THE BRAILLE MONITOR February-March, 1988 Barbara Pierce, 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 NFB NET BBS: (612) 696-1975 WorldWide Web: http://www.nfb.org CONTENTS FEBRUARY-MARCH 1988 RADIO READING FOR THE BLIND: SERVICE OR BOONDOGGLE by Kenneth Jernigan BLIND PEOPLE IN BRITAIN by Ian Bruce ON THE NATURE OF BEING AN EDITOR JIM OMVIG LEAVES ALASKA by Kay Porth RUTH WHELAN DIES LOVE, DATING, AND MARRIAGE: BLIND CHILDREN GROW UP AND BECOME PARENTS, TOO by Barbara Pierce BLIND PEOPLE AND THE WORLD OF WORK by Mary Ellen Reihing OF PARKING METERS AND SLOT MACHINES COMMENTARY ON A NEWSWEEK CARTOON by Bill Isaacs THE COST OF A GIFT by Marc Maurer NAC 1987: AN EXERCISE IN TREADING WATER by Homer Page OF COWS AND FIRES AND THE ASSOCIATED SERVICES FOR THE BLIND OF PHILADELPHIA by Barbara Pierce MY FLIGHT FROM DISCRIMINATION by Robert Greenberg SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1988 by James Gashel AGENCY MOVES TOO SLOWLY FOR THE BLIND by Tom Condon KANSAS INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND A STUDY IN PROFESSIONALISM AND CHAOS by Kenneth Jernigan THEY DO THINGS THEY DON'T DO ON BROADWAY by Stephen Benson PERSIMMONS. . . THE SOFT AND THE HARD AND THE CONFUSING MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1988 RADIO READING FOR THE BLIND: SERVICE OR BOONDOGGLE by Kenneth Jernigan There is much which is controversial about the field of work with the blind in this country, but when thinking about the matter, one does not usually begin with radio reading services. Yet, that program is somewhere near the top of the list, competing with such perennial favorites as rehabilitation and sheltered shops. It is one of the most controversial services being offered to the blind throughout the nation today. In fact, there are those who will tell you that radio reading is not really a service at all but a giant boondoggle. They say that although there are numerous specially adapted receivers in the hands of potential users, very few blind people ever use them. These critics say that the funds which are used for radio reading would be better spent in expanding and strengthening the libraries in the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped system, that much of what the radio reading services do is already being done by the libraries, and that the whole business is a waste of effort and money--not to mention being a massive public relations hoax, which exploits society's notion that what the blind most need is a gadget and a rocking chair, delivered with a dose of pity and admiration, with the pity predominating. Those on the other side of the question respond with equal vigor. They say that radio reading provides at least one service which the libraries not only do not but cannot give--namely, making the local newspaper available to the blind on a daily basis. These advocates contend that for many of the blind (especially, the homebound and the elderly) radio reading has been a godsend. It provides, they say, a personal touch and a flexibility which no other medium can give. Recently this controversy was highlighted for me by certain comments and documents which came to my attention, and it occurred to me that while radio reading is a sizable activity with a large budget and a substantial public relations impact, it has received little attention from the Monitor. Thinking that this neglect should be remedied, I set to work, and I think you will find the results interesting. I began by searching my memory, doing some reading, and conducting interviews --particularly, with Mrs. Rosie Hurwitz, who is the past president of the Association of Radio Reading Services and who in 1986 was apparently fired from her position as head of the Kansas Audio Reader. (Technically Mrs. Hurwitz was allowed to retire, but there is general agreement that she was given the choice of going voluntarily or going.) Federationists will remember that Mrs. Hurwitz attended our 1983 convention in Kansas City and spoke at some length about her plans for the future and the fact that the radio reading services were having problems with a ruling of some sort that the Federal Communications Commission had made or was considering. For most of us it was about that vague and that important. But complexities have a way of coming back to make one deal with them. When I began my recent delving into the area of radio reading, I found myself in the middle of subcarrier waves, base bands, and a number of other esoteric things which had never before stirred my curiosity. However, one does what one has to do. I had my first brush with radio reading when I was Director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. In 1969 I went to Minneapolis for some sort of conference and found that Stanley Potter (then head of state services for the blind in Minnesota) had just established a radio reading service. To the best of my belief and knowledge it was the first in the nation, and its general pattern of operation is still the predominant form. Each FM radio station has associated with it (don't ask me to give you the technicalities) what are called "subcarrier" channels. As I understand it, these channels can be used for broadcasting, but they cannot be heard on the regular FM radio receiver. To hear what is broadcast on a subcarrier channel requires specially tuned crystals--thus, a special receiver. These receivers are relatively inexpensive, and Mr. Potter was buying and distributing them to the blind of the area. The funds for the radio reading project came, I believe, from a private business foundation. I went back to Des Moines, and the Iowa Commission for the Blind soon established a similar service, but not on a subcarrier channel. We made an agreement with the Des Moines school district to broadcast four hours a day (two in the morning and two in the afternoon) on its regular FM open channel, which could be picked up on any ordinary FM radio. As I remember it, this was 1970 or early '71; and as I also remember it, the Des Moines operation was the second radio reading service program in the nation. However, Mrs. Hurwitz tells me that she has always been under the impression that the Kansas program was the second in the nation. She says that the Kansas Audio Reader was established in October of 1971. As I say, I think this makes it third. In Iowa we felt that the objectives of our program were somewhat different from those of the Minnesota operation. We did not want to commit major resources to radio reading since we felt that this would dilute what we were doing in the library. We wanted to read the local newspaper and give general information about blindness to members of the public who might tune in--that, and very little more. This meant that four or five hours a day would be all we would need. The Minnesota program, on the other hand, was striving for a twenty-four-hour-a-day operation, which I believe it probably now has. In this format the reading of the newspaper would obviously not be sufficient to fill all of the time, so reading of other types was done--novels, short stories, magazines, and other material, as well as interviews and pickups from National Public Radio. At the time of the inauguration of the Minnesota program in 1969, Federal Communications Commission rules tended to create a favorable climate for the establishment of "closed channel" (subcarrier) radio reading programs, and during the 1970's and early eighties such programs proliferated throughout the country. Today there are more than 100. Almost all of them were based on the Minnesota model, using subcarrier channels and special radio receivers. With all of this activity there was, as one might expect, a move to form a national organization of radio reading service programs to deal collectively with common problems. According to Mrs. Hurwitz the first informal meeting was held in 1975 in Oklahoma City, and this was followed by a formal meeting in Washington, D.C. in the spring of 1977. The Association of Radio Reading Services came into being, and (to no one's surprise) Stanley Potter was elected its first president. Not only was he the one who had started it all, but he was also generally liked throughout the field. In those days (at least, compared to these) the problems were minimal. I heard a little run-of-the-mill growling about whether the American Foundation for the Blind was trying to "take over" the coordination of the radio reading services, and there were a few other such standard worries; but mostly it was business as usual--plans for new government support, a reasonably healthy economy, and bright prospects for the future. By 1983 the outlook was different. Perhaps it all started with the federal budget crunch and the scramble to see what could be cut and where new sources of revenue could be found. Whatever the reason, the Federal Communications Commission was in a mood to give help to the public radio stations. Commerical FM stations had been able all along to use their subcarrier channels to increase their revenue. They could sell the space for private communication systems or whatever, but prior to 1983 noncommercial FM stations were not permitted to use their subcarrier channels to enhance revenue. Therefore, many of the public FM stations were not using their subcarrier channels and had been willing to make them available without charge to the radio reading services--though, according to Mrs. Hurwitz, rental fees were charged in certain instances. Now the situation was different. Mrs. Hurwitz says that, after a good deal of negotiation and maneuver, the FCC promulgated a rule saying that from that time forward public FM stations could sell space on their subcarrier channels to enhance their revenue. But there were certain restrictions. If a radio reading service had already been receiving subcarrier space from an F.M. station, that station either had to continue providing the space or help the radio reading service get something equally good. There could be no diminution of either quantity or quality of service. If the station chose, it could (as had been the case all along) charge a rental fee for the space, but the rental fee could not exceed the "incremental" cost to the station--that is, the extra cost incurred by the station because of the operation of the radio reading service. Mrs. Hurwitz says that there is now a great deal of contention as to what constitutes "incremental" cost and that this is one of the problems which the radio reading services are facing. But back to the 1983 rule of the FCC--a rule which is still in effect. If a public FM station is not selling any of the space on its subcarrier channels, Mrs. Hurwitz says that it may refuse to provide space to a radio reading service, but if the station is selling any of its subcarrier space, then it has the obligation either to provide appropriate space to the radio reading service or find such space on another channel--with the understanding, of course, that rental fees to cover "incremental" costs may be charged. To sweeten the pot for the public FM stations, the FCC in its 1983 rule broadened the band and gave each of them the potential for an extra subcarrier channel. If all of this makes your head spin, it is hardly more complex than the politics of the radio reading service programs. Apparently the Association of Radio Reading Services (ARRS) established a national office in Dallas in 1983 or 1984. By that time Rosie Hurwitz had succeeded Stanley Potter as ARRS president. Terms of office are for two years, and the ARRS constitution imposes a two-term limit. Mrs. Hurwitz was elected in 1982 and left the presidency in 1986. Her successor is Barbara Wilson of the Rhode Island library for the blind. The national ARRS office in Dallas was short-lived. I was told by a number of people that Mrs. Hurwitz (ARRS president) and the volunteer head of the Dallas office developed a strong dislike for each other and that Mrs. Hurwitz sent a truck to Dallas and brought the material from the national office back to her home base. In 1986 another ARRS national office was established, this time in Washington, D.C.; but it, too, was short-lived. It closed its doors in the fall of 1987, giving as a reason the lack of funds. The head of this second national office was Bernard Posner, the retired executive staff member of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. The director of one radio reading service program summed Mr. Posner up as follows: He didn't have any experience with radio reading services, and his prime interest was in coalitions of the handicapped, with a dash of public relations thrown in. The ARRS board wanted him to try to raise funds, but he either didn't want to or couldn't. At any rate the national office closed. Under date of November 11, 1987, Mr. Posner and his administrative assistant, Irving Gertler, sent the following memorandum to the radio reading services throughout the country: -------------------- TO: All Radio Reading Services FROM: National Office SUBJ: Farewell The National Office of the Association of Radio Reading Services will be closing its doors at the end of November. There are not enough funds to keep on operating. Later on you will be hearing from Barbara Wilson, ARRS President, as to how you can get in touch with the Association after November. Bernard Posner has been with the National Office since it first opened in March of 1986, as a volunteer National Director. Irv Gertler came along shortly afterwards--first as a volunteer, then as a paid Administrative Assistant. ARRS has been like our offspring. We worried over it, we rejoiced in its achievements, our hearts broke over its failures, we watched it grow. And after November. . .nothing. We have had an enriching year and a half. We have learned, we have grown. We are sad that it has come to an end. Thank you for your friendshiip and your support. We wish you success and happiness and fulfillment. . .all your days. Bernard Posner National Director Irving Gertler Administrative Assistant P.S. As a going-away gesture, we are sending you, under separate cover, a flexible disc containing the U.S. Constitution plus Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, thanks to the Blinded American Veterans Foundation. Hope you like it. -------------------- One of the principal ARRS services to its members has been the Tape Exchange program, by which individual radio reading services send to a national processing point taped material which they are willing to share. In turn, the tapes are duplicated and sent to other radio reading services. The Tape Exchange program is funded by a grant (said to be $75,000 per year) from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Tape Exchange program was formerly done by the people at the Kansas Audio Reader, but it has now been shifted to the Minnesota radio reading service. There are some interesting reasons given as to why this happened. Mrs. Hurwitz retired (or was dismissed) late in 1986. From all indications the process was not simple. It is said that each and every one of her employees (six or seven) went to the university officials and said that either she or they must leave. The Audio Reader program is operated by the University of Kansas at Lawrence, and I was told that Mrs. Hurwitz was due for a five- year evaluation in late 1986, at just about the time her subordinates were complaining. I was also told that she was given the choice of taking retirement or being dismissed, that she "chose" retirement, that she left as of the end of December of 1986, and that she was paid through June of 