Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Braille Monitor 9405
THE BRAILLE MONITOR
May, 1994
Barbara Pierce, Editor
Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc,
and cassette by
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT
National Office
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
* * * *
Letters to the President, address changes,
subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
should be sent to the National Office.
* * * *
Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five
dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are
requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
* * * *
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES
ISSN 0006-8829 THE BRAILLE MONITOR
A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
CONTENTS
MAY, 1994
THE FUTURE OF SPECIALIZED SERVICES FOR THE BLIND
by Kenneth Jernigan
ROLLER COASTER RIDE WITH VALLEYFAIR FINALLY ENDS
by Scott LaBarre
THE BLIND OF OHIO WIN THE RIGHT TO RIDE
by Eric Duffy
KEEPING WITHIN THE LINES
by Marc Maurer
RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRAILLE DOCUMENTATION
by David Andrews
MORE BRAILLE BILLS BECOME LAW
by Barbara Pierce
WHERE AM I?
by Peggy Pinder
TO DIG I AM NOT ABLE; TO BEG I AM ASHAMED
by Elizabeth Browne
ELIZABETH CAMPBELL: BILINGUAL REPORTER FOR A MAJOR DAILY
NEWSPAPER
by Lorraine Rovig
TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PROFESSOR URGES BLIND PEOPLE TO BREAK
TRADITIONAL JOB BARRIERS
by Lea Levavi
THE SOLO
by Barbara Walker
SLOW DOWN, NOT SO FAST!
by Noel Nightingale
SSI MODERNIZATION: THE NFB SPEAKS OUT
by James Gashel
LAST CHANCE CONVENTION REMINDERS: THE ROAR OF '94
by Sue and Don Drapinski
RECIPES
MONITOR MINIATURES
Copyright 1994 National Federation of the Blind
[LEAD PHOTO/CAPTION: Each year the American Foundation for
the Blind holds the Josephine Taylor Seminar in Washington, D.C.
Shown here at the 1994 meeting from left to right are Carl
Augusto, President and Executive Director of the American
Foundation for the Blind; Kenneth Jernigan; LeRoy Saunders,
President of the American Council of the Blind; and Michael Bina,
President of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of
the Blind and Visually Impaired.]
[Photo: Dr. Jernigan stands with raised gavel at podium at National
Convention. CAPTION: Kenneth Jernigan]
THE FUTURE OF SPECIALIZED SERVICES FOR THE BLIND
An Address Delivered by Kenneth Jernigan
At the Josephine L. Taylor
Leadership Institute
Washington, D.C., March 3, 1994
When Mr. Augusto asked me to appear on this panel, he told
me that almost all of the people in the audience would be
professionals, rehabilitators and educators; so my remarks are
principally aimed at those of you who are professionals. Today we
are talking about how to save specialized services for the blind
and what kind of partnership can or should exist between the
blind and service providers. The fact that we are considering
this topic and that the discussion is being led by the consumer
organizations and the agencies in the field implies that we think
specialized services are in danger, that they are worth saving,
and that the organizations of the blind and the professionals can
work in partnership, and that the partnership can make a
difference. There is no question that programs for the blind are
in danger, but whether the professionals and the consumers can
effectively cooperate to save the situation is still being
determined.
Partners must be equals. You who are professionals need, in
the modern lingo, to internalize that. You need to internalize
something else, too. If an organization of the blind is not
strong enough and independent enough to cause you trouble and do
you damage (that is, jeopardize your budget, create political
problems for you, and hurt your public image), it is probably not
strong enough and independent enough to do you any good either.
Likewise, if you as a professional don't have enough authority to
damage the lives of the blind you are hired to help, you almost
certainly don't have enough authority to give them much
assistance.
Fifteen or twenty years ago you heard very little talk in
our field about consumerism. Today that has all changed. The
organized blind movement has now developed enough strength and
presence that it must be taken into account in every decision of
any consequence. How you as professionals react to that new
reality may very well determine whether specialized services for
the blind will survive.
Some time ago I was asked to speak to a group of agency
professionals on the topic "Blind Consumers: Chattels or
Choosers." It is not only a catchy title but a real issue, for we
can't meaningfully consider the relationship between the blind
and the agencies established to give them service without taking
into account current public attitudes about blindness--and even
more to the point, the truth or falsity of those attitudes. With
all of our efforts to educate the public, the average citizen's
notions about blindness are still predominantly negative; and
since all of us (whether blind individual or agency professional)
are part of the general public, we cannot help being influenced
by public opinion.
Even so, we in this room (or at least most of us) profess to
know that the blind (given equal training and opportunity) can
compete on terms of equality with others--that the average blind
child can hold his or her own with the average sighted child;
that the average blind adult can do the average job in the
average place of business, and do it as well as a sighted person
similarly situated; and that the average blind grandmother of
eighty-four can do what the average sighted grandmother of that
age can do. Of course, the above average can compete with the
above average, and the below average will compete at that level.
Blindness does not mean lack of ability, nor does it mean lack of
capacity to perceive beauty or communicate with the world.
The techniques may be different, but the overall performance
and the ability to experience pleasure are comparable. There are
blind mathematicians, blind factory workers, blind dishwashers,
and tens of thousands of just ordinary blind citizens to prove
it. This is what I as a blind person, representing the largest
organization of blind persons in the world, know--and it is what
you, knowledgeable professionals in the field, also know. Or, at
least, this is probably what we would say we know if asked. But
do we know it? Down at the gut level, where we live and feel, do
we really believe it? As the poet Tennyson said, "I am part of
all that I have met"--and he was right. Whether we are blind
person or agency professional, it is very hard for us to
contradict what our culture has taught us and what it reinforces
every day. As the German scientist Max Planck said, "A new truth
usually does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
On this critical issue we cannot afford to engage in
sophistry or deceive ourselves. If blindness is as limiting as
most people think it is, and as many professionals have
traditionally said it is, then we should not deny it but face it.
On the other hand, if the real problem of blindness is not the
loss of eyesight but the misunderstandings and misconceptions
which exist, we should face that, too, and deal with it
accordingly. In either case the need for the professional in the
field will be equally great, but the services and the objectives
will be different.
Let me give you an example from my own personal experience.
When I was getting ready to graduate from high school, I was
interviewed by a rehabilitation counselor. He asked me what I
wanted to do, and I told him I wanted to be a lawyer. After
changing the subject and talking about other things, he returned
to the question and asked me to tell him three or four careers I
might like to consider. With the brashness of youth I told him I
didn't need to do that, that I knew what I wanted to be--I wanted
to be a lawyer.
He trotted out rehab jargon and told me that, while he
wouldn't say it was impossible for a blind person to be a lawyer,
he would say it wasn't feasible. A blind man, he said, couldn't
see the faces of the jury, couldn't handle the paperwork,
couldn't do the traveling. I argued--but I was a teenager; and he
was the counselor, who controlled the funds. He finally said
(gently and with big words, but very clearly) that I could either
go to college and be a lawyer, and pay for it myself--or I could
go and be something else, and the agency would help with the
bills. I didn't have any money, and I was only a teenager--so I
went and was something else.
I know now that he was wrong. I am personally acquainted
with at least a hundred successfully practicing blind lawyers,
and many of them are no better suited for the profession than I
was. But I would not want you to misunderstand my point. That
rehabilitation counselor was not being vicious or deliberately
arbitrary. He was acting in what he believed to be my best
interest. He was well disposed toward me and generously inclined.
He simply believed (as his culture had taught him to believe)
that a blind person couldn't be a lawyer.
What, then, should be the relationship between the blind and
the agencies, the consumers and the professionals? As I see it,
the answer must be given at two levels--the individual, and the
institutional. The issue is easier to deal with at the individual
level; for the choices are more personal, the alternatives more
clear-cut, and the short-term consequences more obvious. If, for
instance, a blind youngster should come to one of you today and
say that he or she wanted to be a lawyer, I seriously doubt that
you would resist or discourage. Law is now generally accepted as
a suitable profession for the blind.
This does not mean that each of you in this room who is an
educator or an agency employee will always make the right
decision concerning careers and other life situations involving
the blind persons with whom you deal. But make no mistake: You
will and must make decisions. Money is not unlimited, and by
funding one project you necessarily choose not to fund another.
You have the responsibility for making decisions and for being
knowledgeable enough to give correct information and advice to
the blind persons who need your help. I have no doubt that, in
most instances, your motives will be good, but your decisions
will be wise only to the extent that you have a correct
understanding of what blind people can reasonably hope to do and
be, and what blindness is really like--what the limitations of
blindness are and, perhaps even more important, what they are
not.
Obviously this kind of decision making concerning
individuals is not easy, but as I have said, it is far less
difficult than the other sort, the institutional. Moreover,
despite the fact that the decision making concerning individuals
leads to successful lives or blighted dreams, it is not as
important (even to those personally involved) as your
institutional decisions. In the long run every blind person in
this country will be far more affected (more helped or hurt) by
your institutional than your individual decisions. For purposes
of today's discussion I want to talk about your institutional
decision making concerning the kinds of consumer organizations
you will encourage or inhibit. And I urge you to resist the
temptations of sophistry, for you cannot avoid making decisions
in this area. You will make them whether you want to or not--and,
for that matter, whether you know it or not. If in no other way,
you will make such decisions by your daily attitudes and your
subconscious behavior. Therefore, it is better to make them
consciously and deliberately.
Of course, you cannot create an independent organization of
blind consumers, for if the organization depends upon your
permission and financing, it is by definition not independent.
Freedom cannot be given by one group to another. It must either
be affirmatively taken by the individual or group alleging to
want it, or it cannot be had. It must be self-achieved, and the
process must be ongoing and constant. But if you cannot create an
independent organization of the blind, you can and will establish
the climate that will encourage or inhibit it. And the stake you
have is not solely altruistic or professional. It is also a
matter of self-interest, and possibly survival.
In today's climate of changing values and hard-fought
issues, the best possible insurance policy for an agency for the
blind is a strong, independent organization of blind consumers.
Regardless of how much blind individuals may like the agency and
support its policies, they cannot achieve and sustain the
momentum to nurture and defend it in time of crisis. That is the
negative way of saying this: If there is a powerful, independent
organization of the blind and if the members of that organization
feel that the agency is responsive to their needs and sympathetic
to their wants, they will go to the government and the public for
funding and support. They will be vigilant in the advancement of
the agency's interests. Its friends will be their friends. Its
enemies will be their enemies. If it is threatened, they will
feel that they have something to lose, and they will fight with
ingenuity and determination to protect it.
Chattels, on the other hand, have very little to lose. They
are at best indifferent and at worst resentful, always waiting
for a chance to rebel in periods of crisis. In good times they
rarely criticize, but they also do not imaginatively and
effectively give support. In bad times they not only fail to
defend--they cannot defend. They have neither the strength nor
the know-how. Moreover, they lack the incentive. Having been
taught that agency policy is none of their business, they cannot
in time of danger suddenly become tough and resourceful. As many
an agency has learned (the same is true of nations), chattels do
not make good soldiers.
The agencies cannot have it both ways. Those that encourage
independence, and help the blind achieve it, will prosper--and
those that defensively cling to yesterday's power base will
perish. If a sufficient number of agencies fail to recognize the
new realities, then the whole blindness system may well be
destroyed.
And what are these new realities, these vital issues of
which I speak? There are at least three, interrelated and
inseparable: funding, generic as opposed to specialized programs,
and empowerment of clients.
There was a time (and not long ago at that) when agencies
for the blind pretty much got all of the money they reasonably
wanted, and sometimes more than they reasonably needed. Today,
budgets are tightening; the environment is deteriorating;
population is rising; and resources are dwindling. In addition,
other disability groups (once disorganized and invisible) are
finding their voice and reaching for power. Some say they took
their lessons from the blind. Be that as it may, they are now a
growing force to be reckoned with, and there is no turning back.
The argument they make is deceptively alluring. Give us, they
say, a unified program for people with disabilities--no special
treatment for any segment of the group. We are one population.
Despite superficial differences, our needs are essentially the
same. Save money. Eliminate duplication.
You and I know that the logic is shallow and the promise
false, but it will take more than rhetoric to save our programs.
In the general melting pot of the generic disability agency the
blind will have no useful training, no meaningful opportunity, no
real chance. If the special training and rehabilitation needs of
the blind are to continue to be met and if our programs are to
survive, there is only one way it can be done. The agencies for
the blind and strong, independent grassroots organizations of the
blind must work together to make it happen. And the partnership
cannot be a sham. It must be real. It must be a true partnership
of equals--each giving, each supporting, and each respecting the
other.
This brings me to the empowerment of clients. By this I do
not mean that the clients should administer the agencies. This
would not work, and it is not desirable. Rather, I mean that
clients should be respected, that they should be given meaningful
choices, that they should have access to information, and that
they should be encouraged (not pressured but encouraged) to join
independent organizations of the blind--organizations which are
not company unions but which have both the power and the
inclination to serve as a check and balance to the agency, to act
in concert with it, to pursue reasonable complaints against it,
to refuse to pursue unreasonable complaints against it, and to
work in every way as a supporter and partner. Let these things be
done, and both the blind and the agencies will prosper. Let them
not be done, and I think the blindness system will perish.
There is something else: Workers in the blindness system
must resist the growing tendency to hide behind the term
"professionalism" and must stop treating "professionalism" as if
it were a sacred mystery. There is a teachable body of knowledge
which can be learned about giving service to the blind; but much
of that knowledge is a matter of common sense, good judgment, and
experience. Most thinking blind persons (certainly those who have
been blind for any length of time and have had any degree of
success) know at least as much about what they and other blind
people want and need from the system as the professionals do, and
it must also be kept in mind that not every act of a
"professional" is necessarily a "professional" act or based on
"professionalism." Just as in other fields in America today, the
professionals in the blindness system must be judged on their
behavior and not merely their credentials.
Whether you believe that the type of partnership and
cooperative effort I have outlined will work depends on whether
you believe in the basic tenets of democracy. It also depends on
whether you believe the blind are capable of real equality. I do
believe these things, and I hope you do, too. Otherwise, programs
for the blind are probably doomed.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Scott Labarre]
ROLLER COASTER RIDE WITH VALLEYFAIR
FINALLY ENDS
by Scott LaBarre
From the Editor: During the past year Scott LaBarre has been
the Assistant Director for Governmental Affairs for the National
Federation of the Blind. Before that he attended college and law
school in Minnesota, where he took an active part in the
affiliate's effort to persuade the Valleyfair Amusement Park that
blind patrons have as much right as anybody else to enjoy park
facilities without being harassed by officials with silly and
demeaning restrictions. The blind have finally been victorious in
this struggle. Here is Scott LaBarre's description of how it
happened:
In the March, 1991, issue of the Braille Monitor we reported
on the discrimination blind people were encountering at
Valleyfair, an amusement park in Shakopee, Minnesota. At that
time Valleyfair had several policies which discriminated against
the blind, the most noteworthy of which required blind people to
be accompanied by "responsible adults" at all times. According to
Valleyfair a "responsible adult" meant anyone who stood over four
feet tall and could see. As a result nine blind Minnesotans filed
charges of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights (MDHR), and a few months after those charges were filed,
this is how Curtis Chong, Vice President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota, summarized the situation in
the Braille Monitor:
It is reasonable to ask where things stand today.
The charges of discrimination against Valleyfair have
been formally filed with the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights. We are taking every opportunity to
publicize Valleyfair's deplorable and demeaning
treatment of persons who are blind. The tremendous
support and understanding that this issue has received
from the general public are immensely encouraging. Yes,
when blind people go to Valleyfair today, they will be
required to be accompanied by a "responsible adult,"
who will likely be a small child. Yes, if blind people
visit Valleyfair today, they will not be given the
right to ride together. And yes, when blind people
visit Valleyfair, they can be assured that park
employees will address sighted people who happen to be
visiting with them.
But things will certainly not remain at a
standstill. Blind people, through their own
organization, the National Federation of the Blind, are
waging the struggle for equality. Like it or not,
Valleyfair will modernize its thinking toward the
blind; and like it or not, Valleyfair will learn to
treat blind guests as the first-class citizens and
responsible adults they truly are!
Curtis Chong was right. Valleyfair has now learned how to
treat blind people as first-class citizens. On March 24, 1994,
Valleyfair, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, and the
charging parties signed a settlement agreement. The agreement
states that Valleyfair will treat blind guests on the same terms
and conditions as it treats all other guests. The agreement
further prohibits Valleyfair from adopting any new policies
pertaining to the blind without proving in a formal legal
proceeding that such a policy does not violate the Minnesota
Human Rights Act. This settlement agreement is a tremendous
victory for the blind of Minnesota and the entire United States.
The road to the settlement has been long and arduous. Here
is the story of how it was achieved. The trouble with Valleyfair
began almost five years ago when Janet Lee, Board Member and
long-time leader of the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota, visited the park in July of 1989. A friend took Janet
to Valleyfair to celebrate her birthday, but the present she
received was discriminatory treatment from park officials. When
they entered the park, Janet's friend told her that large signs
boldly proclaimed that the handicapped must stop by guest
relations to be informed of the special policies which applied to
them. A Valleyfair official soon stopped Janet and informed her
that she must go to the guest relations booth to be briefed on
which attractions she could not ride because of her blindness.
Janet explained that she had visited the park several times
before and was familiar with all the rides. The official
continued to insist that she stop at the booth. Finally she
simply walked past the official and proceeded directly to one of
her favorite attractions, the bumper cars.
When she arrived, she met another hurdle. Janet had ridden
bumper cars dozens of times, several of them at Valleyfair
itself. It had never occurred to her that there was a problem
with a blind person's driving the cars. Certainly the average
blind person has the ability to steer a car around the track.
Never mind if a few other cars get bumped; that's the whole
purpose of the attraction.
The park official told Janet that she could not ride the
bumper cars alone and that she would have to have a "responsible
adult" drive the car while she rode. As they would for the next
several years, Valleyfair claimed that such a policy was
necessary for the safety of its blind patrons. Janet did not give
in, and eventually the official permitted her to ride the bumper
cars. As she expected, she encountered no difficulty or danger
during the ride, and in fact she had a good time.
But looking back the events at the park troubled Janet
deeply, and as a result she decided to file a charge of
discrimination with the MDHR claiming that the sign demanding
that disabled guests report to guest relations, the actions of
the park official who tried to force her to visit guest
relations, and the conduct of the operator at the bumper cars
were all discriminatory. The MDHR agreed with Janet on two of the
three issues. It ruled that the sign and the mandate that Janet
report to guest relations were violations of the Minnesota Human
Rights Act. As for the Bumper Cars, the MDHR unfortunately bought
Valleyfair's argument that the park had legitimate safety
concerns.
Then in July of 1990 Curtis Chong and Judy Sanders took
members of their families to Valleyfair. Even though there were
four youngsters in the party, Judy, her blind sister, and Curtis
were the ones treated like children. At the High Roller, a
standard roller coaster, Curtis attempted to ride the attraction
with his then twelve-year-old daughter, Tina, and Judy's
thirteen-year-old nephew, Jason. Tina and Jason wanted to sit in
the same car, so Curtis volunteered to sit in a separate car. The
ride operator then informed Tina that Curtis would have to ride
with one of the kids.
