         The Third Generation and the Maurer Presidency

     At was the task of the first generation of our movement to
deal with hunger; it has been the task of the second generation to
deal with jobs; it will be the task of the third generation to deal
with civil rights.

     Those were the words of Kenneth Jernigan in his final
convention address as President of the National Federation of the
Blind. His 1986 banquet speech dealt with the successive passing of
the torch first from the generation of the founders (epitomized by
Jacobus tenBroek) to the second generation of the builders (led by
Kenneth Jernigan), and now from these in turn to the emerging third
generation of the defenders (symbolized by the new President, Marc
Maurer). Each generation has had its appointed task, its special
mission in the world, said the outgoing President; and as he
defined them one by one he had in mind the original and overarching
mission of the organized blind movementthe ultimate goals long
since proclaimed by the NFB motto and logo which had resounded
through the generations and would surely echo down the corridors of
future time. Those goals, as every Federationist of each generation
had known well, were three:  Security  (dealing with hunger); 
Opportunity  (dealing with jobs), and  Equality  (dealing with
rights).

     For President Jernigan to declare that it would be the task of
the third generation to deal with civil rights was, even as he
spoke, not just a prophecy but a statement of fact. In the
concluding years of his own presidency, the agenda of the movement
was already heavily committed to the establishment and defense of
the civil rights of blind persons. The battle in the  unfriendly
skies, for one thing, was being fought out in terms of civil
rights: the rights particularly of equal treatment, of mobility,
and of accessand more generally of personal liberty and social
equality. Civil rights were also at the center of Federation
lawsuits targeting discrimination and prejudice against blind
persons.

     Like his predecessor in the presidency, Marc Maurer was
thoroughly committed to the cause of civil rights well before his
election to the leadership. As an attorney representing the NFB, he
had for years been instrumentally involved in its civil rights
litigation. An early harbinger of Maurer's commitment might be
found in a speech delivered at the 1983 convention of the NFB in
Kansas City, Missouri, under the title  To Establish Justice: The
Law and the Organized Blind Movement. His address was a
comprehensive overview of the legal history (and more precisely the
civil rights history) of the organized blind movement. Among other
things it related the civil service story, the dark history of the
sheltered sweatshops, the agony of the airlines, the cruel episodes
of blind parents threatened with losing custody of their children,
the denial of licenses to blind doctors, and much more. In this
illuminating speech Maurer gave an early demonstration to
Federationists of the qualities of mind and will which he would
later bring to the presidencyand in particular of his determined
commitment to establishing justice and protecting civil rights for
the blind. Here is what he had to say:

 TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE: THE LAW  AND THE ORGANIZED BLIND MOVEMENT
                         by Marc Maurer

     One of the most widespread criticisms of the law is that it is
deadly dull. H. L. Mencken said,  One may think of the Supreme
Court as a theater of dullness so heavy that the very cat's-paws
drowse, and of imbecility so vast that even Congress is shamed and
made to hang its head. Nevertheless, I have heard in that very
chamber arguments that stimulated me like the bouquet of a fine
Moselle, or a smile of a princess of the blood, or an unexpected
kick in the pantaloons. The law has its dull moments, but it also
has passion, danger, and hope. In any law matter of consequence
there will be uncertainty and fear.

     Certainly that is true of the legal matters with which we
deal. No one knows how any particular case may come out. A negative
precedent may be established which will cripple the prospects for
blind people for decades to come. However, there is also the
possibility of triumph. We proceed with the faith that a proper and
thorough presentation of our case will show that logic and reason
are the bedrock on which we make our complaint. We trust the
promise that justice will not be denied. The truth will come out
and be seen for what it is. The proof of ability will be more
important than prejudice. The normality of blind people and the
thirst of the blind for full and equal partnership in the grand
experiment of life is far more important than man's ancient fear of
the dark.

     The statute books and the administrative codes do not speak of
the crying, compelling need of the blind to be recognized as
productive, able, intensely human creatures who must be woven into
the mosaic which is our culturebut we do. The law contains the
rules and judgments that gird us round. They can rein us in and
hold us back, but they can also help to set us free. In large part
it depends on what we do to shape this thing called law.

     Almost a hundred years ago a band of enterprising
entrepreneurs decided to put on a show, which would consist of a
magnificent train wreck. Two engines faced each other from the
crests of opposite hills. They were raced at full speed into the
valley between. The showmen sold tickets to the great event.
Printed on each ticket was the statement that the people running
the show would not be responsible for any injuries to the
spectators. Lemonade was sold, and everyone had a jolly good
timethey did, that is, until the great moment.