1987, presumably using accumulated leave. Mrs. Hurwitz may have lost out at the University of Kansas, but that did not necessarily mean that she had lost out with the members of the national board of ARRS. She was the contract officer for the Tape Exchange program, and I was told that the ARRS board said that there must be a contract officer at the location of the Tape Exchange program. Mrs. Hurwitz was out as director in Kansas; her successor was not (as one might have thought would be the case) asked to be the contract officer; and the ARRS board moved the program to Minnesota. So the $75,000, the jobs of the people involved, and whatever else went with the Tape Exchange program left Kansas and went north. Some radio reading officials believe that Mrs. Hurwitz used her influence to cause the shift to be made. It is said that she has little affection for the University of Kansas and scarcely more for her successor, David Andrews, who worked under her supervision at the Kansas program in the early eighties. It is also said that Minnesota is having trouble operating the Tape Exchange program and that members of the ARRS board have privately admitted that the shift from Kansas was political in nature and unfortunate in its consequences. Regardless of all of this, Mrs. Hurwitz is no longer on the ARRS board and says that she is taking no part in current radio reading service activities. But there is more to the tangled story of radio reading. It is shown in the following series of letters: -------------------- The Washington Ear, Inc. A Radio Reading Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped A Non-Profit Corporation Silver Spring, Maryland October 8, 1987 Frank Kurt Cylke Director National Library Service f/t Blind Washington, D.C. Dear Kurt: In response to our telephone conversation this afternoon, I am writing to ask you for your reaction to an item which, according to Barbara Wilson, President of the Association of Radio Reading Services, will be on the agenda of their next board meeting scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C. October 30th through November 1st. Certain members of the ARRS board as well as Bernie Posner, their national director, believe that it would be to the benefit of radio reading services to promote their use for illiterates together with the blind and handicapped. They believe it would increase the numbers of people using the services thus adding to the importance of the movement, that it would strengthen the Association and they hope would lead to wider sources of funds. I have even heard it rumored that some would promote the use for illiterates as the primary target group, but I am not certain of this. In any case, they are definitely entertaining the idea of linking the two groups together. The Washington Ear is deeply concerned for several reasons. To begin with, illiterates should learn to read and should not use a reading service as a kind of crutch. In addition, I believe copyright regulations prohibit the reading of books, magazines, and newspapers over the air to illiterates or anyone else without first seeking clearance. The copyright privileges which we fought so hard to achieve in 1976 apply only to the blind and handicapped. Finally, I strongly believe that linking the blind and visually limited to illiterates is demeaning and would place an extra burden on the blind, who already have an image problem with the general public. I also doubt that this link would increase funding or volunteer support. It would have the reverse effect. Kathy Kielich, our executive director, and I have been given time on their agenda 10:30 a.m. on Saturday the 31st. At that time I will present our views to the ARRS board, and I would like to be able also to present a letter from you outlining your objections to this issue. I believe, if at all possible, it would be best to defeat this issue on the board level before it would be taken to the membership at their next annual conference in Omaha next spring. I think at best it could be very confusing to many people connected with the organization who know little about work for the blind, and it would more than likely prove to be disruptive. . . . Sincerely yours, Margaret R. Pfanstiehl, Ed.D. President -------------------- The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. October 14, 1987 Dear Margaret: I am writing in response to your letter of October 8 in which you ask what our reaction would be to the combining of service to blind and physically handicapped individuals with service to illiterates. In sum I do not perceive that such a merging would be desirable or useful. Blind and physically handicapped individuals would not benefit from association with the concept of illiteracy if only for the fact that as an identifiable group of the general population they are the most widely read. I concur that a link would be demeaning and help in creating an undeserved and undesirable image. Sincerely yours, Frank Kurt Cylke, Director National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped cc: Kenneth Jernigan, NFB -------------------- Association of Radio Reading Services, Inc. Serving the Blind and Handicapped Washington, D.C. November 4, 1987 F. Kurt Cylke, Director National Library Service f/t Blind and Physically Handicapped Washington, D.C. Dear Kurt: As you are aware, the Association of Radio Reading Services held a Board meeting recently in Washington, D.C. One of the items on our agenda, originally scheduled on the last day along with future goals and plans, was the issue of illiteracy and radio reading services. At our last Annual Conference, one of the speakers suggested we look at this area as a possible means of expanding our service and increasing funding. However, it had not been discussed at all at the Board level. At the request of Dr. Margaret Pfanstiehl, President of the Washington Ear, Inc., we scheduled a time for her to address the Board and air her concerns although I informed her that we had not discussed it as yet. We were a little non-plused to learn that she had contacted you, the American Council of the Blind, and the American Foundation for the Blind protesting our "idea of linking the two groups together." No such plan had ever been entertained by ARRS nor will be in the future. After hearing Dr. Pfanstiehl's presentation and after a brief discussion, the Board moved to send a policy statement to all radio reading services citing our statement of purpose which is based on copyright permission for non-dramatic works and does not include illiterates but does include persons with learning disabilities who are unable to use print material. I hope this clarifies ARRS's position regarding service to illiterates. I do feel radio reading services complement the library service by bringing current local news in depth and magazine articles not available to them otherwise. We look forward to developing more services nationwide and encouraging listeners to take an active part in their communities. I feel we have a common goal in improving the quality of life of visually and physically impaired persons. Sincerely yours, Barbara L. Wilson, President -------------------- The Washington Ear, Inc. Silver Spring, Maryland November 4, 1987 Mr. Frank Kurt Cylke Director National Library Service f/t Blind Washington, D.C. Dear Kurt: I am pleased to tell you that the board of the Association of Radio Reading Services at its October 31 board meeting voted to reaffirm its commitment to the blind, visually limited, and those prevented from reading ordinary print matter because of a physical disability. It is my understanding that you will receive a letter from Barbara Wilson, the president of ARRS, confirming the organization's intent to continue to direct all its efforts towards serving the same groups they always have since the inception of the Association. You will also receive a letter from Bernie Posner, the national coordinator for the Association. He states that he never advocated including illiterates in the target group which ARRS serves. This is contrary to what we have heard. However, it is now a moot point since the Association has decided to close its national office in Washington, D.C. at the end of this month due to lack of funds. They wisely decided to direct their dwindling resources to support the Tape Exchange in Minnesota. The decision of the board was definitely influenced by your letter and the other two which were presented at the meeting. The board stated that it never intended to include illiterates among listeners of radio reading services. What really matters is that ARRS will continue to serve the same groups it always had. I believe a potentially disruptive situation has been avoided. . . . Sincerely yours, Margaret R. Pfanstiehl, Ed.D. President -------------------- Association of Radio Reading Services, Inc. Washington, D.C. November 4, 1987 Mr. Frank Kurt Cylke, Director National Library Service f/t Blind Washington, D.C. Dear Kurt: I just learned about the letter of October 8 that Margaret Pfanstiehl wrote to you regarding opening up radio reading services to the nation's illiterates. My bridgework almost dropped out when I was supposedly one of the prime movers in this new direction. Nothing could be further from truth. I never have and I never will support such a move. Further, I don't make policy for the Association; I merely carry out its wishes. I don't know where she got such a notion, but it isn't so. With all best wishes. Bernard Posner National Director -------------------- Despite Posner's protestations, many (including Mrs. Hurwitz) say that they have no doubt about the fact that he had meant to add illiterates to the radio reading population. In view of all of this background one has to wonder what the future holds for radio reading. With the problems of technology and subcarrier channels, the internal politics and infighting, and today's budget restrictions it is clear that there will be substantial difficulties. In the final analysis, however, none of these considerations will be controlling. The decision concerning the future of radio reading will be made by the blind. It will depend on whether they believe the program is basic or peripheral, substance or fluff. ================================================================= BLIND PEOPLE IN BRITAIN by Ian Bruce (From the Editor: Ian Bruce is Director General of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in London. When I was in England in the fall of 1987 to attend the meeting of the officers of the World Blind Union, I had a number of conversations with Mr. Bruce and asked him to write an article for the Braille Monitor. He said that he would, and here it is.) I was delighted when Dr. Jernigan invited me to send an article for your magazine. Although I have not had a lot of contact with the National Federation of the Blind, I have watched your organization and its work from afar over the last four years, and so I welcome this opportunity to tell you something of the position of blind people in Britain today. In this article I shall try to describe who the visually handicapped people in Britain are; what their position is; what specific services are available; which organizations of and for the blind are active; and, in particular, what the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) does. Who Are Britain's Visually Handicapped People? The RNIB estimates that there are some 300,000 blind and partially sighted people in the United Kingdom, which has a total population of about fifty-five million; but only about three- quarters of these will be formally registered as blind or partially sighted. Your definition of blindness in the United States is somewhat wider than ours and, very roughly, includes those people we would identify as partially sighted. Eligibility for registration is assessed in the main on measurement of visual acuity and field of vision. For example, one is eligible to be registered as blind if he or she has very low visual acuity (Snellen level 3/60 or less) but has a full visual field or has slightly better visual acuity (Snellen level 3/60 up to 6/60) and severely restricted field. The majority of blind people are elderly. Three quarters are over retirement age, and approximately sixty percent are over seventy-five. What Is Their Position? While income, employment, and housing are not the only important things in a person's life, they do loom large. Visually handicapped people are among the poorest in Britain. Approximately one-third of the blind people in the United Kingdom receive Social Security; one-third do not receive Social Security but have income levels below the tax threshold; and the remaining third pay taxes. There is no specific State benefit given on account of blindness alone, which is unlike many other countries in Europe. However, the poorest blind people in our country are eligible (as a right) to receive Social Security. Turning now to employment, there are no firm figures, but the RNIB estimates that the unemployment rate among visually handicapped persons is approximately three times as high as the rate for sighted persons. My guess is that this would be about an average position in Western Europe, but in Eastern Europe unemployment rates among visually handicapped people are extremely low because of special State employment schemes. As far as housing is concerned here in the United Kingdom, I have no detailed figures, but I would guesstimate that blind people have a better than average chance to live in State-provided housing (which is about one-third of the country's housing) if they are not living in their own houses. Under eligibility for access to State housing, blind people score high on eligibility criteria and will normally gain ready access. What Are The Specific Services For Blind People? I would like to turn now more specifically to various services crucial to severely handicapped people in our country. The majority of such services are run and delivered by central or local government and only a minority by the nonprofit sector. I have already mentioned State employment and housing services. In our country the structure and resources devoted to helping visually handicapped people find work are quite impressive even if they fall down quite often in the practical setting. At the Job Centers, which is what we call places where unemployed people can learn about job vacancies, there are special staff designated to help disabled people in general and blind people in particular. Also, there is a Government Scheme on a permanent basis to lend technical aids required by blind people in order to do their jobs properly. This Scheme is administered by the RNIB and means that if it is clear that a severely visually handicapped person needs a particular technical aid in order to do a job, he or she should get that item of equipment up to a limit of around $10,000. In addition, newly blind adults get special employment assessment and rehabilitation. Social Services (and, in particular, rehabilitation services) are provided by local government Social Workers in the main. There is a wide range of service design, but a common method of provision is through two kinds of workers, Mobility Officers and Technical Officers. The former, as their name implies, train newly blinded people in mobility skills, particularly using long canes. Technical officers tend to concentrate on developing and enhancing daily living skills. However, a recent study by the Royal National Institute for the Blind concluded that three- quarters of Social Services across the country