Speaking directly to the operator, Curtis informed him that
he should speak directly to Curtis and not to his daughter. The
operator then explained the park's responsible-adult policy to
Curtis, who then went to the guest relations booth. There
officials outlined the policy, and Curtis pointed out that
neither youngster was an adult. He was told that a responsible
adult was anyone who could see and stood above four feet tall.
Through the rest of that visit both Curtis and Judy met the
same obstacle again and again. Like Janet a year before, Curtis
and Judy filed charges of discrimination with the MDHR.
The Metro Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota resolved that the time had come to do something about
the situation. On September 23, 1990, Russell Anderson, Curtis
Chong, Ronda Delboccio, Nadine and Steve Jacobson, Janet Lee,
Judy Sanders, Heidi Sherman, and I decided to visit Valleyfair
and assess the extent of its discriminatory policy.
As soon as we arrived, park personnel informed us that we
must report to guest relations before entering any of the rides.
We patiently but firmly informed park officials that we had no
need to stop by the booth because we were all familiar with the
park and its rides.
At the first ride, the High Roller, we encountered some
resistance, but the operator let us ride after checking with
management. The real trouble began when we attempted to board the
Cork Screw, a fast roller coaster which does several upside-down
loops and twisting turns. Like the rest of the crowd, we waited
our turn in line and finally arrived at the boarding area. There
a park official, identifying himself as a manager, told us that
we could not ride together. "Each blind person must be
accompanied by a responsible adult," said the manager. We
informed him that we were responsible and there was no doubt that
we had all reached the age of majority. But of course, according
to him, "responsible adult" meant anyone who could see and stood
over four feet tall.
Despite the manager's commands, we did not relinquish our
places in line. By this time several managers had come on the
scene, and when they went off to huddle, we decided to board the
ride and wait for it to start. When they returned, they loudly
informed us that we must leave the cars immediately. We refused
to do so. By this time the people in line became involved in the
stand-off. The vast majority sided with our position, beginning
to chant, "Let them go, let them go."
After a forty-minute delay the managers capitulated and
permitted us to ride. They insisted, however, on describing the
ride to us in excruciating and technical detail to prepare us for
the experience. The description was absolutely meaningless,
filled as it was with references to an eighty-foot-long chain
link drive, double-helix loops, etc.
After we left the Cork Screw, our group divided up and went
to a number of different rides, but no matter where we went, a
small herd of Valleyfair managers followed. At each ride we were
told that we could not ride with each other and that we must be
accompanied by a responsible adult. At each such occasion we
refused to follow the policy, and at each ride the managers
finally caved in and allowed us to enjoy the attraction. At some
rides Valleyfair officials inveigled strangers into riding with
us so that "those blind people wouldn't ride alone." Because of
Valleyfair's constant harassment, we were able to go on only four
rides during the entire evening.
After such an experience we were all determined to stand up
for our rights. Within several days we filed charges of
discrimination with the MDHR against Valleyfair. That is when the
legal nightmare began in earnest.
To its credit, the MDHR conducted its initial investigation
rather quickly. Valleyfair immediately responded to our charges
by again trotting out the safety argument. Mr. Roy A. Ginsburg of
the prominent Minneapolis law firm of Dorsey and Whitney
represented Valleyfair, demonstrating thorough mastery of
Valleyfair's condescending and negative attitudes about blind
people. He claimed that we needed a responsible adult to tell us
about the environment at the park. For example, this adult could
tell us about each ride and its twists and turns. Through this
description we could then understand its dynamics and thereby
maintain our postural control. The responsible adult could also
assist us to "board and deboard" each ride. Without these
precautions Valleyfair believed that our safety was in jeopardy,
or so Mr. Ginsburg told the world.
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Ginsburg's written response to
our charges:
In regards to Mr. Chong's objection to the fact
that he was not allowed to ride the High Roller without
another person, Valleyfair firmly denies Mr. Chong's
claim that this requirement was discriminatory. In
order to ensure the safety of its guests, Valleyfair
has compiled an analysis on the characteristics of each
ride at the Park as well as the nature of various
disabilities. . . . As indicated on the High Roller
criteria list, experts evaluating that ride have
advised Valleyfair that a blind individual should not
ride the High Roller alone. This recommendation was
made based on safety considerations. Given this
recommendation, Valleyfair had two options: to not
allow blind individuals to use the ride or to require
that blind persons be accompanied by another
individual. Valleyfair believes the latter alternative
to be the more preferable.
In this charge Mr. Chong points out that the
Valleyfair policy indicates that on certain rides blind
guests are to "be accompanied by a responsible adult."
....Apparently Mr. Chong did not understand how his
twelve-year-old daughter qualified. The Valleyfair
policy, however, clarifies this issue:
"For the purpose of our Ride Admission Policy, a
responsible adult is defined as someone taller than the
post requirement (four feet) who can assist the
accompanied person in boarding or deboarding and
maintaining his postural control under the dynamic
conditions of the ride.
....Again, the purpose of Valleyfair's ride policy
is evident--ensuring the safety of its patrons. This is
not a discriminatory policy...."
There you have it. That was the way Valleyfair answered
every charge of discrimination brought against it. To this day
Valleyfair claims that its policies were always meant to ensure
the safety of its blind guests.
But the truth is that Valleyfair's claims of safety did not
hold water. Every time we challenged their policy, park officials
eventually allowed us to ride. If it had truly been a matter of
safety, why did they eventually permit us to enjoy the rides in
violation of their policy? Did Valleyfair consider our lives less
valuable because we had the gall to challenge their policy?
Valleyfair's safety claim is further undermined when one
considers the following incident: after our forty-minute delay at
the Cork Screw, one of the managers asked whether it should be
tested before allowing us to ride. Apparently it is the park's
policy to test run the ride after it has been down for any length
of time. Curtis Chong overheard the manager in charge say, "Let
'em go" in derisive imitation of the crowd's chant in support of
our position.
I do not mean to imply that Valleyfair is an unsafe
amusement park. It has always had a reputation for safety and
quality. Overall, I am certain that Valleyfair does indeed care
about the safety of its guests, but its management unfortunately
has bought into the tired old stereotype that the blind are in
fact a greater safety risk. Valleyfair's misconceptions about
blindness ran so deep that it would take years of litigation to
resolve the matter.
During the winter the MDHR conducted its investigation, and
in June of 1991 it found that there was probable cause that
Valleyfair had discriminated against the charging parties. After
making that determination, it attempted to settle the matter
between the parties. Initially Valleyfair refused to alter its
policy, and as a result the MDHR referred the matter to the
Minnesota Attorney General's office for further legal action.
At this stage our case became lost in the bureaucratic maze.
But we continued to pressure the Attorney General, and finally
the case landed in the hands of Erica Jacobson, Assistant
Attorney General for the State of Minnesota. Often, when we bring
cases before bodies like the MDHR, we have to educate those who
are charged with protecting our rights about blindness. Sometimes
these officials never come to understand blindness and
consequently do a poor job of representing our position. I am
happy to say that this was not the case with Ms. Jacobson. She
came to understand blindness and recognize that Valleyfair's
safety arguments were a sham. She competently and zealously
advocated for our rights.
Throughout the Summer of 1992 Ms. Jacobson and Mr. Ginsburg
exchanged correspondence, and Valleyfair clung to its
discriminatory policy. In the fall of 1992 Mr. Ginsburg wrote a
fifteen-page letter to Ms. Jacobson explaining the reasons why
the Valleyfair policy was merely a safety precaution. He
described almost every ride in detail and explained how difficult
it would be for a blind person to negotiate the park
independently. Mr. Ginsburg put forward the astonishingly ill-
informed notion that blind people would not be aware of their
surroundings unless a responsible adult was on hand to shepherd
them around the park. He clearly subscribed to the misconception
that blind people are completely oblivious to their surroundings.
Mr. Ginsburg also apparently believed that our blindness
prevented us from understanding the nature of the rides at
Valleyfair. Therefore he felt compelled to explain to us the
exact nature of each ride. Here are his actual words: "Many of
the rides at Valleyfair, like all amusement parks, put the rider
into very unusual positions. Some rides spin and spin and spin,
some turn the rider completely upside down, some move with great
speed and require the rider to brace him or herself, and some get
the rider completely wet." My response to this startling
revelation is, "Ho-hum." I can't speak for the rest of humanity;
but when I go to an amusement park, I fully expect "to spin and
spin and spin," "turn completely upside down," "move at great
speed," and even sometimes "get completely wet."
As you can see, in the fall of 1992 we still had a long way
to go. In November we had a settlement conference with
Valleyfair. Phyllis Reha, an administrative law judge
specializing in mediation, conducted the settlement talks. At
this conference Valleyfair reiterated its safety concerns. They
also acknowledged that a Curtis Chong or a Scott LaBarre might
not have any difficulty negotiating the park, but that the
average blind person would face great difficulties. Valleyfair
also claimed that the NFB was a small and elite group of blind
people which did not truly represent the views of the blind.
Despite these initial difficulties Valleyfair agreed to drop its
special ride-admission policy for blind people, and we agreed
that, if they actually did so, we would help park officials
develop a method for effectively and non-intrusively informing
blind guests about park attractions. Valleyfair further promised
to resolve the matter during the winter, before the park opened
again in the spring of 1993.
The snow fell; Christmas came and went; the lakes froze;
and, before we knew it, it was spring time in Minnesota, and
Valleyfair had still not changed its policy. As a result the
Minnesota Attorney General's Office filed a formal complaint
against Valleyfair in May of 1993 on behalf of the State of
Minnesota, charging the park with discrimination based on
disability. Valleyfair responded predictably by denying all the
charges, and the matter seemed headed for a full legal showdown.
In August Valleyfair filed a motion with Administrative Law
Judge Peter C. Erickson requesting that the case be dismissed on
the grounds that it had changed its policy and that the new
policy was no longer discriminatory. True, Valleyfair did in fact
offer a new policy, but it was as discriminatory as the old one.
Although the new policy said that blind people could ride
alone, it mandated that a sighted adult must assist them on and
off each ride. Valleyfair also said that its personnel did not
have the time and could not assume the liability for helping
blind people on and off the rides. In effect, Valleyfair's new
policy would have required any blind person visiting the park to
have a sighted adult along to help him or her on and off each
attraction. We filed a counter motion stating that Valleyfair's
policy was in fact still discriminatory. In early October Judge
Erickson held a hearing and denied Valleyfair's motion. He also
ordered the parties to go back to the bargaining table, so we
did.
When we started negotiating again, Valleyfair said that it
would drop any special ride restriction policies pertaining to
the blind. A few days after the negotiating session, however, we
received settlement language which greatly disturbed us. Even
though Valleyfair had agreed to drop its ride restriction policy,
it reserved the right to adopt a new policy if there were a
material change in circumstance. They still had not gotten the
message. Valleyfair still believed that blind people were a
greater safety risk than its other guests. Here is what their
proposed settlement language said: "In the event that the ride
admission policy changes set forth above lead directly or
indirectly to a serious accident involving a blind or sighted
patron, Valleyfair reserves the right to modify further the ride
admission policy to reduce potential risk of injury to other
patrons and or to preserve its insurance coverage." Based on this
language, we had no desire to sign a settlement agreement which
boldly proclaimed that the blind were indeed a greater safety
risk.
While these negotiations were going on, I flew back to
Minnesota for my deposition in preparation for the coming
hearing. Valleyfair's attorney deposed me for well over five
hours, and its strategy became clear. Over and over Mr. Ginsburg
tried to demonstrate that I was exceptional and not an ordinary
blind person. He also asked me several dozen questions about the
NFB and the organization's structure. He tried to paint us as a
radical and militant organization which did not reflect the views
of the blind. Mr. Ginsburg also asked me whether I had ever been
injured because of my blindness.
I assured Mr. Ginsburg that blindness was not a tragedy and
that it certainly did not affect our ability to enjoy amusement
parks. I told him that blind people have visited amusement parks
for decades without difficulty or harassment. For example, two
other blind staff members and I took several blind teenagers to a
large amusement park in Denver as part of the Colorado Center for
the Blind's summer program for blind high school students. The
only problem we faced on that trip was sunburn. Finally Mr.
Ginsburg concluded the deposition by asking me if I thought that
Valleyfair should be concerned with safety.
Question: "You do acknowledge, Mr. LaBarre, that Valleyfair
or any other amusement park has a legitimate interest in the
safety of its patrons, sighted and blind alike?
Answer: "If an amusement park does not have a legitimate
interest in the safety of its guests, then that amusement park
ought not to be in operation. So I guess I agree with you on
that."
Winter came again, and we had still not settled the case.
Valleyfair still insisted on reserving the right to change its
policy if there were material changes in circumstances. So in
January we had another meeting with Judge Erickson and actually
set a date for a formal hearing. Through the next several weeks
negotiations continued. Slowly and painfully we seemed to be
inching towards a settlement.
Finally, in March of 1994 the parties struck an agreement.
Valleyfair relinquished its insistence that it have the right to
change its policy on a whim under any circumstances. To allow
Valleyfair to pontificate about safety, we agreed that the park
could change its ride admission policies based on safety concerns
as long as such modifications were not based on blindness in any
form. Here are some of the key provisions of the agreement:
(E) Nothing in this agreement shall be construed
to prevent Valleyfair from taking additional safety
precautions for all patrons (blind and sighted alike)
with respect to any ride at any time, regardless of
whether the Office of Administrative Hearings has first
evaluated the situation;
Modification of Valleyfair's Ride Admission Policy
(F) During 1989 through 1992, Valleyfair required
blind individuals to be accompanied on Valleyfair's
rides by a sighted individual (Valleyfair's "1989-1992
Ride Admission Policy");
(G) After its 1992 season Valleyfair voluntarily
changed its 1989-1992 Ride Admission Policy;
(H) During its 1993 season Valleyfair did not
require blind individuals to be accompanied on
Valleyfair's rides by a sighted individual (except with
respect to the three rides covered by Valleyfair's
"Ride-Along Policy") but did require blind individuals
to be accompanied by sighted individuals at the
boarding area of a ride to explain ride dynamics and
provide boarding and de-boarding assistance
(Valleyfair's "1993 Ride Admission Policy");
(I) Valleyfair agrees to discontinue its "1993
Ride Admission Policy" and to allow blind individuals
to ride all rides (except the three rides covered by
Valleyfair's "Ride-Along Policy") without being
accompanied by a sighted individual, either on the
rides or at the boarding area;
(J) Valleyfair agrees not to reinstitute or
reestablish its "1989-1992 Ride Admission Policy" or
its "1993 Ride Admission Policy";
(K) Valleyfair agrees not to establish any new
policy which restricts the opportunity of blind persons
to ride Valleyfair's rides or otherwise use the
amusement park on the same terms and conditions as
sighted persons, and Valleyfair further agrees not to
establish any new policy which implies that blind or
visually impaired persons are less capable than sighted
persons of taking care of themselves and safely using
the park;
(L) Valleyfair has suggested that material changes
in circumstances may require re-examination and/or
modification of some of the provisions in this
agreement. To deal with such a possibility, the parties
agree to the following dispute resolution procedures:
If Valleyfair believes that material changes in
circumstances require re-examination and/or
modification of this agreement, Valleyfair will pursue
one or more of the following options: a) Valleyfair
will contact the MDHR and attempt to reach an informal
resolution of the issue; and/or b) Valleyfair will
submit the issue to the Office of Administrative
Hearings for non-binding mediation; and/or c)
Valleyfair will submit the issue to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (Judge Erickson or his
designee) for resolution as a contested case
proceeding. In such a contested case proceeding,
Valleyfair would bear the burden of proving (1) that
material changes in circumstances occurred, (2) that
those changes require modification of the agreement,
and (3) that the modification proposed by Valleyfair
complies with the Minnesota Human Rights Act;
If Valleyfair pursues one or more of the three
options discussed above, each party shall bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees. Valleyfair shall pay any
costs of the Office of Administrative Hearings, except
as follows. If the administrative law judge decides in
a contested case proceeding that material changes in
circumstances occurred and that those changes require
modification of the agreement, any costs of the Office
of Administrative Hearings shall be divided equally by
Valleyfair and the MDHR;
If Valleyfair believes it is necessary to suspend
one or more provisions of this agreement while the
provision is being re-examined, Valleyfair shall
contact the Office of Administrative Hearings (Judge
Erickson or his designee) in writing requesting
suspension of one or more specific provisions of the
agreement and fax a copy of the request to the attorney
for the MDHR. In any request for suspension Valleyfair
shall bear the burden of establishing that it is likely
to succeed in proving (1) material changes in
circumstances occurred, (2) those changes require
suspension of the provision(s) Valleyfair has requested
be suspended, and (3) the suspension proposed by
Valleyfair complies with the Minnesota Human Rights
Act. If Valleyfair satisfies this burden of proof,
Judge Erickson or his designee may enter an ex parte
order, which will remain in effect only until the
administrative law judge hears from the MDHR, and/or a
temporary order, which will remain in effect while the
parties attempt to resolve the dispute through one or
more of the three mechanisms described above.
Valleyfair will be solely responsible for all its own
costs, attorneys' fees, and for the costs of the Office
of Administrative Hearings associated with its request
for suspension. Judge Erickson's preliminary
determination, either suspending or maintaining the
provision in dispute, shall not be considered by any
mediator, Judge Erickson, or his designee when the
agreement is re-examined in either a mediation or
contested case context;
The parties agree that they will attempt to
resolve any disputed issue expeditiously and in good
faith.
There you have the actual language of the agreement, and it
is clearly a victory for the blind. Valleyfair has recognized
that it must treat blind patrons on the same terms and apply the
same conditions as it does with its sighted guests. The only
negative part of the agreement is that it did not encompass three
rides at Valleyfair: the bumper cars, the antique cars, and the
go-carts. Unfortunately, when the complaint was filed by the
Attorney General's office, it did not include those rides because
they had not been part of the complaints we filed as a result of
our visit in September of 1990. The agreement does, however, make
clear that, if we choose, we can challenge this minor restriction
in the future.
In all other ways the agreement is much more specific and
thorough than any order which we would have received from Judge
Erickson in a hearing, even if we had won the case.
In an interview with the Braille Monitor, Erica Jacobson,
the Assistant Attorney General who was assigned to work with us,
said, "I think that it is a wonderful settlement. If the case had
been litigated, the judge's order would have focused only on
whether present and past policies were discriminatory. The
settlement agreement goes far beyond that. Valleyfair cannot
develop any future policies which may be discriminatory toward
the blind. Furthermore, if Valleyfair does want to modify its
policies with regard to the blind in any way, it must prove both
that the modification is necessary and that it would not violate
the Minnesota Human Rights Act. At every step Valleyfair has the
burden of proof."
