of Braille translation software for nonliterary subjects. The commission will be established for a two-year period and abolished as of September 1, 1993. [PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Peter Grunwald.] VARIATIONS ON A THEME: ILLINOIS FEDERATIONISTS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO BRAILLE LITERACY From the Associate Editor: The effort to pass a Braille literacy bill takes a different form in each state. Sometimes, as happened in Kansas, all the knowledgeable parties agree on what should be done, and the bill sails through the legislative process guided by an informed and constructive hand. Sometimes competing bills must be merged and compromises made before any helpful legislation can be enacted. And very often the Federation finds itself alone, fighting entrenched self-interest and inertia as well as ignorance and myth in an effort to protect the right of blind children to an appropriate education. Every battle is unique, and most have barely begun. It is instructive for us all to know what is happening in other states so that we can benefit from past experience. What follows is an interim report from Illinois. Peter Grunwald, one of the leaders of the NFB of Illinois, has been leading the charge there. Here is the letter he wrote explaining the situation to Dr. Jernigan: Chicago, Illinois February 27, 1992 Dear Dr. Jernigan: Last November we received news that appeared to mean that our efforts to pass a Braille bill would gain unexpected support. I was asked by a group of teachers of the blind and other professionals to meet with them regarding proposed Braille legislation based on the Texas Braille bill. They indicated that they support such legislation and asked to meet to discuss plans and to address some specific issues. We were, of course, pleased with this development; it certainly would be nice not to have to pass a bill over the objection of those whose job it would be to implement it. The first two meetings seemed positive enough; the discussion was sometimes uninformed and trivial but, for the most part, kept on track and moved forward with apparent agreement. By the third meeting, however, it was clear that there were problems. Dick Umsted, Superintendent of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired (ISVI) in Jacksonville, was absolutely determined that all the language regarding publishers' supplying computer diskette versions of textbooks to be used for production of Braille copies should be removed and replaced with a simple statement that the State of Illinois would participate in a program operated by the American Printing House for the Blind. I told the group that nothing in the language of our proposed bill would prevent the State Board of Education from participating in the APH program when it is developed, should that seem advantageous. On the other hand, I said that mandating participation in a program which did not yet exist and of which we knew virtually nothing seemed at least to be putting the cart before the horse and certainly irresponsible. Mr. Umsted was adamant, however, and he swayed the other professionals. Mr. Umsted's single-minded determination on this issue frankly gave me the impression that there is more involved than honest conviction. While there is certainly a potential role for a national clearinghouse, whoever might fill such a role would obviously stand to gain much in influence, and a mandate under law that the clearinghouse's services be used is uncomfortably close to a monopoly. Obviously APH has much to gain in this endeavor, and I believe Mr. Umsted may be carrying water for them. I would not be surprised to learn that others are doing the same. I am enclosing two pieces of correspondence for your information. The first (to Jean Osterby) gives a sense of the meetings which have taken place; the second (to Dr. Tinsley), is an attempt to acquire a more detailed account of the current status of the APH plan. Sincerely, Peter Grunwald That was Mr. Grunwald's letter to Dr. Jernigan, and his enclosures laid out the NFB of Illinois's position clearly. The first was written to Jean Osterby, Chair of the Illinois Vision Leadership Council, the organization with which Mr. Grunwald had been meeting and to which members refer as the Braille Bill Committee. Here is the letter: Chicago, Illinois February 24, 1992 Jean Osterby Northwest Illinois Association Geneva, Illinois Dear Jean: I am writing you at this time to share with you my current perceptions of the functioning of the Braille Bill Committee (as it has been called). I have been troubled for some time, but upon hearing a tape of the discussion of Braille bill issues at the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired Advisory Committee meeting of February 21, my impressions have been crystallized, and I believe the time is right to bring them to your attention. Last November I was most pleased to learn from Cathy Randall that you and other teachers and professionals were interested in and supportive of the Texas Braille bill and wanted to work toward adoption of similar legislation in Illinois. I enthusiastically agreed to meet with you and the others, and a meeting date of December 2 was chosen. At the opening of the December 2 meeting I went to some length to outline the leadership role of the National Federation of the Blind in the adoption of Braille bills in various states during the past several years, including the Texas Braille bill. I indicated that we in the NFB were excited to learn that Illinois's professionals were actively interested in such legislation, since the pattern in other states had more often been the adoption of legislation over the strong