provided for blind people were not up to the standard we feel is necessary. Ophthalmology services are almost exclusively delivered through our National Health Service and are available free to anyone in need. However, in comparison with other major medical specialties, waiting lists for ophthalmology appointments are among the longest. Also, our provision and training in the field of low vision aids leave a lot to be desired in many parts of the country. As for education services, the majority of these for blind young people are delivered by nonprofit organizations rather than local State education services. The split of provision is roughly fifty-fifty if one looks at partially sighted students. Around ninety percent of blind young people up to the age of sixteen are educated in separate special schools for the blind, the majority being residential and run by nonprofit organizations. After sixteen (especially after eighteen) the pattern changes, and the majority of blind and partially sighted students who go on to higher education do so in mainstream universities, polytechnics, and colleges. Even though the nonprofit organizations provide education for younger people, the schools are of course inspected by the national Department of Education and Science; and the fees involved (sometimes up to $30,000 per annum) are paid on behalf of the family by the local government Education Department. Organizations of and for Blind People I don't know whether you use these terms in the United States, but in the United Kingdom we distinguish between organizations "of" and organizations "for" the blind. The two largest organizations of the blind are the National League of the Blind and Disabled and the National Federation of the Blind. The former (with around 3,500 members) is a long-established trade union, a Member of the Trade Union Congress, and affiliated with the Labor Party. The National Federation of the Blind (whose then President, David Mann, addressed your Louisville convention in 1985) is smaller, having around 1,000 members and having no links with any political party. Both organizations are very active in pressing for the rights of visually handicapped people in the United Kingdom. In addition, there is a wide range of other organizations of the blind, in the main focusing around particular areas of interest, e.g. computer programming, physiotherapy, chess, bowls, sports in general, piano tuning, office working, etc. The three largest organizations for the blind in the United Kingdom are the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with an expenditure approaching $50 million per year; Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, with $17 million per year expenditure; and St. Dunstan's for the War Blind, spending approximately $5 million per year. There are quite a few other semi-national and local voluntary societies for the blind, but I think that I am right in saying that the Royal National Institute for the Blind is the only organization in the United Kingdom where organizations of the blind have significant representation as a right. Royal National Institute for the Blind The RNIB is governed by a lay Executive Council of ninety-six people, which splits up into six main Standing Committees which make policy on the main areas of work of the organization. Fifty-four of the ninety-six members are blind; and of these, thirty are there as of right, representing organizations of blind people. For example, the National League of the Blind and Disabled appoints eight representatives, and the National Federation of the Blind appoints six representatives. The remaining sixteen members are the representatives of other organizations of blind people. Not only are the majority of seats on the Executive Council held by blind people, but all chair and vice chair positions on the main Standing Committees (except one) are held by blind people. So even though the RNIB is an organization "for" the blind, you can see that blind people have a majority say, and it is a fair comment that the organizations of blind people are the most powerful and coherent group within the policy-making forum. The sighted members come from a number of relevant constituencies such as local and central government, local societies for the blind, other national organizations for the blind, etc. To run its service the RNIB has 1,700 paid staff and over 10,000 volunteers. Approximately ten percent of the paid staff are blind. The RNIB runs approximately fifty different services in thirty-four different locations across the United Kingdom. Broadly speaking, these services can be divided into three main operational areas, which coincide with the main operating Divisions of the organization. The Education and Leisure Division runs nine schools and colleges, covering children of all ages--singly handicapped blind people and multi-handicapped blind young people, further education, and a college of physiotherapy. In addition, the Division gives support and advice to mainstream education facilities which have blind or partially sighted students. The Leisure Unit concentrates particularly on encouraging and supporting sports and arts activities. The Vocational and Social Services Division covers employment and social services. In particular we have twelve Employment Officers across the country helping the State employment agencies to place visually handicapped people in work. Also, there is an Employment Development Unit researching new job areas, developing and monitoring technical equipment of use to blind people, and trying to open up new job areas. The Social Services side runs a consultancy service for local government social service departments to help them improve their practice, and runs three hotels for blind people and four residential homes for elderly blind people--especially the deaf-blind. The Technical and Consumer Services Division runs our Braille service (we are the largest Braille publishers in Europe); runs our various tape services, including talking books (we lend over two million books each year to our library's 66,000 members); sells $4 million worth of technical aids each year; and has an active program of technical assessment and development of new aids. The Finance and Administration Division covers many of the functions of a corporate nature, such as Personnel, Finance, etc. The fifth Division of RNIB is called External Relations and in essence covers fundraising and social action campaign work. We have become much more active recently in our social action campaigning, cooperating with organizations of the blind on joint campaigns. We have two full-time staff who work exclusively on Parliamentary activity, where all the key legislation is considered. Examples of recent campaigns include our successful opposition to the introduction of single size bank notes and the ultimate rejection of a special tax on audio tape. Unfortunately we have been less successful in our income campaign. You might be wondering where our money comes from! Very roughly, forty percent comes from fees and charges paid for, in the main, by central and local government on behalf of individual blind people; forty percent comes from legacies; ten percent comes from interest on investment; six percent comes from payments made by blind people for the technical aids we sell, albeit at a two- thirds discount; and four percent comes from fundraising activities at the local level. RNIB's Future I do not want to leave you with the impression that we are complacent or self-satisfied. We are not. Over the last three years we have actively reviewed three-quarters of RNIB services within the framework of newly developed policy guidelines on the way the organization should be developing over the next decade. Examples of these policy guidelines include the need for us to listen more carefully to the views of blind customers; the need to be more active in our social action campaign; the need to promote our services to visually handicapped peple more successfully; and the need to support more local service delivery. For the last three years we have been one of the fastest growing United Kingdom nonprofit organizations. Indeed, we are the third largest internal United Kingdom service delivery charity. We intend to keep developing over the next few years although that will be hard work, because over the last eight months our legacy income has dropped quite significantly. However, we are actively seeking out new sources of income. The RNIB was founded in 1868 by a blind surgeon. Its early services were not decided by sighted people but by taking evidence from blind people. That is a tradition we intend to maintain and extend so that RNIB work will become more extensive and more relevant to visually handicapped people, now and into the next century. ================================================================= ON THE NATURE OF BEING AN EDITOR December 18, 1987 Dear Dr. Jernigan: Last May I sent you a proclamation by the Mayor of our city declaring May, 1987, as National Federation of the Blind Month in ---. I enclosed a photo of the Mayor holding the proclamation and surrounded by members of our chapter. Did you not receive this letter from me? We were hoping that you would include the proclamation and the photo in the Monitor. Sincerely, --- -------------------- Baltimore, Maryland December 22, 1987 Dear ---: This will reply to and thank you for your letter of December 18, 1987, in which you say that you sent me a proclamation from the Mayor of ---, (complete with photo) declaring May, 1987, NFB Month in ---. You say that you and others had hoped that the proclamation and photo would be included in the Monitor, and you go on to ask whether I received the material, perhaps implying that surely I would have printed it if I had got it. The truth is that I don't remember whether I received the material or not, but I probably did. I would imagine that I get from twelve to twenty such packets each month. If I printed all of them, it would be self-defeating, for people would stop reading any of them. Then, one may ask, why print any at all? It is somewhat like putting salt and pepper on eggs. A little may spice up the product, but a whole box will be thoroughly distasteful. So the question arises: How do I determine which ones to use? After all, proclamations differ from pepper and salt, in that (unlike the uniformity of the grains) each differs. Perhaps a given proclamation is particularly well worded and could be used as a model for other chapters and state affiliates throughout the country. Perhaps it is part of a pattern of state and local activity which shows a high level of work in the state. Perhaps it is from a state or chapter that has not had a history of getting such things done, and this is a way of giving recognition and encouragement. Perhaps it gives geographic balance and spread to a particular issue of the Monitor. Perhaps it provides counterpoint to other items in the issue. Perhaps it arrived in the National Office first and is already typeset, and another proclamation would be duplicative. Perhaps it gets here several months after it occurs, so late that it begins to lose its timeliness. Perhaps it comes at a time when other stories of more importance are breaking, which simply crowd it out. Or (hardest to defend but at least as important as anything else in the whole mix if a magazine is to be ongoing, dynamic, and influential) perhaps it simply strikes the editor wrong, being vetoed by his intuition, or right, being given a go signal. For any one, or any combination, of these reasons a proclamation (or any other article) may be used or put aside. This is what editing is all about--and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. So yes, I probably got your proclamation but didn't decide to use it. As to why, I haven't the faintest idea. But whatever you do, don't stop sending material to the Monitor. Next time it may be yours that is used and somebody else who is wondering why. Cordially, Kenneth Jernigan Executive Director National Federation of the Blind ================================================================= JIM OMVIG LEAVES ALASKA by Kay Porth (Kay Porth is President of the National Federation of the Blind of Alaska.) On September 15, 1987, Jim Omvig resigned his position as Director of Alaska's Center for Blind and Deaf Adults because of ill health. Mr. Omvig went to Alaska in the fall of 1984 to head up what was then known as the Sensory Impairment Center--an agency which provided prevocational training on a daytime basis only for blind or deaf adults. When Mr. Omvig arrived, the agency was underfunded, understaffed, and blind or deaf Alaskans were receiving virtually no services. In three short years the budget was doubled, the staff was greatly expanded, a new residential center for the blind was established, new space was secured for services for the deaf, and the agency became an independent entity and changed its name to reflect more accurately what it does. The quality of services was markedly improved. In the fall of 1985 Mr. Omvig began to experience intense back, rib, and neck pain along with numbness in the legs, feet, arms, and hands. The balance mechanism in the inner ear was also affected. After numerous tests, doctors determined that the spinal deterioration which was causing the back pain and numbness was also causing nerve damage to the point that the adrenal gland was not functioning properly and was hindering the body from absorbing vitamins and nutrients. After various types of treatment, the doctors determined that because of the nature of Mr. Omvig's illness, it was imperative that he retire. The following newspaper article appeared in the Anchorage Daily News on October 1, 1987: Illness Forces Omvig to Resign James Omvig, director of the Louise Rude Center for Blind and Deaf Adults, has been forced to resign his position immediately due to illness. Omvig served as head of the center since October, 1984, when a small cottage on the grounds of the Alaska Treatment Center was the organization's entire operation. He has been credited with developing the center into a new residential training facility in Spenard, and the Center for Deaf Adults and the Anchorage Interpreter Referral Line have a new location on East Fourth Avenue. The agency's board of directors has appointed Omvig's assistant, Donald L. Stiffler, as acting director while a nationwide search is conducted for a replacement. Omvig has also resigned his volunteer position as president of the International Air Crossroads Lions Club and as a board member of the Anchorage Community College Advisory Board and Very Special Arts Alaska. He and his wife Sharon plan to move to Arizona, where Jim will undertake physical rehabilitation. On October 10 a farewell dinner was held to honor Mr. Omvig. Approximately 175 Federationists, staff, students, former students, community leaders, politicians, and friends gathered for the celebration. ================================================================= RUTH WHELAN DIES by Mary Ellen Reihing On Wednesday, December 30, 1987, Ruth Whelan (President of the National Federation of the Blind of Delaware) died of a massive heart attack. I will miss her. So will everyone who had the privilege of knowing her. But she shared her spirit so deeply that it has become a part of all of us. The blind of Delaware have more opportunities today than ever before because Ruth Whelan was among us. It would be hard to think of a better legacy. When I heard of Ruth's death, I thought back to my first contact with