The agreement also contains language about the way in which
Valleyfair can inform its blind guests about the park. We agreed
that Valleyfair could pass out to blind guests pamphlets in
Braille or large print or cassette with information about the
park, as long as it did not use language that singled out the
blind for special treatment. In fact, the agreement says:
Acquiring Information about Valleyfair's Rides
(T) Notwithstanding Valleyfair's decision to
modify its "1993 Ride Admission Policy," Valleyfair
continues to believe strongly that patrons, blind and
sighted alike, who are unfamiliar with Valleyfair's
rides and who, for whatever reason, may not fully
appreciate the ride dynamics and/or the risks attendant
with the rides, should seek information from
Valleyfair's management, ride operators, and/or other
employees, as well as the patrons' companions;
(U) To facilitate the ability of Valleyfair's
patrons to obtain information about Valleyfair's rides
and to encourage those unfamiliar with Valleyfair to
acquire the knowledge to enable patrons to understand
both the ride dynamics and the risks associated with
the rides, Valleyfair will erect signage at the park's
entrance and/or at the ticket booth, notifying those
unfamiliar with Valleyfair that they may obtain
information, if they wish to do so, by visiting the
Guest Relations Booth; in addition, Valleyfair will
distribute cards, printed in Braille, to blind patrons
of the park when those individuals enter the park; the
signage and the cards will contain identical wording
and will not single out blind or visually impaired
persons for different treatment;
(V) In addition to providing the information to
patrons at the front entrance of the park, Valleyfair
will have available in its Guest Relations Booth more
extensive information regarding the rides, ride
dynamics, and ride risks; this information will be
available in a pamphlet, prepared both in print and in
Braille, and in an audio form; the information
contained in the printed and Braille pamphlets and
audio will be identical; except when discussing
Valleyfair's "Ride-Along Policy," the information
available at Valleyfair's Guest Relations Booth will
not use the words "blind" or "visually impaired" and
will recognize that blind persons may safely ride
Valleyfair's rides and enjoy the park on the same basis
and terms as sighted persons;
(W) Nothing contained in the subparagraphs above
is intended to suggest or imply that virtually all of
Valleyfair's patrons, including its blind patrons, are
not fully able to appreciate and assume the risks
associated with any particular ride. The MDHR and the
charging parties represent that blind persons have
visited amusement parks in the past without special
restrictions and have safely enjoyed rides on the same
terms and conditions as sighted persons. The parties
recognize that amusement parks have risks for all
patrons (both sighted and blind) and that individuals
who visit amusement parks must and do recognize and
assume certain risks. The parties further agree that
blind persons who visit Valleyfair are capable of
obtaining necessary information and safely enjoying the
park.
That was the exact language. On March 24, 1994, the National
Federation of the Blind and the Minnesota Attorney General's
Office issued press releases about the settlement. They generated
several statewide stories on Radio and TV and in newspapers.
So the roller coaster ride with Valleyfair has finally
ended. The park has now publicly acknowledged that blind people
are first-class citizens and deserve to be treated as such.
Throughout this battle many people have asked me why we have
expended so much effort on a case about an amusement park when
serious issues like illiteracy among blind children and
employment discrimination need to be addressed. My answer is
simply this: whenever blind people are treated like children and
told that we must have responsible adults accompany us
everywhere; whenever we are told that normal, everyday
surroundings are too dangerous for us; whenever we are told that
we are inherent safety risks, we must respond quickly and firmly.
When the Valleyfair case began, we did not imagine that it would
take five years to resolve, but we determined to keep on battling
until we secured a victory. There is only one reason why the
blind are now free to visit Valleyfair on the same terms and
conditions as the sighted. That reason is, of course, the
National Federation of the Blind.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Eric Duffy]
THE BLIND OF OHIO WIN THE RIGHT TO RIDE
by Eric Duffy
From the Editor: Like Federationists in Minnesota, those in
Ohio have been struggling to teach management personnel at
amusement parks that blind people are no more or less likely than
others who frequent their establishments to be hurt or frightened
by their rides. Some of us don't like being turned upside-down
and thrown around at high speeds, and others love the sensations.
Those in the first category (blind and sighted alike) stick to
the self-propelled boats, people-movers, and benches. The others
delight in excitement and gravitate to the surprise and
stimulation of the rides--the wilder, the better.
For years--certainly all the time I was growing up and
worrying my stay-on-the-ground mother at amusement parks--blind
people were assumed to be the appropriate judges of their own
limitations. When snugly fitting lap-bars would not engage
because of my white cane, I gave it to the attendant with the
understanding that it would be returned as soon as my car pulled
into the station again or my gondola landed. Years later, when I
led my young children onto spinning rides and swings that sailed
through the heavens, no one talked about who was supervising
whom. It was all as it should have been, and no one got hurt or
was demeaned by the experience.
But no more! Amusement parks like the airlines have
discovered the disabled; and, knowing nothing about the field,
they have devised safety measures that are compatible with
nothing but their own misunderstanding of the situation. Not
surprisingly, the result has been a flurry of cases in which
blind people have objected to being treated like children or
incompetents. We are pleased to report that in two of these (see
the preceding article) the blind Federationists involved have
successfully argued their position.
Eric Duffy is one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of Ohio. At the time of his clash with the Amusement
Corporation of America, he was President of the Capital Chapter
of the NFB of Ohio and First Vice President of the affiliate.
Here is his story as he told it in the Spring, 1994, edition of
the Buckeye Bulletin, the publication of the NFB of Ohio:
It was a hot August night, and Garth Brooks was the main
attraction at the 1991 Ohio State Fair. Carol Akers, a new member
of our Parents Division, was hoping to see Garth on her birthday,
and she brought her daughter Tiffany to share in the excitement.
I met them at the fairgrounds after work. Tiffany and I were
going to get our fill of amusement rides before the concert
began. We knew that the show was sold out; however, we planned to
catch it on the giant screen just outside the Celeste Center. We
knew without a doubt that we would not get into the building. We
were prepared for that, but we were not prepared for what
occurred during the rest of that evening.
Tiffany and I enjoyed several rides without incident. We
then found Carol and made our way to the giant screen. Much to
our surprise, we discovered that the concert would not be
broadcast. Making our way toward another ride, Tiffany and I
agreed that it was really too bad. What else could we do? We
couldn't see the concert, and we didn't want Tiffany to have come
all the way from Shelby only to ride a few rides and then go
home. So we thought we had better get some more rides in. As it
turned out, we should have quit while we were ahead.
We got in line for the Rainbow Ride. Like everyone else in
the line, we patiently waited for our turn to board. When we
arrived on the platform, I heard a man say: "He can't ride this
ride. Miss, he can't ride this ride." Assuming that I was the
"he" in question, I said that I could ride and that it would not
be a problem. The only response was once again, "Miss, he can't
ride this ride." I inquired why and did not receive an answer.
The ride operator simply refused to talk to me. At that point I
knew that I had two choices. I could stand on the platform at the
top of the stairs and perhaps shut the ride down for a time, or I
could walk away and pursue other means of resolving the problem.
The one thing I could not do was to walk away, ignoring the
insult and pretend the injustice had never occurred. I decided to
leave the Rainbow Ride without ever boarding it. But the
confrontation was only beginning.
Though it was well after midnight when I unlocked the door
to my house, I immediately began calling the press. I told them
about the disgraceful incident which had just taken place at our
State Fair. I said that I thought the fair should be something
the citizens of Ohio could take pride in and that most people
would be shocked to learn that I had been refused access to a
ride solely because I was blind. The story got good coverage in
the Columbus area. But as we might have expected, even those who
should have known better wondered if I had gone to the fair
knowing that this incident might happen. Of course, I did not.
Had I been looking for trouble, I would have chosen a night other
than Carol Akers's birthday. If I had planned to call attention
to the kind of discrimination practiced by this carnival owner, I
would have chosen someone a little older than Tiffany to help me
wage the fight. Be that as it may, life goes on, and we fight the
battles we are handed.
The next day I contacted the Ohio Expositions Commission to
determine who was responsible for the rides at the fair. The
Commission referred me to Marilyn Link of the Amusement
Corporation of America. I talked to Ms. Link by telephone. After
hearing my account of what had happened the previous evening, Ms.
Link began to defend the action of her employee. She told me that
the ride operator was simply enforcing company policy. I asked
her to tell me what the policy was. She said that the company
could not allow pregnant women, children below a certain height,
and disabled persons to ride the spectacular rides. I asked her
how this policy applied to me as a blind person, and she said
that I would not be permitted to ride certain rides or--believe
it or not--to walk through dark places such as the fun house.
When questioned about the origin of this policy, Ms. Link said
that her insurance company was responsible for the policy.
When asked for a copy of the letter stipulating this policy
from her insurance company, Ms. Link very willingly provided it.
The letter speaks for itself. Here it is:
August 5, 1991
Ms. Marilyn Link
Amusement Corporation of America
Freemont, Ohio
Dear Marilyn:
Because your Insurance Carrier, this Insurance Agency, and
your good family-owned carnival have safety as our primary
concern, we urge you to instruct your staff to prohibit wherever
possible: admissions of pregnant women, children below
acceptable height standards, and disabled persons whose handicaps
would endanger their well being to ride some of the spectacular
rides such as the Zyclon, Roundup, Spider, Tilt, and Pirate Ship,
and "dark walk-throughs" such as the Castle.
The Ride Admission Policy was developed using industry
knowledge and the American Society for Testing and Materials
Standards on Amusement Rides and Devices. Patrons having
characteristics described above have had an extremely high
frequency of mishaps totally out of the norm. Therefore, our
mutual concern for their well being motivates this strict
adherence. We will appreciate your cooperation and understanding
in the event we have to restrict access to particular amusement
devices. Safety must come first.
Your show is one of the safest in the country, and that
record can only be achieved by your diligence.
Sincerely,
Mitchell H. Kaliff
Once it was clear that I was not going to make any p
rogress
by talking with Ms. Link or Fair officials, I contacted the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission. My initial contact with this agency was
rather discouraging. The person doing the intake said that I had
to understand that the company did have to be concerned about
safety. When it was apparent that I was not about to be
dissuaded, the Commission employee then scheduled a time for me
to come in to file a charge. Although I was calling in August, my
appointment was not scheduled until October. On October 8, 1991,
I arrived at the Commission to file a charge of discrimination
against the Amusement Corporation of America. It wasn't until
January of 1992 that I heard from the Commission again, but the
results were worth the delay. The Commission ruled that there was
probable cause for discrimination on the part of Amusement
Corporation of America.
Later the Commission began conciliation efforts. The company
made a written offer to allow me to ride any of its spectacular
rides, provided that I was accompanied by a sighted person. I
refused that offer because it perpetuated the notion that
independent blind adults require the supervision of a sighted
person in order to be safe. The Commission then asked me if I
would accept an offer that would allow me to ride all rides after
signing a waiver saying that the company would not be held liable
in the event of an accident. I told them that I would be happy to
sign such a waiver provided that everyone else attending the fair
was also required to sign one. After these conciliatory efforts
failed, a hearing in this matter was ordered and eventually took
place on March 5, 1993.
Needless to say, a great deal of time had passed between
August of 1991 and March of 1993. Several things kept me strong
during this time. The first, of course, was the support of this
affiliate and our President, Barbara Pierce. The second thing was
the knowledge that Joyce Scanlan, Curtis Chong, and others were
dealing with a similar situation in Minnesota. Finally, I knew
that what I did would affect the blind of Ohio and perhaps the
nation for many years to come. An important precedent could be
set with this case. With some persistence on my part, the help of
the Federation, and a good dollop of luck it would be one that we
could all be proud of.
I was fortunate to have a competent Assistant Attorney
General arguing my case. With the assistance of the Federation,
Duffy Jamieson wrote a sensible, closely reasoned argument. What
follow are portions of his post-hearing brief:
Another safety concern raised by the respondent
was that a person who is blind cannot safely ingress
and egress the Rainbow Ride, but respondent's concern
was not credible. On cross-examination Mr. Link even
admitted, "I had far more concern before today than I
did after the explanation of how they do that [use a
white cane]." Mr. Link, after a little education by
Barbara Pierce, President of the Ohio Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind, began to realize that
he did not know the abilities of blind people. Mr. Link
also controverted himself by saying that a person who
is blind could not ride the Rainbow Ride but could ride
the Pirate ride, a ride manufactured by the same
corporation as the Rainbow Ride. Yet the Pirate ride
has the same kind of platform and steps as the Rainbow
Ride. Mr. Link felt that a blind person would be more
likely to trip in a large crowd when negotiating the
line and steps going to and from the ride. Naturally,
respondent has no evidence to support this allegation.
This is merely an ignorant assertion made by him which
perpetuates the stereotypes about the abilities of
blind people. [Mr. Jamieson, you speak our language.]
If this was a genuine concern, why doesn't respondent
deny admittance to other individuals similarly situated
such as the elderly?
In a footnote Mr. Jamieson says: "The term common sense was
used as a justification by respondent for denying blind
individuals the opportunity to ride the Rainbow Ride. Lacking the
sense of sight is far from common, and the abilities of people
who are blind are certainly not within the common understanding
of sighted people."
After this small sample of my attorney's written argument to
the Commission and knowing that Barbara Pierce appeared as an
expert witness testifying about the abilities of the blind, it is
easy to see why the hearing examiner recommended that the
Commission issue a cease-and-desist order: "Requiring respondent
to provide visually impaired persons access to its Rainbow Ride."
This hearing examiner's report was signed by Deborah J. Tucker on
October 29, 1993.
As might be expected, the respondent objected to Ms.
Tucker's report. The respondent alleged that as hearing examiner
she had ignored its safety arguments, but the Commission upheld
the examiner's report.
At the time of this writing we cannot be certain whether or
not the Amusement Corporation of America will pursue this matter
further. In any event we have scored a clear victory for the
blind of Ohio and of the nation. I could not have prevailed in
this case were it not for the National Federation of the Blind.
This case is another clear example of why the National Federation
of the Blind and why we must always be ready to defend the rights
of blind Americans.
[PHOTO: A young Marc Maurer sits between two fenceposts. CAPTION: Marc Maurer
as a child]
KEEPING WITHIN THE LINES
by Marc Maurer
From the Editor: The following story by President Maurer
first appeared in The Journey, the most recent of the NFB's
paperback books in the Kernel Book Series. It begins with Dr.
Jernigan's introduction. Here it is:
As readers of previous Kernel Books know, Marc Maurer is
President of the National Federation of the Blind. He is a
graduate of Notre Dame and the University of Indiana Law School
and a member of the bar of several states and the United States
Supreme Court. He is also the father of two young children.
Braille is an important tool for him--in his career and in his
home. Here is what he has to say about some of his early
experiences with Braille:
The kindergarten in the public school that I attended when I
was five left me with a feeling of alienation and frustration--
though I didn't know the words to describe the problem. My
teacher was a kind and gentle lady, who tried to help me, but I
presented difficulties which she felt unable to solve. Many of
the kindergarten activities were done visually. Learning colors,
drawing, recognizing letters and numbers, naming the geometric
shapes--all of these were presented visually. Some kindergarten
tasks could be done quite effectively without sight--counting,
reciting the alphabet, remembering your own address and telephone
number, listing in order the days of the week or the months of
the year. But in the drawing classes I was unable to "keep within
the lines," and "keeping within the lines" was important.
I learned the shapes of the print capital letters from the
building blocks we had, and I came to know the forms of numbers
in the same way. By the time kindergarten had come to an end, I
had learned to print my name, M-A-R-C, but I usually got it
backwards--C-R-A-M. As I viewed it, the experiment with
kindergarten was only marginally successful. Although it was
never stated, the lesson of kindergarten was unmistakable--blind
people are different from others; they require kindness; they
can't do the ordinary things that other people do; they can't
keep within the lines.
My parents decided that I would attend the school for the
blind even though doing so meant that I would be away from home
during most of the school year. Of course, I could return home
for holidays and during some weekends, but the rest of the time I
would live in a dormitory with my classmates at the school. At
the age of six I left home. The school for the blind was over a
hundred miles from our house. It was the beginning of a different
kind of life.
Because I was at that time almost totally blind, I was
expected to learn Braille. We started the learning process with
flash cards. There was a straight line of Braille dots across the
top of each card and a single word in the center. I still
remember the first flash card I ever read; it contained the word
"go."
Each of us was given our first reading book--the primer
about Dick and Jane and Spot. It was the first Braille book I
ever had in my hands. My book seemed to be about a foot square
and about a half an inch thick. The teacher told us to open our
books to page one. My desk was in the first row, about the sixth
or seventh from the front. The first child in the row was asked
to read page one. When there were mistakes, the teacher corrected
them.
Then the second student was asked to read the same page.
Again, when there were mistakes, the teacher corrected them. The
lesson continued in the same manner. Each student in the first
row was asked to read page one. By the time the teacher got to
me, my job was clear, and my performance flawless. With my
fingers on the page, I spoke the words of page one with never an
error or hesitation. The teacher praised me highly and asked me
to come to the front of the room. She produced a gold star from
her desk drawer and pasted it to page one of my book. She told me
to take my book home and show it to my mother. This is exactly
what I did. On Friday night after the journey home I proudly
produced my primer, opened it to page one, and recited the words
which appeared on the page.
My mother is a properly suspicious woman. She had learned
Braille in the years before I attended school because she thought
it might be helpful to me. She asked me if she could borrow the
book, and of course I gave it to her. Later during the weekend
she brought me a page of Braille and asked me to read it. Without
much concern I confessed that I could not. My mother told me that
it was an exact copy of page one of my book. I had memorized the
words, but I was not able to read them.
During the summer between my first and second grade years,
my mother took matters in hand. She told me that I must learn to
read, and she said that she would teach me. For an hour every
morning I was going to study Braille. I complained. The other
kids got to go outside to play, but I could not. Nobody else had
summer school at home--only me. But none of my griping did any
good. My mother had made up her mind; I was going to learn to
read.
When I returned to the school for the blind for second
grade, I discovered the library of Braille books--that collection
of sweet-smelling Braille volumes almost a foot square and about
two and a half inches thick. During the next four years I read
every book that the librarian would let me have. I developed the
habit of reading at night. Blindness has some advantages. I
would slide the book under the bed sometime during the evening.
Bedtime was 8:00. The house parent made his rounds between 8:30
and 8:45. I could hear his shoes coming down the hall and then
receding in the distance. When the footsteps had faded, the book
came out. No light is needed for Braille. Sometimes it was cold,
but the Braille book would fit under the covers.
I tried the same system at home, and it worked most of the
time. When I got caught, which happened occasionally, my mother
spanked me. The punishments were fair, but the reading was worth
it.
Although I complained bitterly about learning Braille, I am
deeply grateful to my mother for insisting that I learn it. How
fortunate I am that she understood the necessity for me to read.
How fortunate I am that she was persistent and demanding. How
fortunate I am that she had learned Braille herself and was able
to teach me.
Today we in the National Federation of the Blind do much to
help make Braille available to blind students and to encourage
the teaching of Braille both to children and adults who are
blind. But this is not how it has always been. There was a time
when Braille was regarded as inferior, and all too often today it
does not get the attention it deserves. Much of my work as a
lawyer could not have been done without Braille. I now read to my
children most evenings. They enjoy the stories, and I enjoy the
reading as much as they do. How different my life would have been
without the ability to read Braille. How different it can be for
the children of this generation if we give them the chance to
learn. The message should not be that blind people are different
and unable to take part. Even though I might not be able to draw,
my mother felt certain that I could keep within the lines. We in
the National Federation of the Blind are doing what we can to
make it come true.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: David Andrews]
RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRAILLE DOCUMENTATION
by David Andrews
As Monitor readers know, David Andrews is the Director of
the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. He
has definite ideas about the responsibility of vendors of
technology to provide Braille documentation with the products
they sell. Here is what he has to say:
At the second U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the
Blind I gave a speech in which, among other things, I talked
about some of the problems in the access technology field. My
main objection concerned the unavailability of Braille
documentation. For a variety of reasons a number of expensive
Braille-oriented products had been marketed without instruction
manuals in Braille. Over six months have passed since I wrote
those remarks, and an update seems in order.