     The two engines collided. The steam boilers blew up. Red hot
slivers of steel arced into the air and rained on the spectators,
and hundreds of people were maimed or killed.

     In the argument which followed, the showmen said that no
person was authorized to be in the area unless he or she had a
ticket. Each ticket was a contract. Each ticket specifically
provided that the spectator, not the showmen, was responsible for
all injuries. The showmen said that they could not be held liable
for injuries to spectators.

     Today (a hundred years later) no matter what the ticket said,
the showmen could not escape responsibility. The law has changed.
It would not permit the avoidance of responsibility for such
danger.

     In 1980, only three years ago, Michael Hingson was ejected
from a plane because he would not sit where airline officials had
decided the blind should sit. He would not give up his right to
full equality and first-class citizenship. He would not knuckle
under to airline officials when they told him that he was
second-rate. In 1980 the airline told Mike Hingson that there was
a government regulation which required the airline to segregate him
from the rest of the passengers. Mike Hingson (with his dog guide
Holland) must sit in the first row of seats.

     In 1983 the airline changed its story and said that it had
insisted that Mike Hingson sit in the front seat because it would
be safer. After all, they said, Mike would be closer to the door of
the plane. It would be easier for airline personnel to help him get
off if he were in the front seat. The National Federation of the
Blind had filed a lawsuit in 1981 to protest this discriminatory
treatment. Shortly thereafter, an airline official for the
defendant, Pacific Southwest Airlines, said that the airline had
made a mistake. This official testified under oath that the airline
had violated its own policies in enforcing this segregation.

     Nevertheless, a federal court would not permit us to present
this evidence. The court ruled in favor of the airline. The judge
said that if airline officials had safety matters in the back of
their minds, they could present their concerns to the court. With
such a ruling in hand airline officials, of course, remembered
thinking of hundreds of ways in which the blind could be
injuredcaught in a burning flame, maimed in the breakup of the
aircraft, or otherwise dismembered or done in.

     Between 1980 and 1983 the airline had three years to remember
all of the circumstances which could cause personal injury.
Although the airline had never mentioned all of this to Mike
Hingson, the memories of airline officials were graphic when called
upon to describe air crashes. The fear of blindness was evident in
the testimony of these officials. Because they did not know what
they would do if they were blind, because they were afraid they
would be helpless as blind people, because they are sure that they
would be second class if they became blind, they insisted that we
are second class.

     The court ruled against us, but we are appealing. We cannot
let it stand. We are reaching out for our dignity and our
self-worth. They are trying to snatch those birthrights from us.
And make no mistake, it is not just Mike Hingson or Pacific
Southwest Airlines that is on trialit is every one of us in this
room: all of usthose here, those in the rest of the country, and
those who are still children.

     But the laws change. The National Federation of the Blind has
been in existence for only a short time. Already a mighty labor has
been accomplished. It is just the beginning, but what a beginning
it is!

     Back in 1940, when Dr. tenBroek brought the blind of seven
states together to form the National Federation of the Blind, there
was little legal protection for the blind. The Randolph-Sheppard
Act had been passed, but very few vending stands were in operation.
There was no Rehabilitation Act to provide services to the blind.
There was no protection against discrimination. The Social Security
Act had been adopted, which provided a little welfare money; but
there was no Supplemental Security Income program and no Disability
Insurance as we now know it. There was no right to work in the
federal civil service, and no right to work for federal
contractors. The Wagner-O'Day Act had been passed, but it did more
for the workshop bosses than for us. It stimulated and expanded the
sheltered workshop system, in which the blind have so often
received less than the minimum wage. The books for the blind
program had begun, and free mailing privileges for this program had
been established. That was all. A few books; a little welfare;
(perhaps, if you were very lucky) a vending stand.

     By the mid-1960s Dr. tenBroek could argue that it was the
policy of the nation that the blind be integrated into society as
full and equal partners. Such an argument was a declaration of
beliefbelief in the capacity of the blind. Furthermore, it was a
statement of faith that the courts would recognize that capacity,
that society would understand it, and that understanding would
bring acceptance. By the mid-1960s, we had gained the right to work
in the civil service. There were many blind vendors, and aid to the
blind programs had been liberalized so that there was at least some
money available.