her. Early in 1980 Ruth read an article in the Dover, Delaware, newspaper about the Job Opportunities for the Blind program, and she wasted no time in contacting the National Office of the Federation. She attended a JOB seminar at the National Center for the Blind and quickly discovered that she had found others who shared her positive beliefs about blindness. Ruth had been blind for ten years. She had been victimized by society's negative attitudes and knew there must be something better. She began seeking blind people in the Dover area and organized them into a group which met weekly. They talked about problems and did things together to build their confidence. Helpful and supportive as these meetings were, Ruth always sensed that there could be something more. While she was at the National Center, she began reading NFB material and asking questions of long-time Federationists. Before she returned to Delaware, she realized that the Federation could change a good support group into an excellent vehicle for collective action. Her enthusiasm was contagious, and it was not very long before the Dover chapter of the NFB of Delaware was organized. Federationists in the Wilmington Chapter eagerly welcomed the spread of Federationism throughout the state. A special statewide convention was held in 1982 to adopt a constitution, plan for expanded activity, and elect officers. Ruth was elected president. I began working closely with her in the winter of 1983 when the Sussex County Chapter was organized. The temperature outside was around seven degrees, and Ruth had a high fever, which signaled the beginning of a bout with the flu. Nevertheless, she attended the organizing meeting and helped bring the chapter into being. I have been a guest in the Whelan home on several occasions. Ruth and her mother, Edith Moller, knew the meaning of welcome. I remember sitting at their kitchen table, drinking coffee until three in the morning and planning strategy for a Social Security appeal, which eventually resulted in seven thousand dollars in back SSI payments for a blind woman who had been unfairly denied benefits. Ruth understood that the road from fear and dependence to self- confidence and freedom was not always clear. She challenged herself to do more, whether the obstacle was persuading a U.S. Senator or mastering a personal skill. One day, at a national convention, I came upon Ruth at the foot of an escalator. "I haven't used escalators for years, but if other blind people can do it, so can I," she said in a determined voice. "It's not that I have to prove anything; I'm just sick and tired of waiting for the elevator." When I offered to show her a way to use her cane to keep track of the escalator's motion, she thanked me and quietly explained her problem. Diabetic neuropathy had destroyed the feeling in her legs up to the knees. She had to learn a new way to keep her balance. The next time I saw her, I was following her down the escalator. In the spring of 1987, Ruth learned that she had congestive heart failure. The doctors told her that nothing more could be done medically. With her characteristic quiet courage, Ruth intensified the training of her successor. That successor (and our new NFB of Delaware President) is Debbie Briddell. Debbie is a bright, energetic, committed Federationist. She earns her living teaching young blind children, and she gives them far more than training in basic skills. She understands that blindness does not have to be a tragedy. The difference between hope and despair is the support and encouragement we give one another. Debbie Briddell combines love for her fellow blind with a willingness to work hard. It is no wonder that Ruth Whelan was at peace when she thought about Debbie's becoming President of the NFB of Delaware. So Ruth (my friend and the President of the NFB of Delaware) is gone, but her memory and the effects of her love and dedication remain. I will miss her greatly, and so will all of those who knew her. ================================================================= LOVE, DATING, AND MARRIAGE: BLIND CHILDREN GROW UP AND BECOME PARENTS, TOO by Barbara Pierce (This article is taken from remarks made by Barbara Pierce on June 27, 1987, at a seminar for parents of blind children at the convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Phoenix, Arizona. Mrs. Pierce is the Assistant Director of the Alumni Association of Oberlin College and is President of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio.) I truly believe that the only people who maintain that they would gladly relive those vital, exciting, youthful years of their teens over again are the ones who can't remember the details. I see that all of you had adolescences just like mine--agonizing. I have great news for those of you who are parents of younger kids. I tell you as the parent of (count them) three teenagers, that parenthood of teenagers is just like being a teenager all over again, with all of the pain and agony except that you're doing it vicariously; and, therefore, you can't do anything overt to be helpful at the time. All you can do is sit and suffer. I will go on to say that every kid that ever lived through those teenage years had the conception that he or she was an ugly, clumsy misfit, who never knew the right thing to do and was never going to be picked to be married to anybody and would always be counted on to fall over his or her feet. At least, sometimes that's the way every kid feels about himself or herself. Blind kids are no different from any others in feeling that way. The manifestation of those anxieties and fears may be somewhat different sometimes. But the underlying feeling of inadequacy and uncertainty is, I think, the same for all adolescents. And I think it's particularly important that parents of blind children hang on to that sense--that fundamentally you have in your background the experience (the reservoir) of those same kinds of feelings. It's not helpful ever as a parent to say, "I know just how you're feeling." Because every kid is reinventing the wheel and is the first one ever to agonize. But, at least, remember that even when you feel most at sea about whether or not you have anything really to communicate with your youngster about because of the peculiar circumstances of the situation, you've got the emotional underpinnings of it. I would say that from the early stages (but it is particularly necessary when you are dealing with teenagers) it is critically important that you make sure that they have good role models. You must see to it that blind teenagers meet and get to know and establish friendships with competent, articulate, successful blind adults. It's important that blind kids know that it's possible to grow up to be a really normal human being who does know which fork to use at dinner, who does remember to put his napkin in his lap, who does know what to do in an awkward social situation. It does happen. A lot of us as kids were really bereft of that sort of experience. I truly grew up throughout the early part of my teenage years really having a conviction deep down inside of me that I would never marry. Who would want to marry a blind girl? I was the only blind person I had ever known. I had seen a few blind people selling pencils on streets and playing the accordian in various places in Pittsburgh, and I was quite certain that if one grew up to be like that, I knew nobody would want to marry a blind girl. I wasn't sure that I ever would grow up to be the kind of person that some other human being would elect to spend a life with. So that's why I think role models are terribly important. The next thing that I would say is that you need to start early. Again, I go back to what one of the previous speakers said. It's hard sometimes to take the time to make the kid pour his or her own bowl of cereal, but you've got to start early teaching a youngster responsibility. How are you ever going to have a teenager who is going to care about the state of his clothing and remember to wash her hair every night or every other night or remember to pick up things and be neat about their lives so that they're acceptable to other people if you haven't started early training that youngster to tie shoes neatly, to tie a tie, and to do all the things that go into civilizing the young of the species? You just have to start early. You also need to teach social skills. I may be getting into deep water here, but I think social skills are terribly important. It is not an easy thing to do, and in part it is not an easy thing to do because you are dealing with a teenage culture which is different from an adult culture. You don't want to turn your kid into a little Lord Fauntleroy at the age of ten, always wearing a perfect little suit. But it is important, for example, that blind youngsters who do not have any vision at all be trained in the importance of looking at the people they are talking to. It is disconcerting to anyone to have a blind person stand and talk to him or her three-quarters turned away--especially if that person happens to be sighted. It is terribly important that you teach those things. Nobody's going to want to go out on a date with somebody who's not paying any attention to them. You communicate to a sighted person that you're paying attention to them by looking at them, for heaven sakes. You teach a blind kid the importance of standing up straight and holding the head up straight. Again, with some kids it is a harder struggle than with others. I don't know whether it would have been a hard struggle for my parents. They managed to do it in a way that I think was positively ingenious. I am not a small woman. I'm five seven and a half, but I'm the shortest one in my family. From the time I was a kid, any time my father measured us to see how tall we were, he went through this song and dance of, "Well, you're getting there. You're not there yet. But if you stand up straight, you'll be a little closer to being there." My mother's five eight. He said, "The only problem with your mother is she's not tall enough." I've never asked them whether, in fact, they ever did this consciously, but several times in my childhood I have a vivid memory of running along in front of my parents and hearing my mother just sort of comment to my father, "Look how straight she stands. When I was a kid, I was so self-conscious about my height that I slumped, but she stands beautifully." Now, that was not directed to me. It was pointedly directed at someone else, but little pitchers have big ears. I heard and understood and was motivated to stand straighter--to keep my head up, to look up. Another thing that I think is terribly important for children to learn is to eat with good table manners. I will never forget one of my brief sorties into a residential school for the blind. I was to be tested as a junior in high school. They couldn't find an IQ test that I didn't top out of, so they were doing some special oral test that could only be given by the psychologist at the school for the blind. He tested me all morning long. Then, he said, "I've got to go teach a class, and I wonder whether you'd be willing to come in (these are seventh and eighth graders) and talk to them since you are in a public high school, and some of these kids will be going to public high school. Just talk to them about what it's like to be in a public high school." So, I went in and talked to them. And just in passing: I had a friend who had moved to a different school district, and there was a blind girl in the school district; and Betsy had told me that the kids would grab this child up and haul her through the cafeteria line, and then they'd plop her down at a table and go off somewhere else. This poor kid sat at a table all by herself in a crowded lunchroom because her table manners were so appalling that no one of those kids (and you know what kids' table manners are like) wanted to sit and watch her eat her lunch. Now, those were appalling table manners. Having that in my background, I simply happened to mention to these kids how important it was not to hunker down over your lunch and sort of shovel it in as though you were in mainland China with your bowl of rice and your chopsticks (where that's the approved manner of eating) but that it was important to use your fork and knife correctly and to put your napkin in your lap and to remember to use it--not to eat coleslaw with your fingers, and all these little details of life that do alienate other people when they have to sit and watch it. Anybody who has lived through getting a toddler to eat is pretty hardened to bizarre table manners. Some of us don't ever raise the standard again with a blind child. I think it's really important that that standard be raised. It's important that a kid be taught the elements of neatness. You can't live the kid's life and go running around tucking the shirt tail in at the age of twenty-three, but at least it's important to give the kind of feedback that says: A neat appearance is important. A clean appearance is important. We must check your clothing at the end of the day to see if it's got spots that need to be treated. If you don't see well enough to observe those things yourself, it's going to be important that you line up somebody who will look for spots and help treat them with spot cleaner. It's important that clothing be clean. It's important that you be clean. It's important that, after a certain age, you use deodorant. It's important that a teenager learn that hair must not be washed just once a week but, depending on how oily the hair is and how exuberant those oil glands are, the hair be washed frequently. Styling is going to be important. Girls have got to learn about appropriate application of makeup. Both sexes have to learn what colors look best on them. These are things that are important for a kid to learn and for a parent to take responsibility for seeing that the kid learns--whether or not they are done by the parent or by someone else. I guess the other thing I'd say is that it's important to try to teach a child to be genuinely interested in other people. People who are totally preoccupied with themselves and their difficulties are not very pleasant to be around. It's easy for blind kids to trip out on this because everybody's always wandering up to them and telling them (just because they have mastered tying their shoes) that they're just wonderful and inspiring and all of that. Kids can get very caught up in, "Everybody's interested in me." Everybody may pretend to be, but not everybody is--and certainly not all of the time. It's important that kids learn to be interested in other people and learn the conversational gambits of asking good questions to elicit information about other people. Today's dating patterns, I think, do make it easier for blind kids to date. When I was a teenager, the girls sat around chewing their fingernails hoping that somebody would ask them out, and the boys sat around chewing their fingernails wondering if they were going to get kicked in the teeth if they asked a girl out. It was generally a sort of mystifying and pretty uncomfortable situation, because there was always pairing off or pairing off in multiples of two. Now it's different. My own daughters go out in a gang, and some people will start out together and others will end together. Some of them are just sort of there as part of the group. That sort of group activity is, I think, extremely helpful to a blind kid. Encourage your youngster to participate in that kind of activity. I'm going to give you the "Pierce