THE BRAILLE MONITOR July, 1990 Kenneth Jernigan, 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 THE BRAILLE MONITOR PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS JULY, 1990 A VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE by Kenneth Jernigan WHY BRAILLE LITERACY BILLS? by Michael Freeman WHAT CAN'T BLIND CHILDREN DO? by Carol Castellano THE VALUE OF COMPARISON YET ANOTHER BRUSH WITH THE AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL by Kay Porth PACKING YOUR OWN PARACHUTE by Tom Ley SEARCY EWELL NAMED VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR GRAND JURY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING ALABAMA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND BLIND SO YOU DON'T DRIVE by Larry Streeter FROM THE EDITOR'S MAIL BASKET: FURTHER COMMENTS ON BRAILLE COLLECTIVE ACTION PAYS OFF IN MINNESOTA by Scott LaBarre DONALD GIST APPOINTED COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND PROBLEMS WITH COUNSELING THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED by Fareed Haj, Ph.D. LAWYER BEATS MEDICAL ODDS I HAVE A RIGHT TO SKATE IN THE MIDDLE by Diane McGeorge FOR THE BLIND, BUSINESS OWNERSHIP OPENS A CLOSED DOOR: ENTREPRENEURSHIP RISES ALONG WITH SELF-ESTEEM AND LENDER CONFIDENCE RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1990 A VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE by Kenneth Jernigan I have been to the White House four times during my life. The first trip occurred early in the 1960s, maybe 1962. I went with Tim Seward, Congressman Walter Baring's assistant, to talk with Larry O'Brien, who was an official in the Kennedy administration and a key figure in the Democratic Party. My second visit was some twenty years later when I spent approximately forty-five minutes talking with the then Vice President of the United States. I was trying to get him to make a distinction between organizations of the disabled (particularly, the blind) and officials of state and federal agencies operating programs for the blind. I told the Vice President that the National Federation of the Blind was the only large organization of disabled people in the country which, to the best of my knowledge, had not at one time or another taken swipes at the Reagan/Bush administration but that no Federationist had been appointed to any of the national advisory councils or committees making government policy for programs affecting the blind. It was a spirited but thoroughly friendly conversation, in which the Vice President told me that he was not knowledgeable about programs for the blind and I replied that I was not talking about programs for the blind but about politics a subject on which he was quite knowledgeable. The Vice President was interested and gracious, and I left with positive feelings. My third trip to the White House occurred shortly after my meeting with the Vice President. I was privileged to be part of a delegation that visited with President Reagan in the Oval Office. There were a number of us there, and I was certainly not the key figure in the conversation, which was quite brief but that in no way diminished my sense of the honor of being allowed to be there. Any American who is permitted to stand in the Oval Office of the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States should, in my opinion, feel singularly privileged. My rural upbringing in the hills of Tennessee is too much a part of my being for me to feel otherwise. My fourth trip to the White House (and probably my last) occurred on Tuesday, May 1, 1990, when President Bush invited about a dozen representatives of publications which deal with the disabled to interview him. The meeting was scheduled for 11:15 in the morning, so Mrs. Jernigan and I left Baltimore early to allow for the Washington traffic and unexpected delays. The meeting was held in the Roosevelt Room, which is near the Oval Office, and there was an air of expectancy as we waited for the President. We were allowed to tape, so I set up my recorder as we waited. When the President came in, he sat near the middle of the table. He said he would start at his left and go around the circle, taking a question from each of us. Since I was at the end of the table on his right, I was tenth in line. I want to print the entire text of my exchange with the President, following which I will share with you some of my thoughts about it. As you will see, the President had obviously been briefed about what I was likely to ask him, and just as obviously he indicated that he remembered our earlier conversation. Here is how the exchange went: Press Conference, May 1, 1990 President Bush: Ken, I have never thought of you as a reporter, but here you are. (laughter) Delighted to see you. Monitor Editor: Well, I edit the Braille Monitor , Mr. President, which is the largest circulation magazine in the blindness field. President Bush: You do head that? Monitor Editor: Yes sir, I edit that. President Bush: I take back my attack on you. (laughter) Monitor Editor: We circulate over 30,000 copies a month of it in Braille, print, and recorded form. Mr. President, I had the pleasure to meet with you on an afternoon when you were Vice President. President Bush: I remember that. Monitor Editor: You were most helpful then. I appreciate that. We have a problem, I think, in this country about who speaks for various groups of persons with disabilities and, specifically in our case, who speaks for blind people. Now, I still find government officials who can't distinguish (or won't distinguish) between listening to government agencies who say they speak for the blind, on the one hand, or listening to elected leaders of the blind who are chosen by the blind themselves, on the other. That's all very well except that it impacts on all kinds of things. Let me give you an instance and then ask you a question about it. Members of your Administration and you personally have strongly advocated for equal rights for persons with disabilities. The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 prohibits discrimination against disabled persons in air travel. Yet, ironically (citing this law as a reason) the Federal Aviation Administration has just issued rules restricting our seating on planes. The rules say that discrimination is not permitted. They go on to say that a passenger must be able to see to sit near an exit. Now, there is no evidence of a safety problem. In fact, blind persons have, on more than one occasion in emergencies, helped with evacuations during times when lights were out on planes. My question to you, Mr. President, is this: Is it possible that some persons responsible for airline regulations haven't got the message that you oppose discrimination and, more to the point, is it too late for another look to be taken at that situation? President Bush: Ken, in the first place, I have the blessing of having a Secretary of Transportation who, on this subject, is about as sensitive as anyone I know. He went down, I am told, and actually tested the doors (aside: Is that right?) Unidentified Voice: Yes. President Bush: On this kind of situation, and I think they have formulated regulations that obviously you disagree with. And it is almost like sitting next to this one exit door is almost like an additional member of the crew in that that person has a responsibility to be able to open the hatch, or whatever it is, in event of an accident. And whether the regulation can be changed so as to have flexibility in instructing a nonsighted person who sat there, I don't know, and I'd be glad to talk to Sam Skinner about it. But the door, the opening, for example It's not just (as I understand it) against... aimed at disqualifying nonsighted people from sitting there. I believe that there has to be some evidence that the person is physically able to open that hatch, 'cause it's almost like an additional safety factor for the airline. I will ask Sam, given this interest that has been brought to my attention before this meeting, as to whether there can be some flexibility in terms of a person, you know, Look, here is where this handle is. If something goes wrong, reach over and open the damn thing. I think it was done on a basis, not to discriminate, but really to try to save lives, and by being sure that whoever sat there was totally capable of (without instruction) knowing where you grab, reading the instructions and I think that is where the dilemma comes from. But if there is some other way to handle it, Ken, why I think we're in the nondiscrimination business, not the discrimination business. So let me see if we can talk to Sam about it. What is your answer if he said, Now wait a minute; there's a safety function here. Monitor Editor: Mr. President, if it is truly a question of safety, we want to ride as safely as anybody else. Of course we don't want to sit next to that door. I don't think we're really dealing with that. I have personally evacuated one of those planes, participated in a test evacuation and I know a number of other people who have. And it's not a question of whether you feel better sitting next to that seat or not. Often blind people have been assigned to those seats, and then a great row has occurred public humiliation follows. My answer, I guess, is this: If there is the slightest evidence of a safety problem, that ends it. We think there is not, and we evacuated and took video tapes of that and presented them in evidence. There is, as you may know, a bill that is now before Congress that has thirty-seven Senatorial sponsors, including the ranking Republican member of the Aviation Committee of the Senate. It has already passed the Senate Committee. It has 180 co-sponsors in the House, where it is now stuck, and it simply says that you can't discriminate on the basis of eyesight in seating on a plane. So I guess, Mr. President, that my answer is: We think we have evidence that it is not a safety problem, and if there is, that ends it. President Bush: All right. Well, that's a very broad view of it and if there isn't evidence, then I'll end it if I have the power so to do. Because, as I say, we are trying to get out of the discrimination business and into the business of nondiscrimination. I appreciate your phrasing it that way, but the way it was presented to me is strictly in terms of almost an extra attendant in the cabin for that one seat and for safety. Monitor Editor: Can somebody then be assigned to look into it or talk? You know, that's all we ask? President Bush: Yes, Boyden Gray will look into it. He's an expert on regulations per se and has a very close relationship with Secretary Skinner. So we will, and we'll get an answer to you on it. ____________________ That is how the conversation went, and I came away with mixed feelings for while I feel honored to be allowed to be in the presence of the President at the White House, that does not diminish my capacity to reason or my concern that blind people receive fair treatment from the government. Whether the exchange with President Bush was positive or negative will depend on what was meant and what follows. When, for instance, the President says that Secretary Skinner went down and actually tested the doors on this kind of situation, one has to be a bit troubled. Secretary Skinner is not knowledgeable about the techniques of blindness. He has not had training in those techniques, nor can he make informed judgments as to what a blind person can or cannot do. It would be like my trying to make a decision about what a surgeon can do by going to the operating room and experimenting with the instruments good for public relations but not much else. Likewise when President Bush says that he will ask his legal counsel, Boyden Gray, to look into the situation, it depends on what will actually be done. The President said that Mr. Gray has a very close relationship with Secretary Skinner and that he will get an answer and get back to us. If this means that Mr. Gray will simply talk with Secretary Skinner (and perhaps with FAA officials) and then tell us what they say, it will be an exercise in futility. If it means that Mr. Gray will ask Secretary Skinner to talk with us and consider our evidence, then we are dealing with something else entirely. I hope it will be the latter. I fear it will be the former. I believe the President approached my question with good will and sincerity, but I also believe he got his briefing from people who were opposed to our position and did not give him all of the facts. Perhaps they did not have the facts to give. For example, surely anyone who has observed the normal configuration of exit row seating would not argue that the people who sit in those seats have special training or competence. And obviously the people who sit there should be able physically to open the hatch or window, but that is exactly the point. Blind people can and have, and many of those who routinely sit there can't and haven't. Moreover, no one has ever said that the blind are the only ones at whom the discriminatory regulation is aimed. Again, that is exactly the point. We are lumped with small children, the frail elderly, the extremely obese, and a variety of others but the facts are that those others (whether they should be or not) are not ordinarily barred from such seats. As we have so often said, this issue runs much deeper than who sits in an exit row, and it is very hard to get people to deal with it with their minds and not just their emotions. I came away from the interview feeling that President Bush is perceptive and truly concerned to do the right thing, not just about our issues but about anything he approaches. I think he will do the right thing if he gets the facts. To set this matter in perspective we are printing the editorial which appeared in USA Today on June 14, 1989. It capsulized in fewer than 300 words our position about the airlines. Here it is: Face-Off: Seating Passengers Near Emergency Exits Stop Airlines' Bias Against the Blind by Kenneth Jernigan Guest Columnist Kenneth Jernigan is the Executive Director of the National Federation of the Blind. BALTIMORE - Today no blind person can board a plane without fear of harassment and possible arrest and injury. The problem involves attempts by airlines to impose special rules and travel limitations on us. Typical is the requirement that blind persons not sit in exit rows. If as airlines say we are a hazard in exit rows, it is not civil rights but safety. If we can function as well as others in exit rows, it is not safety but civil rights. Forget the mush about compassion. It is either safety or it isn't. Here is a pilot's sworn statement: I have been a pilot for many years. I currently fly 727 aircraft, and I have been employed to do so since 1974. I am familiar with a number of blind people, and I am generally familiar with the capacities of the blind. In an emergency there are circumstances in which it would be helpful to have an able-bodied blind person seated in an emergency exit row with a sighted person. In those cases in which there is smoke in the cabin, an able-bodied blind person, being used to handling situations without sight, would be able to assist with more facility in the evacuation. An able-bodied blind person would not hinder an emergency evacuation. In the early '80s, a member of the National Federation of the Blind proved the theory. As his plane approached San Francisco, the landing gear stuck. They landed on foam. The lights went out. It was night. There was near panic. It was the blind man who found the exit