     Many of the problems faced by the blind in the 1960s are
foreign to us now. We never hear of them. They don't even stir our
memories. The Kirschner case, for example. That landmark (tried in
the 1960s) declared that the blind could not be denied aid to the
blind (now replaced by Supplemental Security Income) on the grounds
that there might be relatives financially able to care for their
needs. The Parrish case held that night raids against blind welfare
recipients were an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional.

     Today, these problems are so removed from our daily lives that
they seem as fantastic as the old sumptuary laws, which decreed
that there could be no more than two courses at a meal. They are as
outmoded as the English statute which created trial by combat as
one method for settling disputes. Before the Parrish case some
governmental officials thought that night raids against aid to the
blind recipients were reasonable. Today, that thought is
outrageous. With time and effort the laws change.

     In the early 1960s the raids involved aid to the blind
recipients. In the 1980s the raids are differentand more ominous.
The problem began with the question of whether blind persons are
competent to adopt children. Some adoption agencies thought that
blind parents could not raise children. Their requests to adopt
children were denied. We fought this prejudice, and the adoption
agencies backed down. But this was only the beginning. In several
cases in recent years blind parents have been told by social
welfare agencies that they may not raise their  own  children. The
homes of these blind people have been invaded. The children of
blind parents have been taken. Often it has been done in secret.
The blind parent leaves home in the morning (for the office or to
go shopping) and returns home to discover that his or her own child
is gonevanishedtaken by the whim of a social worker or a judge (no
prior notice, no hearing, no due processsimply gone). The courts
and the social welfare agencies do it in the name of protecting the
children. They claim that the blind parents are not fit: that the
children will not be safe. In the ordinary case involving ordinary
human beings this sort of thing does not happen. There must be
extraordinary evidence to permit the invasion of a home. To justify
breaking up a family the court must find that there is danger to
the children. There must be evidence of child abuse, or a strong
reason to believe that, without court intervention, there will be
child abuse. The court must find that there is an emergency which
requires immediate and drastic action. That standard is very
difficult to meet. Nevertheless, the courts have decided to take
the children from blind parents in several states.

     In one case the court ruled that the blind mother could keep
her children only if she put locks on all the drawers in the house
and gates in front of stairways. The judge thought that the
children might fall down the stairs. Maybe they would get into the
drawers and find dangerous objects such as knives and scissors.
This may be called the  gates and locks test for safety. If the
home of blind parents is so constructed that a child cannot fall,
and if the objects in the home are locked away so that the child
could not be hurt, then the court will grudgingly permit the child
to live with its own parents. The court did not say whether the
couch in the living room must be so constructed that the child
could not fall off of it.

     Of course, this is the very sort of thing which makes it
necessary to have a National Federation of the Blind. In the case
in point we went both to the court and the pressand I am pleased to
tell you that we were successful. The children are once more at
home with their mother, and they are doing quite nicelyno terrible
accidents, no pressing danger, no psychological trauma or ruinonly
the normal bumps and bruises of childhoodand of course, the love
and tenderness which only a mother can provide.

     In another case the court removed the child from a blind
mother because the child had fallen and bruised its face. The
mother took her child to the doctor. Otherwise, the court would
never have known that the accident had occurred. The doctor
reported the injury to the authorities, and the authorities took
the child. The doctor, as it was put,  knew when he saw the child
that it was in danger. This is the  know it when you see it test
for safety. If any person (doctor, minister, social worker,
neighbor down the street, or stranger passing through) reports that
the child is in danger, and if the parent is blind, the court, by
this doctrine, may invade the home and destroy the security of the
family. Of course, we could not let these cases stand. We fought
them, and we won.

     Beginning in the late 1960s, the Federation began to take an
ever more active role in the courts. In almost every case we were
seeking to preserve, protect, and defend the civil rights of the
blind. For almost two decades we have had ongoing cases dealing
with the right of blind people to teach in the public schools. The
names of the people involved call up memories of discrimination,
organized action, battle in the courts, and a succession of
triumphs: Evelyn WeckerlyPauline FucinariJudy (Miller) Sanders
Linda GarshwilerJoanne WalkerJudy Gurmankin Ellen Schumannand
Virginia Reagan. The National Federation of the Blind relied on the
law and went to court, and the teachers got the jobs. To many who
hear these words, some of these names will be only thatnamesbut
each constitutes a personal account of rejection, hope, and
achievement; and each constitutes a milestone on the long road to
freedom which the blind as a people are traveling.