opposition of the education community. I indicated that we were glad to welcome all of you aboard our train, since more passengers might speed the desired arrival, and more ideas might design a better train. However, since this had been our issue and since we had been until recently virtually the bill's only champion, we were not about to relinquish the controls of the train. I told the group of our resolution adopted at our September, 1991, NFB of Illinois convention and said that I was bound to operate within the policies contained in that Resolution. I indicated that we were actively discussing introduction of a bill with an interested member of the State Senate and intended to have a bill introduced at the earliest opportunity. (Dick Umsted asked if I would identify the possible sponsor, and I said at that time that I could not.) I told the group that we were glad to discuss any questions and concerns anyone might have about the Texas Braille bill and indicated that we would certainly discuss changes to address agreed concerns. I emphasized, however, that we were not interested in straying very far from the Texas model and were completely unwilling to stray from its intent. My recollection of the balance of that meeting is that we all discussed a general direction for further discussion. We agreed to have a follow-up meeting January 3, at which we would go through the Texas bill section by section, discuss questions and concerns, and presumably arrive at mutual understandings. At the January 3 meeting we actually began to go through the bill. We got through Sections 1 and 2. Much of the time was spent changing every occurrence of "blind students" to "students who are blind." (I indicated that I did not understand the significance or relevance of this change, but I made no objection.) One occurrence of "medium" was changed to "medium/media," an alteration with which I concurred. We also discussed a number of other concerns, particularly those regarding multiply handicapped blind students. I explained why I thought those concerns were already addressed in the Texas model, and it was my impression that there was consensus that this was so. At any rate, no changes were proposed regarding these concerns, and at the end of the meeting we agreed that Sections 1 and 2 had been thoroughly addressed. Another meeting was scheduled for January 23 to discuss remaining sections and any other concerns. At the January 23 meeting I indicated that arrangements had been finalized with a sponsor. At another point, there was discussion of having the Illinois State Board of Education introduce the Braille bill, to which I responded that this had not been and would not be our intent. Considerable time was spent discussing the sections regarding computerized production of Braille textbooks. Dick Umsted led in pushing for specific endorsement of the American Printing House for the Blind's proposed program. I expressed concern that, while there was certainly something to be said for the notion of a national clearinghouse approach, the APH plan was by no means finalized, and there is much we do not yet know. I said that there is no reason why (assuming the adoption of the Texas model) the State Board of Education could not participate in the APH program. On the other hand, I said that it seemed to me that to endorse by legislation a program which did not yet exist and whose benefits were not yet measurable seemed to be at least putting the cart before the horse. I believe I made it clear at the time that I did not support this approach. In case I did not make it clear, let me do so now: the NFB of Illinois does not support endorsement of the American Printing House's proposed program by writing participation in it into the law. I indicated at the beginning of the January 23 meeting that I had to leave in order to catch the 6:05 p.m. train. Apparently, after I left, another meeting was set for the following week in conjunction with the Association for Rehabilitation and Education of Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) meeting in Bloomington. According to the summary material which you sent, at that meeting some of the issues discussed regarding Sections 1 and 2 at the January 3 meeting were revisited and changes adopted. I have concerns regarding these changes. But leaving aside the merits, it cannot be said that I agreed to them, because I was unaware of them and indeed was not present. To return (at last) to the meeting of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired Advisory Committee, I heard considerable discussion of a mystery bill, which had been introduced without anyone's knowledge. This is, of course, our bill. We indicated in December that we intended to introduce a bill, and we discussed progress in January. I always indicated that we would support amendments which might address agreed concerns, and this of course remains true. I also heard you, Tony Heinz, and Dick Umsted refer to the role of the Braille Bill Committee as being to prepare a draft for introduction by the State Board of Education. Let me reiterate that, as I indicated at each of our meetings, that was not and is not the NFB of Illinois's intention. Finally, I heard discussion implying that there had been total consensus regarding the output of the Braille Bill Committee thus far. The previous paragraphs would certainly imply that I do not concur with such a characterization. All this having been said, I remain confident that people of good will can arrive at an understanding and that it is by no means too late for this to occur. I think that if we are indeed to move in this direction, there must be real understanding of each participant's views and some