and helped the sighted evacuate. If safety is the issue, why serve liquor to exit row passengers or allow carry-on luggage in exit rows? Sighted passengers with hidden problems (heart, back, feet, emotions, removing 70-pound exit row windows) sit unmolested in exit rows. But our argument is not that others are unsafe, so let us be unsafe, too. It is that we should not be held to a higher standard than others, that no blind person has ever contributed to a problem in an airplane emergency, and that in the name of safety we are suffering massive daily abuse. To another generation Martin Luther King was quibbling and nit-picking, a troublemaking radical. WHY BRAILLE LITERACY BILLS? by Michael Freeman Michael Freeman is Second Vice President of the National Association to Promote the Use of Braille and one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington. Throughout this country, much attention is being devoted to the problems besetting our system of elementary and secondary education. Whole forests have been sacrificed in the quest to provide a definitive answer to the guestion: Why can't Johnny read? Although there may not be a simple answer to this question, there is a growing consensus among the blind that if Johnny is blind, and, most especially, if Johnny has some residual vision, the answer to this question is, at least in part, that Johnny is not being taught Braille, the system of raised dots used for reading and writing by the blind. According to the National Braille Press in a recent publication, whereas in 1978, 52 percent of school-aged legally blind children could read and write Braille, today, only 12 percent of these children can do so. This is a shameful statistic! When asked to justify this deplorable state of affairs, educators advance a plethora of arguments, notably (1) that technology tape recorders, talking computers, print- magnification equipment and the like makes Braille obsolete and (2) that teaching Braille to any but the totally blind is psychologically damaging since Braille makes the student conspicuous and not normal and is tantamount to forcing the student to be blind. These arguments are easily answered. First, if technology REALLY could supplant reading, it could do so for the sighted as well as for the blind. Thus, television could become an acceptable substitute for the written word. I know of few educators who would be prepared to defend such a proposition. If such a proposition is indefensible for the sighted, it is equally indefensible for the blind. Tape recorders and talking computers, useful though they may be, do not easily convey format and spelling information. Tape recorders do not lend themselves to quick scanning or skimming for particular bits of information. Print enlarging equipment tends to limit the amount of material which can be seen at a given instant and tends to cause fatigue if used for long periods. Such equipment is often not very portable, limiting its usefulness. Braille, on the other hand, does not suffer from these shortcomings. Second, simply by virtue of being legally blind, the student is already conspicuous. Reading print two inches from the nose, using equipment that makes letters six inches high, or carrying around a lot of electronic gear is not inconspicuous behavior. This is not to argue that such activities are wrong; it is simply to say that the argument that the use of Braille makes the user more conspicuous than does the use of other methods is not valid. It is simply an attempt to justify the attitude that the blind are inferior and, as a class, are incapable of performing to the same standards as do the sighted; that it is somehow not quite respectable to be blind. Such an attitude is starkly evident on the part of special education personnel when discussing the ramifications of mandatory exposure of blind and visually-impaired students to Braille instruction. Whereas objections to educational requirements are seldom raised when discussing sighted children even those with handicaps a host of problems is discovered when it is proposed that legally blind children be exposed to Braille. It is suggested by special educators that requiring exposure to Braille would violate the Individualized Education Plan of legally blind children required under the federal statute Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act as Amended; that many, if not most of these children are multihandicapped and therefore would be impossible to instruct in Braille; that, for example, laws mandating some level of Braille exposure for blind students would require even students in a coma (are they really in school?) to be given Braille instruction, etc. Such assertions are ridiculous. First, the Congress of the United States never intended Public Law 94-142 to be used as an excuse to eliminate educational requirements for handicapped children, nor did it intend that the requirement that a handicapped child's education should be tailored to meet his/her needs be used to foster illiteracy among the blind! The intent was, rather, to see to it that a handicapped child's education would be structured in a manner which would best remedy any deficits the child had and which would equip the child to overcome the problems he/she would face in becoming a productive member of society. Second, the objection to Braille's being taught to the multihandicapped blind is based on the false assumption that the study of Braille is a very abstruse and arcane discipline. This is nonsense! Braille is not difficult; one can learn to read Braille in the same time it takes to learn to read print. Moreover, in the days before recorded materials and computers, blind persons were known to have learned to read Braille with their toes and tongues. The real problem in learning Braille is not the medium but the negative messages about it conveyed by educators. In opposing legislation promoting Braille literacy, special education personnel often maintain that such legislation would require inordinate expenditures by state education departments and local school districts. In assessing the cost of Braille literacy legislation, it is necessary to bear in mind two costs associated with the status quo. First, there is the recognized cost of illiteracy. Today's world of work requires, no less for the blind than for the sighted, the ability to read and write fluently and with precision. Illiteracy tends to equate to lower paying jobs (with the consequent lessened tax revenues) or no jobs at all (with the attendant burden on the taxpayer). Second, many legally blind students graduate from high school illiterate, since they cannot read print fluently. When they attend rehabilitation centers, they often must be taught Braille in order to obtain a good job and integrate themselves successfully into society. Taxpayers are therefore paying twice to teach these students reading skills. This is a waste of tax dollars. Over and above the tangible costs of Braille illiteracy, there is the intangible cost of wasted lives and talents lost to society. In an era when many demographers are predicting a labor shortage, society can no longer afford to bear these costs. For the sake of this nation's blind children, the blind adult citizenry of tomorrow, we must secure passage of Braille literacy legislation throughout the country. Johnny, whether blind or sighted, deserves the chance to live a fulfilled, literate, and happy life. WHAT CAN'T BLIND CHILDREN DO? by Carol Castellano From the Associate Editor: Parents who have had to listen to a physician tell them that their child is blind understandably feel that blindness will forevermore loom over every aspect of their lives. Certainly people who lose their sight later in life are preoccupied (for a while at least) with grieving for the loss. They concentrate agonizingly on how much they can still see and on what they are now missing. To all of these people the National Federation of the Blind's optimistic focus on what is and what can be sometimes seems unrealistic to the point of absurdity and annoyance. Often we are told that individually and organizationally we are denying the facts of our blindness refusing to deal with reality. Yet thousands of us have discovered that the road to emotional well-being, self-confidence, and competitiveness in the pursuits of daily life lies in the opposite direction from self-pity and obsession with blindness. Equally exciting, parents of blind children are beginning to discover the same bracing truths. Carol Castellano is the mother of a five-year-old daughter Serena, who happens to be blind. In the pages of Future Reflections , the Federation's quarterly magazine for parents and teachers of blind children, she has written refreshingly of her adventures with grocery shopping and cooking as opportunities to teach a blind child about her world. Mrs. Castellano has adopted our view of blindness as her own, and Serena is the stronger and healthier for it. Blindness is a fact of the Castellano family's life. Serena must learn some alternative techniques. Her parents provide her with information in ways that make sense to her. But no one in the household is dominated by the imagined limitations imposed on Serena or her family by the specter of blindness. In the summer of 1989 Mrs. Castellano's brother was married in California, and the Castellano family attended the wedding and stayed on for a vacation. Mrs. Castellano has now written about that holiday and all the things the family did. Serena was a part of it all, as was her two-year-old brother. The astonishing thing about this article is that blindness as such played no discernible part in the vacation. Did Mrs. Castellano worry about her daughter when the family climbed over jagged rocks with the tide rushing in behind them? Of course she did. She admits that she was a nervous wreck about the children, as any mother would have been about any youngsters. But blindness was only one small component of the mix in this unforgettable vacation for the whole family. Can blind children do the things other kids do? Of course they can! Or at least they can when their parents are wise enough to let them do so. Here is the article Carol Castellano wrote: Last August my family had the good fortune to travel to Northern California for the wedding of my brother and a subsequent vacation in the West. The wedding, lovely and distinctive, took place in a moody morning fog on beautiful, deserted Limantour Beach with the waves of the Pacific pounding in the background. My five-year-old daughter Serena still talks about the fact that the bride wasn't wearing any shoes! My brother had arranged for our extended family to rent a house in Bolinas, an artists' community about 30 miles north of San Francisco. We delighted in the cool airiness of the house and were charmed by its amenities filigreed iron and wicker furniture, comfortable futons, wainscoting, and an interior courtyard. Abundant plants were a perfect complement to the lush greenery outdoors. Beyond our windows lay the shimmering Pacific. Seals frolicked by day, and at night the distant lights of San Francisco twinkled across the water. Outside in the yard, we discovered that the house was built on a cliff which dropped 200 feet straight down to the water. The setting was striking and dramatic. Since there was no fence, one of the first things we did was to show the children just where they could venture safely in the yard and how close to the edge they would be allowed to go. We lay on our bellies at the edge of the cliff and hung our arms down. From the crashing sound of the waves below, Serena, the blind member of our group, got a good sense of how far away the water was. She seemed to derive a sense of excitement and danger, at once healthy and realistic, from being at the edge. In our week at Bolinas, we combed the beach for shells and the characteristic soft, striated rocks that had separated from the eroding cliffs. Serena enjoyed investigating the layers of rock and the streams of water that surprised us as they came forth in sporadic bursts from the rocks. At the Point Reyes Visitors Center we enjoyed hands-on exhibits of animals in recreations of their natural habitats. For the first time Serena saw what a seal, a doe, a skunk, and a raccoon were like in size, shape, and feel. The restored Indian village, former home of the Coast Miwoks, was of great interest to the children. We wandered through tepees, rested at the outdoor eating areas, and squatted in the sweat hut. The silos were full of the acorns from which the Miwok women made their flour. Since the same sort of tree still grows there, we were able to take a few acorns home as souvenirs. At the end of a happy week my extended family, assorted friends, and the newlyweds themselves made the long journey along the twisting California coastline to Mendocino County, about three hours north of San Francisco. There we took up residence in a second house, a rustic cottage perched on the rim of a gorge, again high above the Pacific. Mendocino, from an Easterner's point of view, is in the middle of nowhere. It has grand scenic beauty and nothing to do. Nothing, that is, but to go outside and enjoy nature. My suburban family had never experienced a vacation like this before. The beaches were strewn with huge sun-bleached logs that had washed ashore years before when rivers flooded the logging forests and carried the harvested trees into the ocean. Resembling giant bones, they were great fun to climb on. We slid down high hills of sand and examined the long, sinewy sea grasses, which were in various stages of drying. My new sister-in-law, a California native, and my brother, a transplant that took, accompanied us on a hike through a beautiful, sun-filtered forest. Our destination was Russian Gulch Falls, three miles up the mountain. Even my mom and my two-and-a- half-year-old son participated in the six-mile round-trip trek. The first part of the trail was flat (and, incidentally, wheelchair-accessible), winding for about a mile and a half among ferns, mulberry bushes, and fiery poison oak. As we journeyed deeper into the forest, we encountered huge redwood trees that the children hugged and circled. Burnt-out stumps offered the opportunity for us to get inside the trees. As the trail became steeper, we took turns linking arms with Mom and holding hands with the children. The hike was at its most exciting when the path narrowed to about two feet, with a mountain face on one side and, on the other, a steep drop down to the river below. (I guess no one will accuse me of being an overprotective mother.) We made sure to show Serena the drop and the width of the path. Again she seemed thrilled, as were the rest of us, with the drama of our adventure. Listening to the water below and the other sounds of nature was extra special for all of us in the deep quiet of the forest. At last we arrived at the waterfall, which pattered noisily in the surrounding silence. I went as far as the little bridge over the ravine. My sure-footed husband and sister-in-law took the children down under the falls, a funny, refreshing experience for them, somehow to be standing on a log in front of a rock, getting splashed by water rushing down from the mountain above. Another day found us at the coastal headlands of Russian Gulch State Park. Very few beaches exist along this part of the coast. Instead, at water's edge there are rocky cliffs that rise up sharply to level headlands above. The headlands intrigued us with promises of blow holes, where the