In January of 1994 the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind ordered two refreshable Braille displays
from HumanWare of Loomis, California. They were portable and
desktop models of the Alva Braille Terminal, which is
manufactured in the Netherlands and imported by HumanWare. The
value of this purchase was over $15,000.00. The two displays
arrived in February without Braille manuals. Documentation was
provided on disk and in print. The Braille manuals finally did
arrive in late March, at least six months after the products were
introduced by HumanWare.
The seriousness of this problem was brought home to me by a
telephone conversation I have just concluded. It was a 45-minute
relay call from a deaf-blind person. For this group of users
Braille documentation is the only alternative. The woman with
whom I spoke has an Alva product, but it is an older model, for
which there was a manual. However, if she had purchased one of
the new models last October, what would she have done--wait six
months until the Braille manual was ready?
I do understand that offering a new product is a complex
undertaking, particularly when importing something from overseas,
and that things don't always happen in an ideal way. However, it
also seems to me that a company should not offer a product for
sale until all the manuals are ready and available.
I expressed my dissatisfaction to my local HumanWare
representative and to one of the company's technical support
personnel. I was assured that I would get one of the Braille
manuals as soon as they were available, which I did. Someone also
conveyed my unhappiness to Jim Halliday, the president of
HumanWare, because I received a letter from him. I also heard
from a third party that Halliday said this situation was
inexcusable. He is right; it is. It wouldn't be so bad except
that I was told independently by two people who attended the
second U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind that
Halliday complained bitterly about my remarks concerning Braille
documentation, saying that they were unfair. I did not think they
were unfair then, and I still do not. In my speech I came down
hard on Baum U.S.A. for taking a year to get out Braille manuals
for their products. They are currently delaying the introduction
of a new Braille display, the INKA, until the Braille manual is
ready. They were also very gracious about my remarks and said at
the time that they were fair.
Here is the text of the letter which I received from Jim
Halliday.
HumanWare, Inc.
March 22, 1994
Dear Mr. Andrews:
Mr. Ed Smith, HumanWare's representative on the East Coast,
conveyed to me today your concerns about not receiving braille
documentation with your recent shipment of two 40-cell ALVA
Braille Terminals. I apologize for this oversight and have
directed our shipping department to send the documentation to you
via Federal Express overnight delivery. Furthermore, I have
requested that our warehouse be especially cognizant of future
shipments to ensure all supporting documentation is enclosed in
the packaging.
Please be assured that each of us at HumanWare is committed
to providing the best possible service to the people who use the
equipment we provide. Your feedback is always welcome, whether
positive or negative, for we can learn and grow from our mistakes
as well as our successes. Again, please accept my apologies.
Warm regards,
Jim Halliday, President
This letter implies that we did not receive the manuals due
to a shipping oversight. As I understand it, this in fact was not
the case. We did not receive the manuals because they were not
ready. HumanWare sold expensive, Braille-only devices for at
least six months without Braille manuals.
HumanWare is not alone in the Braille arena--or more
accurately, the missing Braille arena. Over a year ago the
International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind
purchased a Braillex 2D, a $16,500.00 refreshable Braille
display, from ATR Computer Technology. ATR is the importer of
this product, which is made by the Papenmeier company of Germany.
At the time we received a few loose Braille pages which contained
a list of commands. The manual was on disk, but there was no
Braille version present. Jack Wood, the President of ATR, kept
telling me, "We are working on it. It will be available soon."
We did finally receive a Braille manual in March, some ten and a
half months after we had purchased the display. However, it was
unreadable. It was printed using an interpoint printer--that is,
one that prints Braille on both sides of a page. The Braille on
the back of each page wasn't lined up properly, so the first
three or four cells of each line were missing. I like the
Braillex 2D display, and Wood has been willing to help with set-
up and training, but the Braille documentation is still not
forthcoming. In fact, the company that distributed the Papenmeier
products prior to ATR Technology, Adhoc Reading Systems, never
provided us with proper Braille documentation either.
We also purchased the Notex486, a $10,500.00 computer with a
40-cell refreshable Braille display at the same time we ordered
the Braillex 2D, and it did not come with a Braille manual. Tommy
Craig, who works with Jack Wood, told me in early April that the
Notex486 manual is now completed.
Braille is important for a number of reasons. It is a
primary medium for deaf-blind persons. Much of the documentation
and many of the tutorials available to us are speech-oriented.
Deaf-blind persons, like the caller mentioned earlier, often find
it difficult to learn to use computer software with the available
materials. Vendors should remember when writing manuals that not
everyone is going to be speech-oriented. There are those of us
who learn best from Braille. While I realize that it would be
prohibitively expensive to put some manuals into Braille, I also
think that other alternatives are available. One such manual that
comes to mind is that for Vocal-Eyes, a screen review program
from GW Micro. The manual is written in a chatty tutorial style
and is quite long. It would be unduly costly to Braille this
manual. GW Micro recently started offering its newsletter in
Braille, which is commendable. However, I would rather see the
company put limited resources into producing a Braille reference
card for Vocal-Eyes. The newsletter is a throw-away, while the
reference card would be used again and again.
I believe that blind people will never get everything in
Braille that we would like. However, I also believe that it is
reasonable to expect to get high-quality and timely Braille
documentation with expensive Braille-oriented computer products.
The price of providing these materials is a cost of doing
business with blind people. The access technology companies
should have enough respect for us to give the details, including
proper documentation, the attention they deserve. To do otherwise
is to treat us as if making money from us is the only thing that
counts. There are many good products on the market today, and the
level of competition continues to escalate. Those companies that
operate in a sloppy, seat-of-the-pants manner will soon find
themselves left in the dust. The same high technology that these
companies are trying to sell has made Braille relatively easy and
inexpensive to produce, and we have the right to expect more of
it.
[PHOTO: Karl Smith and Representative Darrell Jorgensen stand
behind Governor Michael Leavitt, who is seated. CAPTION: Pictured
here from left to right are Karl Smith, President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Utah; Governor Michael Leavitt signing
the Blind Persons' Literacy Rights and Education Act; and
Representative Darrell Jorgensen, sponsor of the bill]
MORE BRAILLE BILLS BECOME LAW
by Barbara Pierce
This past winter and early spring have witnessed a good deal
of activity on the Braille bill front. Four new pieces of state
legislation have been signed into law: in Ohio, Utah, Colorado,
and Georgia. This brings the number of states with some form of
Braille legislation to twenty-five. We will report in more detail
about Colorado and Georgia in future months, but the following
are accounts of the Ohio and Utah experiences. The Ohio report is
taken from an article that appeared in the Spring, 1994, issue of
the Buckeye Bulletin, the publication of the National Federation
of the Blind of Ohio. Karl Smith, President of the NFB of Utah,
describes the events in his state. Here is the Ohio story:
On Thursday, March 10, 1994, Substitute House Bill 164
passed the Ohio House of Representatives on a vote of eighty-two
to twelve. With that action our five-year struggle to protect the
right of the state's blind children to learn Braille came quietly
to a close in a victory that will forever change the lives of
blind youngsters in Ohio.
H.B. 164, sponsored by Representative Ronald Gerberry, first
passed the House last June and went on to the Senate, where it
ran into trouble when members of the Senate Education Committee
began insisting that we address the concerns of various groups
with an interest in the education of blind children. The
Committee had received materials from the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
of Ohio (AERO) which raised questions and concerns about the
advisability of our proposed legislation. In the fall Eric Duffy
began working to gather a group together to hammer out the
problems. Dennis Holmes, Superintendent of the Ohio State School
for the Blind, was a valuable ally in this effort. He offered to
facilitate the group's work and did so with fairness, skill, and
good temper.
During December and January, representatives from the NFB,
ACB, AERO, the Bureau of Services for the Blind and Visually
Impaired, the state Division for Special Education, Ohio Resource
Center for Low Incidence and Severely Handicapped, the Ohio State
University teacher education program for the visually impaired,
and the Ohio State School for the Blind met repeatedly to debate
and tinker with several sections of the Braille bill. The group
made a few changes, but the bill's intent was never compromised.
The original protections of the NFB's model Braille bill remain
in the finished Ohio legislation: the presumption is that legally
blind students and those who will clearly not be able to use
print effectively in the future will have the right to learn
Braille. In fact, if Braille is not to be taught to them, the
reasons for not doing so must be included in the IEP. There will
be an annual assessment of Braille for each youngster learning
it, and the expectation will be that he or she shall demonstrate
the same facility with Braille that his or her sighted peers
would show with print. Special education teachers of the blind
must demonstrate their competency to read and write Braille by
passing a test which is consistent with the Literary Braille
Competency Test developed for this purpose by the National
Library Service. And finally, textbook producers who wish to sell
books to the school districts of Ohio must agree to provide
machine-readable versions of these books for preparation as a
Braille text if there is a student who needs the text in that
medium.
As soon as the negotiated changes could be incorporated into
the actual language of the Braille bill, a document known as
Substitute House Bill 164 was brought before the Senate Education
Committee. The first hearing was on the evening of February 23.
Several Federationists testified, and written materials were
circulated to the members of the committee. But the hit of the
evening was clearly Jennica Ferguson, age eleven, who read her
remarks in Braille. Committee Chairman Cooper Snyder insisted on
passing her text to each of the Senators so that they could see
what Braille looked like.
The following week the Education committee voted six to one
to send the bill on to the Senate floor for passage. On Tuesday,
March 8, it sailed through the Senate with only one Senator
voting against it.
Once it had passed the Senate, the revised version of the
bill had to be taken back to the House for final passage, which
came on March 10. A word should be said here about the invaluable
contribution to this success made by both Representative Ron
Gerberry and his aide, Susan Dean. From beginning to end they
have been steadfast supporters of this legislation and wise
guides through the maze of the legislative process. Mr. Gerberry
gave us the benefit of his skill in shepherding the bill through
the House, and Susan kept us informed and kept the process moving
despite the pressure of all her other responsibilities. Without
Representative Gerberry and his staff, this law would never have
seen the light of day. The blind of Ohio owe a great debt of
gratitude to the two of them.
H.B. 164 was signed into law by Governor George Voinovich on
March 21, 1994. Now the job of educating parents and teachers of
blind children about the ramifications of the law begins. Unless
parents understand how important Braille is to their children's
future, little will have been gained. It is vital for us all to
understand that in the most important ways this battle is just
beginning.
That's the way it happened in Ohio. Now here is the Utah
story:
On Tuesday, April 5, 1994, Michael Leavitt, Governor of
Utah, signed into law the Blind Persons' Literacy Rights and
Education Act, making Utah the twenty-third state to pass such
legislation. The event marked the culmination of two years of
hard work by the members of the National Federation of the Blind
of Utah to get a Braille literacy bill passed.
In late 1992 Kristen Jocums, President of our Salt Lake City
Chapter, submitted the NFB model Braille bill to Senator Scott
Howell for consideration during the 1993 legislative session. The
measure passed the Senate unanimously early in the session but
languished in the House because of opposition from the education
community and a large fiscal impact projection. Even with these
drawbacks the bill cleared everything but the final House vote
but died during the press of last-minute business at the end of
the session.
Over the next several months Karl Smith met with teachers,
administrators, and others to work out a measure which could be
supported by all parties involved. This was completed in late
November, 1993. The final version contained the following
provisions:
1. Braille training will be offered to all blind and visually
impaired students who request it and is presumed to be the
reading and writing mode for the blind.
2. As a provision of the contract for providing instructional
materials to Utah schools, all textbook publishers are
required to provide computer-readable versions of their
materials for use in producing Braille versions for blind
and visually-impaired students.
3. Teachers of the blind and visually impaired are required to
demonstrate competency in Braille reading and writing.
Because the bill was tied up in the House last year, we
asked Representative Darrell Jorgensen to introduce our revised
legislation in the House this year. The measure passed the House
unanimously on January 24, the day before our legislative
breakfast. Ironically, in retaliation for alleged delaying
tactics by the 1993 House, the Senate held House bills until all
their Senate work was completed this year. After many long days
of work the bill finally passed the Senate unanimously at 3:32
p.m. on March 2, just hours before the end of the 1994 session.
Approximately forty people, a cross section of the blind
community (including Federationists, teachers, administrators,
legislators, and others), attended the signing ceremony. Because
of the large crowd the ceremony had to be moved from the
Governor's office to an adjoining board room.
After the signing we presented the Governor with a walnut
plaque expressing our appreciation for his support. Featured on
the plaque was his name in print and Braille. We also presented
him with a copy of the legislation in Braille. Finally, in the
rotunda of the Capitol we hosted a reception featuring a cake
decorated with the Braille alphabet. All those in attendance felt
good about the future prospects for literacy for Utah's blind
children. It was a time of good will and cooperation for all the
groups involved.
[PHOTO: Peggy Elliott stands at microphone. CAPTION: Peggy Elliott]
WHERE AM I?
by Peggy Pinder
From the Editor: The most recent of the little paperbacks in
the Kernel Books series of publications produced by the National
Federation of the Blind is titled The Journey. The following
article is taken from the book. It was written shortly before
Peggy Pinder became Peggy Elliott. In both guises she is Second
Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind and
President of the NFB of Iowa. This is what she has to say. It
begins with Dr. Jernigan's introduction:
Peggy Pinder is no stranger to readers of previous Kernel
Books. Here she tells of experiences she had as a teenager--
experiences which laid the foundation for her career as a
successful blind lawyer:
I am a lawyer, living in Iowa with a Yale Law School degree,
five years of prosecutorial experience behind me, and a private
practice. I am also blind.
In the course of my practice I have appeared in courts in
states other than my own. When this is done, the out-of-town
lawyer needs to have a local lawyer to help with local
procedures. I was representing a blind woman several years ago in
a case in a different state. As we had worked things out between
us, I was serving as lead counsel, and he was second chair. As
the terms imply, the lead counsel sits in the first chair,
nearest to the judge.
When we walked into the courtroom, I happened to be in front
of Allan, the local person, when we reached the bar. I walked
through the gate first, around the table to the plaintiff's side,
and up to the first chair. Allan followed and stood behind the
second chair. I could tell he was bemused by something as he made
the introductions, but I didn't learn until later just what had
happened.
As I came around the table and stopped behind the first
chair, the judge nearly fell off the bench, motioning to Allan to
enforce usual courtroom procedure. It never occurred to the judge
that I might be a lawyer. He knew the plaintiff was a blind
woman, and he assumed I was she. He presumed I did not know where
I was or where I was going and that I was inadvertently breaking
courtroom etiquette which dictates that the plaintiff sit in the
seat farthest from the judge. He hoped to remedy the situation by
silent hand and facial motions between himself and my lawyer so
that court could proceed with everyone in their proper places.
Without ever indicating to the judge that he understood the
signals, Allan as a good local lawyer quickly and efficiently
made introductions, identifying me as lead counsel. He also
mentioned that the plaintiff (as is permissible) was not there
for argument on the motion. The judge subsided.
I only wish the judge had spoken directly to me and
straightened out the misunderstanding with me instead of
attempting to do it silently and without my knowledge. I think I
would have felt better about it if he had. But I also would have
understood very well how he reached the conclusion that I did not
know where I was, because for years I thought the same thing.
When I first lost my sight, I was suddenly the only blind
person I knew. There were no role models of successful, capable
blind persons in my life. I only knew what I thought blind people
could do: not much. I thought that college would be impossible
for me now, that a job was out of the question, that these
considerations were far too abstract to worry about because I now
had a much bigger problem on my hands: how would I know where I
was if I was blind?
I had always known where I was with visual cues--street
signs, the appearance of buildings, store names above the doors,
tables and chairs in a room. Now, as a blind person, none of this
was available to me. How would I know where I was? The best way
to handle this problem was never to go anywhere. So I mostly
didn't.
My family urged me to get out and do things like everybody
else. I did every now and then, just to please them. But I didn't
like it, and I did as little as I could. I didn't have any skills
in getting information as a blind person, and I didn't have any
way of finding any. I didn't know any other blind people who
could get around on their own. I figured it couldn't be done.
And, when my family insisted that a blind person could do
things, I would say to myself: "Yeah, sure. That's easy for you
to say. But you don't have to do it and feel stupid and clumsy
and not know where you are. You have your sight. That makes all
the difference." I knew they meant well, but they couldn't teach
me the skills. They didn't know them, and they didn't use them.
All this occurred during high school, a hard time anyway for
people to live through. My adolescence completely disappeared
behind a wall of lack of confidence and certainty of failure. You
put up a brave front and say words like independence and
employment, but you just don't believe it.
Then I found other blind people. It was quite by accident,
and I am still grateful for that turn of fate. I encountered a
blind person walking normally, setting his own course, deciding
where he was going, and knowing where he was. We didn't speak. I
just observed him as he passed by. And from that observation I
was sure that he knew where he was, not only in the building we
were in, but in his life as well. I wanted to be able to do that.
I found out where he had learned to move about so
confidently. There was a training program, run by blind people
with blind people as teachers. But that wasn't all. They were
self-confident, successful, good at getting around. They knew
where they were, and they were willing to teach me the skills. I
was initially hesitant. Then I jumped in with both feet.
My sister has recently told me a story from that era. I
don't remember this at all, but it is a very clear childhood
memory of hers. She is my baby sister, the one born eight years
after me, for whom I was the attentive big sister. When I lost my
sight, it didn't matter to her. I was still her big sister, the
one who had always taken care of her.
My sister and my mom came to visit me, she says, when I had
been at the training program only a few weeks. While Mom talked
with the teachers, I grandly announced that Martha and I were
going for a walk. We come from a town of 8,000, and the program
was in a town of 250,000. Lots of noise, lots of traffic, lots of
ways to get hurt if you don't know what you are doing or where
you are. My sister says that she remembers very clearly that my
mom didn't hesitate. If I said I could take Martha for a walk,
then Mom believed that I could. Martha, of course, never
questioned whether I could. I was the big sister who had always
taken care of her.
As I say, I remember none of this. Martha says now that the
idea of our going for a walk must have been more than a simple
matter to Mom. Here was her blind daughter, barely into the
training program, planning to take the eight-year-old baby of the
family out into the streets of a big city. But Martha says that
Mom didn't hesitate. We left.
I promptly got lost. Martha says that, as we walked (always
safely on the sidewalk and crossing with the lights, of course),
it slowly dawned on her that I didn't know where we were. But she
says that this didn't bother her since she knew her big sister
would figure out what needed to be done. Martha says that I
started asking her what she saw and, when I got vague answers,
would insist on her being precise about the location and angle
from us that the objects were. As I got some more information, I
figured out where we were and how to return to Mom. Martha says
that, looking back, she does not remember any sense of worry or
panic. She knew I would take care of her.
As I practiced under the guidance of fellow blind people to
learn new ways of gathering information and using it to travel
about safely and efficiently, the incidents of my not knowing
where I was grew fewer and fewer. This was because my skill and
my confidence were both being increased under practice and with
the guidance of experienced blind persons. I was learning to know
where I was.