     Then there is the civil service. The organized blind has been
fighting with civil service officials for so long that it has
almost come to be a way of life. The first case in this area ever
taken by the Federation started back in 1950. It involved the right
of a blind person to take a civil service examination and be put on
the register for a job with a federal agency. We lost that fight
because the agency abolished the register. The court said the case
was moot. The court could not rule that the blind person should be
put on the register because no register existed on which to do the
putting. However, as a result of the court action, the
Congressional pressure, the widespread publicity, and the
all-around general uproar, the civil service officials were forced
to open at least a few jobs to blind applicants. For the first time
in history blind persons could compete for government jobs.

     But this was just the beginning. When the city of Chicago
refused to permit blind people to take certain civil service
examinations, we brought a lawsuit. The blind can now take those
tests. When the state of Minnesota refused to hire a blind computer
programmer, we brought a lawsuit. The programmer got the job. In
1980 (30 years after the first civil service case) we of the
Federation found ourselves in another action involving federal
employment. An economist for the Labor Department, Al Saille, had
no trouble getting a job. He had been working as an economist for
the federal government for almost fifteen years. The problem was he
could not get fair treatment in gaining a promotion. In other
words, we could get in the door, but we were to be kept in the
outer room. We had reached a new stage in the battle. The blind
were no longer fighting simply to get into the federal civil
service. The new fight was not whether we could enter the federal
civil service but whether we could get equal treatment once we got
in. It is not enough that blind people get jobs at the entry level.
There must be pay increases, advancement in rank, and promotion to
higher levels as well. In other words, the same kind of treatment
that others get. Discrimination does not occur solely during the
interview and hiring processes. It can also happen in the course of
an ongoing job. It happened to Al Saille. But we foughtand we won.
Al Saille got the job.

     The decade of the 1970s brought a change to the Federation.
For the first time we had the money and the capacity to make
widespread use of the courts as one of the principal instruments to
help us gain equality and first-class status. In the beginning (a
decade ago) we took two or three lawsuits a year. Today, we count
them in dozens.

      Through these lawsuits the Federation has demanded that the
blind be treated with fairness and respect. We insist that private
employers do not discriminate against the blind. Through such cases
as Jesse Nash, the Tennessee vendors, and a score of others going
back through the years, we have secured the right of blind vendors
to work free of unlawful restrictions and to receive the money due
them.

      Throughout the country in recent years we have battled the
medical licensing boards when they have tried to deny licenses to
blind doctors on the ground, not that they were not competent, but
that they were blind. We have fought with the schools when they
would not let blind students attend law school or participate in
chemistry labs. We took the Federal Aviation Administration to
court when it told us that we could not keep our canes on
airplanes. We sued the agencies (the Cleveland Society for the
Blind, the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, and others) to bring
reform and to insure that blind people receive proper services.

      We gained the right to organize in the Chicago Lighthouse for
the Blind, the Cincinnati Association for the Blind, and the
Houston Lighthouse for the Blind. We insisted that blind people
have a right to equal treatment in renting apartments. The cases go
on and on.

      The first civil rights cases concentrated on the necessities.
Are blind people getting the government benefits to which they are
entitled? Do the blind have a right to equal treatment when seeking
a place to live? Do blind people get jobs without facing
discrimination so that the money is there to pay the bills? These
were the questions addressed by the courts when we began to use the
lawsuit as a tool to gain equality. Today, we have gone beyond
those bare necessities. We have begun asserting our independence in
other ways.

      Donna Yates wanted to take a Caribbean Cruise. The cruise
line told her that, because she was blind, she must stay at home.
They were afraid that someone would be required to care for her.
Besides, the accommodations on the cruise would be for double
occupancy. The clear implication of the cruise line officials was
that Donna's cabin mate might find her offensive because she is
blind. We fought this unreasonable discrimination, and earlier this
year Donna took the cruise.

      In an automobile, power is measured in horsepower. In a
rocket, it is measured in pounds of thrust. In the Federation, one
way to measure power is by the reaction of our opponents. Laws
changeand not just for us. Each change shapes not just our rights,
but the rights of those around us. When a sheltered shop is
organized, the bosses who run it find themselves living in a new
and different world. As our power grows, the responses from our
opponents become more desperate. The increasing level of conflict
to which we are subjected is one of the strongest indications of
our growth.