Plan" for socialization. This is the one that I developed as a kid, because I rapidly learned that the girl who had no experience got no experience. It's that catch twenty-two of getting a job. We want to hire people who have had jobs, but how do you get hired for a job unless you've had a job? You've got the same sort of thing for a youngster. So you get the experience in a group, and then you start dropping references. "We saw this neat movie last night." So maybe it registers in the mind of someone that, "Gee, that kid might be blind but I guess goes to movies--must be all right to go to a movie." Or, "You know, there was this terrific wrestling match we had out on the lawn, and I got covered with grass stains." Teach kids to drop hints to let other people know that they're human--that they do these things like everybody else does, that they have fun, that they don't break, that they participate wholly in activities. You need to be the person to encourage that kind of dropping of references. Basically I would say that the more comfortable the kid is with being blind, the more comfortable everybody around him or her is going to be. Whether or not the kid is comfortable with blindness in the first instance comes back to whether you are. At least, the younger they are, the more that is likely to be true. That's why it's really good that you're here--that you're here among blind people, that you're here openly talking about blindness. I have the two most terrific parents in the world, but my mother (when I was a kid) would have died rather than openly to confess to anybody that she had a blind child. So I always knew that it was important that we pretend that I wasn't blind, which was a little tricky as I began using a white cane and Braille. I had to hide the stylus. I had this nifty place behind the sofa where I scooted the cane as soon as I came in the front door so that she didn't have to see it. Even if a kid isn't fully comfortable, the kid is always capable of pretending that he or she has things under control. There was my physics class in high school. We had physics groups, and they put me in a group that had my brother in it, for one thing. (I'm sure that the teacher thought that he could take care of me, but I was the senior. He was the junior, so I had to keep him in line.) But this real hunk of a guy was in this group as well, and I didn't know how I could pull my weight. I couldn't read the slide rules. I decided to take as my turf knowing what was supposed to be happening. I laid it out to these people: "Look," I said, "I can't do a bunch of this kind of stuff that needs to be done, because it's real close work, and I just can't see it. But I will undertake to have studied the experiment the night before in the lab manual and know enough about what's going on in the textbook so that I can keep us straight on what we're supposed to be getting--not that we're going to cook the numbers, but at least we keep trying until we have them right." I came to terms with what I could do, and I went and did it. That guy turned out to be my passport into the world of dating. Let me talk about whether a blind person should date another blind person or someone who is sighted. I think there are good and bad reasons for doing either one. And there are advantages and disadvantages to doing either. The advantage to dating somebody that's sighted is that the world is mostly made up of sighted people. Therefore, you have a larger pool of people to draw from. At least, theoretically, it ought to be easier to date a sighted person. The wrong reason for dating a sighted person is because that person can take care of you or will keep you safe. I have to tell you that that's the most appealing reason for most parents--especially of daughters, because what they really want is somebody that's going to make sure that nothing happens to their little girl--and can a blind guy keep her safe? There are all sorts of pitfalls to avoid--whether your male companion is sighted or blind. So you just sort of take your chances. I would say that the disadvantage in a blind person's dating another blind person is being sort of stereotyped. You (and others) may think you're not good enough to do anything else. Of course, that's predicated on the notion that blind people are inferior. That is a bad reason for dating a blind person--the concept that one is lowering one's sights to a narrow group of people. Incidentally, it is a bad idea to limit yourself arbitrarily to any narrow group. It would, for instance, be dumb to date only redheads. But there is this sort of general feeling that--as one of the previous speakers put it-- you can relate to other blind people. To which I say, "Well, bully." I want the next generation of blind kids to grow up so emotionally healthy and tough-minded that there simply won't be any question of whether anybody needs to relate to somebody else personally because he or she is blind. The good reason for dating a blind person (and candidly the reason that I wish I had dated some blind people, except I didn't know any until I had already been married and had three children) is that it really does engender a kind of independence. You can't be taken care of, and just sort of cling to the arm of your date for the evening if both of you are blind. You had both bloody well better be caning. You can hang on, but cane, too. It does foster independence. And I think that is a really good thing for a blind kid to experience. I would say that a blind person should always cane on a date with a sighted person, and I mean more than just taking your cane along. I mean use it. Don't fold it up and put it away. Use it. I would say it takes maturity for a sighted person to date a blind person and to feel comfortable with that person. I would warn you parents that there are an awful lot of sighted people out there who are looking either for a mother or for somebody to take care of them--or who are looking for somebody to mother. Such persons tend to home in on blind people. And you just have to depend on raising your kids so healthily that they will pass through that period and not get stuck in a marriage with that sort of relationship. I guess in closing I would say that blind kids need a lot of feedback. They need honest feedback--what they did well, and (positively and gently said) what they didn't do so well, or what they need to have done. Be prepared to give that feedback or to nurture relationships for your youngster where there are people who can give that kind of feedback to your kid. It's terribly important. Those fragile egos do need to be buoyed up, so it needs to be done positively. If you tell a kid, "You must remember to wash your hair tonight--it really is getting kind of dirty," then the next morning remember to tell the kid how good it looks now that it's clean. That sort of thing needs desperately to be done. I will simply say that once you get into a relationship where somebody does think that you are a pretty terrific person, it changes the way you feel about yourself. That's what I want you to remember. Nurture that and expect that for your children. ================================================================= BLIND PEOPLE AND THE WORLD OF WORK by Mary Ellen Reihing (As Federationists know, Miss Reihing is the Assistant Director of Job Opportunities for the Blind--JOB. The following address was given at a parents seminar on June 27, 1987, during the convention of the National Federation of the Blind at Phoenix, Arizona.) When five-year-old Debbie received a nurse kit from a family friend for Christmas, she quickly decided that the life of Florence Nightingale was the life for her. When her mother gently told her that blind people could not be nurses, Debbie burst into tears. Debbie is a grown woman now and is happily and successfully programming computers for a living. Like most adults, she's not doing what she planned to do when she was five. Unlike most adults, she was taught at a very early age to limit her career options. She might eventually have ruled out a nursing career anyway, but she still remembers the shock and pain she felt at her mother's comments. What should Debbie's mother have done? She knew Debbie would be hurt by the truth, but she believed it was better to disappoint a five-year-old than to set her up for a much greater disappointment later by permitting her to continue to have unrealistic expectations. If the family friend had only thought before giving Debbie a nurse kit, maybe the whole situation could have been avoided. Debbie's mother showed courage and love in her effort to help her daughter understand blindness realistically. But she didn't have the facts. Instead of lovingly helping her daughter understand the truth, she was unwittingly perpetuating a lie! How different that long-ago conversation would have been if Debbie's mother had known a blind nurse. (I know of at least one at this convention.) Instead of saying that blind people could not be nurses, she might have explained that most nurses use sight to do their job. Instead of saying "You can't do that," she could have asked: "How can we think of ways for you to do that?" At age five Debbie would not have had many answers, but she would have acquired the habit of asking herself the question. There is a profound difference between the question "whether" and the question "how." The first allows an open-and-shut, yes-or-no answer. The second demands creative and careful thought. The first permits the negative; the second presumes the positive. At this convention you will find blind people doing jobs you thought were out of the question. So will I. You and I are positive, progressive people. You and I set high standards for ourselves and believe in the normality of the blind. You and I too often secretly wonder "whether" when we could be discovering "how." If you are a blind adult, you have already let attitudes about blindness limit your expectations. If you are the parent of a blind child, you will let those same attitudes put artificial barriers in your child's path. Instead of feeling guilty and defensive about what you should have known or should have done, take heart from the knowledge that there is a lot of occupational territory out there for blind people to explore. You and I, all of us in the National Federation of the Blind, are mapping that new ground together. Although the list of occupations represented at this convention is impressive, the list of occupations no blind person has yet done is much longer. If we do our work well, that balance will shift in a positive direction for the next generation. Children learn about work by observing the adults around them and by asking a seemingly endless stream of questions. A two-year- old whose mother is a lawyer will pick up a briefcase and say "Me wuuk." A four-year-old will observe construction workers climbing scaffolding and ask "Why?" Whether a child is blind or sighted, Mom and Dad will want to provide opportunities for learning about a variety of jobs. A blind child will not see builders at work while riding past in a car, but an erector set is a good way to explore scale models. A visit to the spot where friends are constructing a new home could be educational as well as fun. Blind children want to know all about the work blind people do. You might be able to arrange for your child to spend a day observing an employed blind adult on the job. Participation in the National Federation of the Blind is critical because it exposes you to a cross section of blind people, not simply a few individuals. If your circle of blind adult friends is not wide enough, your child may falsely assume that the only choices are jobs done by the few blind people he or she knows. Career education isn't just studying about jobs. Children need to explore their interests, develop their strengths, accept their weaknesses, and recognize that a weakness in one situation may be a strength in another. A child who always points out the truth and falsehoods in the arguments on both sides of a dispute would likely do better as a marriage counselor than as a prosecuting attorney. Someone who hates leaving the comforts of home but loves learning about ancient civilizations could find ways to earn a living studying artifacts but would want to avoid going on archeological "digs" in the Amazon jungle. Most people would be quite happy doing any one of a number of very different jobs. The concept of one "right" career is more fiction than fact. Flexibility, creativity, and the ability to recognize opportunity and take advantage of it are as important as technical skill. Begin with activities which build self-image and general competence. Is your blind child responsible for chores at home? When it's time to get under the hood of the car to change the oil or fill the radiator, do you let your child look at the engine? Do you make a habit of talking about jobs people do? How many workers are there behind the counter at the local fast food restaurant? Your child may only know about the order taker. What about basic skills? Is your child learning to read rapidly and fluently? If reading is a struggle, a wide range of occupations will be eliminated automatically, or at best made much more difficult. (Educators often fail to take future careers into consideration when determining whether or not a child will be taught Braille, frequently making the wrong decision and opting for the exclusive use of large print or visual aids instead of Braille.) Are science, math, and physical education emphasized at school? Are classroom assignments expected to be done neatly and turned in promptly? (Employers are really not impressed when a worker routinely asks for extra time to complete tasks.) Unemployed blind adults can modify and expand upon some of the same principles for building confidence and skills. There's no need to feel ashamed or embarrassed about picking up skills in adulthood which would have been easier to learn as a child. There is reason to feel ashamed and embarrassed about letting fear or false pride stifle exploration and growth. Many blind adults are justifiably angry about what they were not taught at home, in school, or by rehabilitation agencies. That anger can provide the energy to begin to fill those learning gaps. It should not be allowed to become an excuse for failing to try. On the other hand, a blind individual need not be flawless to be acceptable. By demanding absolute perfection, a person can fail to capitalize on real strengths. It is important to remember that "equal" and "identical" have different meanings. As part of my job, I supervise two secretaries. I have worked with a number of individuals over the past five years and have discovered that each has a distinctive way of achieving the desired results. One person might type rapidly and take shorthand dictation as fast as I can give it. Another cannot take shorthand and is a much slower typist. When I dictate to her, she types what I say directly into a computer. She goes back later to format her work and correct typing errors. Whatever she loses by not using shorthand, she makes up again because correcting a rough draft takes much less time than typing a document from shorthand notes. Both of the people I described are sighted. It seems "reasonable" to "accommodate" their individual strengths because doing so increases the efficiency of the office. Accommodations made because of blindness may be less common, but the same rules apply. Properly understood, "reasonable accommodation" is a bonus for the boss, not charity for an