The other thing that happened was that, when I did lose
track of where I was, I learned how to find my way again. Using
information as I was being taught by other blind people, I was
learning what my little sister already knew--that I could find my
way even when I had temporarily lost it. In fact, the final test
in my training was for the teacher to get me disoriented
deliberately and then to drop me off several miles from the
training center. Using my own common sense and my developing
skills, I had to find my way back. I did. That was the final
proof to me that, even when I didn't know where I was, I could
find out.
My family believed in me and encouraged me. But they didn't
know the skills, and they couldn't be role models. I could always
dismiss them as "not really understanding." But other blind
people, doing what I thought I couldn't, had taught me by their
example, by their explicit instruction, by their generosity, that
I could know where I am, both geographically and in the shaping
of my own life. The lesson of learning to travel safely and
efficiently, while it was vital in itself, spilled over into the
rest of my view of myself. I found the self-confidence that I had
once so envied in that other self-confident blind person as he
walked by.
My blind teachers, my blind friends, my blind colleagues:
all learned their self-confidence through the National Federation
of the Blind, and I have learned also that the Federation is
vital to my life. Not only did the Federation through its
thousands of members around the country teach me how to believe
in myself, the Federation also taught me something more.
It doesn't have to be the way it was for me. If blind
children can be reached, if their parents can be reached, if
persons who lose their sight can be reached at an early point
with the same message and the same examples and the same
opportunities to learn where they are, then these blind men and
women, boys and girls can learn right away what it took me so
very long to learn: that as a blind person you can know where you
are and you can know where you are going and you can make those
decisions for yourself.
That is my hope for the Federation, that we can reach blind
people and sighted citizens as well with our message. My little
sister had it right all along. It took me a little longer to get
there. The judge hasn't quite figured it out yet. But, if we in
the Federation keep spreading the message, he will.
Where am I? In the National Federation of the Blind and
grateful to be there, grateful for the chance I received from
Federation members and grateful for the chance to pass it on to
others.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Elizabeth Browne]
TO DIG I AM NOT ABLE; TO BEG I AM ASHAMED
by Elizabeth Browne
From the Editor: The following article was adapted by the
author from a presentation she made at the 1993 convention of the
National Federation of the Blind of Illinois. It was part of a
panel discussion on jobs and job hunting. Dr. Elizabeth Browne
holds a Ph.D. in English and has taught for many years at the
college and graduate levels. Here is what she has to say:
Someone asked me, as we began getting ready for our state
convention, what contributions I could make about the art of
getting a job? What advice or what suggestions might be of worth
to those eagerly hoping to ply their trade in the fields of
profitable labor? Voluntarism is good, is needed, but there comes
a time in the life of every individual when pecuniary reward is
essential to maintain one's dignity and contribute to society.
As one who has primarily frequented the halls of academe in
my work endeavors and since digging and begging are not my forte,
I turned for direction to some of the writers I admire. I
recalled that once a would-be author, an ambitious novice seeking
to enter the writing game, wisely approached E. B. White, one of
the greatest essayists of our century, and asked for his advice.
White's words to that novice might well have been directed to me:
"Write (or in the case of this talk today, "Speak") about what
you know. Write about what you are familiar with, and it will be
good, will reach the souls of those for whom you write." He goes
on to tell the young man, "The rewards of such endeavor are not
that I have acquired an audience or a following, as you suggest
(fame of any kind being a Pyrrhic victory), but that, sometimes,
writing of myself--which is the only subject anyone knows
intimately--I have occasionally had the exquisite thrill of
putting my finger on a little capsule of truth and heard it give
the faint squeak of mortality under my pressure, an antic sound."
Well, let me share some of my own experiences as a
professional, but also some of my own personal experiences which
may be of help, which may touch that common chord of which White
speaks. I do hope so. Let me begin.
At present I am a professor in the Department of English of
Loyola University, Chicago, on the Lake Shore campus. I have been
working in colleges and universities since receiving my Ph.D. in
1973. I've taught at both the graduate and undergraduate levels--
sometimes full-time, sometimes part-time: once, oddly enough,
three-quarters time.
I received the doctoral degree amidst thunderous applause at
the Chicago Stadium, where the huge bulletin board outside
trumpeted for all to read: Loyola Graduation, 1973! Coming
tonight, Sonny and Cher!
Senator Charles Percy read my achievement into the
Congressional Record, for such an accomplishment was most unusual
at that time. Not so today, for many blind individuals are
receiving graduate degrees in many professions, but
discrimination and stereotyping still exist.
My first teaching position was at Governors State University
in Park Forest South, which is one of five senior universities in
Illinois. After GSU, I taught at St. Xavier's College, not far
from my home in Chicago.
Then, thinking I would change my direction, I joined the
Federal Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, as an
investigator on the post-secondary level. But that was not where
my heart lay, and I was very happy to return to teaching at the
first opportunity. This found me at the seminary of the Arch-
diocese of Chicago, Niles College, where I taught in both the
English and Philosophy Departments.
When I left Niles and joined the faculty of Mundelein
College, the last college exclusively for women in the state of
Illinois until its merger with Loyola University in 1991, the
all-female student body, a number of them Muslim women,
represented quite a different type of student from the all-male,
all-Catholic student population of Niles College seminary. At
present I am working exclusively in the Department of English at
Loyola University.
On another track, however, during the last few years I have
yielded to a long-time desire to do graduate study in theology
and have had the exciting experience of attending Catholic
Theological Union in Hyde Park, receiving a master's degree there
as the institution's first blind graduate. I have a thing about
obtaining degrees. I love to learn more and more about things I
don't know, so obtaining this degree in theology simply added to
my insatiable seeking after more and more knowledge. I think I
will be doing that until they start shoveling in the dirt.
Since then I have been invited to become a support person
for a group of lay missioners, all college graduates. It is my
modest contribution to the feminine presence in the Catholic
Church. These missioners are comparable to Vista or the Peace
Corps, working in the less desirable parts of our cities, far
from their homes, to help outcasts, street people, abused women,
and children. During their year of commitment they dedicate
themselves to live a simple life in very poor neighborhoods and
to focus on community, spirituality, social justice, and
environmental safety. It is good to find such dedicated young
people at such troubled times.
I joined the ranks of the blind or, as we say in polite
society these days, the visually impaired, when I was ten years
old. I had a roller-skating accident. I'm still not sure I ever
told my poor parents about it, because I had no business in the
skating rink when they had not given permission.
Nevertheless, always an independent-minded creature, I went
and ended up on the bottom of a pileup with someone's roller
skate kicking me in the head. Soon after that eventful fall, in
August, I began to see double and get colors mixed up, which made
working on a citywide art contest rather difficult. I was one of
two students chosen from my elementary school to participate in
this American history contest.
My assignment was to draw Daniel Boone with his rifle,
riding along in a covered wagon. Colors were becoming
increasingly perplexing, and Daniel Boone was emerging from the
art paper with rich, red eyes. The art teacher mentioned that
they ought to be brown. (Perhaps red was closer to reality since
he was putatively quite a lush.) I was also dealing then with
hideous headaches which made the fractions on the blackboard
dance about oddly. I still have trouble with fractions and like
to round all my numbers.
By November I was blind. Not too long after, a truant
officer came to visit my mother, and when my mother told her what
had happened to me, she advised doing nothing because, as she
said, "What's the good of education in her condition?" Young as I
then was, this comment troubled me and festered inside me,
driving me to look for a way to express my reaction to this
belief or lack of belief in my abilities. I was no Jane Eyre, no
Oliver Twist, seeking to go up against the uninformed structures
of society, but I sensed that the truant officer's dismissal was
wrong.
When I joined the ranks of the blind, it never crossed my
mind that in the future I would not be doing whatever I had been
doing before my fall. I don't remember thinking that anything
would be different for me except that I would have to learn
different ways of doing what I had done before. For example, I
wanted to be back out with my friends and playmates, jumping
rope--yes, roller-skating too--going to school and doing all the
things I had to look forward to: dating, dancing, marrying, and
so on.
One day, hearing the kids outside playing something--hop
scotch, double dutch, something--I found a trophy my brother had
won at a local carnival, a little cane with a large die for a
handle. With this I took off, casting the dice for freedom as it
were--my first mobility adventure. I used the cane to keep me on
the sidewalk as I walked along the edge and touched the grass or
dirt with it. It worked fine, but my father happened to look out
of the window, came quickly after me, and put an end to my
mobility training.
My parents realized that I was restless and needed to get
back into school. We discovered the Board of Education's answer
to the question of what to do with little blind kids. It was that
medieval institution they called the Braille room. There were
three or four, I think, and I was sent thither to be kept again
apart from so-called normal kids, and confined to a room with
other blind kids and a few Braille writers. (We were even locked
in at lunch time when the teacher went out for a bite.) That
wasn't my style either.
To remain imprisoned in a loving, caring home with concerned
parents or to remain imprisoned in an educational structure that
told me I was not normal: I was on the horns of a true dilemma.
In the Braille room we learned Braille reading and writing, but
we learned something else, too: that we were to be kept apart
because we were not normal. This early educational indoctrination
leaves a frightful, in some cases an indelible mark that stains
our self-perception, our self-confidence, for a lifetime.
The first thing these educators did was to administer an IQ
test to place me properly. The test was in Braille, and I had
only been in the Braille room a few days and did not yet know
Braille, so I failed miserably. They placed me, at the age of
twelve, in the first grade, reinforcing the belief that I was not
normal.
The cane episode and now this new experience taught me one
thing, though I didn't know the word: for me mainstreaming, and
through it the world, was the only way to go. I wanted back into
the world I had so recently occupied--skating, going to school
with neighborhood kids, playing with my friends outdoors. I
wanted the life toward which I had been headed. Instead, we were
being given the old lie that "dulce et decorum est," loosely
translated, "O how good and noble it is" for little blind
children to accept this concept of separate but not equal
education.
This was not what I wanted. I wanted all that I had had
before I became blind. I wanted everything I had and hoped to
have from the life I had just left. In fact, segregated living
was simply not for me. Basically, separate but equal anything is
separate but never equal.
As yet I didn't know what to do, but I kept my secret to
myself and waited for the chance to change what I did not like.
Some might call this intuitive networking; others might call it
opportunism; others would say it was waiting for the prompting of
the Holy Spirit. Whatever it was or is, it is like keeping your
antennae up, alert and aware for what you might not be able to
name but what you know will come.
In the movie Field of Dreams we find the same universal
theme which runs through our poetry, our faith, and our inner
convictions. Browning had the same idea in his poem, "Andrea del
Sarto": "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a
heaven for?" On the contrary, Langston Hughes vividly describes
what happens when our dream is deferred. "Does it wither like a
raisin in the sun? / Or fester like a sore and then run? /
Perhaps it sags like a heavy load, / Or, does it explode!" Too
many of these suppressed dreams have festered; sagged; and, too
often, exploded. I could feel the rage building inside of me as
we were kept apart from other kids.
Luckily, a forward-thinking substitute arrived one year and
began to allow us out of the Braille room to be with normal kids
in certain classes like history and English. Incidentally, she
re-evaluated me and placed me in the seventh grade, where I
belonged.
In one of these forays into regular classes--the real world-
-for that is how we thought of these times, I heard the teacher
giving an assignment to the class to create a poster for safety
week. Turning to us refugees from the Braille room, she said,
"You won't have to do the assignment."
I didn't like that at all, so I returned to the Braille room
and did my safety poster on the typewriter, describing in detail
what it should look like, the colors, the figures, and the motto
written in large letters. Then I turned it in. The teacher seemed
surprised when I handed in my assignment with the rest of the
class, then she asked the other two blind students for theirs.
"You told us we didn't have to do it," they said.
That was my juvenile manifestation of mainstreaming, for
ultimately mainstreaming is the only way of existing if you want
to live in the real world. I knew it as a child and have never
changed my belief. I still know it is the only way to go. That
doesn't mean that you won't often come close to drowning; your
lungs will ache; you may gasp for air a little; but oh how sweet
it will taste for having struggled to enjoy its delicious flavor.
Mainstreaming has been my philosophy, so it is in all truth
that I say I think I belonged to the Federation even before I
knew it existed. Life is to live, and the wealth of good things
to do and to enjoy is in the world, in the main stream of life.
You don't get to enjoy all these things by resigning yourself to
the tender, loving blandishments of concerned parents or by
resigning yourself to the back of the bus or the safe spot on the
bench of a sheltered workshop. It's out in the mainstream, where
the waters get rough at times and the current tries to pull you
under, but the struggle will increase your strength and from
struggle comes character.
But what did I want when I joined the throng of blind
individuals living in the world? One thing and one thing only: to
get on with my life without any pity or extra gimmicks, just to
live and do all the things others were doing and I wanted to do.
The first thing was to seize the day, learn what I had to learn
and begin living. In other words, no self-pity, no
sentimentality, but simply get busy learning what must be learned
and deciding what plans were necessary to achieve my goal. Of
course, education was the path that would lead to freedom and
self-fulfillment.
After graduation from elementary school I joined other blind
students in the high school equivalent of separate and unequal
education. There, continuing the pattern that we were different
and less capable, I was told that I could not take algebra and
geometry because those were for students preparing to enter
college. The assumption was obvious, and I objected to no avail.
The required science courses, exciting and challenging, were
beyond the blind students' capability, the teacher told me as he
remarked my efforts to achieve high grades: "Blind students
simply can't compete with sighted students, so you will never get
an A in this course." I persevered and at the end of the first
year was given the A I worked hard for.
But kind fates were drawing near, and one day I had the good
fortune of meeting a socially minded, forward-looking bishop, who
came to observe us in our segregated Braille room. Pausing by my
desk, my clerical fairy godmother asked me, "What can I do for
you, Cinderella?" (He really didn't call me Cinderella, but you
get the idea.) I was ready. Since that first day I had ventured
forth with my brother's cane from the local carnival, since that
IQ test consigned me to the ignominy of the first grade at the
age of twelve, inwardly I had been waiting for this chance; and I
replied, "I want to go to a Catholic high school in my own
neighborhood." Such an unexpected request caught him a little off
guard, but not for long. The stars, the fates, my guardian angel-
-someone was watching over me and had sent me the right person, a
truly socially conscious man with lots of power. With this
opportunity I went to a private school in my own neighborhood as
the protege of the bishop.
The front page of the paper trumpeted: "She's first!" The
bishop made news. I made news. The fated school, chosen for its
proximity to my home, made news. Now that I was enrolled in a
private neighborhood school, I began mainstreaming my life in
earnest. I avoided the tender trap of rehabilitation counselors
and competed academically for scholarships which would allow me
to go to college and graduate school and to achieve my dream of
becoming a professor.
Meanwhile the fates stepped in in the person of a handsome
prince who swept me off course and into another exciting and
challenging new sort of mainstreaming as his wife and the mother
of five children. Both of us have been active in neighborhood,
church, and community affairs throughout these years. Once I was
almost arrested with my guide dog and three-year-old son, while
successfully protecting some young students who had integrated
our local school. This was mainstreaming in deep waters, and with
perseverance and determination we were instrumental in these
brave children's completing their elementary school education and
going on to a good high school and college.
So it was after some of these dreams had been achieved--
dating, marriage, and five children--that I determined that I
could get nowhere without further academic degrees. I returned
for post-graduate studies in preparation for achieving a doctoral
degree. In 1973, known as the dark ages for those of you under
twenty-nine, I received the Ph.D. degree from Loyola University.
Was it easy? Academically speaking there were challenges,
but the biggest hurdle was the intensity of low-level
discrimination which awaited me at every crucial point. I never
backed off or gave up, so after a great deal of innuendo and
covert incredulity, I made it. But how can my experiences and my
struggles be of assistance to some of you who are at the brink of
your own lives, at the edge of realizing your own epiphanies?
Some Suggestions:
Remember my reference to E. B. White at the outset of this
presentation? Well I have some suggestions that may, like "a
little capsule of truth," give the faint squeak of mortality
under my pressure and may prove useful to you in your own
journey. I offer these suggestions in the hope that they will be
of help:
Whatever area you select, prepare yourself well without any
waivers, qualifications, bypasses. Be sure not to omit any
essential element. For instance, beware of the friendly advisor
who wants to make things easy for you or the patronizing
professor who whispers that you can skip this or that. "After
all, you will still get your grade." Certainly you will: an A for
acceptance of your lot, or a B for blindness. Avoid that tender
trap. It's the gentle slope that leads to despair. For example,
on the academic road certain courses are required, and you must
not try to avoid them.
In my own academic journey several courses in Old English
literature were essential, and the only one who taught several of
them was a professor who did not like blind people, who did not
want me in this required course, who did not want me in the
class. He simply decided not to include me in the roster and
would not call on me. I think he thought I would quietly go away.
But I did not.
I knew that, if he skipped me for the entire semester and
did not allow me to translate the Old English texts as everyone
else was doing, I would be in trouble when it came time to grade
my work. So I wrote him a note, placed it on his podium, and sat
down. The note said, "My name is Browne. I sit in the front row,
right in front of your desk. I am alive and well, ready and eager
to translate." I was told that he read the note; paused; looked
over his spectacles at me; and, after a long look and a long
pause, called on me. I lumbered along through the text in Braille
and received the proper corrections. Then he called on the next
victim. From that night on he never neglected me again.
Quit blowing your trumpet. Stop beating a drum so everyone will
feel sorry for you. Do whatever you have to do without all that
noise, those attention-getting sidesteps. In other words, skip
playing the poor-me game. Terry Waite, British envoy of the
Anglican Church who spent four of his years in captivity in
solitary confinement, had three phrases which kept him going
through his ordeal and which are clearly applicable to our
situation: "no regrets, no self-pity, no sentimentality."
If you cannot do the preparation without unreasonable amounts
of extra help, get out and into something you can manage. Better
to make a good broom than to be a poor teacher or lazy mechanic.
Another useful example that comes to mind occurred in the
requirements for the doctoral degree: a class in Beowulf was
essential. For me Braille is vital for reading foreign languages
and in teaching poetry. I sought for a Braille copy of this
ancient text. There was one in the world, and it was in the
British Museum, London, England. After learning of its existence,
I followed through and, much to my chagrin, learned that some
other eager graduate student was using it. Not to be discouraged
or plead for pity, I hunted down a willing transcriber and
obtained my own copy of the rare text. In other words, age quod
agis: Do what you have to do!
The question of what to do about your resum or filling out an
application is rather difficult. I never put down that I am blind
or even visually impair
ed. I am applying for something for which
I am highly qualified, accomplished, certified, and trained. They
are not hiring me because I am or am not blind.
A good friend of mine, someone I greatly respect, disagrees
with my strategy. Rami Rabbi wrote a book, Take Charge, and I had
just finished reading it when I received a phone call from the
chair of the English Department at Mundelein College, who had my
resum in hand. She offered me a job sight unseen, and I had to
stop and reflect on that book which I had just read. I began to
doubt myself. Several phone calls to the chair of the department
did not resolve my concern. She simply was too busy to see me and
insisted that I sign the contract and leave it in her mailbox and
she would meet me after the first class.