      In 1981 a member of the Federation, Dean Stanzel, was fired
from his job at the Rehabilitation Services Administration because
of his work with the Federation to protect the rights of the blind.
The firing was brought about by a complaint from the Iowa
Commission for the Blind. This action invited a lawsuit. We
accepted the invitation, but before we got to the hearing, the
government capitulated. Dean Stanzel got his job back.

      In 1978 Bob Acosta decided to ignore democracy in the
California affiliate of the Federation. When the California board
of directors voted to accept his resignation as president, Bob
decided only those votes which favored him should count. With this
principle clearly in mind, he went to the chapters and shouted down
any opposition. This incident brought on a lawsuit. In the ordinary
course of things it would have been a brief and unremarkable
footnote in the history of the Federation. However, our reactionary
agency opponents were running scared. They needed to divert
attention from their own unethical behavior, and they wanted to
cause dissension in the Federation. There is every evidence they
poured money into the lawsuit to keep it alive. Every legal
technicality was used to delay and prolong the case. It took five
years, but we do not enter lawsuits lightly. You know the story. We
prevailed.

      A few weeks ago in Morristown, Tennessee, a chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind came into being. Many of its
members work at the sheltered shop in Morristown. Shop management
came and told these workers that they could not join the
Federation. If they joined, or if they wrote to their Congressman
about the workshop, they would be fired. This is a direct attack
upon the Federation and the rights of blind people to work
collectively. It is an attack upon the freedom of speech and the
freedom of association. It cannot be permitted. The Federation has
gone to Morristown, supported the workers, and brought legal action
to stop this outrage.

      These three cases (the Dean Stanzel case, the California
lawsuit, and the Morristown sheltered shop case) illustrate a
pattern. The agencies that oppose the Federation have become
increasingly desperate, as they have seen their grip on the lives
of blind people loosen. They have attacked the right of blind
people to have an organization of their own choosing, governed by
the democratic vote of the blind. They have tried to intimidate us
when they could. They have tried to control or ruin the Federation
when intimidation failed. We won the Dean Stanzel case; we won the
California lawsuit; and we will win the Morristown sheltered shop
case.

      What is in the future for us in the National Federation of
the Blind? As I have examined our civil rights cases, I have
observed at least two patterns. First, there is the matter of
safety. The airlines speak to us of safety, as they segregate us to
the first row of seats and take our canes. The courts talk of
safety, as they deprive blind parents of their children.
Universities tell us safety is the reason that blind people cannot
work in chemistry labs. We have come a long way on the road to full
equality and first-class citizenship, but there is still much to
do. We must meet and defeat that unreasoning fear of blindness
which is so often manifested as a concern for safety. In other
words, we must use the law to help us abolish the  safety test.

      The second pattern that emerges is the effort by the
opponents of the Federation to use the courts as a vehicle for
attack. The attacks may be direct, as in the California lawsuit; or
they may be indirect, as in Morristown. In either case, we must
meet and defeat them as we have in the past, and as we certainly
shall in the battles to come.

      In the future we must expand and strengthen the base of our
rightsand the starting point must be the law. We do not have the
scope of legal protection that we need to live secure as equal
partners with others in society. We must gain that protection, even
if only a step at a time. We must gain it through campaigns of
public education; we must gain it through mutual encouragement and
heightened conscience; but we must also gain it in the statute
books and the courtrooms. There is no final safety (no lasting
security or real equality) until we have enshrined it in the law.

      The history of our movement tells us one thing clearly. The
law does change, and we are the agents of change. It is not the
legislatures that do it. It is not the courts. We cause it to
happen. The dream of full, joyous, unhampered participation takes
shape and finds reality in the hearts and the minds of the blind.
Wewe are the ones who do it. We seek out the legislators. We go
before the judges. We talk to the governors, and the officials, and
the public-at-largeand when we are through, the laws have changed.
The world is a different place. The blind have taken one more step
toward freedom. This is the power and importance of the law.

                    The Training of a Leader

     It is no accident that the Federation's third generation
should have found its spokesman in Marc Maurer. He came to the
movement while still in his teens, learned the creed of
Federationism as a student and apprentice of Kenneth Jernigan, and
thereafter remained at the center of the fray. It could be said of
Maurer that in him the third generation found its reflection, its
embodiment, and its voice.