inferior worker. With the greatest effort and the best skills in the world, it can still be hard for a blind person to find work. Many of our neighbors believe that we are not just unemployed--we're unemployable. For those who are parents, the ordinary family strain associated with being out of a job is intensified by stereotypes about blindness. It's hard to know how to respond when your child says, "All of my friends have dads who work. What's wrong with you?" (I said Dad because It's socially acceptable for mothers to stay home, but male homemakers are still considered a little odd--even after all the talk about "openness" in men's and women's roles.) One way to answer your child is to say, "My job is finding work. I will work very hard at it until I succeed. After that, I'll work very hard at the job I find." Then do what you say you're doing. Every morning before eight a.m. start working at finding work. Sometimes you will go on interviews. Sometimes you will make phone calls or write letters. Keep at it until quitting time each day. Be sure your children never see you sleeping late on work days or "goofing off" on the job of finding work. Your children will learn good work habits from watching you. They will also have an answer when their friends ask, "What does your dad do?" Blind parents who are employed can use their work as a means of subtly educating their children's friends about blindness. Most schools have career days. There's no reason why one of the parents who comes to talk about an interesting job couldn't be blind. If blind adults are role models for blind children, why not for sighted children, too? At least some of those sighted children will grow up and work side by side with their blind neighbors. They will, that is, if we continue to work together in the National Federation of the Blind to make it happen. ================================================================= OF PARKING METERS AND SLOT MACHINES It seems that Paul Harvey has been doing radio news broadcasts since the beginning of time. Well, maybe not quite that long-- but longer than most people who are now alive remember. He has one of the largest listening audiences in the business, and his folksy mannerisms are unmistakable. The people who listen to Paul Harvey take him seriously. Therefore, it is no laughing matter when he makes jokes about blind people which reinforce and give credence to the time- honored myths and misconceptions. Such an event took place on the Harvey broadcast of December 22, 1987, and it stimulated a response from Paul Newman--not the actor but a blind man in Thermopolis, Wyoming. As you will see from his letter, Mr. Newman is not a member of the Federation, but the Harvey joke struck a chord with him. It often happens that way. The seeds that are planted and the efforts that are made seem wasted, but then an event occurs which brings it all into focus. It becomes clear that nothing was wasted or lost. If Mr. Newman follows through on his purpose to rejoin the Federation (and somehow I think he will), he will probably be a stronger member than he was the first time around. And Paul Harvey (though doubtless without intent to do so) will have helped make it happen. As has often been observed, the ways of providence are strange: -------------------- Thermopolis, Wyoming December 23, 1987 Dear Dr. Jernigan: Enclosed is a letter which I wrote to Paul Harvey News which I believe is self-explanatory. I do not know how big Mr. Harvey's following is throughout the rest of the country, but here in Northern Wyoming there is not a whole lot to do at 12:00 noon if you are at home or eat lunch at your desk, as I do, so most of us listen to Paul. I do not keep a tape recorder running when I listen to Paul. Yesterday I wished I had. However, the one-liner as I quoted it is pretty accurate. It seems to me that this sort of comment is in keeping with the kind of innuendo about us which your organization continues to fight and to break down. Therefore, I wanted to share this with you. I, unfortunately, allowed my membership in the National Federation of the Blind of Wyoming to lapse, but now I plan to rejoin. Keep up the good fight. Sincerely, Paul Newman -------------------- Thermopolis, Wyoming December 23, 1987 Dear Mr. Harvey: I feel it is necessary to comment on a one-liner which you quoted on your principal newscast on Tuesday, December 22, 1987. I am referring to your reference to the man in Las Vegas who broke his glasses and lost his money trying to play a parking meter. On the surface this appears to be simply a tasteless rather unfunny one-liner which might merit an indulgent chuckle from a few sick or unenlightened people. But (as you so often say) let's look at the rest of the story. It is not known precisely how many people in this country are facing sudden or gradual diminution of vision. Such individuals have sufficient fears, concerns, and apprehensions conceived in their own minds and really do not need someone like you to imply that as their vision diminishes so does their perception of common, everyday objects such as parking meters and slot machines. Knowledgeable individuals and groups in the field of work with the visually impaired maintain that the problems encountered by people who happen to be blind or visually impaired are caused much more by preconceptions and prejudices of the general public than by the visual impairment itself. I myself happen to be totally blind and do not wear glasses. However, discriminating between a slot machine and a parking meter is no problem. Let's look at the implications. We who are blind or visually impaired meet with prejudice and discrimination as a matter of course. Many of us have had and continue to have difficulty finding employment even when we are qualified. What is an employer going to think about an individual who cannot tell a slot machine from a parking meter? What is a school official or teacher with a visually impaired child coming to his/her school/classroom going to think about having a student who potentially cannot tell the difference between a slot machine and a parking meter? What is the landlord with an apartment to rent going to think about renting to a person who cannot tell a slot machine from a parking meter? The general public has enough misconceptions about blindness and visual impairment and does not need someone like you to reinforce these stereotypes and misconceptions. I hope you are not encountering visual problems yourself. However, I am sending a copy of this letter to Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland. I am sure that should you question your ability to tell a parking meter from a slot machine, someone in the National Federation of the Blind can help. Mr. Harvey, this is a serious breach of good taste and common courtesy, and I hope you have the guts to apologize to the millions of visually impaired persons who listen to you for repeating that very tacky one-liner. Sincerely, Paul Newman ================================================================= COMMENTARY ON A NEWSWEEK CARTOON by Bill Isaacs From the Editor: Bill Isaacs, who is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Illinois, is an Associate Professor of History at Olivet Nazarene University in Kankakee, Illinois. He and his wife Ruth are always among the top recruiters of Associates for the Federation. Our movement tends to affect every aspect of the lives of its members. It is not simply a once-a-month or a now-and-again affair. This is illustrated in a recent event involving Bill Isaacs. He was listening to the recorded edition of Newsweek magazine when he came across a cartoon depicting Attorney General Ed Meese as a blind man. The reader did not give details about the cartoon, but Bill Isaacs wondered and investigated. He didn't like what he found, so he did something about it. Here are excerpts from his letter to me, along with a copy of his letter to Newsweek. Observe that he is neither intemperate nor strident. Yet, he is firm and to the point: -------------------- Kankakee, Illinois December 5, 1987 Dear Dr. Jernigan: I thought perhaps this letter I sent to Newsweek concerning the cartoon described therein might be of interest to you. Attached is a copy of the cartoon which you may want to have someone interpret to you more fully. When the reader of the Newsweek magazine interpreted the cartoon on the floppy disc which I received, she referred only to the dog guide, and Meese using the banana as a telephone. My wife tells me that the picture has at least half a dozen negative images included in it, such as the man sitting at his desk with his hat on, with his coat lying on the floor and his cane hanging on the hook where the coat should be. A picture is turned upside down; the name plate on the desk is printed backwards; and the lights in the office are not turned on. I noticed that Mary Ellen Reihing's father wrote about a cartoon in the Toledo paper which must have been similar to this one. I rather think the Newsweek was viewed by people around the world to a much greater audience. I am waiting to see if Newsweek will publish my letter in their mailbox corner. Their office is pretty good about presenting or publishing negative responses to their materials. Sincerely, Bill J. Isaacs -------------------- Kankakee, Illinois November 21, 1987 Letters to the Editor Newsweek New York, New York Dear Sir: I have been a regular reader of your Newsweek magazine for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and I have deeply appreciated the depth and great variety of information which you furnish your readers. As a rule, I find your cartoons very clever in portraying their intended points very well. However, I found your cartoon in the November 16, 1987, issue depicting Ed Meese with a guide dog and speaking through a banana for a telephone in bad taste and offensive. It is an insult to an intelligent guide dog, as well as to the blind community as a whole. I know thousands of blind people, and I have never yet heard of one confusing a banana with a telephone. And I know many blind lawyer friends who could put Mr. Meese to shame in collecting valid data. Perhaps both Mr. Meese and President Reagan could use a good guide dog to steer them around numerous political pitfalls into which they have fallen in recent months. I am a dog guide user and a member of the National Federation of the Blind. Our movement has spent the last forty-seven years trying to emancipate the blind from the numerous public stereotypes which classify the blind as being stupid, dumb, clumsy, unintelligent, and undiscerning. The aforementioned cartoon very clearly refers to these misconceptions. I think a more positive cartoon could be based on a blind person with a guide dog walking carefully around a steep precipice, with the guide dog reaching over and grabbing President Reagan by the coattail and yanking him back from the cliff's edge. Meese and Ginsburg could be pictured in some fashion at the bottom of that incline. Many of us find blindness a nuisance and not an insurmountable handicap. We would very much like to convince the general public that this is so. Many more blind persons could be very productive American citizens if the sighted community were not so blind. Respectfully yours, Bill J. Isaacs Associate Professor of History Olivet Nazarene University ================================================================= THE COST OF A GIFT An Address Delivered by Marc Maurer, President National Federation of the Blind At the John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University December 9, 1987 The blind, the halt, and the lame have traditionally been objects of pity and charity. This has meant a certain degree of kindness, but the generosity has always been a mixed blessing. In physics it is said that for any action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In social affairs the same concept applies. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Those who receive charity are (contrary to the popular belief) always obliged to pay for it. One of the greatest problems faced by the blind today is that we are the objects of charity. The society at large feels that it will be called upon to give something to the blind. There is no law which requires equal treatment for the sighted. Such a law is unnecessary. However, there is a law which demands that the handicapped shall not be subjected to discrimination--at least part of the time. This law is mostly ineffective. The general public is expected to give equality to a class of persons which it regards as not being entitled to it. How do we pay for charity? What can be offered in return for the "gifts" we receive? How are the scales balanced? What is taken from the blind (or, for that matter, from other groups) in order to reach equilibrium? To answer this question contrast the position in our culture maintained by the local banker or entrepreneur with that customarily associated with the blind. As I have already said, nondiscrimination laws apply to the blind. They don't apply to the banker. Reasonable accommodation is required for the blind. It is not for the banker. Charitable fund drives are conducted for the blind. It is inconceivable that they would be for the banker. Generosity and pity are felt for the blind. The banker gets something else. For the banker there is sometimes a little envy, occasionally a touch of fear, and almost always a substantial measure of respect. The reason for the difference is that the banker has something that most people in society want. The blind are not regarded in the same way. What pays for the charity? For a large segment of the population the income tax deduction is insufficient to induce a gift. Instead, there has to be another reason. Charity salves the conscience. It is a tangible reminder for those who have done something which they regard as less than good that their lives are not without redeeming features. But there is something even more powerful than the need to compensate for past misdeeds. It is the wish to feel secure in the knowledge that the donor is helping those less fortunate. This, of course, may be restated. If I can regard you as an object of pity and charity, I am in a position superior to yours. Therefore, if I make you a gift from charitable motives, I am necessarily your superior. The blind and handicapped pay for the charity. The gift necessarily connotes inequality. This means that one of the most serious problems faced by the handicapped today is that we are the objects of charity. If we permit these circumstances to continue, we give tacit consent to the two-class system. In a relatively free society when two parties transact business, one sets the price, and the other determines the quantity. It never happens that one party decides both price and quantity. If the buyer says that fifty items are required, the seller will establish the price. If the seller indicates that the price for a specific commodity will be one hundred dollars, the purchaser will determine the number to be bought. The number may be zero or some quantity higher than that. If, on the other hand, the purchaser says that the price of the commodity will be not a hundred dollars but fifty, the seller may decide to take the merchandise and go home. In other words the quantity may be zero. The blind (just like others) have always needed certain basic commodities. Food, shelter, and clothing are essential. In the past governmental institutions, charitable organizations, or benevolent individuals have provided these necessities. But price and