That is what actually happened. I was hired, sight unseen,
on the basis of my qualifications. It was truly a rewarding
experience. Teaching under those conditions was like living in
Camelot, and that doesn't often happen in this world. But, when
it does, it is sweet. It provides nourishment when the times are
rough and the going is difficult, but don't pause too long
reflecting.
If you are compelled to take legal measures, do it with all
firmness of purpose. Don't be lukewarm in your efforts. If you
are interviewed for a job and you do not get it, check out the
reasons why thoroughly. If indeed discrimination has occurred,
pursue legal measures with all deliberate speed.
However, attempt with all your skill to maintain a dignified
and open presence and to keep an open door. Often the cause for
your denial may only be someone who may be replaced. In other
words, networking is vital, and you can never tell precisely
where a connection may take place. I have made mistakes before
and with thunderous indignation neatly burned all my bridges. Be
circumspect, dignified, but thorough. It will pay off.
Finally, I would like to leave you with some kernels of
wisdom, some aphorisms which may lift up your spirits as you
trudge along the journey, seeking rewarding employment. I use
epigrams when I teach and when I write, and often they hit the
mark sharply, right to the point. I hope you find these helpful,
such as the words Pete Seeger uses in a song, "From here on up
the hills don't get any higher, but the valleys get deeper and
deeper." Or, from Shakespeare's Macbeth, "Screw your courage to
the sticking point, and you'll not fail!" or, from Browning, "A
man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
My favorite one, though, is affixed to my office door. It
runs, "Illegitimi non carborundum!" Quite loosely this might be
translated, refuse to be discouraged by those of questionable
parentage. You can no doubt render your own more colloquial
version.
[PHOTO: Elizabeth Campbell speaks at microphone. CAPTION: Elizabeth Campbell]
ELIZABETH CAMPBELL: BILINGUAL REPORTER
FOR A MAJOR DAILY NEWSPAPER
by Lorraine Rovig
From the Editor: The following article first appeared in the
January, 1994, JOB Recorded Bulletin, a bimonthly publication of
the Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) Program, which is
jointly conducted by the National Federation of the Blind and the
United States Department of Labor. Lorraine Rovig directs that
program. Elizabeth Campbell is a hard-working and energetic
Federationist who currently serves as President of the Ft. Worth
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas.
Congratulations to Liz Campbell on her new assignment and to the
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram for its good sense in promoting her. Here
is the story:
Elizabeth Campbell has worked for the Ft. Worth Star-
Telegram for ten years--first in the Metro section, then for four
and a half years as a features department writer. She has handled
all kinds of articles: hard-hitting research, opinion pieces,
travelogues on landmarks to visit in Texas, society news, and
assessments of current culture. As fulfilling as her jobs have
been, Miss Campbell has long had a wish to combine her love of
reporting with her knowledge of Spanish and of the Hispanic
community in Texas. Now her chance has come.
On February 4 the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram published the
first edition of La Estrella (Es-stray-ya). This new bilingual
section of the daily paper appears every Friday. A whole new
department has been created to handle the work, with Miss
Campbell and one other reporter working full-time. They will be
assisted by a city editor and several part-time copy editors and
translators. Miss Campbell said that the Ft. Worth paper is among
the first in the United States to try this idea.
Some of the stories in La Estrella will be in Spanish and
some in English, depending on the subject and source. For
example, articles such as soccer scores from South America might
be published in Spanish while articles on Texas politicians might
run in English.
Miss Campbell is enthusiastic about this new venture. She
said she believes she was chosen for the project because of the
many story ideas she developed and wrote on issues of interest or
concern to Texans in the Texas Hispanic community. Miss Campbell
had this recommendation for other blind persons who have a long-
time dream assignment--she said it's a good idea to take every
opportunity within the scope of your present job to show your
ability to do the dream position. Find ways to let management
know of your other talents.
Now Miss Campbell is on a search for computer equipment with
both Spanish and English voice-output devices. As a part of its
reasonable accommodation to the fact that she is totally blind,
the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram has offered to purchase such programs
if they exist. Miss Campbell would also be interested in
networking with other individuals who use both Spanish and
English on their computers. The Job Opportunities for the Blind
Program would be happy to pass along names and phone numbers of
any readers who could give her information. To contact the Job
Opportunities for the Blind Program call (800) 638-7518.
TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PROFESSOR URGES BLIND PEOPLE
TO BREAK TRADITIONAL JOB BARRIERS
by Lea Levavi
From the Editor: Lea Levavi is an experienced journalist who
is now seeking to change careers and is using the resources of
the NFB's Job Opportunities for the Blind Program, conducted in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor. She wrote the
following article for the March, 1994, Recorded JOB Bulletin, the
bimonthly publication of the JOB Program. Here it is:
Dr. Sushil Oswal, Assistant Professor of Technical
Communication at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), found
out about this new and growing field in a chance meeting with a
practitioner while awaiting eye surgery in Cincinnati, Ohio. When
it turned out his sight, lost in a car accident, could not be
restored, he decided to pursue graduate study in technical
communication because, aside from being interested in it, he
thought he would have a better chance of finding a job in a new
field which needed qualified people. His undergraduate training
had included a good deal of science and engineering, and he had
worked in industry before losing his sight. He wanted a solution
which would offer him a way to pursue his technological interests
and to return to industry.
Most people think technical communication is technical
writing, he explained, but it's really much broader than that.
Technical writing is part of it, but technical communication also
includes the methods by which computers talk to each other and
the way new technology is introduced to workers or consumers.
"Some people call technical communication specialists boundary
spanners," he said, "because we span the boundaries between new
technology, existing technologies, and the people who are going
to use technology. I think technical communication would be ideal
training for technical sales and support personnel, for example,
and it helps engineers do a better job both as engineers and as
managers."
Blind people, on the other hand, have to be not only
boundary spanners but also boundary breakers, he believes. "I
have heard encouraging things through Job Opportunities for the
Blind about blind people going into fields like geology or
chemistry," he said, "but we should be hearing about this more
often. Unfortunately, many blind people still think they're
limited by what rehabilitation counselors say they can do or are
limited because they or their parents or teachers don't think
they can learn math or science. Sometimes people tell me I could
get into a field like this only because I was previously sighted,
but that just isn't true. One of the people who was very
inspiring to me while I was adjusting to blindness was a man
blind from birth who was doing graduate work in chemistry."
Dr. Oswal faced some resistance in graduate school, first
from faculty who thought any kind of graduate work would be too
demanding for a blind person, particularly someone newly blinded,
and later in connection with his doctoral project, which involved
field work in industry. "I solved the problems blindness might
have created in the field work by choosing a cultural
anthropology research method instead of statistical number
crunching, but even if I had decided to do statistical work,
there are several statistical computer programs today which work
well with speech or Braille. You have to insist on doing what you
want to do and then make the effort to find innovative ways to do
it. Don't settle for someone else's decision that you can't."
Oswal insisted on teaching throughout graduate school,
despite the advice of those who told him teaching plus graduate-
level research would be too hard. He succeeded academically
despite those predictions, and the teaching experience he gained
as a graduate student was important work experience when he went
looking for a faculty position. (He abandoned his idea of working
in industry because large companies were laying off employees
while universities were having difficulty attracting qualified
professors.)
Three universities offered him jobs, but he chose MTSU
because he felt the attitude during the interview process was the
most positive. "They asked me questions, such as how I would keep
track of my students, because they were curious. But they assured
me they knew I could do it; they just wondered exactly how. I
told them I would take attendance, and if I ever found out that a
student had walked out during class after roll call, I would
recommend that such a student be suspended from school. I knew
from my teaching experience as a graduate student that, once my
students got to know me, they would respect me and have no
interest in sneaking out of class."
Dr. Oswal uses Braille for personal notes such as class
attendance records, speech for his computer work, and a scanner
to deal with print. "I think teaching is by no means the only
area of technical communication in which a blind person could
work. For example, someone interested in computers who doesn't
want to be a programmer could learn to manage a computer lab or
could become an entrepreneur who sets up computer systems for
small companies or government agencies. Someone interested in
writing who gets the necessary science and technology courses in
college could be a technical writer. I think a blind person might
even be a better technical writer than someone with sight,
because technical writers prepare user manuals for products, and
a blind person really has to study a product carefully to learn
how it works and how to use it. Since the eye is usually faster
than the hand, a sighted person may examine the product
superficially and miss things."
For students who want to study science in college, he
recommends contacting East Carolina University in Greenville,
North Carolina, which has adapted the chemistry lab for students
who are blind and which is willing to share information with
students or with other universities. "Students should also
remember that you don't necessarily have to see something with
your own eyes or do it with your own hands to learn about it. You
can have a classmate in biology explain to you what he sees and
what he is doing while he dissects the frog, and there are some
things you can touch. It will take extra effort, but it's worth
it."
[PHOTO: Barbara Walker walks with cane. CAPTION: Barbara Walker]
THE SOLO
by Barbara Walker
From the Editor: Barbara Walker is a dedicated Federationist
and a thoughtful, loving mother of two. She frequently writes of
her experience as a blind person for the NFB's Kernel Series of
paperbacks. The following story appeared in the latest of these
books, The Journey. It begins with Dr. Jernigan's introduction.
Here it is:
For all of us, life is full of choices. A frequent choice
those of us who are blind face is whether to accept more help
than we really need (thus furthering misconceptions which exist
about us) or to refuse such help and risk creating a scene or
causing embarrassment to a valued colleague. Here Barbara Walker
describes just such a situation:
It is often hard to know where to draw the line between
acceptance of what is and the necessity to take a stand for
change. And for me, mostly this struggle has been played out in
little things. One such instance involved my singing a solo in
church.
For quite some time, the choir director at my church had
been asking me to sing a solo. She said people had approached her
wanting me to do that, and wanting her to encourage me, since
they knew I wouldn't be likely to request the privilege when
opportunities were given to do so. I had finally agreed to invite
my sister to come and sing a duet with me, but it became obvious
that our church schedules were such that it might be a long time
before that would be workable. The director's next request was
that I choose something to sing and perhaps a member of the choir
to sing with, and ask an accompanist to play if I preferred not
to play my guitar.
All of those seemed like piece-of-cake kinds of things to
her, I'm sure. But for me, a person whose ministry through music
is not an assertive one, those suggestions sounded unthinkable.
Assuming I had the nerve to approach another choir member to sing
with me (which I didn't), how would the person respond?
Also I learn music by hearing and memorizing it. I don't do
solos and don't have a storehouse of options to present to a
potential accompanist. As I stood before the director in the
presence of a friend with whom I ride to choir, I felt the
familiar longing to be assertive struggling with the urge to run
to some place where I could be inconspicuous.
The visible result of that struggle was a period of silence
followed by an explanation to her of the situation as I saw it. I
wanted very much to be able to thank her for her suggestions and
follow them through. But the mere thought of doing that
constricted my throat, weakened my knees, and sent my tongue
between my teeth to stifle their chattering. Ultimately I
reminded her that I was not a soloist requesting an opportunity
to perform, but a servant shyly preparing to answer a call to
minister. The potential duet discussed that night also fell
through due to scheduling difficulties.
Shortly after that I received a call from the director
asking if I would sing a short portion of an upcoming anthem as a
solo. Knowing that, although it was a familiar hymn tune, the
lyrics were different, I said I would be glad to do it but would
need someone to read the words to me before we practiced it. I
said I would bring my Braille `n Speak for that purpose.
During practice, when it came time to work on that anthem,
she announced that I would be singing the first verse. She had
all of the women sing it through one time, and I entered the
words into my Braille 'n Speak as they sang. There was one part I
didn't understand, so I asked for clarification before singing it
myself as she had requested. Her response both surprised and
humiliated me. "Oh, just sing the words you know, or sing la la
la. They'll love whatever you do, and no one will know if you're
singing what's written or not."
There it was again--the old "anything you do will be
wonderful, Honey" routine. Suddenly the most surprising thing to
me was why I still, after all these years, found it catching me
off guard. I sat for a moment in the silence of belittlement,
thinking thoughts of the obvious: "She would know. The choir
would know. God would know." And as the silence seemed to be
melting into the rustling of papers and shifting of weight on
chairs, I heard my voice from somewhere saying, "I would know."
With the barely audible prompting of a fellow choir member
who has often responded to my real requests for her assistance
rather than her imaginings of what I might need, I rather feebly
sang my renewed commitment to love and serve Jesus. Before
leaving that night, the director, the accompanist, and I agreed
to meet in the sanctuary on Sunday morning prior to the service
to practice with the microphone.
When I arrived in the sanctuary on Sunday, the director was
talking to the sound control person. She announced to me that he
would place a microphone on a stand and someone would assist me
to it and stand by me while I sang. I felt again the grip of
incredulity. For years I had been processing and recessing with
the choir, not to mention coming in and out of the choir loft and
chancel area for various other purposes.
Struggling to keep my composure, I found myself asking the
kind, bubbly, victim of society's insistence that I be cared for-
-this choir director whose spirit and freedom to be uninhibited I
receive as gifts to cherish--questions which sounded harsh and
unrelenting.
"Do you think of me as an adult? Why is it necessary that I
use the microphone differently from the way others have used it?
What is it that causes people to cast reality and experience to
the wind and insist that everything be different when working
with a blind person?" At once, her breezy confidence turned into
wind-swept confusion. We were swirling toward a trap of
absurdity--she wanting to protect me, I wanting to educate her,
both wanting to serve Jesus.
As each of us shared her concerns with the other, we came to
terms with the situation. Since only the women were singing that
day, I agreed to sit in the front rather than in my usual place
in the second row. The standing microphone would be in front of
me. Pride wanted me to insist that I sit in my usual row and walk
down to the microphone. Knowledge said others who prefer not to
be conspicuous have sat by the microphone or had it passed to
them where they were seated. Reason suggested I accept the plan.
Wisdom concurred, reminding me I was there to minister, not to
win a contest of wills.
At home after the service, I discussed the situation with my
children. They were both glad I hadn't allowed the original
scenario to prevail. John, my eight-year-old, said it wouldn't
have been right. Marsha, my ten-year-old, elaborated. "I would
have been embarrassed," she said, "not because anyone should be
ashamed to get help if it's needed, but because you wouldn't need
that help and you and we would know it." She felt that for me to
accept that option would have been to deny progress.
I recalled the fierce independence of their deceased father,
who had treated his blindness as a characteristic which, although
causing some inconvenience, would not have its existence used as
a basis for buying into society's notion that it should
debilitate him. I also thought of the tens of thousands of us in
the National Federation of the Blind who daily deal with
struggles such as this one. I hoped we had all taken a small step
forward.
Since that day I have sung two additional short solos. One
was at a Sunday evening service, at which I walked to the
microphone from a place in the congregation and returned to my
seat during the remainder of the song. The other occasion was
during a regular service, and the choir director previously
mentioned was again in charge. This time I stayed in my usual
place and was handed the mike just prior to my solo. There was no
discussion, no confusion, no trouble at all.
The message I sang that day was: "God of many names,
gathered into one, in your glory come and meet us, moving,
endlessly becoming." And as it happened within me and within the
Trinity Church choir director, it happens for all of us. We are
all "moving, endlessly becoming," and that is a marvelous source
of hope.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Noel Nightingale]
SLOW DOWN, NOT SO FAST!
by Noel Nightingale
From the Editor: The last time my family lived in London,
all three children were enrolled in school, which meant that, by
planning carefully and watching the time, I could actually dash
into central London by tube to do an errand or two or have lunch
with my husband and return home again before school ended for the
day. Time was of the essence because, if I missed a train and
stood for twenty minutes waiting for the next one, my schedule
could be hopelessly thrown off.
One day, as I was striding along the high street on my way
to the station, I heard a male voice behind me, repeatedly
shouting "Madam, please!" Gradually it was born in upon me that I
was the object of this plea. I looked back, though I did not stop
walking. As he drew level with me, he demanded in an aggrieved
and somewhat out-of-breath voice, "Why do you think you must walk
so fast? You don't have to prove anything."
I explained as patiently as I could that I was on a tight
schedule. If I walked to the station as rapidly as I could and
then found when I arrived that I had just missed a train, I would
be comforted during my wait for the next one by knowing that
nothing I could have done would have enabled me to catch the one
that had gotten away, whereas, if I strolled along the street and
missed the train, I would be forced to admit that I could have
made it if I had just exerted a little more effort.
My explanation had the virtue of shutting the man up, but it
certainly did not convince him. He went away still believing that
I was showing off or flirting with danger or just being one of
those crazy Americans who never know how to behave properly. His
parting remark was to the effect that blind people had no
business pelting along the road like everybody else. The entire
incident annoyed me, but I don't know that I had really thought
about it again until I read the following article, which was
first printed in the Winter, 1993, edition of The Washingtonian,
a publication of the National Federation of the Blind of
Washington. Noel Nightingale is an active, thoughtful, and
interesting young woman. She is also the Second Vice President of
the Greater Seattle Chapter of the NFB of Washington. Here is
what she has to say:
On the way from my apartment to the law school at the
University of Washington one Thursday afternoon, I was crossing
the intersection at Forty-Second and Brooklyn ahead of a man who
had something quite revealing to tell me. He came up beside me,
demanding that I "Slow down, slow down." I looked around,
expecting to see someone else nearby as the intended object of
his advice. The case, however, was that I was the only other
person occupying that corner. I was confused. Why did he want me
to slow down? I had no reason to reduce my pace since the
sidewalk was free of obstructions: people, potholes, or
construction. Why had he issued his command?
His words settled into a deep part of my mind that I rarely
take time to explore. As blind people, day in and day out, we are
told in innumerable ways to slow down. Perhaps because we are
excelling in careers, engaging in activities thought not to be
appropriate for blind people, or merely leading normal lives, we
are told in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to stay in our places.
Go slowly. Go without confidence.
Because we in the National Federation of the Blind have
learned to be vigilant, we know not to let this message become a
subconscious road map. To do so would deny us the achievement we
all work toward. Long before the aforementioned concerned citizen
felt it his duty to prescribe my speed, the same message had been
planted in that deep part of my head. His message tells me two
things: that blind people are not supposed to excel and that
mediocrity is good enough because society expects so little of
us.
When I was far away from the corner, nearing the law school,
I felt tears coming to my eyes as his words resonated in me. Once
again a deep chord had been struck. I knew it wasn't fair, and it
wasn't right, but it was painful. It was also a clear reminder of
how far we still have to go in teaching the public, including
ourselves, about the capabilities of blind people. The work of
the National Federation of the Blind is far from finished.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: James Gashel]
SSI MODERNIZATION: THE NFB SPEAKS OUT
by James Gashel
From the Editor: For several years now the Social Security
Administration has been trying to modernize the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program, which has not been significantly
overhauled since its inception more than twenty years ago. Sharon
Gold, member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation
of the Blind and President of the NFB of California, served on a
high-powered team of experts appointed during the Bush
Administration to recommend changes in the program that should be
proposed to Congress. Now Congressional committees are beginning
to look seriously at the issue. On March 1, 1994, the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives conducted hearings, and the
National Federation of the Blind was asked to present testimony.
Here it is:
Testimony of the National Federation of the Blind
Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
March 1, 1994
Mr. Chairman, my name is James Gashel. I am the Director of
Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind. My
address is 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230;
telephone (410) 659-9314. I appreciate very much your invitation
to testify in this hearing on modernizing the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program. Blind people who meet the income
and resource limits under SSI are eligible for benefits as a
categorical group. Therefore, SSI is a high-priority program for
us.