     The relationship began when the young Maurer, a native Iowan
blind from infancy, went to Des Moines as a high school student to
visit the Iowa Commission for the Blind. It was then that he met
its director, Kenneth Jernigan, and it was there that he would
return after graduation to enroll at the Commission's Orientation
and Adjustment Center. In those days in Iowa it was possible for
young people like Marc Maurer to stay for several months at the
center learning to live  the Federation wayi.e., independently,
energetically, and proudlyand Maurer took full advantage of the
opportunity. He came to realize among other things that he had been
held back all his life not only by the low expectations of others
but by his own poor self-esteemand that each of these negatives fed
the other. Around him at the Iowa Center was all the positive
evidence he needed, and all the support he sought.

     While still in training Maurer was given the opportunity to
attend NFB conventions in other statesamong them South Carolina,
where he was taken in hand by a leader of unusual ability, Don
Cappsthereby witnessing both the diffusion of Federationism and the
singularity of the Iowa experience under the inspired tutelage of
Kenneth Jernigan.

     It was Jernigan who recommended to Maurer that he drop his
plans to attend a college comfortably near home and instead venture
out to a distant institution of higher learningnamely, the
University of Notre Dame. So he didnot only completing the
undergraduate curriculum (with honors) but going on to obtain a law
degree from Indiana University. All this he did while supporting
himself with entrepreneurial endeavors and building his movement by
such activities as organizing for the NFB's Student Division. In
the end he served three terms as president of that division, and
meanwhile was elected president of the NFB of Indiana at the age of
22. While matriculating at the law school, with all its notorious
demands on the time of students, Maurer continued to devote hours
of his time dailyand days of his time monthlyto the Federation. It
might have been said of his curriculum then that he had a dual
major: the law and the Federation. But that would be to assume that
the two were separate and equal; of course they were not. One was
the means to an end; the other was the end itself. The study of law
meant for young Maurer a key for the admission of the blind to the
corridors of power, a map across the legal wastelands and
quicksands of judicial process and administrative procedure, a tool
with which to change the structure of society which had for
centuries assigned the blind to a limited and secondary rolein
short, a means to the end of turning around those obstacles written
into the statute books and enshrined in case law which confronted
the blind as an insurmountable barrier for so many generations.
Jacobus tenBroek, the movement's founding father, had been a
scholar and philosopher of the law; Marc Maurer determined to be a
practitioner and master of it.

     Later, as an attorney for the Civil Aeronautics Board in
Washington, D.C., Maurer held down a secure position with
challenges enough to suit most young and ambitious members of the
bar. But he found himself chafing uncomfortably in his official
assignments, looking forward to the free time when he could get
back to work on his Federation projects. Still later on, in private
practice, Maurer found himself more and more often representing
blind persons in court; although the remuneration was certainly no
better than for other clients, the rewards were somehow greater and
more lasting. By this time in his career, Maurer knew with a
certainty that he had found his calling. It was not in the law,
though he might continue his practice. It was not in politics,
though he might undertake a campaign for elective office. His
calling was to be in the thick of the movement of the organized
blind.

     When he was elected to the presidency of the National
Federation of the Blind in 1986, Maurer rose to say these words:

      The presidency of the National Federation of the Blind is a
sacred trust. It carries with it both great honor and tremendous
responsibility. When I joined this organization in 1969, Dr.
Jernigan was our President. My first convention was dynamic and
exciting. Like Dr. tenBroek before him, Dr. Jernigan stayed on the
cutting edge. He combined hard decision making with great
compassion. Dr. Jernigan's presidency has been characterized by
imagination, enthusiasm, love for others, and the drive for
success. And there are other things: We never lose because we never
quit. Sometimes there are minor and temporary setbacksbut that is
just what they are, minor and temporary. If one approach doesn't
work, we think up another. If the first effort isn't successful, we
alter the strategy and try again. Our problems are solved because
we never leave them until they  are  solved. This is what Dr.
Jernigan's presidency has meant. This is our heritagethe
responsibilities which you as members and I as President are
pledged to meet.

      In the National Federation of the Blind we give our
Presidents great power. We expect them to use it wisely and well.
But use it they mustmaking plans, taking risks, and making
progress. I am glad that I have been a part of our movement while
Dr. Jernigan was President. It goes without saying that I am also
extremely glad that he will continue to be an integral part of and
a moving force in the presidency which is about to begin. This
organization is the single most important factor in the struggle by
the blind for equality and independence. I intend that we shall go
forward without interruption. In a word, under this presidency we
must continue to be the National Federation of the Blind.