restraint in characterizing the positions of others. Perhaps in the interest of harmony at our meetings, I have not been sufficiently forceful in stating the NFB's positions (although a lack of forcefulness is not something of which I have often been accused) and thus have contributed to a misunderstanding. Be this as it may, misunderstandings certainly do exist and must be resolved. I have discussed these matters with Steve Benson, President of the NFB of Illinois, during the past several days; and we have agreed that another forum may be the best approach for resolving such differences. He has agreed to contact you with a proposal for such a forum for discussion. I am sure that such discussions can put things back on track and that we can once again move toward finding areas of concurrence leading to an agreed Braille bill. Sincerely, PeterGrunwald cc: Steve Benson There you have the letter to Jean Osterby, and on the same day Mr. Grunwald wrote to Dr. Tuck Tinsley, President of the American Printing House for the Blind. Here is that letter: Chicago, Illinois February 24, 1992 Dr. Tuck Tinsley American Printing House for the Blind Louisville, Kentucky Dear Dr. Tinsley: The National Federation of the Blind of Illinois (NFBI) has been actively pursuing the enactment of legislation in Illinois which would improve the quality and availability of Braille instruction to blind students throughout the state. We have used the Texas Braille bill (with which you are doubtless familiar) as a model, secured a sponsor, and arranged its introduction into the State Senate. During the course of discussion regarding the bill, some representatives of the education community raised the subject of the American Printing House's proposed role as a clearinghouse for computerized data from which Braille copies of textbooks may be produced. There is certainly merit in the notion of a central clearinghouse. Potentially a great deal of duplication of effort might be avoided. Yet there is much that remains unknown regarding the ultimate potential and the current status of your efforts in this regard. Therefore, it would be most helpful if you would review for us your goals and objectives for this proposal in general and its current status. Additionally, would you please respond to these specific concerns: 1. With which publishers have you currently reached agreements regarding your clearinghouse proposal? What steps are you taking to increase the number of publishers who will participate? 2. What is the nature of your agreements with publishers? What carrots and sticks are there to encourage their participation and their compliance with the agreements? 3. Illinois does not have state-adopted textbooks. In fact, each school district is free to choose the most obscure titles for reasons of true merit, politics, whim, etc. How can Illinoisans be assured that all of the textbooks in use will be available through your proposed clearinghouse? 4. What technical standards will be in use for your proposal? What mechanism exists to develop these standards? 5. What charges or fees do you anticipate for the services of your proposed clearinghouse? What statements, agreements, or contracts will exist between APH and the recipients of its clearinghouse services? We are confident that legislation such as we have introduced would have an important and beneficial effect on blind students in Illinois. Your information may well help avoid some unnecessary controversy and thus assist the process in moving forward. Therefore, I thank you in advance for whatever assistance you may be able to provide, and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Peter Grunwald cc: Steve Benson, Marc Maurer, Kenneth Jernigan That was Pete Grunwald's letter to the head of the American Printing House for the Blind, and on March 23, he received a response from David Bice, APH's Publisher Liaison. Here it is: Dear Mr. Grunwald: Dr. Tuck Tinsley, President of the American Printing House for the Blind, has given your letter of February 24, 1992, to me for responses to your questions concerning the American Printing House for the Blind's role as a clearinghouse for permissions and electronic data from publishers. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed agreement between the American Printing House for the Blind, Recording for the Blind, and publishers. This, in addition to answers to your specific questions, should help clarify what is occurring with this issue. I believe you need a brief history of our efforts in providing a national depository for permissions and electronic data. This past July the National Association of State Textbook Administrators, to which Illinois sends a representative, endorsed our proposal for a central depository. This endorsement included a recommendation to the major textbook companies to help implement such an agreement. In August two presidents of major textbook companies and two state textbook administrators came to Louisville to serve as an advisory board for implementing the recommendation from the July meeting. The following October Dr. Tinsley and I appeared before the Board of Directors of the School Division of the Association of American Publishers in New York to explain our proposal, the enclosed document, to these eight presidents of textbook companies. Recording for the Blind officials then appeared before the group in November to confirm our cooperative approach. The AAP Board in December, 1991, voted to endorse the proposal. Don Eklund, Executive Vice-President of the School Division of AAP, and Buzz Ellis, Chairman of the Board, then announced the endorsement to the over 300 textbook publishers present at the School Division of AAP Annual M