The National Federation of the Blind--the organization which
I represent--has often been described as the "voice of the
nation's blind." Blind people guide and direct the Federation at
all levels. All of our elected officers and the vast majority of
our members are blind. In each state, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico there is a state affiliate of the National
Federation of the Blind. Local chapters can be found in most
sizable population areas. The positions we express before the
Congress and other public bodies are determined by the blind
themselves.
The subject of the hour is modernizing SSI. The key
provisions and concepts which form Title XVI were crafted by the
Congress in 1972, and the first cash benefits were paid to
recipients in 1974. Some amendments have been enacted since that
time, but certainly in its broad outline and major components the
SSI law is essentially unchanged. This is in large part a tribute
to the enlightened policies which Congress incorporated into the
original bill. Times change, however, bringing new demographic
patterns and evolving economic conditions.
A panel of experts assembled by the Social Security
Administration has acknowledged the need to review and update
certain legislative provisions in the SSI program. The panel's
findings point to a need for program restoration to achieve the
goals which Congress envisioned for SSI. Changing demographic and
economic conditions have brought with them a gradual
deterioration in the capacity of the SSI program to respond
adequately to human need. On behalf of both present and future
recipients, and indeed on behalf of all Americans, Congress has a
responsibility to address this situation before deterioration
becomes a full-scale crisis.
Mr. Chairman, you are particularly to be commended for
placing SSI modernization on the agenda for this subcommittee and
for bringing the present need to the attention of your colleagues
in the Congress as a whole. No one should doubt the need for
action to address long-standing and growing deficiencies in this
program. In my opinion the initiative to bring SSI into the
mainstream of current social and economic trends must come from
the Congress. The facts are on the table, and there is no real
dispute as to the direction which must be taken.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight just a few major points of
concern to those whom I represent in the SSI, blind, category. In
many instances the modernization report speaks quite clearly to
our concerns. In other instances we may have some divergence or
perhaps give greater emphasis to particular matters. In every
respect, however, we are foursquare behind the effort to improve
and update SSI. Here are the reasons why.
(1) Payment Standard
The federal benefit rate leaves most recipients in poverty.
Congress did not intend that this should happen. The federal
standard is seventy-five percent of poverty-level income for
single individuals. For couples the standard slightly exceeds
eighty percent of the poverty level for two-person families.
State supplementation, where it occurs, rarely brings the benefit
rate above the poverty line. The panel has recommended gradually
increasing the individuals' rate to 120 percent of poverty and
retaining the couples' standard as 150 percent of the
individuals' standard.
We certainly support raising the individuals' benefit rate
as proposed. As for couples, we would prefer to eliminate this
classification and treat all SSI recipients as individuals. It is
generally recognized that SSI benefits are intended to meet the
basic subsistence needs of recipients. By definition the
recipients are aged, blind, or disabled. Subsistence needs do not
take into account the special needs which often arise. For
example, blind people must obtain and often must compensate
persons to read printed matter to them. Although their medical
bills may be covered by Medicaid, special transportation costs
for medical appointments must be paid by them from their SSI
funds. It is not uncommon to find that recipients must choose
between meeting necessary special costs and putting food on their
tables. Forcing people to live in such circumstances is not
acceptable.
(2) Unearned Income Disregards
The experts have recommended increasing the general $20
unearned income disregard to $30. The original level was one-
seventh of the federal benefit rate. We favor restoring that
ratio and maintaining it as benefits are increased by automatic
cost-of-living adjustments. As proposed by the experts,
eliminating in-kind support and maintenance from being counted as
income would go a long way toward achieving our objective of
restoring the value of the unearned income disregard.
Viewed from the recipients' vantage point, the erosion in
purchasing power of the original $20 general-income exclusion is
actually a cut in the standard of living provided under SSI.
Although the benefit rate has increased with automatic annual
adjustments, the value of total funds available--SSI and
disregarded income, combined--is not increasing as much as
inflation. This should be corrected.
When Title XVI was first enacted, the benefits were not
indexed to increases in the cost of living. Congress soon
discovered, however, that indexing would be necessary.
Unfortunately the income and resource limits, which are actually
decreased in value by inflation, were not similarly indexed.
Until this is done, there will certainly be a need from time to
time for Congress to update the values which are stated in the
law. Failure to do so in over twenty years shows the need for
annual indexing.
(3) Earned Income Disregards
We strongly support the recommendation to increase the basic
earned income disregard from $65 to $200. Continuing the point
about indexing, we favor making automatic annual adjustments in
this exclusion just as in the general income exclusion. We also
support changing the exemption on earned income above the basic
exempt amount to two-thirds rather than one-half. Increasing and
indexing the earned income exclusion is in my opinion the best
way to help substantial numbers of recipients to become attached
to the work force and eventually to achieve self-support.
The experts' report is somewhat confusing in presenting a
recommendation which could affect the exclusion of "blind work
expenses." We strongly favor retaining the current exemption and
applying it after (not before) two-thirds of the remaining earned
income has been subtracted in the sequence of deductions. This
would be no change from present law. The experts' report is
ambiguous in suggesting streamlining of the earned income
disregard with the proviso that a work expense deduction would
still be used if more favorable to the recipient. This would be
confusing and no doubt disadvantageous to most working recipients
who are blind.
I have already noted our recommendation that all SSI
recipients should be treated as individuals, eliminating the
couples classification altogether. The experts rejected this idea
with respect to the federal benefit rate but seem to favor it
with respect to the treatment of earned income. We support their
recommendation that a full set of earned income exclusions should
be available to each person in a couple. The earned income
disregards are expected to serve as work incentives. The effect
of the present law is to give members of a couple a less
rewarding work incentive than that provided to individuals. There
is no rational basis for this distinction. All recipients should
be given equally beneficial incentives to work.
(4) Resource Exclusions
The current resource exclusions of $2,000 for individuals
and $3,000 for couples are well below an acceptable standard in
today's economy. Congress should give high priority to raising
the resource limits. We favor the proposal to streamline the
exclusions as proposed and to increase the individuals' limit to
$7,000. The new higher limit of $7,000 should apply to each SSI
recipient, whether single or married. This amount should be
indexed and adjusted annually to retain the value of the
exclusion.
With the passage of time, accumulating excess resources is
more frequently encountered as a reason for overpayments. The
circumstances which lead to the receipt of countable resources
are often not within the recipient's control. Also the resource
exclusion provisions are hard for many people to understand and
apply in particular situations. How resources are handled can
make the difference between continuing eligibility and loss of
benefits and a serious overpayment. Therefore, we support the
recommendation to limit the amount of an overpayment, if caused
by excess resources, to no greater than the amount by which the
resource limit has been exceeded.
(5) Plans for Achieving Self-Support
The Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) provisions have
become increasingly important, especially to younger recipients.
A PASS allows for the receipt of income or resources in excess of
the otherwise applicable limits. The income and resources so
excluded must be used for costs incurred or anticipated to
achieve self-support goals. Payment for training or for job-
related equipment is a typical use for the excluded funds.
Many if not most activities relating to self-support efforts
must occur within fairly rigid time schedules, such as in the
case of vocational training or higher education classes. An
applicant or recipient who submits a PASS for approval by the
Administration cannot count on timely action. But the PASS cannot
be implemented until accepted by Social Security. With the time
delays that occur, valuable training opportunities can be lost.
Therefore, we strongly favor the recommendation to establish
presumptive PASS approval if no action has been taken within
thirty days of a plan's submission.
(6) Outreach Issues
The modernization report recommends funding for SSI outreach
activities. Funds should be available to support ongoing
cooperative agreements with agencies and organizations outside of
Social Security and to meet internal costs associated with
outreach provided by the Social Security Administration itself.
Continuing outreach activities are justified in the SSI program
by the fact that matters relating to eligibility and payment
amounts are enormously complex and may often pose a somewhat
daunting challenge to persons who are potentially eligible. Also
the conditions for eligibility may easily be misunderstood by
potential beneficiaries. Since these circumstances are unlikely
to change, outreach is essential.
Unfortunately the current approach to outreach largely
excludes significant projects which could have a substantial
impact on potentially eligible blind people. This is partly due
to the fact that blind people are quite thoroughly dispersed in
the population. Our numbers in any particular local area are
quite small relative to the disabled or elderly. SSA, however,
views outreach as a locally based activity--having local groups
designated to work with local Social Security field offices. This
approach, while undoubtedly well-suited to finding disabled or
elderly persons, will never yield significant, cost-beneficial
results in conducting outreach for blind people.
The outreach strategy employed should be flexible enough to
respond to our comparatively small and scattered numbers. In the
country as a whole, blind people are approximately two percent of
the eligible SSI population. Therefore, a project on a statewide
or even regional scale is apt to be more effective than a local
effort. Several such efforts combined into one national project
could yield meaningful results for the blind population. So far
that approach has not been compatible with SSA's plans.
Targeted outreach for blind persons would meet an important
and recognized need. Buried within title XVI there are numerous
provisions which have special application to blind people.
Blindness, for example, is defined. The substantial gainful
activity criteria do not apply. There is also a unique work
expense deduction which must be applied at the correct point in
the sequence of deductions to obtain countable income. These are
fine points, and the population of blind people is small.
Therefore, we experience many errors largely due to lack of
correct information. Targeted outreach to address this situation
is definitely justified.
Mr. Chairman, there is ample documentation that after twenty
years of operation the SSI program is long overdue for reform.
Many of the issues which I have presented here are not new or
unknown. The modernization report discusses most of them quite
thoroughly. This report and the initiatives and modifications
related to it should not be allowed to grow dusty on the shelf.
The quality of life for several million Americans who have the
lowest income in our country is at stake. President Clinton has
made a commitment to the public to present a welfare reform plan
to the Congress. The plan which emerges from the Congress should,
in addition to reforming Aid to Families with Dependent Children
and other programs, include SSI modernization provisions as well.
This must be on our national agenda, and for that reason I once
again applaud you for holding this important hearing today. On
behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, I thank you.
******************************
If you or a friend would like to remember the National
Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing
the following language:
"I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a
District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or
"_____ percent of my net estate" or "The following stocks and
bonds: _____") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of
blind persons."
******************************
LAST CHANCE CONVENTION REMINDERS:
THE ROAR OF '94
by Sue and Don Drapinski
From the Editor: The following article provides the last
collection of Convention ideas and information from the Michigan
affiliate. Before we know it, we will be in Detroit, putting
these suggestions into action. If you have not made your personal
Convention room reservation, you must not put it off any longer.
Convention rates are singles $38, doubles and twins $43, triples
$45, and quads $48, plus tax. The telephone number for Westin
Hotel reservations is (313) 568-8000. Consult the March and April
issues of the Braille Monitor for additional registration
information. Here is the final installment of information about
where to go and what to do in Detroit:
As we write the last convention article, we hope that you
have made your hotel and tour reservations. In this final article
we will give you several reminders, provide more detailed data on
matters previously discussed, and offer some new information
about things to do in the Detroit Metropolitan area. Since we
have not covered activities specifically for children and
families before, we will do so in this article.
Beginning with the reminders: remember that tour
reservations should be made as soon as possible. Refer to the
March Monitor for details. If you have any questions regarding
the tours, please call Sue Drapinski at (810) 546-6910 after 5:00
p.m. Also, if you are planning a trip to Windsor for shopping,
dinner, or casino gambling, remember to bring proof of
citizenship.
The Windsor Tunnel bus, which stops just outside the
Renaissance Center, will take you to Windsor and will drop you
off at one of several stops for shopping or eating. The fare is
$1.50 each way. For those interested in casino gambling, we have
been advised that the casino will be open beginning May 17, and
the hours should accommodate everyone's schedule. It will be open
Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., and from 11:00
a.m. Friday through 4:00 a.m. Monday. The Windsor Chamber of
Commerce will have welcome ambassadors near the NFB of Michigan
information desk on Saturday, July 2, and Sunday, July 3, to
answer any questions you may have about the attractions in and
around Windsor.
For those arriving at Detroit Metropolitan Airport,
transportation to the hotel is available through Commuter
Transportation, Inc. Arrangements can be made at each terminal in
the baggage claim area. The cost is $13 one way. Advance
reservations can be made by calling (800) 488-7433. The cost is
$28 one way per van for up to four people.
Valet parking at the Westin Hotel is $9.50 per day for hotel
guests. Parking costs vary from $2.50 to $8.50 per day, depending
on the kind of facility and proximity to the hotel.
On Monday evening, July 4, there will be an all-you-can-eat
barbecue. The menu will include hamburgers, hot dogs, cole slaw,
beans, pie, iced tea, lemonade, and beer. There will be a live
band for our listening and dancing pleasure; and for children of
all ages there will be carnival midway games and prizes. We
encourage everyone to make plans to attend. It will definitely be
a family event. We are also working on having a dunk tank, and if
we are successful, you will have a chance to dunk your favorite
Federation leader!
There are many places of interest that we have not mentioned
previously, including some right in the Westin Hotel and
Renaissance Center. The Westin Hotel has an indoor pool and
health club for the use of its guests. Also, on the 72nd floor of
the Westin is the Summit Observation Deck. It is an enclosed,
revolving deck which will afford you a 360-degree view of Detroit
and Windsor. In the Renaissance Center you will find the Ford
Motor Company's "World of Technology" exhibit.
The International Freedom Festival will be at Hart Plaza the
weekend of July 1 to 4, and the Latino World Festival will be
there July 8 to 10. Hart Plaza is on the Detroit River right next
to the Renaissance Center.
There are numerous entertainment choices for those who want
to enjoy concerts or theater productions. Many schedules have not
yet been published, but we do know of the following concerts at
the Pine Knob Outdoor Music Theater in Clarkston (about forty-
five miles north of Detroit). For ticket information, call (810)
377-0100. In concert on June 29, Meat Loaf; July 1, Steve Miller;
July 4, Depeche Mode with Primal Scream; July 5, the B-52's; July
7, Santana; July 8, Peter Frampton; and on July 9, Bonnie Raitt
with Bruce Hornsby.
Phil Collins will be at the Palace of Auburn Hills, June 28
to 29. Call (810) 377-8600 for tickets or other show information.
For schedule information for the Fox Theater, Joe Louis Arena,
Cobo Arena, or Meadowbrook Outdoor Music Theater, call (313) 396-
7600. For information for the Fisher Theater, call (313) 872-
1000; the GEM Theater, (313) 963-9800; the Detroit Symphony
Orchestra, (313) 833-3362; and the Pontiac Silverdome, (810) 456-
1600. The Pontiac Silverdome will host the last of the World
Soccer Cup games on June 28 between Brazil and Sweden.
The Detroit Tigers have home games July 5 to 10. The Chicago
White Sox are in town July 5 and 6, and the Texas Rangers are
here July 8, 9, and 10. Ticket prices range from $5 to $20.
Tickets can be ordered by calling (810) 258-4437.
Greektown, which is easy to get to on the People Mover, is
home to Trappers Alley, a five-level mall featuring seventy-five
stores, boutiques, and restaurants. There are many restaurants to
choose from in Greektown including the Bouzouki Lounge, Dionysis
Taverna, New Hella's Cafe, Old Parthenon, Olympia Shish Kabob,
and Pegasus Taverna. You will also find many authentic Greek
grocery stores and bakeries.
Rivertown is an historic converted warehouse district
located just east of the Renaissance Center. It boasts many rock
and jazz clubs and restaurantsþmany with outdoor decks to take
advantage of the summer weather. Notable restaurants include
Dunleavy's River Place, Rattlesnake Club, Rhinoceros, Rivertown
Saloon, Soup Kitchen Saloon, and Woodbridge Tavern.
In Bricktown you will find a little bit of everything in the
turn-of-the-century buildings that line the streets. Located just
three blocks north of the Renaissance Center, some of the
restaurants worthy of a visit are Sweetwater Tavern, Jacoby's,
and the Franklin Street Brewing Company.
Mexican crafts and cuisine abound in Mexicantown, just west
of downtown Detroit and near Tiger Stadium. Restaurant choices
include Armando's Authentic Mexican Cuisine, El Zocalo's, and
Xochimilco's.
If you are looking for jazz entertainment, you can choose
from Bo-Mac's Club, Serengity's, or Bert's Market Place (all
within a short distance of the hotel), or Ricardo's Lounge on the
east side of Detroit, and the Rhythm Room in Hamtramck.
For those interested in horse racing, Ladbroke DRC is
approximately fifteen minutes from downtown Detroit and is the
home of thoroughbred racing from March through November. For
further information call (313) 525-7300. Hazel Park Racetrack,
just ten miles north of Detroit, is home to harness racing Monday
through Saturday at 7:30 p.m.
The Hiram Walker Company in Windsor offers one-and-a-half-
hour free tours of its Canadian Club Distillery Monday through
Friday.
If you are driving or renting a car once you are here, Jack
Miner's bird sanctuary in Kingsville, Ontario, is about one and a
half hours from Detroit. It is the home of one of Canada's most
famous conservationists and the wild bird sanctuary that he
created there. Admission is free.
For children, families, or those who just wish to be
children again, the Children's Hands-On Museum in Ann Arbor is
full of exhibits that children can touch, climb on, or crawl
under. Admission is $3.50 for adults and $2.50 for children over
three. The museum is open Tuesday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, and 1:00þ5:00 p.m.
on Sunday. For an extra adventure, take the Amtrak train from
Detroit to Ann Arbor for a round-trip fare of $15, Monday through
Thursday and Saturday, and $20 on Friday and Sunday.
Belle Isle Park, just a short distance from the hotel, is
home to the Belle Isle Aquarium, conservatory, zoo, petting zoo,
and Dossin's Great Lakes Museum.
The Detroit Zoo, ten miles north of Detroit and accessible
by bus, is one of the world's largest zoos. It houses many
exhibits, both indoor and outdoor, as well as a log cabin
learning center and a zoo train. It is open daily from 10:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Admission is $6 for adults and $3 for children two
to twelve.
The ultimate in indoor children's fun is found at the
Discovery Zone in Westland and Leaps and Bounds in Madison
Heights. Children can climb, crawl, jump, or slide on a variety
of indoor equipment. Admission to the Discovery Zone for an
unlimited period of time is $5.99 for children two to twelve;
under two, admission is $3.99. Leaps and Bounds admission is
$5.99 per child. Adults accompanied by a child are free at both
locations.
For pizza and fun, try Chuck E. Cheese on Michigan Avenue in
Dearborn. Here you will find a pizza parlor, arcade games, and
animated singing cartoon characters.
The Detroit Science Center is located a short distance from
the hotel and is home to the OmniMax Theater. Admission is $6.50
for adults and $4.50 for children ages four to twelve. It is open
Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and Saturday and
Sunday, noon to 5:00 p.m.
Your Heritage House is a fine arts museum for children and
is open 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. weekdays, and Saturday and Sunday
by appointment. It is also only a short distance from the hotel.
For further information call (313) 871-1667.
For outdoor water fun Red Oaks Water Park in Madison Heights
(thirteen miles north of Downtown) features a water slide and
wave pool. Four Bears Park in Utica (forty-five minutes north of
Downtown) has a triple water slide, bumper boats, paddleboats,
miniature golf, and a petting zoo.