     The Jernigan presidency had been powerful and dynamic.
Although there had been problems aplenty, the decisiveness,
ingenuity, and forcefulness of the response had been more than
adequate to meet every contingency. There were those who wondered
what would be the character of the Maurer term of office. At the
1987 convention in Phoenix, the wondering came to an end. President
Maurer came before the convention to deliver his first report as
President. The events summarized in the Presidential Report
indicated that the Federation was as vital as ever. This is how
President Maurer put it:

      I was elected to the presidency of the National Federation of
the Blind one year ago. During the past twelve months I have come
to have a greater understanding of the spirit of our movement than
ever before. It has been a year of real unity and tremendous
growth. I have worked closely with Dr. Jernigan, who (shortly after
last year's convention) agreed to serve as the unpaid Executive
Director of the Federation; and, of course, I have worked with you
the members concerning state and local problems throughout the
nation. Although I have been a member of this organization for
almost twenty years, and although I have served in a number of
capacities, I have come during the past twelve months to appreciate
in a different way the scope of our activities, the complexity of
the work we do, and the depth and breadth of leadership we have. If
anyone doubts the level of our commitment or the unity of our
purpose, let that person come here today and see the blind in our
thousands at this convention. 

      This year has been one of the busiest we have ever had. Our
position as a leader in affairs of the blind has become ever more
widely recognized. The Xerox Corporation held a training session
last November for its district personnel managers. The meeting took
place in the secluded Xerox Corporation Training Center at
Leesburg, Virginia. Only one organization involved with the blind
(and, for that matter, only one dealing with the handicapped) was
invited to come and speak. The invitation was extended to the
National Federation of the Blind. Our message was clear and
strongblind people want work, and we are good employees. I am
confident that our November meeting with Xerox and the contacts
since then will result in more and better jobs for blind workers.

     After delineating a variety of activities of the Federation in
dealing with problems involving the airlines, questions regarding
the eligibility of blind persons to receive Social Security
benefits, and disputes surrounding the right of certain blind
people to operate vending facilities on state and federal property,
President Maurer summarized quickly a variety of civil rights
concerns. He said:

      Last September Kevan and Debbie Worley and their two children
went to the Trailways Bus Station in downtown St. Louis. They were
planning an outing for the day. Little did they know that their
proposed trip would become an incident focusing national attention
on the need to protect the rights of blind people to travel without
unreasonable interference. 

      Kevan wanted to buy bus tickets for his family to travel to
Festus, Missouri, about 40 miles south of St. Louis. The agent at
the bus station refused to sell the tickets. She said that Kevan
and Debbie would need to present a letter from a doctor. They
explained that they only wanted to buy bus tickets to Festus and
that they wanted to pay the regular fare. They did not want a
handicapped ticket or a reduced fare, so no doctor's statement
would be needed. But the agent persisted in refusing to sell them
tickets. 

      You know the rest of the story. The police came and arrested
Kevan. He was the victim of physical violence and verbal abuse.
Even so, he (not the police officer) was charged with disturbance
of the peace. Kevan did not violate the law, however. We
demonstrated that in the courts. There was no disturbance of the
peace caused by Kevan. Within hours of the incident the blind of
the nation were rallying for a public protest. We made signs, and
we picketed the bus station at the very spot where Kevan had been
thrown to the pavement by the police. The press came in force. Even
the police came, and grew increasingly friendlyas well they should.
The Kevan Worley case is behind us, but we must not forget its
lessons. That, too, is why we have the National Federation of the
Blind.

      Connie Leblond, one of our leaders in Maine, filed a
complaint against Head Start when she was told that her blind son
could attend classes only when the regular teacher was present.
When the regular teacher was sick or absent, Connie's son Seth must
stay home. Our complaint against this kind of unreasonable
treatment was filed, and the decision was made last fall. The
Office for Civil Rights ruled that this behavior of the Head Start
Program is discrimination and that it must be stopped.

      This spring we got a decision in the Carol Coulter case.
Carol is a Federationist from Missouri, who wanted to operate a day
care center to keep small children. She was denied an unrestricted
license solely on grounds of blindness. The Missouri Division of
Family Services tried to require her to have a sighted person
present with the children at all times, but Carol Coulter (with our
help) fought back. The ruling on her civil rights complaint has
been made, and the unrestricted license will be granted.