quantity are never controlled by the same party. The blind demanded a certain quantity; those who made the gifts controlled the price. Only when blind people began to have sufficient resources to meet basic needs, did these circumstances begin to change. If a group of individuals within society never has the opportunity to choose whether it will determine price or quantity, it lacks the essentials for freedom. Until fairly recently, the blind have been in this position. Blind people determined quantity, and someone else set the price. Because blind people were not regarded as having any trading stock--goods or services that could be sold--payment had to be made in other coin, and the price was always high. Blacks in America constitute a minority. As this group began to move from second-class status to full equality, it faced almost the same economic circumstances that now confront the blind. But there was one significant difference. Blacks were regarded as having the capacity for manual labor. The blind are ordinarily not considered suitable to perform the ordinary job in the ordinary place of business. Therefore, in the effort to become a fully integrated part of our society, blind people are at a greater disadvantage than blacks have ever been. This is true despite the absence of blind slavery. The difference is that the blind are thought of as having nothing to offer. Not only are the skills and talents possessed by the blind not sought in the job market, but often those blind persons who volunteer to give their time without cost find their offer rejected. In the minds of many the final summation for blindness is: nothing to sell and nothing that will be accepted as a gift--complete worthlessness. Of course, this understanding of blindness is completely false. The blind represent a cross section of the general population. All of the talent and all of the virtue that can be found among ordinary human beings is possessed by the blind. All of the abilities that others possess (except the ability to see) are possessed by the blind. The blind people I know are as bright, as energetic, as willing to give without counting the cost, as anxious to do a good job, and as trustworthy as anyone else in society. They are also as dull, as boring, as willing to take without giving, and as lazy. In other words blind people have all of the characteristics of the general population, except one --sight. The problem is that blindness has been regarded as the only meaningful attribute. After it has become clear that the individual in question is blind, nothing else matters. In the minds of many this one factor is the final summation. Do I state the case too strongly? Recently a blind man in St. Louis, Missouri, approached the ticket counter in a Trailways bus depot. He wanted to buy a full-fare bus ticket. The ticket agent told him that he must produce a doctor's certificate because this was necessary for a "handifare" ticket. A "handifare" ticket costs less than the ordinary bus ticket. The blind man (a member of the National Federation of the Blind) responded that a "handifare" ticket was not needed. He wanted to pay full fare for an ordinary ticket. Nevertheless, the agent refused to sell him one. When the blind man insisted on his right to pay full fare, and when he refused to leave the counter until such a ticket was issued to him, personnel at the Trailways bus station called the police and had him arrested. The language used by the police and their behavior at the depot is reminiscent of the ugly confrontations in the black civil rights movement. Last March a blind man in Washington State bought a ticket to ride on an Amtrak train. After boarding, he tried to ascend the stairs to the upper level of the observation car. The conductor told him that blind people were not permitted on the upper level. Amtrak (just like Trailways) sells tickets to the handicapped at a reduced rate. Last spring I received a letter from a woman in Rochester, Indiana, which is all too typical. It describes in miniature the problem. The writer's mother is blind. Inadequate training, segregation, and lack of opportunity are the result. The life portrayed in this letter is dismal. Here is what it says: Dear Sir: My mother has been legally blind for about twenty years. During all that time she has been in a nursing home in Rochester, Indiana, and she is only forty-three years old. She has not in all that time had any training that the blind need, such as how to read Braille. The nursing home has been her only world because of her inability to get around. I feel my mother desperately needs help. She needs to be taught the things the blind need to function in society. She is much too young to be in a nursing home. I wonder if the National Federation of the Blind can help in this matter. I don't have money or the know-how to assist her, and I was told maybe you could help. She's wanting to get out of the nursing home. Sincerely yours, Twenty years of a person's life is a long time--and for this woman (and many others like her) those twenty years are a bleak memory of twisted hell--of desolation, pain, and lack of opportunity. We in the National Federation of the Blind are organized to make absolutely certain that blind men and women have something better to do with their lives than go into nursing homes in their twenties. I wonder whether the bonds of steel and leather traditionally associated with captives and slaves have caused more desolation in the lives of those who have been forced to endure them than has been caused by the kind of "compassion" which consigns blind people in their twenties to nursing homes. What should we do to promote a more realistic approach? I do not recommend that all charity come to an end. Nor do I recommend that the blind stop accepting all gifts. Instead, I urge all of us to try to understand the nature of what we do. For all human beings everywhere there are times that demand charity. However, there also comes a time when responsibility must be accepted. Full participation in society will produce more and cost less than dependence upon charity. If we, as a culture, systematically refuse to permit a group of people to reach its potential, then we have set the stage for conflict. Such behavior creates an inferior class. When the group that is regarded as inferior discovers that the two-class system is a lie, it will insist upon its rights. When this happens, there will be confrontation. The blind of this nation (organized in the National Federation of the Blind) are committed to achieving equality and first-class citizenship. We regret that there is apparently a certain amount of conflict built into the transition from second- to first-class status. But we know that blind individuals, blind people as a group, and our entire society will benefit if the worth we represent is recognized and given its proper place. We are appreciative of the kind words, the good wishes, and the donations of those who have joined us to ensure that our struggle for freedom comes to fruition. But we are also committed to ending forever the philosophy which says that the proper role of the blind person is the recipient of someone else's charity. The proper role for the blind is the same as it is for the sighted. There should be charity given and received on both sides. There should also be responsibility and opportunity. ================================================================= NAC 1987: AN EXERCISE IN TREADING WATER by Homer Page (As most Monitor readers know, Dr. Homer Page is Deputy Mayor of Boulder, Colorado. He is also a Professor at the University of Colorado.) The 1987 annual board and membership meeting of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) was held on November 13-15 in Dania, Florida, near Fort Lauderdale. Perhaps the most significant impression that an observer took away from the 1987 annual meeting of NAC was one of an organization that is just barely treading water. NAC has cut back on staff and reduced its budget over the past two years. A number of agencies have refused to re-accredit during the past year, most notably the Governor Morehead School for the Blind in North Carolina and the Rhode Island state agency which serves the blind. In addition, attendance at the 1987 annual meeting was noticeably down. When those attending the 1987 NAC board meeting arrived at the Airport Hilton in Dania, Florida, they were greeted by over 200 members of the National Federation of the Blind. Federationists had gathered from throughout the nation to let NAC and the public know that NAC accredits the most repressive agencies and has failed to involve consumers in the development of standards for services that could actually make a difference in the lives of the blind. The 1987 NAC annual board meeting was the smallest in many years. Under seventy persons attended the NAC banquet, and fewer than thirty-five were in attendance when Dennis Hartenstine, the NAC Director, gave his annual report on Sunday, November 15. On Friday, November 13, three busloads of Federationists visited the Lighthouse for the Blind of the Palm Beaches in West Palm Beach, Florida. Representatives from the local newspapers, television stations, and radio came out in abundance to cover the story of blind persons protesting against the policies and practices of the very agencies that are supposed to be helping the blind. The press was genuinely surprised that we had come from all over the nation to make our voices heard, and that so many of us were active in our communities, had families, and held positions of responsible employment. One can only imagine what Florida's NAC-accredited agencies tell the press and public about the blind. A second item which caught the attention of the press was the reaction of Federationists to a loud bell which rang whenever anyone pressed a button which activated a pedestrian walklight at a crossing directly outside the front door of the Lighthouse. Each time the bell rang, a resounding chorus of boos went up, followed by the chant, "You don't need a bell when you teach the blind well." A sign was also prominently displayed at this crosswalk which said, "Blind Pedestrians." No symbol could have better demonstrated just how little respect NAC-accredited agencies have for the ability of blind persons than did this degrading bell and sign. Thousands of people each week drive by this location and are told that blind persons are not capable of performing the simple task of crossing the street without very special equipment and attention. Is it any wonder that there are blind workers who, according to the director of the Lighthouse, are paid under ninety cents an hour? This figure was verified in an article that ran in a local newspaper, which quoted directly the director of the Lighthouse. Mr. Hartenstine stated in his annual director's report that NAC should not be judged by the relatively few agencies that it has been able to accredit in its twenty-one-year history, nor by the organization's inability to find new sources of revenue, nor even by the quality of services that it provides to its accredited agencies. Rather, he asserted it should be judged by the impact that it has had on the field of work with the blind and on the lives of blind persons. When I think of that bell and the sign at the Lighthouse of the Palm Beaches and those persons working inside who receive under ninety cents an hour, I find that I must agree with Mr. Hartenstine. NAC must be judged on its impact on the quality of services that NAC-accredited agencies provide and on the damage which those agencies have done to the lives of blind persons. The Lighthouse, of course, is NAC-accredited. ================================================================= OF COWS AND FIRES AND THE ASSOCIATED SERVICES FOR THE BLIND OF PHILADELPHIA by Barbara Pierce After looking into the short, sorry history of Associated Services for the Blind of Philadelphia (ASB), one is reminded of lines from an old girlscout camping song about the great Chicago fire: One dark night when we were all in bed, The cow kicked the bucket in Mrs. O'Leary's shed. What portion of the blame for the catastrophe which followed the action of Mrs. O'Leary's cow belonged to Mrs. O'Leary, her cow, or the Chicago city fathers is hard to determine; but the fact that Chicago vanished in a conflagration was immediately and painfully obvious to everybody. Yet, in the case of ASB, it is important for the blind of the nation to have some idea of what has happened and why--of who is responsible for the various parts of the mess, and what can be done about it. We are the recipients (and too often the victims) of such services. We are the employees (and sometimes the Board members) of such agencies. The saga of ASB is highly instructive if disheartening. Each strand of the plot is tangled with others, and every time one seems to have isolated a single element of the story, it suddenly opens into new vistas of questionable practice or double-dealing. For an organization that came into being as recently as 1983, the Associated Services for the Blind of Philadelphia has created a melodrama with an astonishingly large cast of characters, a significant number of whom have angled for the job of Executive Director or have served, however briefly, in that position. Even to begin to understand the current situation, we must go back to the founding of ASB. In October of 1983, three loosely-related agencies merged to form Associated Services for the Blind: Volunteer Services for the Blind, Radio Information Center for the Blind, and the Nevil Institute for Rehabilitation and Services. In July of 1984 W. Benjamin Holmes was named Executive Director, a post in which he served for almost exactly three years. One ominous indication of uncertainty and distrust from the beginning was that (rather than establishing a compact, working board of directors for the new agency) the architects of the merger combined the boards of the three groups, bringing the size of the new board to about fifty members. The Executive Committee alone numbers fourteen, a guarantee that the Board will yield its authority to the Director and the Executive Committee. From the beginning, the NFB of Pennsylvania opposed the merger, fearing that it would result in expanding bureaucracy and decreasing service to blind people. In retrospect, exactly this seems to have happened. The Radio Reading Service, clearly the stepsister of the ASB operation, has suffered a decline in programming quality since the merger, and the listenership has predictably shrunk as a result. The station has had an unfilled full-time staff position for several months, and there seems to be no rush to fill it. Sensible, adequate, and speedy delivery of social services to blind people is a goal that has eluded agencies in the field almost completely since Dr. Jernigan left the Iowa Commission for the Blind. One can perhaps understand a bureaucratic state agency's inability to cut red tape in order to respond quickly and adequately, but one always hopes that private service agencies can do better. ASB, however, has rigidly refused to provide any social service to blind clients unless that service is contracted for by another agency or provided by grant money from an outside source. Humanity and compassion are, of course, the last things that one can expect from a large, many-layered bureaucracy. The final indication that the Pennsylvania Federationists' fears about ASB's threat to the blind have been justified is provided by the ASB's Braille Division. Management, as so often