We can't make your hotel reservations for you, but you can
see from this article that we can certainly give you enough ideas
to account for every moment of your free time. We look forward to
seeing you in July.
Please remember to send door prizes to Don Drapinski, 111 W.
Woodward Heights, Hazel Park, Michigan 48030.
RECIPES
The recipes this month come from Minnesota. They are drawn
from the home management classes' recipe collection, which has
been compiled by present and former students from Blindness:
Learning in New Dimensions (BLIND, Inc.), the Federation's
orientation center in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Joyce Scanlan, Executive Director of BLIND, Inc., invited
the students to suggest favorite dishes from this collection of
new foods, family favorites, traditional Minnesota fare, ethnic
specialties, birthday requests, and a great variety of recipes
chosen for the students' special two-course guest meal and the
buffet meal for twenty-five to thirty. They invite you to try
these recipes.
SUPER BARBECUE SAUCE
Ingredients:
1 bottle (14 ounces) catsup
1 medium onion, finely chopped (« cup)
1 tablespoon brown sugar
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1/4 teaspoon salt
Dash of Liquid Smoke
Method: Combine all ingredients (may be processed in a
blender). Heat to boiling. Reduce heat and simmer covered 5
minutes. Baste meat with sauce during last part of cooking time.
Makes 2 cups.
Note: This sauce brushes on best when the onions are
processed in the blender at the same time the other ingredients
are being processed. Sauce may be frozen and used at a later
time.
HEARTY CHILI CON CARNE
Ingredients:
1 pound ground beef
1 medium onion, chopped (about « cup)
1 small green pepper, chopped (about « cup)
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 28-ounce can tomatoes, undrained and cut up
1 10-3/4-ounce can tomato soup
1 6-ounce can tomato paste
1 4-ounce can chopped green chilies, undrained
1 cup water
1 tablespoon chili powder
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon cumin, crushed
1/2 teaspoon crushed red pepper
1/4 teaspoon pepper
1/4 teaspoon dried oregano leaves
1 15«-ounce can chili beans or kidney beans
Method: In large sauce pan or Dutch oven brown ground beef
and onion; drain. Add remaining ingredients except chili beans.
Cover and simmer over low heat « to 1 hour. Add chili beans and
liquid. Heat through. Makes 6 to 8 servings.
Note: Try this with a can of hot chili beans and sauce. If
you like it milder, omit the green chilies and use plain chili
beans and sauce.
MINNESOTA WILD RICE CASSEROLE
Ingredients:
1 cup uncooked wild rice
3 cups water
1 teaspoon or less salt
8 ounces fresh mushrooms, sliced
1 tablespoon butter or margarine
1 pound ground beef
2 medium stalks celery, chopped (about 1 cup)
1 medium onion, chopped (about « cup)
1 10-3/4-ounce can cream of mushroom soup
1 soup can water
3 tablespoons soy sauce
Method: Rinse rice. Heat rice, water, and salt to boiling;
simmer 40 minutes. Do not drain. Lightly brown mushrooms in
butter or margarine; remove from skillet or Dutch oven. In same
pan brown ground beef and drain. Combine all ingredients. Pour
into 13-by-9-by-2-inch baking dish. Bake at 350 degrees for 35 to
45 minutes, or until rice is tender and liquid is absorbed. If
mixture is not moist enough, bake covered for most of the baking
time. If you like a milder wild rice taste, then pre-cook the
rice for 20 minutes. Pour off the water. Then combine above
ingredients, but add another 10 3/4-ounce can cream of mushroom
soup or a 14-ounce can of beef broth. Bake covered for about 1
hour and uncover toward the end of baking. Stir and taste to
check for doneness and amount of moisture present.
CREAMY COLESLAW DRESSING
Ingredients:
1 cup sour cream
3/4 cup sugar
1 tablespoon salt
1/2 cup cider vinegar
1« cup half and half
Method: Combine ingredients and beat with a whisk until
smooth. Pour over shredded cabbage (and grated carrot if desired)
and refrigerate until well chilled. Yields 3« cups. This recipe
is from a Minnesota cookbook, indicating it was a specialty of
Murray's Restaurant, Minneapolis. Murray's is located downtown in
the block in which BLIND, Inc., was formerly housed.
BANANA BARS
Ingredients:
1« cups sugar
1/2 cup margarine, softened
2 eggs
1 cup dairy sour cream
3 large ripe bananas, mashed
2 teaspoons vanilla
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon soda
2 cups flour
Creamy frosting (below)
Method: Heat oven to 375 degrees. Cream sugar and margarine.
Add eggs and sour cream; mix. Add bananas and vanilla, then dry
ingredients and mix well. Spread dough in greased and floured 15-
by-10-by-1-inch pan. Bake 20 to 25 minutes. Cool; spread with
creamy frosting. Cut into bars. Makes 48 bars. Keep refrigerated.
Creamy Frosting:
1/4 cup margarine
2 cups powdered sugar
3 tablespoons dairy sour cream
Melt margarine in saucepan over low heat, stirring
constantly until lightly browned and bubbly. Remove from heat.
Add powdered sugar and sour cream. Beat with electric mixer until
creamy.
LEFSE
Ingredients:
1 pound baking potatoes, 4 large pared and quartered (use 3« cups
riced potatoes)
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup butter, melted
1/4 cup half and half
2-1/4 cups sifted flour
Method: 1) Cook the potatoes with salt until tender. Drain
well. Immediately rice potatoes using a potato ricer. Cool
slightly. Cover and chill in refrigerator for 8 hours or
overnight. 2) Firmly pack chilled riced potatoes in measuring cup
to make 3« cups. Place in bowl. Add melted butter and half and
half. Mix until smooth, using large spoon. Add flour, a little at
a time, mixing until dough forms. Shape mixture into 12-inch
roll. (Be sure to remove all air from mixture when shaping roll.)
Divide roll into 12 pieces. 3) Roll out each piece of dough very
thin on well-floured pastry cloth (to a 12-inch circle if using a
round griddle, or into narrower ovals, if using an oblong
griddle), using a stockinet-covered rolling pin or a lefse
rolling pin. The lefse should be very thin, about 1/16-inch
thick. Carefully roll lefse around rolling pin or a lefse stick
so the lefse can be transferred to the griddle. During rolling,
shake off excess flour. 4) Bake lefse one at a time on ungreased,
very hot griddle. When small brown spots appear on the underside
of the lefse (notice distinctive aroma as a guide, and crusty
areas), turn over using a lefse stick or long metal spatula. When
lefse are browned on both sides, fold into fourths using lefse
stick or spatula. Remove from griddle. Place on a dish towel (not
made of terry cloth). Bake another lefse and arrange on top of
first, placing the point in the opposite direction. Re-cover with
towel. Continue this way until all the lefse are prepared. Cool
lefse at room temperature. When cooled, wrap lefse in plastic
wrap, placing six in a package. Then place in plastic bag to keep
lefse soft. They can be stored up to 4 days in the refrigerator.
Makes 12 lefse. 5) To serve, lefse should be served at room
temperature. Unfold lefse and cut in half. Spread with softened
butter and sprinkle with brown or white sugar. Fold each half in
thirds, forming pie-shaped wedges.
Note: An electric griddle works best. Keep it free of excess
flour. Brush off the extra so it doesn't burn during the cooking
process.
** ** MONITOR MINIATURES ** **
[Photo: Fred Schroeder stands at podium, reading Braille. CAPTION: Dr. Fred
Schroeder]
** Congratulations:
We are delighted to report that on March 23, 1994, Fred
Schroeder, member of the Board of Directors of the National
Federation of the Blind, defended his dissertation and was
awarded a Ph.D. in Educational Administration from the University
of New Mexico. His research was in Braille literacy, a subject on
which he has become a recognized expert. Graduation will take
place on May 14. Dr. Schroeder completed his doctoral work in
addition to carrying out a full range of responsibilities as
husband, father, director of a state rehabilitation agency, and
active participant in numerous professional organizations in
which his participation noticeably increased the quotient of
humanity and common sense. All of us congratulate Fred warmly on
this very special occasion.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Professor Adrienne Asch]
** Appointed:
We are pleased to report that Adrienne Asch, a long-time
Federationist, has just been named to the Henry R. Luce Chair of
Biology, Ethics, and the Politics of Human Reproduction at
Wellesley College in Massachusetts. This is a five-year
appointment with the possibility of an additional three-year
extension. Dr. Asch was chosen from an international field of
candidates and will take up her responsibilities this summer in
preparation for the coming academic year. The requirements of the
position will give Dr. Asch ample time for research and writing
in addition to her teaching. This appointment is a signal honor.
Congratulations from all of us to Professor Adrienne Asch.
**Braille-output Computer Newsletter Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
VersaNews is a technology magazine which covers developments
in Braille equipment and the ways in which people use Braille to
access the benefits of the computer age. Topics include product
reviews, education, tips from readers, and how-to articles on
using Braille displays to access such commercially available
tools as dictionaries, check-writing programs, and information
services. VersaNews is privately published and covers Braille
products from all American manufacturers and several imported
devices. Started twelve years ago for VersaBraille users,
VersaNews remains one of the few sources of support for teachers
and others who may have acquired these machines secondhand. It is
read in fourteen countries by educators, writers, lawyers,
housewives, and computer programmers who use Braille equipment in
their daily lives. In many cases a letter or phone call to the
editor can put subscribers with a particular problem in touch
with others who have found a solution.
VersaNews is published three times a year on MS-DOS disk, on
VersaBraille II disk, and in print. Non-print users must have a
computer or VersaBraille to read the magazine, because there is
no paper Braille edition. Subscriptions, which must be paid for
in U.S. dollars, are $25.00 in the U.S. and Canada and $35
elsewhere. Please be sure to specify the format desired. Address
orders and inquiries to VersaNews, c/o David Goldstein, Editor,
87 Sanford Lane, Stamford, Connecticut 06905; Phone (203) 336-
4330.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Tommy Craig]
** Elected:
Lola Pace, member of the Board of Directors of the National
Federation of the Blind of Texas, reports that at its recent
state convention the National Federation of the Blind of Texas
held elections with the following results: Tommy Craig,
President; Doris Henderson, First Vice President; Lawrence
Doiron, Second Vice President; Manuel Gonzales, Treasurer;
Elizabeth Campbell, Secretary; Sam Jackson and William Harmon,
Board Members.
Glenn Crosby, who has served faithfully and well as
President for many years, had decided not to s
eek another term.
He will be missed as President, but both he and his wife Norma
will continue to serve as leaders in the Texas affiliate. While
everyone will miss Glenn's warmth and wisdom in the presidency,
the affiliate welcomed the new President with enthusiasm and
energy, and the entire membership has pledged its support.
Everyone in Texas is looking toward a bright future.
** New Chapter Welcomed:
One of the highlights at the annual convention of the
National Federation of the Blind of Texas was the awarding of a
charter to the new Galveston County Chapter. According to Clint
Hall, the officers and board members of the new chapter are
William Harmon, President; Stephanie Pruitt, Vice President;
Clint Hall, Secretary/Treasurer; and Board Member, Shelly Harmon.
The newest chapter in the Lone Star State is helping to change
what it means to be blind in Texas.
** Information Needed on Implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts, together with
the Heller School, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
and the World Institute on Disability (WID), Berkeley,
California, received a National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) three-year grant to conduct an
exploratory evaluation of the implementation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project is based on
participatory involvement of individuals with disabilities and
representatives from a variety of advocacy organizations in
collecting information on ADA activities.
We would like to get your views on all of the major areas
covered by the ADA (employment, public/private accommodation,
transportation, and communication) that affect people with
disabilities. In particular, we are curious about the following
types of situations:
1. Informal negotiations and alternative dispute
resolution: We would like to learn about your
experiences in negotiating with employers and other
agencies for accommodations.
2. Best practices nominations: Do you have business or
public accommodations to nominate as outstanding
examples of innovative employment policies, physical
accessibility, or service accessibility?
Please forward any comments or materials to Martha
McGaughey, Ph.D., The Heller School, Brandeis University, P.O.
Box 9110, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9110; or call (617) 736-
3834; Fax: (617) 736-3864, or TDD: (617) 736-8513; Internet (e-
mail): McGaughey@binah.brandeis.cc.edu
** A Handbook of Braille Contractions:
The original printing of this useful, alphabetically-
organized, Twin Visionþ-format Braille contraction book, which
was offered free of charge for some time, is now out of stock. A
second printing is in progress, at a non-profit cost of $4.00 for
each book. Contractions handbook requests will be filled as books
are available, and in the order requests are received. Send
orders with checks for each book, made payable to American Action
Fund for Blind Children and Adults, 18440 Oxnard Street, Tarzana,
California 91356.
** Elected:
At the February 20 meeting the Greater San Antonio Chapter
of the NFB of Texas elected the following officers and board
members for two-year terms: Martha LaQue, President; Sam Jackson,
First Vice President; James Sofka, Second Vice President; Mary
Donahue, Secretary; Peggy Gonz
lez, Treasurer; and Pete Donahue
and Geraldine Corbbrey, board members.
The Austin Chapter of the NFB of Texas elected officers at
its January meeting. The following were elected: Tommy Craig,
President; Mary Ward, First Vice President; Buddy Brannan, Second
Vice President; Norma Gonzales Baker, Secretary; Wanda Hamm,
Treasurer; and Dale Hamm and Mike Waddles, Board Members.
** Publication Information Available:
Ron Burns, President of the Pompano Beach Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Florida, has asked us to
carry the following announcement:
I have written, edited, copyrighted, published, and recorded
on cassette tape a book entitled A Shade of Freedom. To obtain
your copy of this book, make your check in the amount of $12.50
payable to Ronald Burns, and send it to 605 South State Road 7,
Apt. 1-B, Margate, Florida 33068.
The name of my publishing company is the Lord's Faithful
Publishing Company. We are not necessarily looking for Christian
manuscripts (as the name of the company might suggest), but we
are looking for good, moral manuscripts that are literary in
nature. Please send manuscripts in typewritten form or in
Braille, and we will edit them for you and put them into Braille
or recorded format. Please include your name, address, and
telephone number so that I can give you an update on the progress
of your manuscript and the price of our work, which will be
determined by the number of copies you want us to produce for
you. Contact the Lord's Faithful Publishing Company at the above
address.
** Cookbooks Still Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
The Black Hawk County Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Iowa still has a few cookbooks left. The book, Far
Flung Favorites From Friends and Family, contains 212 recipes and
many useful household hints and is available on cassette tape or
in print. To order your copy, send $6.50 (delivered free matter
for the blind) or $8.50 (post paid). Make checks payable to Black
Hawk County NFBI and send to Loren Wakefield, 722 Davenport
Street, Waterloo, Iowa 50702-2944.
[PHOTO: Steve Benson stands at microphone. CAPTION: Steve Benson]
** Illinois Convention Wrap-Up:
Steve Benson, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of Illinois, reports the following: More than 150
Federationists and guests participated in the NFB of Illinois'
twenty-sixth annual convention, November 5 to 7, 1993, in
Springfield, Illinois. This year's theme, "Engaging the World
Around Us," was echoed in every aspect of the convention, from
the Friday afternoon Job Opportunities for the Blind Seminar to
the adjourning gavel at noon on Sunday. Bill Isaacs and Bill Reif
were elected to two-year terms on the Board of Directors. Dr.
Elizabeth Browne was elected to fill the second year of an
unexpired seat. And a high-spirited bunch left the convention
satisfied with the hard work, learning, inspiration, and fun we
had shared. Now it's time to prepare for the 1994 Convention in
Detroit. We will move Illinois to Michigan.
** Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
I have for sale a Braille 'n Speak with carrying case,
battery charger, and reference card. Never used, asking $750. For
more information contact Tonya McCluskey at P.O. Box 68,
Hamilton, Montana 59840; or call (406) 961-4333.
** Elected:
The Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind of Pennsylvania recently held elections with the
following results: Leon Conaway, President; Mary Moses, First
Vice President; Florence Green, Second Vice President; Marilyn
Klein, Secretary; and Joyce Graves, Treasurer. Joseph Branch,
Joseph Hardin, Desiree Peterson, and Edna Wiley were elected to
serve as Board Members.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: John Miller, chief organizer of the new Science and
Engineering Division]
** Attention, Professionals in Science and Engineering:
Plan to attend the first annual meeting of the Science and
Engineering Division of the National Federation of the Blind at
this year's Convention in Detroit. Professionals in science and
engineering and those interested in these fields are welcome.
Together we will share our experiences and plan how to further
opportunities for the blind in our fields. Come join this
historic gathering and help launch the new division in Federation
style. Consult your convention agenda for time and place.
** For Sale:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
VersaBraille II-C for sale, like new condition, with all
accessories, including both Braille and print manuals. Will
accept best offer. Contact Joe Shankle at (804) 672-1557 (home)
or (804) 644-6720 (work).
** Senior Blind to Meet in Detroit:
Cathy Randall, First Vice President of the NFB of Illinois
and Chairperson of the NFB Committee on the Senior Blind, writes
as follows:
The Committee will meet Saturday, July 2, 1994, at 8:00 p.m.
Check the convention agenda for our meeting location. Steve
Hastalis and other Federationists with well-developed travel
skills will offer tips to seniors on traveling through the Westin
Hotel complex. I will arrange assisted tours of the exhibit hall
for seniors. Tour times and other pertinent information will be
discussed at the meeting.
Sheri Fernandes and Tina Blatter of the Center for Citizens
with Disabilities in Boulder, Colorado, will demonstrate their
methods for teaching Braille to blind seniors. John Ford of the
NFB of Missouri will discuss macular degeneration, the largest
cause of blindness among senior citizens today.
Come make the Senior Blind Committee a driving force in the
lives of older blind people. For more information, contact
Committee chairperson Cathy Randall at (217) 243-3529.
** Important Additions:
Twice in recent editions of the Braille Monitor important
information has been inadvertently omitted. In the February,
1994, issue the notice announcing the election of officers to
serve the St. Louis Chapter inadvertently omitted the name of
Rick Birch as Vice President. In the March Monitor the chocolate
chip cookie recipe omitted the chocolate chips. Now everyone
knows that you can't have a chocolate chip cookie without
chocolate chips, so we suggest that you add two twelve-ounce
packages of chocolate chips.
[PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Floyd Myers, 1919-1994]
** In Memoriam:
We are saddened to report the death on January 17, 1994, of
Floyd Myers, a dedicated and active member of the Greater
Cumberland Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Maryland and husband of Georgia Myers, who has been a mainstay of
Federation activities for many years. Many people know Georgia as
the creator of the delicious rum balls that faithfully appear at
Federation events. Floyd was a quiet Federationist, always ready
to notice what had to be done, lend a hand, and work until the
project was complete. Floyd will be deeply missed by the members
of the Greater Cumberland Chapter, the Maryland affiliate, and
all other Federationists who knew and loved him. We are a
stronger and more effective force for changing what it means to
be blind because of Floyd's presence among us. Georgia and the
couple's two daughters have our sympathy in their loss.
** Elected:
The San Diego County Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of California recently held elections with the
following results: John Miller, President; Joseph Lopez, Vice
President; David House, Secretary; James Lyons, Treasurer; and
Ivan Weich and Valerie Miller, Board Members.