ocean pounds its way through softer parts of the rock and explodes triumphantly through the ground as far as 200 feet away from the shoreline, and punch bowls, in which the underground cavities created by the ocean enlarge to the point that the ground above them collapses, creating deep, wide depressions in the earth. Narrow paths winding through high grasses and wildflowers led us to a punch bowl, about 100 feet across and 100 feet deep and surrounded by a fence. At the bottom was a mini-beach, complete with logs and seaweed. The sound of the crashing waves below us, far from the actual body of the ocean, was fascinating and mesmerizing. It was my husband's idea to climb down the rocks at low tide and get close to the water. The rocks were extremely jagged sharp points with deep gouges between. Climbing on them with three children was challenging, to say the least. We worked our way down and down toward the relatively flatter, smoother rocks exposed by the low tide. Some were hollowed out like giant bowls in which all five of us could easily sit. We discovered a blowhole! There it was, a narrow cylindrical hole that went all the way through the rock to the water. With ears close to the damp, mussel-laden wall, we listened excitedly to the increasing power in each set of waves. Sprays of water from the most powerful waves frothed ebulliently through the hole, all the way up to where we were perched. Around a bend was a shallow cave, which the children enjoyed exploring. We were even further down now, out on a small peninsula, with ocean around us on three sides. We were only about seven feet above the surface of the water, out where, incredibly, the ocean would be imposing itself in a matter of hours. The situation took my breath away, but the kids just took it in stride. We clamored among the rocks and tide pools until I, the most conservative of our party, became concerned that perhaps we were getting close to the turning of the tide. We began our ascent, with one adult going up to the next level and the other stabilizing and boosting up the children. Nobody else seemed to mind, but this part made me a nervous wreck something about responsibility for the children, something about losing our footing, something about falling into the icy ocean below. We did make it home, and upon our return the three little ones regaled their grandparents with tales of their rock-climbing adventure. I suppose there are those who would argue that there are some things a blind child simply can't do, and perhaps hiking narrow mountain trails and climbing rocks would be on their list of taboos. They would suggest that we think realistically, in terms of constraints and limitations. To them I would answer, all people have limits: some are not well coordinated, some are not bright, some are not well-spoken. But exclude a child from rigorous physical activity and interesting adventures on the basis of blindness? Ridiculous! Our vacation in California was unlike any other my family has ever had. Not only Serena, but most of us, were exposed to new and different opportunities to explore, learn, and grow confident. I sincerely believe that Serena's future will be shaped more by her talents, abilities, ambitions, determination, and inner resources than by her blindness. If someone were to ask me: Realistically, what can't blind children do? I would answer emphatically and unequivocally, Nothing! THE VALUE OF COMPARISON From the Associate Editor: Sometimes it is easy to forget that people who know little or nothing about blindness find the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind to be reasonable when it is explained in a straightforward, sensible way. We know it is true because we have experienced its transforming power in our own lives, but when one is surrounded by professional literature and the self-serving nonsense cobbled together by agencies and employers who want nothing to do with blind people, it is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that ordinary men and women are capable of understanding our point of view. These thoughts came to mind recently as I read a letter from Fred Schroeder, a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind. In going through his personal files, he came across a student paper from a course he had taught several years before. Fred had asked the class to read and think about two articles expressing contrasting views of blindness and then write a short essay about them. Fred was particularly impressed with one of the responses he received to this very interesting assignment. The uninformed often suggest that blind people should get together and agree on what they need and how to get it. The source documents in this assignment demonstrate with stark clarity the near impossibility of such a task. Here is the letter that Fred Schroeder wrote to Dr. Jernigan: Albuquerque, New Mexico December 11, 1989 Dear Dr. Jernigan: Several years ago I taught an introductory course on the education of blind children through the Special Education Department of the University of New Mexico. One of the assignments I gave my students was to read your article entitled A Left-Handed Dissertation and a contrasting article by Richard Brown entitled Thoughts Concerning Blindness. The students were asked to write a brief reaction to the articles stating specifically the points with which they agreed and disagreed and why. Enclosed is the paper submitted by Loretta Garcia, a graduate student in Special Education. I came upon this paper in my files and thought you might find it interesting to see the conclusions she drew. Loretta is not a blind person, nor is she a member of the National Federation of the Blind. Yet she recognized without difficulty the falseness of Brown's negative view of blindness. Loretta's paper points out the real power of spreading our message to the public and demonstrates the public's willingness and ability to accept a progressive view of blindness when given straightforward information. I hope you will find Loretta's paper as interesting and encouraging as I did. Sincerely yours, Fred Schroeder ____________________ That is the cover letter Fred Schroeder wrote to Dr. Jernigan, but in order to appreciate Loretta Garcia's paper, one really should read the documents she was asked to compare. Here is A Left-Handed Dissertation, a speech first delivered at the 1973 convention of the National Federation of the Blind. It was written while Dr. Jernigan drove from Michigan to Iowa during a blizzard. As the opening sentences indicate, a Federationist had written Dr. Jernigan a letter which he answered while dealing with mail during that unforgettable drive. This is Dr. Jernigan's response to that Federationist's question: A LEFT-HANDED DISSERTATION: OPEN LETTER TO A FEDERATIONIST by Kenneth Jernigan Dear Colleague: You have asked me to comment on a seeming contradiction in the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind. You tell me that, on the one hand, we say the ordinary blind person can compete on terms of equality with the ordinary sighted person if he gets proper training and opportunity. You call to my attention our statement that the average blind person can do the average job in the average place of business, and do it as well as his sighted neighbor. You remind me that we tell the world (with great insistence) that the blind person can be as happy and lead as full a life as anybody else. You tell me that, on the other hand, we say blindness need not be the great tragedy it has always been considered but that it can be reduced to the level of a mere physical nuisance. You say these two propositions seem contradictory and that, if you are to buy the one, you do not see how you can buy the other. You tell me you are prepared to accept the fact that the blind can compete and, therefore, that you are not prepared (unless I can trot out valid reasons to the contrary) to concede that blindness is a nuisance at all that is, any more than any other characteristic is a nuisance to any other person in normal living. Let me begin by saying that you have put me in an unusual position. Ordinarily people want to argue the other way. Most of them say that it is ridiculous to pretend that blindness can be reduced to the level of a nuisance since it is obviously a major tragedy, involving severe problems and extreme limitations, not to mention emotional distress and psychological disturbance. You, however, deny that it is even a nuisance and ask me to come up to the line and prove that it is. Fair enough. I shall try. The very fact that you can seriously raise such a question shows how much progress we have made. I doubt that anybody could have done it, even as recently as twenty years ago. To begin with, even if we were to concede (and I don't concede it, as I will shortly indicate) that there is absolutely nothing which can be done with sight which cannot be done just as easily and just as well without it, blindness would still be a nuisance, as the world is now constituted. Why? Because the world is planned and structured for the sighted. This does not mean that blindness need be a terrible tragedy or that the blind are inferior or that they cannot compete on terms of equality with the sighted. For an exact analogy, consider the situation of those who are left-handed. The world is planned and structured for the right- handed. Thus, left-handedness is a nuisance and is recognized as such, especially by the left-handed. Even so, the left-handed can compete on terms of equality with the right-handed since their handicap can be reduced to the level of a mere physical nuisance. If you are not left-handed (I am not. I am a normal. ), you may not have thought of the problems. A left-handed person ordinarily wears his wristwatch on his right arm. Not to do so is awkward and causes problems. But the watch is made for the right-handed. Therefore, when it is worn on the right arm, the stem is toward the elbow, not the fingers. The watch is inconvenient to wind, a veritable nuisance. Then there are butter knives. Many of them are so constructed that the left-handed must either spread the butter with the back of the knife, awkwardly use the right hand, or turn the wrist in a most uncomfortable way nuisances all. But not of the sort to ruin one's psyche or cause nightmares, just annoying. The garden variety can opener (the one you grip in your left hand and turn with your right that is, if you are normal ) is made for normals. If you hold it in your right hand and turn it with your left (as any respectable left-hander is tempted to do), you must either clumsily reach across it to get at the handle or turn it upside down so that the handle is conveniently located, in which case it won't work at all. Likewise, steak knives are usually serrated to favor the right-handed. Scissors, egg beaters, ice cream dippers, and other utensils are also made for the same group. So are ordinary school desk classroom chairs. How many have you seen with the arms on the left side? Of course, a few enlightened schools and colleges (with proper, present-day concern for the well-being of minorities) have two or three left-handed chairs in each of their classrooms, but this is the exception rather than the rule. It succeeds only in earning the ill will of chauvinist right-handers, who must use the desks when the room is full and the left-handed are absent. Of course, these occasional left- handed desks are the most blatant form of tokenism, the groveling gratitude of occasional left-handed Uncle Toms to the contrary notwithstanding. In at least one case, it would seem, the problem of the left-handed is not just a side effect of the fact that the world is constructed for the right-handed but a real, inherent weakness. When the left-handed person writes with ink (the ballpoint pen was a blessing, indeed), his hand tends to smear the ink as it drags over what he has written. Of course, he can hold his hand up as he writes, but this is an inferior technique, not to mention being tiresome. Upon closer examination even this apparently inherent weakness is not really inherent at all but simply another problem created by society in its catering to the right-handed. There is no real reason why it is better to begin reading or writing at the left side of the page and move to the right, except that it is more efficient and comfortable for the majority, the right-handed. In fact, it would be just as easy to read or write from the right to the left (more so for the left-handed), and thus the shoe would be on the other foot or, more precisely, the pen would be in the other hand. The left-handed have always been considered inferior by the right-handed. Formerly (in primitive times twenty or thirty years ago) parents tried to make their left-handed children behave normally that is, use their right hands. Thereby, they often created trauma and psychiatric problems causing complexes, psychoses, and emotional disturbances. Today (in the age of enlightenment) while parents do not exactly say, left is beautiful, they recognize the rights of minorities and leave their left-handed progeny to do their own thing. (Parenthetically, I might say here that those who work with the blind are not always so progressive. Parents and especially educators still try to make the blind child with a little sight read large type, even when Braille would serve him better and be more efficient. They put great stress on reading in the normal manner and not being conspicuous. They make him ashamed of his blindness and often cause permanent damage.) But back to the left-handed. Regardless of the enlightenment of parents and teachers, the ancient myth of the inferiority of the left-handed still lingers to bedevil the lives of that unfortunate minority. To say that someone has given you a left-handed compliment is not a compliment to the left- handed. It is usually the left hand that doesn't know what the right hand is doing, rarely the other way around; and it is the right hand that is raised, or placed on the Bible, to take an oath. Salutes and the Pledge of Allegiance are given with the right hand. Divine Scripture tells us that the good and the evil shall be divided and that, at the day of judgment, the sheep shall be on the right hand and the goats on the left, from whence they shall be cast into outer darkness forever and ever. The guest of honor sits on the right hand of the host, and in an argument one always wants to be right. No one ever wants to be left behind. Whether these uses of the words left and right are subtleties of language reinforcing the stereotype and bespeaking deeply ingrained, subconscious prejudice or whether they are accidental, as the normals allege, who can say? It may simply be that the left-handed are supersensitive, wearing chips on their shoulders and looking for insult where none is intended. It is hard to make this case, however, when one considers the word gauche . The 1971 edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged , says: gauche...left, on the left, French...lacking in social graces or ease, tact, and familiarity with polite usage; likely or inclined to commit social blunders especially from lack of experience or training...lacking finish or exhibiting crudity (as of style, form or technique)...being or designed for use with the left hand: LEFT-HANDED. Synonym see AWKWARD. gauchely, adverb: in a gauche manner: AWKWARDLY, CLUMSILY, CRUDELY. Whatever else may be said, there is nothing subtle about all of that; nor is there anything subtle about