happens, has taken the lead in fighting against workers' efforts to form a union. It is already clear that Braille production in 1988 will be down since ASB has lost the contracts for producing all of the magazines it has been publishing, including The Braille Book Review, Ladies' Home Journal, and Jack and Jill. Information about book production contracts for this year was not available at the time of writing, but the news is expected to be bad. The years of the Holmes tenure as Executive Director were far from smooth, though there are those who give him full marks for doing a good job of completing the actual merger. However, in its first three years of existence the Braille Division compiled a deficit of $200,000 for the first year, $125,000 for the second year, and at least $60,000 for the third year. Holmes pointed out to a Braille Monitor reporter that during the final few months of his service the Braille Division was operating in the black, a contention disputed by others we interviewed. A large part of the confusion stems from the fogginess of the financial picture available even to members of the Board. No one (at least, no one with the consumer's interest at heart) knows for sure what is happening fiscally. At any rate, during the summer of 1985 the employees in the Braille Division began agitating for the opportunity to have representatives sit down with management to discuss work-related policy issues. Not until this request was refused did they begin to discuss forming a union and petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to recognize them. As one might have predicted, management fought this effort with all the tools usually employed against labor, including high- priced attorneys and appeals to the NLRB. In late 1985 ASB appealed to the NLRB to block formation of a union on the grounds, first, that as a nonprofit agency it was not under NLRB jurisdiction and, second, that any bargaining unit should include all ASB workers. With this second maneuver ASB hoped to defuse the unionizing impulse by including groups of workers with diverse concerns and interests. The union leadership, however, agreed to the larger bargaining unit and submitted a revised petition to the NLRB the next day. As a result an election was held in February of 1986, but ASB appealed again on the first ground--that it should not have to deal with a union. The ballot box containing all workers' votes in the union election was impounded for a year while the ASB lawyers dragged everyone through the second appeal. The NLRB, unimpressed by ASB's strange logic, ruled in favor of the workers. Finally the ballot box was opened in April of 1987 to reveal that ASB workers had voted for the union by a margin of two to one. While this expensive and all-too-familiar farce was being played out before the NLRB, the Board of Directors concluded that ASB needed an Executive Director with more financial acumen than Holmes had demonstrated. They wanted him out without having to fire him, so they offered him a month-to-month contract. Holmes, not unnaturally, disliked this proposal and began looking for other employment. The arrangement allowed both parties to write history according to their own lights. Holmes could say that he had decided to leave voluntarily, and the Board could begin the search for his successor without having to make him a sizable severance payment. A nationwide search for a new Director began in the spring of 1987. Holmes actually left ASB last July, while the Board was still poring over some one hundred fifty applications, including three from current employees: Peg Hess-Fenell, head of public relations; B. T. Kimbrough, Director of Services; and James Swed, Director of Development and past Director of two of the three agencies comprising ASB. Louis McCarthy, President of the union, offered to do the job for $30,000 a year instead of the $57,000 being advertised, but his application was apparently not taken seriously. Someone was needed to serve as Acting Executive Director of ASB until a candidate could be hired. Joanne Davidoff, the President of the ASB Board and a member of the ACB, was tapped to serve until the end of August when she would return to her regular job at Overbrook School for the Blind. Ms. Davidoff probably regrets the impulse that landed her in the leadership of ASB for even such a short time. For one thing, it increased her visibility-- visibility, for instance, concerning the contract which Associated Services had with the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA), which operates a paratransit division to transport disabled passengers. It is now a matter of public knowledge that for at least two years SEPTA has provided Ms. Davidoff door-to-door service to and from Overbrook or ASB every work day. Not only does this arrangement underscore Davidoff's dependence, but the company does not have jurisdiction in Montgomery County, where she lives. Some ASB workers have complained because she has been the only blind person to be offered such convenience, and others (in the NFB) have felt that this arrangement suggests that blind people cannot travel safely and independently. This last consideration probably does not weigh heavily in Davidoff's thinking. As President of the Board, she issued the invitations to the annual volunteers luncheon in 1986. A quotation from this invitation seems to typify her attitudes about blindness and blind people, herself included. Here is what it says: "The professional takes one hand and the volunteer takes the other of our blind and visually impaired friends. Together they lead him from a world of dismal uncertainty into a brilliant future of independence." Davidoff, then, was at the helm on August 10, 1987, when management and the union clashed--ultimately sending the union out on strike on August 25. The union had already filed four unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. These had to do with ASB work policies and decisions taken without consultation with the union; and the NLRB had scheduled a hearing to consider all four charges. On that fateful August 10, 1987, Louis McCarthy (President of the union) was consulted about time-off policy by another employee in the Braille Division. When he paused to explain the policy, Abraham Varghes, a supervisor, told him twice to stop discussing the union and get back to work. McCarthy assured him that the discussion was work-related and finally threatened to slap Varghes with an unfair labor practice charge. Varghes, who does not speak English well, reported to his superior that McCarthy had threatened his life. Management announced that they would investigate the incident. Four days later McCarthy received a memo demanding that he cease threatening employees, visitors, or volunteers. He was told not to discuss union matters on work time. If he did not comply with these demands, he would be open to disciplinary action. This memo was placed in his personnel file during the same week as the incident with Varghes, so McCarthy concluded that it constituted a reprimand. Management denied this interpretation, but they made it clear that they intended to use the memo whenever it suited them. The memo was written and placed in his file without McCarthy's witnesses being heard despite ASB's earlier assurance that there would be an investigation. David Brown, Head of Personnel and agency negotiator with the union, explained that one witness refused to comment when asked what happened between McCarthy and Varghes. Brown seems to have assumed that the man did not wish to embarrass a coworker. McCarthy, however, has collected affidavits from a number of witnesses, including the worker who refused to talk to management. These support his version of the incident. McCarthy reported that the worker was afraid of bringing down the wrath of management on his head when he was questioned. For a week and a half McCarthy and his shop stewards unsuccessfully attempted to persuade management to conduct good- faith negotiations, but management would not yield. During their morning break on August 25 between twenty and thirty workers began a protest in the cafeteria at ASB. When they were told to return to work or go home, they moved to the street, where the nine-day-long strike began. Three days later the NFB of Pennsylvania (led by Betsy Gerhart, First Vice President, and Pat Comorato, one of the Pennsylvania affiliate's leaders and a Member of the ASB Board since 1983) joined the picketers. For the first several days, picketers made no effort to close the ASB building. They contented themselves with registering their grievances against management by using picket signs and interviews with the media. The NFB was instrumental in dealing with the press. Stories appeared on television and radio and in both of the Philadelphia papers. The two stories that follow are illustrative of the coverage--less than ideal but alerting the public to the situation at ASB: -------------------- THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AUGUST 27, 1987 Employees on Strike at Firm That Makes Braille Products by Edward Power Carefully guided by his seeing eye dog, Devin Lukens paced a strip of pavement at Ninth and Walnut Streets yesterday, a poster hanging from a string around his neck. Near him, other people with posters tapped their way around the circle with white canes. "ASB Has Unfair Labor Practices," read Lukens' sign. "Conversation, Not Confrontation," read another. The twenty workers, about a half dozen of them visually handicapped, were in the second day of a strike against their employer, Associated Services for the Blind (ASB), at 919 Walnut Street. The employees contend that ASB unfairly reprimanded the president of the newly recognized union. Louis McCarthy, the union's president, was accused of threatening a supervisor with bodily harm. "If we had just gone back to work," said Lukens, explaining the walkout, "they could have done it to someone else." "We might as well start now and show them that they can't do this to us. They're not going to do it now and they're not going to do it later," said Lukens, a Braille proofreader who has worked for ASB for about six years. Lukens and about thirty-five other workers are represented by the ASB Employees Group, a small, independent union that won recognition from the company in April. Since then, contract negotiations have been going on between the union and management, but both McCarthy and ASB officials said yesterday that the strike has nothing to do with wage or benefit demands. At issue, they said, is an August 10 incident involving McCarthy, a worker in ASB's Braille department, which translates books and magazines into Braille, assembles Braille texts, and ships them to various institutions around the country, including the Library of Congress. McCarthy said yesterday that on August 10 he was discussing a work-related problem with another ASB employee when a supervisor approached them and told the pair not to discuss union business on company time. When the supervisor gave the pair a second warning, said McCarthy, the union president turned to the man. "I told the supervisor that if he continued to harass any of my members, that I would slap him with a [labor practice] charge," McCarthy recalled. But the supervisor, said Joanne Davidoff, acting executive director of ASB, contends that McCarthy threatened to harm him physically. Four days after the incident, McCarthy said, he was notified that a letter was being placed in his personnel file. The letter cited the supervisor's contention of a threat and enjoined McCarthy from any future threats at the risk of losing his job, he said. On Tuesday, McCarthy and about twenty other employees staged a protest in ASB's cafeteria, asking that the letter be removed from McCarthy's file. Soon after the protest began, said several union members, an ASB supervisor entered the cafeteria and told the workers to return to their jobs or go home. About twenty workers then took their protest to the sidewalk in front of ASB's offices. "Anybody here will tell you I may do a lot of things and say a lot of things," said McCarthy, "but I'm not going to threaten anybody's life." "Basically, their attitude toward us is condescending and disrespectful," said Margaret Wilson, a Braille transcriber who has worked for ASB for eight years. "We get a total lack of appreciation. We come to work in good weather and bad. The salaries are bad, the raises worse." McCarthy said that union representatives have had two meetings with ASB officials to discuss the strike issue but that management representatives have refused to discuss removing the letter from McCarthy's file. Davidoff said of the dispute: "We'd like for them to come back to work. We don't want to see them lose money. We don't want to see them lose their jobs. We think we're bending over backwards to be responsive." -------------------- THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AUGUST 29, 1987 Strikers at Braille Facility Get Support from Other Groups by Edward Power A group of about twenty-five striking workers, many of them visually handicapped, drew support yesterday from other Philadelphia unions and a national advocacy group as they entered a fourth day of a walkout against a company that produces Braille texts. The strikers, members of the Associated Services for the Blind Employees Group, continued to picket yesterday in front of the company's offices at 919 Walnut Street. They walked off the job Tuesday when company officials refused to withdraw a letter of reprimand from the personnel file of an employee accused of threatening a supervisor with bodily harm. The employee, Louis McCarthy, is a worker in the Braille department of Associated Services for the Blind and is also the president of its employees' union, which only recently received recognition from the company after a two-year legal fight. Joining the pickets yesterday was Betsy Gerhart, a state board member of the National Federation of the Blind, which pledged its support to the workers. McCarthy said he also had received messages of support from local branches of the hospital workers' union and the Teamsters. Gerhart said, "We have been concerned for some time with what's been happening in this agency, their attitudes toward the blind and their lack of service to blind people in the community." Gerhart said her Federation has promised to bus in visually handicapped people from Maryland and Delaware to join the strikers on the picket line next week if the company does not settle the dispute. She said similar support has been provided for blind workers in at least three other states. "In other situations, the same kinds of tactics were used to stop workers from unionizing," Gerhart said. "And now here they're harassing the president of the union. Patrick Comorato, one of about fifty board members of Associated Services for the Blind, also joined the strikers yesterday. "As a board member," said Comorato, "I think the board is remiss in its duty and responsibility to the blind, and I think it's a bad situation here." McCarthy said late yesterday afternoon that Associated Services' management had rejected a proposal by the union that the letter of reprimand be removed from McCarthy's file and that the company conduct a new investigation into the allegation against him. McCarthy said that if the company had agreed, the workers would have immediately returned to their jobs. Joanne Davidoff, acting executive director of Associated Services, could not be reached for comment. The strikers make up about a quar