the term bar sinister, which comes from the Latin sinistral, meaning left-handed. The 1971 edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged , says: bar sinister...the fact or condition of being of illegitimate birth...an enduring stigma, stain, or reproach (as of improper conduct or irregular status). Supersensitive? Quibbling? Not on your life. Left-handers, arise! You have nothing to lose but your chains. They probably don't fit you anyway, being made for the right-handed. Look for the new slogans any day: Left is lovely, and Get righty! As with other oppressed minorities, the subtleties of language and prejudice carry over into the job market. I know of a woman, for instance, who lives in Kansas and who sought employment in a factory in that state. She was interviewed and passed every test with flying colors. The prospective employer terminated the interview by telling her, You are in every way qualified for the job, and I would hire you immediately, except for your handicap. In outrage and indignation she demanded to know what he meant. Why, he said, it's obvious! You are left-handed. The machines on our assembly line are made for the right-handed. You would slow down the entire operation. This is not fantasy but fact. The company makes greeting cards. The woman did not get the job. If, in truth and in fact, the left-handed woman would have slowed the assembly line, it is hard to see how the action of the employer can be called discriminatory. He could not be expected to buy new machinery simply to give her a job, nor could he be expected to redesign the entire factory. The normal person is right-handed, and it is reasonable for the factory to be designed accordingly. Or does all of this miss the whole point? Is this not exactly the way employers and the general public think and talk about the blind? How did he know she was less efficient? Perhaps she had alternative techniques. Perhaps, in fact, she could have done the job better than most of the other people he had on the line. He decided (based on what he doubtless called obvious and common sense reasons) that she couldn't do the work. Accordingly, she was never even given the opportunity to try. Beware the obvious, and look very carefully at so- called common sense. Do you still say there is no discrimination against the left-handed? Probably you do unless you begin to think about it, until you get the facts and even then, some people will say you are quibbling, that you are exaggerating. How very like the case of the blind. How easy to make quick judgments and have all of the answers, especially when you are not confronted with the problem or compelled to look at reality. From all of this, you can see that the life of the left-hander is not easy. Nevertheless, his infirmity can be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance. It need not mean helplessness or inferiority. It does not necessarily cripple him psychologically. With reasonable opportunity he can compete on terms of equality with his right-handed neighbor. The average left-hander can do the average job in the average place of business and do it as well as the average right-hander. So far as I can tell, there is no inherent weakness in left-handedness at all. The problems arise from the fact that society is structured for the right-handed. But these problems (annoying though they be) do not keep the left-handed from leading normal lives or competing with others. They are at the nuisance level. Therefore, even if blindness (like left-handedness) had no inherent problems, it would still be a nuisance since society is structured and planned for the sighted sometimes when it could be arranged more efficiently otherwise. For instance, most windows in modern buildings are not there for ventilation. They are sealed. They are there only so that the sighted may look out of them. The building loses heat in winter and coolness in summer, but the sighted (the majority) will have their windows. I think, however, that blindness is not exactly like left-handedness. I think there are some things that are inherently easier to do with sight than without it. For instance, you can glance down the street and see who is coming. You can look across a crowded room and tell who is there. But here, it seems to me, most people go astray. They assume that, because you cannot look across the room and see who is there or enjoy the sunset or look down the street and recognize a friend, you are confronted with a major tragedy that you are psychologically crippled, sociologically inferior, and economically unable to compete. Regardless of the words they use, they feel (deep down at the gut level) that the blind are necessarily less fortunate than the sighted. They think that blindness means lack of ability. Such views are held not only by most of the sighted but by many of the blind as well. They are also held by many, if not most, of the professionals in the field of work with the blind. In the Journal of Rehabilitation for January-February 1966, an article appeared entitled: Social Isolation of the Blind: An Underrated Aspect of Disability and Dependency. This article was written by none other than Dr. D. C. MacFarland, Chief of the Office for the Blind, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. MacFarland says: Let me repeat a statement which I violently oppose. There is a slowly evolving fiction which can be summed up in the generalization, `Blindness is a mere inconvenience.' I do not agree with this, and I do not know what to call such exaggeration in reverse. I think it has done its share of harm, throwing some very well-intentioned people off the track about what blindness really amounts to in people's lives. It seems to me that Dr. MacFarland is as far off the track as the people who contend that blindness is not even important enough to be considered a nuisance. I think it would be pleasant to look at a sunset. I think it would be helpful to look across a room and see who is there, or glance down the street and recognize a friend. But I know that these things are peripheral to the major concerns of life. It is true that it is sometimes a nuisance to devise alternative techniques to get the same results I could have without effort if I were sighted, but it is just that (a nuisance), not a tragedy or a psychological crisis or an international incident. It seems to me that many of the problems which are regarded as inherent in blindness are more like those of the left-handed in other words, created as a natural side effect of the structuring of society for the sighted. It seems to me that the remaining problems (those that are truly indigenous to blindness) are usually vastly overrated and overdramatized. Blindness can, indeed, be a tragedy and a veritable hell, but this is not because of the blindness or anything inherent in it. It is because of what people have thought about blindness and because of the deprivations and the denials which result. It is because of the destructive myths which have existed from the time of the caveman myths which have equated eyesight with ability, and light with intelligence and purity. It is because the blind, being part of the general culture, have tended to accept the public attitudes and thus have done much to make those attitudes reality. As far as I am concerned, all that I have been saying is tied up with the why and wherefore of the National Federation of the Blind. If our principal problem is the physical fact of blindness, I think there is little purpose in organizing. However, the real problem is not the blindness but the mistaken attitudes about it. These attitudes can be changed, and we are changing them. The sighted can also change. They can be shown that we are in no way inferior to them and that the old ideas were wrong that we are able to compete with the sighted, play with the sighted, work with the sighted, and live with the sighted on terms of complete equality. We the blind can also come to recognize these truths, and we can live by them. For all these reasons I say to you that the blind are able to compete on terms of absolute equality with the sighted, but I go on to say that blindness (even when properly dealt with) is still a physical nuisance. We must avoid the sin and the fallacy of either extreme. Blindness need not be a tragic hell. It cannot be a total nullity, lacking all inconvenience. It can, as we of the National Federation of the Blind say at every opportunity, be reduced to the level of a mere annoyance. Right on! And let us neither cop out by selling ourselves short with self-pity and myths of tragic deprivation, nor lie to ourselves by denying the existence of a problem. There is no place in our movement for the philosophy of the self-effacing Uncle Tom, but there is also no place for unreasonable and unrealistic belligerence. We are not out to get sighty. ____________________ That is what Dr. Jernigan said in 1973, and the speech has become one of the best loved articulations of the philosophy held by members of the National Federation of the Blind. As might be expected, those who spend their time reacting against the Federation and finding ways of explaining away their unwillingness to try living life to the full have responded through the years to this speech with anger and ridicule in an effort to disguise their own insecurity. In the March, 1978, edition of the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness , Richard Brown, a Braille instructor for the Veterans Administration in Hines, Illinois, wrote what he probably thought was a refutation of Dr. Jernigan's speech. It is an interesting tagbag of gripes and grumbles which begins with the argument that, if everyone had always been blind, society would probably lack many of the concepts and contrivances that make life pleasant today; therefore, the blind individual is at a great disadvantage. This is like saying that the race could not survive if all human beings were male; therefore, every man is a threat to the species. He goes on to point out that the federal government does not consider left-handedness to be a full disability as it does blindness. Brown finds it convenient to ignore the fact that the NFB has always contended that the handicap of blindness can be, and often is, a tragedy. Lack of vision is only one part a small part of the phenomenon, which also includes public ignorance, discrimination, denial of training, and restricted educational opportunities. He concludes his article with a bitter little diatribe against the training of blind people under sleepshades, arguing that brain damaged people are not mentally retarded and the hearing impaired need hearing aids, not training in the skills of deafness. Such analogies, of course, fall apart immediately when they are examined, but even so, it surely makes sense to offer the whole range of needed skills to anyone with a disability and to employ teaching methods that will assist him or her to master the body of information. If an individual's brain damage is such that presenting information in small, frequently repeated bits is the most effective way of teaching, then that is how it should be done. If a particular hearing impairment is severe, then learning to lip read or to sign might be useful to the person in situations with lots of noise and confusion. Surely the object is to provide the individual with useful tools as many tools as possible. Unfortunately, blind people with a little residual sight are usually denied the possibility of learning the skills which would often be most useful just because they and their families believe that sight is always the best method of completing any task in which it can be used at all. Here is what Richard Brown has to say in reaction to A Left- Handed Dissertation : THOUGHTS CONCERNING BLINDNESS by Richard N. Brown Blindness was once considered an insufferable tragedy; now, some say, it is only an inconvenience. What is an inconvenience? An inconvenience is missing a bus and having to wait five or ten minutes for another one. The incident is not important. It doesn't affect your life; it is just something to grumble about. If blindness is that unimportant or, to put it another way if sight is that immaterial to life, why then it would not matter if no one could see, or if no one had ever seen. The Importance of Sight But if no one had ever seen, how would we know about the stars? And if we didn't know about the stars, how would man have navigated the wide oceans? For, from prehistoric times to the modern era, such diverse peoples as the Phoenicians and the Polynesians relied on the sun and the stars to tell them where they were and in what direction they were going. If no one had ever seen, how would we know about the moon? And if we didn't know anything about the moon, how would we explain the ocean tides? The camera, the television, the great paintings of the past and present would have no value for this civilization. Without the microscope, how would we have discovered bacteria, the cause of so many diseases? The x-ray would be useless. Without sight, would we have known about the speed of light, or cared? Without the electron microscope, how would we have solved the mysteries of the atom, the cell, and DNA? The driving of automobiles, the piloting of planes, the daily weather forecast all of these tasks require sight. There are many more tasks and occupations, besides those I have mentioned, which illustrate that sight is a vital part of life. A civilization of only blind people, by using alternative methods, might have developed to where we are now. Intelligence is, after all, the most important ingredient necessary to a civilization's progress. However, I suspect the growth would have been slower, and the result very different. Blindness Like Being Left-Handed? There are some people who maintain that blindness is on a par with being left-handed. I would like to mention a few differences, such as: Do the left-handed have to use a different medium for reading than the right-handed? Do the left-handed have to use a cane or dog for purposes of travel? Does the federal government consider the left-handed totally disabled meaning not able to work and, therefore, give them total disability benefits? The answer to all these questions is no! Furthermore, we really do not believe these arguments ourselves. For, with the next breath, we cry out for more benefits. We ask for fewer quarters of Social Security coverage, and we ask that we receive the money regardless of income. We rationalize these differing positions of equality versus inequality by saying: The sighted discriminate against us; they will not employ us, and this makes the government subsidy necessary. It is certainly true that we are under-employed. There are many positions we could fill if employers would give us a chance. Still, it is a fact, and some of us hate to face it, that with blindness come limitations. I know everyone has limitations. I know there are blind people who are not as limited as many sighted people. But for the average blind person, it means that he will be more limited in the job market than the average sighted person. Making the Most of Residual Vision When the public thinks of a blind person, they think of someone without the vestige of sight. It was decided by our authorities that 10 percent of normal vision, or an extremely constricted field, would constitute legal blindness. Some countries have not adopted this definition; their visual requirements are more stringent than ours. I feel personally that the legally blind should be classified in two categories: 1) Those who have to use Braille or talking books for reading and have to use the cane or dog to aid them in their travel should be considered blind; and 2) Those who can read print and travel without the assistance of a cane or dog should be classified as severely visually impaired. There is a certain philosophy which believes that all legally blind persons should be trained as though they were totally blind. It is thought that such training will change the person's attitude toward blindness. It will give him confidence in himself as a blind person, and if total loss of sight should occur, the individual will not be overwhelmed nor afraid. I work for an agency that once had this policy at least in orientation and mobility. Every lesson was done under the blindfold, no matter how much the patient could see. Many of these people did extremely well in mobility; one person said it was like playing an interesting game. But if the client lost his sight, mobility was no longer a game. It became serious, it was a reality, and all the confidence had to be regained. Personally, I don't believe in this school of thought. If I were hard of hearing, I would not wish to be the trainee for deafness. I would want the best hearing aid possible, and I would want to use my hearing to the maximum. And if I were brain damaged, I would not want to be trained as though I were mentally retarded. I would want to be taught to use my remaining brain power to its utmost. Similarly, if I had useful vision, I would try to find a lens that would improve it and hope I would be taught to use this remaining vision. Many people who are severely visually impaired must at times use the skills learned by the totally blind. If I had enough vision so that I could rely mainly on print for reading and travel without a cane most of the time, I would hope the stress would be placed on how to use and function with this vision, rather than on teaching me to live as though totally blind. Blindness is more than an inconvenience. It is certainly more serious than being left-handed, and it does involve many limitations. For some people, whether we like it or not, blindness is a tragedy for some, that tragedy is insurmountable. Fortunately, most people are able to adjust to their blindness. They learn the alternative techniques that enable them to get along without sight and do lead normal, productive lives in spite of their handicap. ___________________ There you have Richard Brown's response, and an interesting contrast to Dr. Jernigan's thoughts it is, too. Here is what one graduate student gleaned from a careful reading of both papers: LEFT-HANDED DISSERTATION/ THOUGHTS CONCERNING BLINDNESS by Loretta S. Garcia September 12, 1984 After reading Blindness: A Left-Handed Dissertation by Kenneth Jernigan and Thoughts Concerning Blindness by Richard Brown, my first reaction was to question if Brown is blind or not. If so, he fits perfectly into what Jernigan refers to as a blind person that has accepted the general public's negative attitudes towards blindness and has done as much as possible to make those attitudes reality. If not, he has an extremely low opinion of the blind and their capabilities of functioning successfully in a sighted society. I found Brown's article to be extremely opinionated. He magnifies the importance and necessity of sight in history, technology, and job opportunities. Upon summarizing the data mentioned above, Brown has the gall to assume that if our civilization consisted of blind people, growth would have been slower, and our society might not have become as advanced! On the other hand, Kenneth Jernigan's article takes a positive stance on blindness, and he also points out that there are tasks which are inherently easier to do with sight than without. I appreciate the fact that Jernigan does not avoid the obvious drawbacks concerning blindness, yet he believes strongly that these drawbacks are not necessarily significant enough to hinder a blind individual's life. Jernigan's comparison of blindness to being left-handed serves as an excellent example of how majorities tend automatically to make assumptions without sufficient knowledge or evidence. Assumptions are what get us into trouble because we do not take the time to prove what we already think we know or what we consider obvious or common sense. The limitations and negative aspects of blindness that Brown focused on are the most common assumptions that come to mind of the sighted (or majority). These assumptions are rarely thought through and are taken for granted as tasks or skills that the blind cannot possibly do independently. Again, as Jernigan stresses, we must look very carefully at the so-called common sense which people rely on too heavily and without second thought. From our narrow-minded assumptions we develop discriminations in areas that we are ill-informed about or ignorant in. It would be an obvious risk (or common sense ) to an apartment owner not to rent an apartment to a blind person. How is this person going to keep the place clean (vacuum or dust)? What about cooking the renter may burn the place down! These questions and doubts could easily be proven wrong but again stem from ignorance. We have assumptions that lead us to believe that a blind person could not possibly handle a normal amount of responsibility thus we have discrimination. Yes, I do agree with Jernigan in that the real problem is not the blindness but the mistaken attitudes about it. These attitudes will take time to change, especially for those who share Brown's disposition on blindness. If the sighted are shown that blindness need not mean loss of independence and self-worth, then a major breakthrough will be made. Again, this is easier said than done due to the fact that the blind will be given fewer opportunities to prove their skills and competence. As a result, like any other minority, the blind will have to fight for their rights and constantly prove themselves to the sighted majority. YET ANOTHER BRUSH WITH THE AUDIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL by Kay Porth Kay Porth is the energetic President of the National Federation of the Blind of Alaska. Like so many of the rest of us, the members of the Alaska affiliate have found the noisy little critters called audible traffic signals encroaching on their peace and quiet against their will and despite their best efforts to prevent the migration. Recently Kay wrote a letter to Dr. Jernigan designed to gladden the hearts of everyone who yearns to cross streets again with unimpaired freedom to listen to the traffic without the intrusion of whoops and whistles. Here is her letter: March 28, 1990 Anchorage, Alaska Dear Dr. Jernigan: The members of the Alaska Affiliate would like to share with Monitor readers a little story which will sound very familiar. In October, 1989, I received a phone call from a person who identified himself as the Municipal Traffic Engineer for the City of Anchorage. He wanted to know my feelings about the city council's plan to install audible traffic signals in the vicinity of the city's new performing arts center. I was ready with my very negative opinion, and he asked me to put it in writing so that he could present it at the next city council meeting. A recent article in the Monitor , in which Mary Ellen Gabias had written just such a letter, helped me put it all together very quickly, and my letter in response to his request was written and mailed on the same day. The next day a reporter for the Anchorage Daily News contacted me and also asked my opinion of the tweety birds. He told me that he had recently been in Washington, D.C., and had talked with Jim Gashel about the signals. He said that he understood from Mr. Gashel that the NFB did not approve of the signals, and he wished to know if the local affiliate agreed with Mr. Gashel's opinion. Of course we did! How could we not? The reporter published an article entitled Audible Traffic Signals Irk the Blind, in which he quoted statements from both Mr. Gashel and me. Meanwhile, back in the halls of local government, the city council met, and the traffic engineer called with the news that the traffic signals had already been installed. The rationale the council used was that many groups for the blind and experts in the field had assured the council that it was the thing to do and that blind people would certainly benefit. So we went through the winter with the blind of the city ignoring the beeps and whistles as best we could in order to hear the traffic and safely cross the streets. Then spring came, and guess what? With the warmer weather office workers in the area opened their windows and began to complain about the noisy signals. Then somebody purloined one of them. I remember reading this story before. In fact, it parallels the adventures of the vanishing signals recounted in the August, 1989, Monitor article Arlington, Massachusetts, May Yet Go Cuckoo and the information provided in my letter to the council. A new Municipal Traffic Engineer took over and called to ask my opinion of the traffic signals. He told me that a new signal would have to be purchased to replace the one which had been stolen. He added that he thought the signals were silly and would like to do away with them but had been told by his superiors that he could do this only if the blind agreed. I asked him to find the letter I had written to the former traffic engineer, which would make our opinion of the signals very clear. He contacted me again to say that he had located and read my letter and understood and agreed with the NFB. When I asked him to forget about purchasing any new signals and to do away with the existing ones, he ended our conversation by saying, They're gone. This story has a much happier ending than the story of the poltergeists, which ends with the little girl who says, They're back. I suppose these audible traffic signals will keep reappearing, like the poltergeists, and we of the NFB must keep educating and making our philosophy known. But we've won this one, and we are proud that the NFB of Alaska is changing what it means to be blind. Sincerely, Kay Porth, President National Federation of the Blind of Alaska PACKING YOUR OWN PARACHUTE by Tom Ley Tom Ley is a student at Louisiana Technical Institute and a leader in the Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind. This article appeared in the Spring, 1990, edition of The Student Slate, the newsletter of the NFB Student Division. His comments are directed at students who face the task of hiring and training readers, but his advice applies equally to training readers in all other situations. Here is what he has to say: When a skydiver prepares to make a jump, he has in mind the specific task of returning to the ground. However, not only does he wish to accomplish this task, but he also wishes to fulfill the goals of maximum safety and maximum excitement. Of course, he could simply return to the ground in the plane. The task would be accomplished, but although this method is usually very safe, it is certainly not very exciting. On the other hand, he could simply jump out of the plane and fall to the ground. However, although once again the task would be accomplished and the thrill of a lifetime provided, to date this method has not proven to be particularly healthful. Of course, the answer to this dilemma for the skydiver is to jump out of the plane with a parachute strapped to his back. He receives maximum excitement during the free fall and then, at the appropriate moment, pulls the ripcord and floats lazily to the ground. It should be noted that the task can be accomplished without the parachute, but fulfilling simultaneously the criteria of both safety and excitement cannot be done without it. Because of the importance of having a fully functioning parachute when jumping out of a plane, most skydivers, as a rule, do not make a jump unless the parachute they are using is one they have chosen and packed themselves. It may sound obvious, but there is no way for one to feel in control of a situation unless one really is in control. As a blind student in a college or university, one of the primary tasks you have to accomplish is to read and comprehend voluminous amounts of written material. Fortunately, many of these materials are available in a timely fashion and in a form that can be read independently by the blind. However, it is an inevitable fact of life that a good portion of the material that you have to read is not available in Braille or recorded form, and when it is, it cannot be obtained quickly enough to be of any use. The solution to this dilemma is, of course, to use a live person to read the material. In a way analogous to the importance of a skydiver's being able to choose and pack his own parachute, it is important for the blind student to hire and train his own readers and to use them whenever and wherever it is most convenient. I am writing this from the perspective of having attended college under circumstances which allowed me to select and direct my own readers. I realize that, unfortunately, this is not the case for many blind students across the country. If it is not for you, then you should know that the situation is not going to improve unless you and the other blind students in your state see that it does. The following is a series of helpful hints for use when obtaining and using readers. They are a combination of the advice that I have received from other blind students and the approaches which I have adopted based on my own experience throughout my college career. Nearly all of the suggestions have the underlying message, You must be the one in control. After all, why allow others to be in charge when the quality of your education hangs in the balance? The question that everybody wants the answer to is, How do you find a reader who has an easy-to-listen-to voice, is absolutely dependable, has a flexible schedule, can describe graphs and tables efficiently, can read quickly, and has a compatible personality? The answer is that you don't at least not very often. However, if you can get enough people knocking down your door to read for you, then your chances of finding someone who comes close will be greatly improved. Campus and local newspapers are excellent places through which to spread the word that you are looking for readers. Advertising space is usually inexpensive. Bulletin boards in heavily traveled areas such as student unions, post offices, and cafeterias are also excellent places to get the word out. Of course, the campus employment office is the first place you should go. If you need readers who know a particular subject, try the bulletin boards and offices in the departments where these students can most likely be found. Finally, be sure to say in each of your notices that the position is paid. This announcement will greatly increase the response. Now that your phone is ringing off the wall with calls from people who are dying to be readers, the next step is to interview the potential readers. There should be more to the process than a simple question and answer interview over the phone. These interviews are an excellent way to narrow the field to a small number of candidates, but before any hiring is done, each reader should go through an in-person tryout. During the phone interviews you can weed out all of the people that you conclude, for various reasons, will not work out. But you will not know if the others will work, until you actually sit down with them and do some simple reading. During the interview have the reader tackle as many of the types of material you need as possible. For instance, if you are using a math textbook, then you will want to make sure that your reader is well versed in mathematical notation and can describe graphs clearly and concisely. It is also very important to make sure that the reader reads exactly what is on the page. Those who editorialize or selectively omit material that they feel is unnecessary are not the ones you want to hire. Also, if you plan on having your readers record material, now is the time to find out whether or not a person has an aversion to being recorded. Some people are extremely uncomfortable when a tape recorder is rolling. Finally, if your schedule is full of classes that require research, make sure that your readers have good library skills. The last thing that any college student needs is to spend more time than is necessary doing research. Remember, the interview and tryout process is your opportunity to decide who is the best person for the job. You are choosing your parachute, so use this opportunity to make sure that you do not get one that will let you down. Now that you have several highly compatible and hard-working readers all lined up and ready to go, how can you make best use of them? As with finding and hiring your readers, the key to a productive working relationship is for you to be in control. At the beginning of each semester, compare schedules with each of your readers and set up specific times during the week which they will leave open. Of course, as you find out exactly how much reading time you will generally require during each week, you can either increase or decrease the number of scheduled times that each reader should set aside. By establishing scheduled reading times, you know when you can have a reader available. However, as important as it is for you to have your readers reserve specific times in their schedules, it is just as important to your readers that you notify them as early as possible if you will not need them at a time which has been previously scheduled. If you make a conscientious effort to let your readers know as early as possible when they will not be needed, then they are more likely to make a conscientious effort to keep the reserved times open. It does not take much extra work on your part to set up the schedules, and the value of having a reader available when you need one is well worth the effort. On the subject of making conscientious efforts, if you are the person responsible for filling out and returning the paperwork that most state agencies require in order to make payments to your readers, then make sure that you get it done consistently and quickly. After all, a person who gets paid regularly is usually much more reliable than one who never knows how long it is going to be before he gets his check. When you start working with a new reader, it is of the utmost importance that you establish from the very beginning exactly what is expected of him during the time that he is reading for you. For example, you should make it clear that socializing is fine before and after a reading session, but when the reader is on the clock and reading to you, the atmosphere is professional and not social. Remember, you are the employer, and the responsibility for getting your employees to work efficiently rests on your shoulders. Finally, as is the case when working with human beings in any situation, a little flexibility goes a long way toward a smooth working relationship. Hopefully, you are now ready to jump into the world of academia which will result in exciting years of progress and an easy landing at graduation. You have assumed control of the situation by picking and packing your own readers, and all that you have to do now is start the trip. Remember, the key to success when working with readers is always to be the one who is in control. After all, it is your education, and who better to be in control? SEARCY EWELL NAMED VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR From the Editor: As Monitor readers know, Searcy Ewell is the President of the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas. He is quiet man but one who is steadfast and persistent. He works away to achieve the things he believes in. Recently Mr. Ewell was honored for volunteer work in his community. It is a recognition well deserved, and we congratulate him, not only for his accomplishments but also for the sterling qualities which characterize his daily behavior. Here in part is the news release issued by the United Way of Pulaski County, Arkansas, dated April 23, 1990: Searcy Ewell, retired, a volunteer with Arkansas ABLE (Abilities Based on Lone Experience), has been named Volunteer of the Year by the United Way of Pulaski County's Voluntary Action Center (VAC). Ewell will be honored at a special ceremony at the Arkansas ABLE office at 519 East Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor East, on Tuesday, April 24, at 11:00 a.m. Ewell, who is blind, retired from the Arkansas School for the Blind after thirty years of service. For more than two years he has donate eight hours each week to conducting telephone surveys for Arkansas ABLE in an effort to recruit people ages fifty-five or older and unemployed for the group's JOB SHOP program. JOB SHOP helps people ages fifty-five and older learn employment skills and find employment. As a result of Mr. Ewell's efforts, economically disadvantaged persons fifty-five and over have entered employment at an average of $6.17 per hour, thus improving their economical condition as well as their contributions to Pulaski County, said Robert E. Guyton, employment counselor for Arkansas ABLE. Guyton added that Ewell has also counseled visually impaired people ages fifty-five and older on available services for the blind. Ewell is President of the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas and is a member of the board of directors of Life Project, Living Independence for the Blind, Independent Living Center, Central Arkansas Transit Service, and Division of Services for the Blind. He is a member of the board of directors of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church. At the Tuesday award presentation Ewell will also receive recognition as the Unsung Hero of the month by VAC and the Arkansas Democrat newspaper. The Unsung Hero program is an ongoing effort to publicly recognize volunteers who are seldom noted for all that they do. GRAND JURY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING ALABAMA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND BLIND In the February, 1990, Braille Monitor we carried an article about the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind and, particularly, about the goings on of Dr. Jack Hawkins, its erstwhile president. Upon his appointment to another position Dr. Hawkins removed (allegedly by mistake) a laundry list of items from the president's mansion at the Institute silver, china, bed linens, furniture, and even a chandelier. The items were later returned amid calls to the police and a flurry of charges and countercharges. Moreover, while Dr. Hawkins was employed as president of the Institute, his wife was also employed there, but not directly and openly. The Institute was providing funds to the University of Alabama, which in turn was feeding them back to the project which employed Mrs. Hawkins. Some said it was a cozy arrangement. Dr. Hawkins left his job at the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind in the summer of 1989, and the grand jury began an investigation to see whether indictments should be handed down. On March 23, 1990, the grand jury made its report; and although it did not make indictments, it made some rather pointed recommendations, leading to the speculation that it felt that improvements were definitely in order. Here, in part, is what the news media reported that the grand jury submitted to the court: We have heard testimony concerning Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind and make the following recommendations at Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind and to the board: Item 1. Recommend that Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind make an inventory and itemize and number all state owned property in excess of $25 and have a perpetual inventory of each building and further that inventory be checked quarterly. Item 2. Recommend reviewing purchasing practices for household expenditures of the president's home and make changes or improvements where necessary. Item 3. No member of president's family should be employed by Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind or any other agency or institution contracted with or by the Institute for Deaf and Blind. Item 4. Laws governing the sale of state property should be strictly adhered to by officials of Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind. Item 5. The removal of items from president's home should be supervised by comptroller's office. Item 6. We suggest that these recommendations be implemented and a report of same be returned within the next 12 months to the grand jury then in session.... SO YOU DON'T DRIVE by Larry Streeter (Note) From the Editor: I first met Larry Streeter at least fifteen years ago. At that time he lived in Idaho and was a teacher. Then he began the peripatetic course of the following years, moving to Texas, Virginia, Tennessee, probably other places I don't remember, and finally (of course, it may not be finally) to Omaha, where he now resides. Wherever he has gone, Larry has not only been a Federationist but an active one. He has recruited members, established chapters, been president of chapters, and otherwise worked in the movement. In short, he takes his Federationism seriously, and he carries it with him wherever he goes. Larry's wife Sandy, who is also blind, is equally active and dedicated. It is not just that Larry is a Federationist but that it is a Federation family. Larry and Sandy typify that large number of committed members and leaders who rarely get a lot of the limelight but who constitute the backbone, muscle, and heart of the movement. (Note) In the circumstances it is not surprising that Larry and Sandy took the actions described in the following article. In sending it to me Larry said: In my years as a member of the National Federation of the Blind, I have never had an experience like the one described in this article. It is quite clear to me that we must continue to inform and educate the public about blindness. We print Larry's article not only for the story it tells but also as a tribute to him and Sandy and the thousands of other Federationists throughout the country who on a daily basis are changing what it means to be blind. Here is how Larry says it happened: A few weeks ago, I woke up to face another day. It was my day off, due to my flex schedule, and I was alive with ambition and great intentions. I wandered around the house thinking that something constructive should occur like cleaning the garage or placing fertilizer on the lawn. Those particular thoughts faded quickly. I made a sudden decision to sit down at my computer. It would be so easy to play computer games and just forget about assuming responsibility. I turned on the computer and just sat there for a moment or two. Sandy came in and we started to talk about taking a trip to one of the Mormon temples. This wasn't the first time the subject had come up. Each previous time we had planned such a trip for the family, it had been placed on the back burner for one reason or another. We both made each other a commitment that this time our goal would be met. Several locations were discussed and debated, and we finally decided on Denver. Sandy checked on air fares, and the cost was too much for our budget. So we both thought we could ask some friends at church to go with us. Several couples offered to use their car and drive us. However, six persons in one of these small cars for 541 miles each way can be rather unbearable. Sandy started calling around to check out prices for renting a mini van. We found some pretty good bargains and finally settled on dealing with Budget Rent-A-Car. I called Budget on April 11 to reserve a van for April 19 and during the conversation was told that a driver's license and major credit card would be required. The customer service representative asked the usual questions such as my telephone number and name of the credit card to be used. She stated the driver would be required to supply the license and the card with at least $251 to cover the cost of renting the van. We have rented numerous vans and cars over the years and have never had any difficulty, but this apparently was going to be different. I told the representative that I did not drive, due to my blindness and was quickly informed that the driver would need to meet the requirements she had already discussed. The battle had begun. She was informed that: (1) I was the person renting the van; and (2) I would pay for said van with my credit card, which I had done on so many occasions before; and (3) that I had rented vans from this very company many times before, without difficulty. She retorted that her company had their rules and I in turn informed her about the White Cane Law of the State of Nebraska and said that she was probably violating the law and thus discriminating against the blind. She denied the charge and told me that if we wanted to rent the van, the rules would apply. In final, she stated that my reservation would be retained and advised me of the location where to pick up the van. To express it mildly, we were rather disgusted about the entire episode. Budget had the van we wanted and the price of our liking. So why the hassle? My thoughts ran wild: It's time to go to the press and tell our story or let's put these jerks out of business and call the members of the chapter and let's go to the airport to picket. I thought about our White Cane Banquet last September. We had presented the National Park Service (NPS) regional office and the Hyatt Hotel Reservation Center with employee of the year awards. Had I heard the statements by Ken Compton from NPS and Jeannette Foxvog from Hyatt correctly or was it only a dream? Mr. Compton expressed his appreciation for the positive recognition and hoped someday that awards like this would not be necessary and that employment of the blind would be an ordinary occurrence. Ms. Foxvog proclaimed her pleasure with the performance of the two blind employees recently hired and hoped to employ additional blind people in the near future. This fact has become a reality since that evening. Had circumstances for the blind of Omaha not improved? It only took a few short moments, for once again I was forced to return to reality and common sense prevailed. My sleeping time was extremely limited that night and I couldn't wait until the national consumer complaints number for Budget was accessible at the crack of dawn. I was absolutely determined that the van set aside in my name would be ours to rent and under our conditions. Pam LaPour of the consumer relations department in Dallas listened and attempted to respond to my concerns. She put me on hold and called the Omaha airport location and spoke to a Mr. Baack. After some time, she returned and asked me if the driver would have a credit card. It was then evident that Ms. LaPour had not heard me correctly. The issue was restated again, emphasizing the fact that I would pay for the van with my credit card and that the agency was discriminating against us because of our blindness. She finally put Mr. Baack on the line, and we discussed the matter. He was totally unfamiliar with the Nebraska White Cane statute and did not believe that his agency was being unreasonable nor unfair. The conversation became quite interesting. He continued to claim that it was not our blindness but the fact that the driver may not return the vehicle. Did we have a man who had lost his mind? Was I going deaf? I alerted him to the fact that as a federal employee, I had a great deal to lose most assuredly my position and would certainly assume the responsibility to return a van. For an instant my mind pictured large numbers of the blind carrying signs at the airport with scores of reporters dashing around seeking the truth. An inner voice told me that we would close this business down. I suddenly asked Mr. Baack if twenty blind citizens came in with twenty drivers and each had the same circumstance I was facing, would he send them to Hertz, Avis, Thrifty or Dollar Rent-A-Car? He responded in the affirmative. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was not a good businessman and that this did not make good economic sense. He was informed that this was a most unfortunate situation, for I had always been pleased with Budget in the past. The moments wore on with the same issue being rehashed without positive results. Finally, Mr. Baack stated he would be willing to review the White Cane Law. I advised him that he would receive a copy of the document in question. I arrived at work that morning and anxiously awaited a call from our state president, Barbara Walker. She called shortly before 9:00 and read the section of the White Cane Law which we felt pertained to our case. I listened carefully as she read from Chapter 20, Section 127 of the Nebraska Statutes: The blind, visually handicapped, and otherwise physically disabled shall be entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all common carriers airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyance or mode of transportation, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. The words full and equal sounded great was victory in our sight? Barbara felt the issue was straightforward. We had never had this kind of problem arise in Nebraska. Numerous members, for example, had rented cars and vans from various companies and trouble had not occurred in one single instance. We decided it would be worth our time to contact other companies and ascertain their policy. Sandy followed up by calling several agencies, including (but not limited to) Avis and Hertz. The Avis representative stated it was a simple issue. The blind person could use his credit card and sign a form authorizing a person to drive. The driver would present his license to the representative and sign the form required for all drivers. Hertz made the matter even easier. A blind person pays with his credit card and the driver provides the license to operate the vehicle. No hassle from Hertz or Avis. Later, that same afternoon I spoke with Mr. Hank Carriger, the chief deputy to the county attorney. We reviewed the situation together. He was sympathetic to our situation. However, he felt that a jury would not find Budget criminally guilty of violating the White Cane Law. Together we came to the conclusion that the best maneuver would be to ask my state legislator to request an opinion from the state attorney general. While securing information from the car agencies, Sandy was told by Hertz that they would be happy to rent one of their vans to us for $20 less a day than our previous offer by Budget. After some deliberation, we decided to take this opportunity for we could save money by making this change. We plan to take further action by speaking with our state legislator and reviewing this issue with him. Hopefully, we will make a decision to request an opinion from the attorney general, but only time will tell. I have also written to the president of Budget and expressed to him my personal feelings regarding this incident. We, the Streeter family, will take our trip to the Mormon temple in Denver. I am sure that on the way we will review the circumstances, and questions will arise in our minds if we made the proper decision. Much has been learned from this situation. We should always be ready to deal with unreasonable people, at the most inappropriate times. We must constantly be aware that many people have illogical and unrealistic attitudes about us. For a short few hours, we as a family will be inside the quiet, sacred, and reverent confines of the temple. It is a place where we are able to leave the problems of the world behind and concentrate on those higher spiritual issues. However, upon leaving this peaceful setting, we are very much aware that we will, as before, be challenged with complicated issues and concerns. The struggle for first-class citizenship will never be easy; the blind of this nation must be constantly prepared, armed with the facts, and ready, willing and with a firm conviction to do battle if necessary. ____________________ Omaha, Nebraska April 18, 1990 Mr. Clifton Haley, President Budget Rent-A-Car Chicago, Illinois Dear Mr. Haley: The purpose of this correspondence is to bring to your attention a matter which, I believe, needs immediate consideration. First, let me say that throughout the past several years I have rented cars and vans from your company without any difficulty. One can easily determine from this statement that I have been pleased with the services offered by your organization. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. As an employee of the National Park Service and as a member of the National Federation of the Blind, I travel throughout the country. However, I do not drive due to my blindness. My wife is also blind, and we travel extensively for business and pleasure. On April 11, 1990, we made contact with your Budget location at the Omaha airport to rent a van for a trip from Omaha to Denver. The call was made to rent a van for April 19. However, once the sales representative was informed of my blindness, she quickly stated that I would have to produce a driver's license and a credit card to cover the cost of $251. My credit, to say the least, is excellent. However, the license is out of the question. She was informed that I would pay for the van and my driver would sign the required form to consummate the transaction. She made it quite clear that this would be against the rules and that I would not be able to rent the vehicle. My driver would need to provide the cards and sign the necessary documents. I advised your sales representative that she was most likely violating the Nebraska White Cane Law, which is enclosed for your review. This statute provides for full and equal access to all public facilities and accommodations. The conversation concluded with her statement that the van reservation would be retained in the computer; and if I wanted to rent said van, I must agree to the terms previously cited. The next morning I contacted your customer service number in Dallas and spoke with a Ms. LaPour, who tried to field my questions and concerns. But during the conversation she apparently completely missed the point. After some time, Ms. LaPour made contact with a Mr. Baack at the Omaha airport location. We then discussed the matter, and several points regarding this contact should be noted: 1. Mr. Baack had never heard of the White Cane Law. 2. He restated the same conditions for renting a Budget van. 3. He expressed the fact that he could not rent the van to me not because of my blindness, but rather due to the condition that the van may not be returned. The first two comments were expected. There are many persons who have never read nor chose to abide by the provisions of the White Cane Law. I knew that a repeat performance would come regarding the rules of the company. The third statement, however, raises serious questions. Here are several facts: I have a good paying job, my credit is excellent, and I would be paying for the van. Why would I decide to risk all of this, not return your van, and thus engage in criminal activity? How many sighted customers are insulted with such a statement? The point is clear to me. A sighted person would never have to deal with such a ludicrous and discriminatory statement. However, due to my blindness (and only for that reason), different (and definitely incorrect) assumptions were made. I asked Mr. Baack (I believe Ms. LaPour was still listening) if I brought in twenty blind citizens who each had a driver, would he send them to one of your competitors? Without any hesitation, he responded in the affirmative. I informed him that he was not a very good or smart businessman. Mr. Baack, toward the end of the conversation, did agree to review the Nebraska White Cane Law. Time was becoming a factor, and my wife decided to call several other companies and determine their rental requirements. Avis said their policy would be to have the blind person sign a form to authorize another person to drive. The driver would be required, as expected, to show his license. Hertz only wanted a record (for the computer) that the blind person would be using a driver, who had a valid license. Mr. Haley, your company has a problem which does not appear to be a problem for your competitors. We decided to rent from Hertz because they had a better deal, speaking in terms of attitudes and economics. Hertz made it quite clear that as blind persons, we are entitled to the same privileges as sighted persons who choose to rent vehicles. I would hope that you, as president of Budget, would apply good common sense and resolve this matter so as to avoid a similar circumstance. I am sure there are effective ways of establishing policy for all rental locations. The blind consumer will, as before, continue to rent vans, cars, and trucks from companies who use sound business judgment and common sense. This entire situation was unfortunate, to state it mildly. As a consumer, I am aware there is a need to establish guidelines and set policy. However, we should not be penalized because of our blindness. I am convinced that it would make good common sense for your company to change its policy and attitude. Your attention to these concerns would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you so very much. Sincerely yours, Larry E. Streeter cc: Mr. Marc Maurer, President National Federation of the Blind FROM THE EDITOR'S MAIL BASKET: FURTHER COMMENTS ON BRAILLE Austin, Texas April 10, 1990 Dear Dr. Jernigan: I have just enjoyed your article, Of Literacy, Braille, and the Oddities of Semantics, which appears in the March, 1990, edition of the Monitor . It put me in mind of a very positive statement concerning Braille, which was published by an educational institution. Unfortunately, such statements from the experts on the education of blind children and adults are becoming rare. The statement is under the heading, A Word About Braille. It is located on page 17 of the Hadley School for the Blind's student course catalog for 1988 and 1989 (also current through 1990). It says in part: ...If you have little or no usable vision, or if you can only read print under highly controlled or difficult to achieve circumstances, we encourage you to consider learning Braille. The Hadley faculty offers this guidance based on extensive experience. Braille is indeed a medium of inestimable value in the education and the lives of blind persons. I bring this to your attention because, as a Federationist, I feel that the movement should recognize and welcome such positive statements whenever they are made. Moreover, the readers of the Monitor should be informed of them. If this has already been done, then please disregard my letter. I have only been receiving the Monitor since October, 1988, so it is possible that I have missed the published recognition, which the above statement deserves. Also, I am still very much a babe in the woods when it comes to experience in the NFB. In our Austin chapter I am in charge of public relations. For those of us who are engaged in the education of the general public concerning the Federation, the Monitor is an excellent resource for information. If published, Hadley's statement could be useful in the movement's ongoing efforts to inform both educators and the general public concerning the vital need for, and the essential usefulness of, Braille. It seems that with the passing of each year, mankind makes more and longer strides in the field of technology as it is applied to education. It is not difficult for educators and the public at large to be distracted from some of the most basic tools of education by the ever increasing array of new educational devices which are available. Hadley's words could be a help in emphasizing the NFB's view that Braille is as essential to the education of the blind as print is to the education of the sighted.... Yours in the Federation, David Milner COLLECTIVE ACTION PAYS OFF IN MINNESOTA by Scott LaBarre From the Associate Editor: Scott LaBarre is the First Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind's Student Division and a leader in the Minnesota Student Chapter. He has just been graduated from St. John's University in Minnesota, and he plans to attend law school in the fall. This article is reprinted from the Spring, 1990, issue of The Student Slate, the newsletter of the NFB Student Division. For those students who qualify for such services, virtually every state rehabilitation agency in the country will pay for post-secondary undergraduate education at state institutions. The vast majority will allocate an equivalent amount of money toward defraying the costs of an education at a private college or university. A very few (Ohio is the one that comes to my mind immediately) have almost categorically refused to have anything to do with this minimal funding of private education on the questionable grounds that, if a student and his or her family are willing to incur the debt that inevitably results from the decision to attend such a school, the client must not really have the financial need that the agency had thought was present. All of us should rejoice with students in Minnesota, who truly have won a signal victory. This is how Scott LaBarre described what happened: If you read the last issue of The Student Slate, you will recall an article entitled A Protest Against Mediocrity. That article was a copy of a tuition policy proposal from the Minnesota Student Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota. For the last two years we have been working arduously to alter Minnesota State Services for the Blind's (SSB's) policy which required the agency to pay for tuition only up to the amount charged at Minnesota state colleges and universities. As you might have guessed, tuition at these state institutions is the lowest in Minnesota. Since SSB's own mission statement boldly declares that the agency shall strive to foster the maximum potential from each of its clients and to achieve upward mobility rates equal to those of the general public, the Division's tuition cap did not conform to the lofty goals contained in its mission statement. If you would like to review our arguments for advocating change in SSB policy, please refer to the Fall, 1989, issue of The Student Slate. On November 16, 1989, some wonderful news came across the telephone line to me. Curtis Chong (NFB of Minnesota representative to the Minnesota Council for the Blind, which serves as SSB's advisory council) informed me that the Council had adopted our tuition policy proposal, exactly as we had submitted it. I could not believe my ears. Since SSB and the American Council of the Blind originally opposed our proposal, I had assumed it would take many more years to change minds and attitudes. The tuition cap was removed, however, with only one dissenting vote and eight in favor. So what does this all mean? Collective action pays off! That is what it means. Without the active members of the Minnesota Student Chapter and the strong support of the Minnesota affiliate, we could not have scored such a large victory for blind students in Minnesota. Now a blind student can select the best school for his or her educational and vocational purposes without having to worry about whether or not SSB will fund that choice. This experience, combined with many others, underscores the vital importance of having a strong student chapter. I believe that we had such quick success on this matter because we are the only organized group of blind students in the state of Minnesota. Curtis Chong and I worked diligently for many months on an SSB task force set up to deal with financial matters. If you have a student chapter in your state, make sure you seek representation on appropriate state agency committees. If you do not have a student chapter, you need to organize one so that you can obtain an official voice on relevant committees. In the last few years we have experienced tremendous growth within the Student Division, and the growth is now beginning to pay dividends. Because we are more powerful, vibrant, and active today, we are scoring larger and larger victories for blind students. Since we are a very important part of the future of the organized blind movement, we need to sustain and build upon our growth. If we do not advocate for major changes for blind people, someone with less direct interest in our cause will. We must be the voice of organized blind students, and we must change what it means to be blind.DONALD GIST APPOINTED COMMISSIONER OF SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND by Donald C. Capps From the Associate Editor: In the January, 1990, issue of the Braille Monitor we printed a story reporting the September 20, 1989, resignation of William James from his position as Commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind. Under James' leadership the Commission had done its best to ignore the concerns of South Carolina's blind citizens. Auditing and other administrative irregularities as well as ugly racial problems became commonplace, and eventually the Commission's governing board concluded that James should be allowed to resign. They had no choice but to start over. For six months a search for the new Commissioner was conducted, but this time the Board had the good sense to include consumers of its services in the process. Their change of heart and strategy appears to have paid off. Writing in the May, 1990, issue of The Palmetto Blind , the publication of the NFB of South Carolina, Donald Capps, President of the affiliate and editor of the magazine, writes: The new commissioner has made it clear to me that he wants continuing dialogue and wants the lines of communication open at all times. The Commission has outstanding facilities. No doubt the Commission has many competent staff members. Where additional funding is needed, the NFB of South Carolina will be there to support Commissioner Gist and the agency. While it is an appropriate function of the NFB of South Carolina to be interested in and monitor programs, it is also time for healing and harmony as well as good will. I believe Mr. Gist is a healer. I also believe the best opportunity in many years now exists for all of us in this big program of serving the blind to get our joint act together. These are exciting times, and the NFB of South Carolina is encouraged and optimistic about the future. That is what Donald Capps said in the May, 1990, Palmetto Blind ; and all of us join with South Carolinians in wishing Mr. Gist well as he works to rebuild the South Carolina Commission for the Blind. He seems to be beginning wisely. A good leader must be willing to listen to everyone and able to synthesize the best ideas from what he learns. Here is the article about Donald Gist that appeared in the May, 1990, edition of The Palmetto Blind : On March 21, 1990, Mr. Donald Gist of Columbia, South Carolina, was officially appointed Commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind by the agency's governing board. For six months the Commission's board carefully screened more than sixty applicants for the commissioner's position. Mr. Gist was one of three finalists. The new commissioner is a graduate of Benedict College, having earned a B.A. degree in history and political science. He also earned a Master's degree in history at the University of South Carolina. Additionally, Mr. Gist received his juris doctor from the University of South Carolina Law School in 1978. A native of Jonesville in Union County, South Carolina, Mr. Gist is married and has two children. The new commissioner has extensive state government experience. Nationally recognized as a labor relations expert, Mr. Gist was Deputy Commissioner of Labor Management Services with the South Carolina Department of Labor before coming to the Commission for the Blind. Having joined the Department of Labor in 1972, Mr. Gist was responsible for administering state industrial relations, personnel administration, labor law, and labor relations, as well as regulation oversight of the South Carolina state policies and procedures for private and public sector employer/personnel law administration. According to Mrs. Earlene Gardner, Board Chairman, Mr. Gist was selected based on his experience with labor management negotiations, his knowledge of the South Carolina business sector and its leaders, and his understanding that each individual needs to be self-supporting. Mrs. Gardner also stated, Although there were three outstanding finalists, the Board felt that Mr. Gist would have the greatest impact on the 70 percent jobless rate among the employable blind of South Carolina. At a news conference after the board meeting, Mr. Gist said his priorities would be to work with the business community in developing job opportunities for blind and severely visually impaired people. Mr. Gist also said, I appreciate the opportunity to lead the Commission for the Blind into the future. He also pointed out that the people served by the Commission comprise a segment of South Carolina's population that has been neglected. The hiring of Mr. Gist undoubtedly was influenced by the governing board's belief that he was the candidate best equipped to deal with staff tensions and low morale. Mr. Gist told the media that the agency has problems, but indicated the way he will handle them is to be a fair administrator, regardless of an employee's race, color, creed, or religion. The Commissioner pledged to meet with every employee within 90 days. Active in other areas, Mr. Gist serves as Chairman of the South Carolina Opportunities Industrialization Council and has also served on the Governor's blue ribbon panel to study the problems of the aging in South Carolina. Unlike six years ago, when former Commissioner William K. James was hired, there was extensive board involvement as well as fair and reasonable input by consumer organizations, including the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina. State President Donald Capps represented the NFB of South Carolina. A get-acquainted dinner for the three finalists was sponsored on Friday evening, March 16, at a Columbia restaurant. On Saturday, March 17, the three finalists made academic presentations at a joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners and consumer representatives. Mr. Gist was dynamic in his presentation, which was far more impressive than those made by the two other finalists. He came across as knowledgeable and sincere and demonstrated a great deal of common sense. Mr. Gist convinced everyone present that he sincerely wanted an opportunity to lead the Commission at a time when the Commission has many challenges. Without excessive emphasis Mr. Gist alluded to his faith in God who he stated was his leader. With regard to sheltered workshops and set-aside taxes on blind vendors, Mr. Gist stated emphatically that he opposes both set- aside and sheltered workshops. He made it clear that he believes in strong consumer input with all the groups with a vital interest in this big program of serving the blind being involved as fully as possible. Mr. Gist stated that the mission of the Commission for the Blind is strictly that of serving blind South Carolinians. Hiring qualified blind staff members, including minority blind citizens is also a goal of Mr. Gist. In response to a question by Mr. Capps concerning quality closures, Mr. Gist replied that it will be his policy as commissioner to see that blind persons are well trained and then placed in meaningful and competitive jobs. He said that he plans to use numerous available training centers and facilities throughout the state in equipping blind persons for competitive employment. Mr. Gist indicated that he was completely familiar with the serious problems of the Commission's computer operations and was committed to finding a solution. Two years ago the Commission for the Blind permitted some $200,000 in funds to lapse. Mr. Gist is opposed to permitting any Commission funds to lapse, stating that all funding will be used to provide needed services to clients. Concerned with staff tensions and low morale, Mr. Gist indicated that there will be significant staff changes. As a follow up to the March 16 and 17 meetings, a conference was held between Commissioner Donald Gist and NFB of South Carolina President Donald Capps on Wednesday, March 28. After the conference the following communication was released on March 29 by President Capps to the NFB of South Carolina state board, Federation chapter and division presidents, and other NFB of South Carolina leaders: By now all of you across the state probably know that Mr. Donald Gist of Columbia was appointed Commissioner for the Blind by the Commission's Board Wednesday, March 21. I first met Mr. Gist on Friday evening, March 16, at a special dinner held for the three finalists. Also, on Saturday morning, March 17, prior to my leaving for Michigan that afternoon, I participated in a Commission Board meeting in which Mr. Gist made an academic presentation along with the two other finalists, Ed Thomas of Columbia and Harry McGee of Miami. Unquestionably, Mr. Gist made the best presentation of the three. While lacking experience and background in work with the blind, which initially concerned the NFB of South Carolina, Mr. Gist impressed the Commission Board sufficiently that a majority voted for him. He had previously announced that he wanted to meet with key leaders in work with the blind; thus he and I agreed that we would meet as soon as possible. Yesterday, Wednesday, March 28, Mr. Gist and I met in the conference room at the Federation Center for nearly two hours. I felt it was necessary for Mr. Gist to be given firsthand information about the NFB of South Carolina and its many accomplishments. His orientation included the new ten-minute sound-slide documentary featured at the statewide seminar. He was also given copies of the The Palmetto Blind and the 25 pieces of legislation the NFB of South Carolina has successfully sponsored over a period of thirty years. Upon his request, I also gave him a written agenda of the NFB of South Carolina, which concentrates on finding jobs for blind people and reducing the 70 percent unemployment rate. I also gave him the Cause for Concern brochure, which was given to legislators who attended the January, 1989, legislative dinner and was also given to all members of the General Assembly. In our discussion Mr. Gist reiterated that he opposes set-aside tax on blind vendors. He opposes sheltered workshops. He favors the hiring of qualified blind persons on the staff of the Commission. He requested that I meet with him at least monthly to review mutual concerns. Not only will Mr. Gist be attending the South Carolina state convention, but upon my request he agreed to attend the national convention in Dallas. Mr. Gist is committed to a sincere personal effort to improve the overall climate in work with the blind so that there can be maximum progress. Mr. Gist has been with the South Carolina Department of Labor since 1972 and has served as deputy commissioner of that state agency for a number of years. He also has a law degree from the University of South Carolina. He is highly intelligent; and being a minority citizen, he understands the significance of discrimination and can, therefore, sympathize with those who face discrimination based upon blindness. Mr. Gist struck me as being very sincere. He obviously recognizes the importance of getting along with the NFB of South Carolina. He specifically requested me to give him the opportunity to negotiate a settlement before going public, if any future disagreement arises between the Federation and the Commission. He wants no fight with the NFB of South Carolina or anyone else in work with the blind. Based upon my meeting with Mr. Gist yesterday, I believe that he is competent; and while he has a lot to learn in the specific field of blindness, he suggested that he would like the NFB of South Carolina to help teach him about the blindness system. Obviously, his eagerness to attend Federation functions, including the national convention, is a real plus and demonstrates intelligence on his part. The NFB of South Carolina has the policy of being fair, and there is every reason for the Federation to wish Mr. Gist well. After all, he has no track record of failure in work with the blind, and there is plenty of opportunity for him to succeed, but he will need the understanding and support of the NFB of South Carolina to be entirely successful. Mr. Gist made clear to me the fact that he recognizes he will have to produce for the blind. In the May issue of The Palmetto Blind there will be an opportunity to give much more information about Mr. Gist. In addition to accepting invitations to attend both the national and state NFB conventions, Mr. Gist also accepted an invitation to speak to the Columbia Chapter of the NFB of South Carolina on Thursday evening, May 10. As Program Chairman of the Forest Acres Rotary Club, Capps also invited Mr. Gist to be the guest speaker on April 25. Mr. Gist officially assumed his responsibilities with the Commission for the Blind on Tuesday, April 17. PROBLEMS WITH COUNSELING THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED by Fareed Haj, Ph.D. From the Associate Editor: In 1970 Mrs. Jernigan was doing some affiliate organizing in the state of Florida. While she was working in Miami, she met a young educator who was interested in the things she had to say about the National Federation of the Blind. He had received his Ph.D. from New York University two years before and was profoundly aware of the discrimination faced by blind people whose ambition is to live active, contributing lives as fully participating members of their communities. The name of this young man was Fareed Haj. He has kept in touch with members of the Federation through the years and has continue