      Then, there is Debra Duncan. She was denied a day care
license in California because of blindness despite the fact that
she cares for two children of her own. Her case will go to a
hearing before the California State Department of Social Services
later this month. Debra will not be alone. We will be with her, and
we expect to get the license.

      When Sheila Killian and a sighted friend tried to patronize
a Raspberries Ice Cream Parlor in California, they were not served
because of the presence of Sheila's dog guide. After a law suit,
which we backed, the Raspberries Ice Cream Parlor had to pay Sheila
$3,900. That was an expensive lesson. It is one that should be
learned by anyone in the country who tries to deny the rights of
the blind. Expensive or not, we will continue to teachand when we
do, we will expect service with a smile.

      Geerat Vermeij is a blind marine biologist at the University
of Maryland. He was scheduled to participate in a research cruise
to the Aleutian Islands; but a professor at the University of
Alaska (the institution which operates the ship) raised objections
to his going. The reasonneed I tell you?was concerned with safety.
Dr. Vermeij is prominent in his field and has traveled throughout
the world doing research. Nine years ago, in fact, he went on a
research cruise on the very ship in question. In the resolution of
this case you can see the Federation at work. Jim Omvig (from his
headquarters in Alaska) and I (working from the National Center in
Maryland) collaborated. The matter has been resolved. Geerat
Vermeij will participate in all activities of the research project
(from ship to shore and otherwise), and there will be no
discriminationbut there probably would have been if it had not been
for the National Federation of the Blind.

      In the banquet speech at last year's National Convention Dr.
Jernigan described the details of the Terry McManus case. A bus
driver told Terry that he would have to sit in a seat for the
handicapped when there was only standing room on the bus. Terry
said he preferred to stand, and he did. Rather than driving the
bus, the operator asked all of the other passengers to leave. Terry
stayed, and he stood. The rest of the story you know. The bus was
driven on its route with Terry still standingand all alone. This
spring the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ruled that the
Port Authority of Pittsburgh had violated the law. Our
determination no longer to be second-class citizens was vindicated
once again.

      Last year Mary Freeman of Maryland sought a job with the
Internal Revenue Service of the United States. She applied in the
usual manner. She took a competitive civil service test, and she
passed it with an excellent grade. But the Baltimore District
Office of the IRS still refused to hire her. Had she been sighted,
Mary Freeman would have had a job at IRS without difficulty. But
Mary Freeman is blind. 

      When Mary applied for the job, she was told that she would
need to be trained by Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind. Sighted
people are trained by IRS. They are paid during their training. But
IRS told Mary Freeman that she would be responsible for obtaining
her own training from Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, and that
she would not be paid while she was doing it. No job would be
guaranteed even if she successfully passed all of the required
tests.

      This was discrimination. As part of our assistance to Mary we
contacted the appropriate IRS official in Washington.
Significantly, he had attended last year's convention in Kansas
City. Sometimes I am asked what good it does to have government
officials here to speak to us. The next time I get such a question
I think I may simply say,  Mary Freeman. The matter was settled
quickly. On March 9th of this year, Mary started her training at
the IRS District Office in Baltimore. She was not required to go to
the Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, and she was paid from the
day her training began. She is now working every day as a taxpayer
service representative and is being considered for promotion. This
is another example of what we can achieve through collective action
and organized effortin other words, the National Federation of the
Blind. 

      Ben Rushton is a blind father living with his children in
South Carolina. Several years ago, when he was blinded in an
automobile accident, his former wife brought legal action to remove
the children from his custody on the grounds that a blind father
could not exercise proper parental supervision. Don Capps and other
Federationists assisted with this case, and the decision has now
been reached. This spring the court agreed with us and said that
blindness is not grounds for withdrawing child custody. This is one
more case in which the rights of blind parents have been protected
by the know-how and determination of the organized blind. 

      Again this year there are more and better scholarships than
ever before. You will meet the students who are receiving them at
this convention. Past results demonstrate that the Scholarship
Program has been an unqualified success. Our Scholarship Program
has been widely publicizedbeing mentioned in  Seventeen Magazine ,
newsletters from Congressional offices, and student aid
publications. As a result of our effort, blind students have better
opportunity than ever before, and we are also reaching people we
have never reached. 

      The current round of remodeling and renovation at the
National Center for the Blind is almost finished. The Records
Management Center, recording studios, new offices, dining
facilities, and other renovations at the National Center for the
Blind are nearly ready for use. Beyond a doubt our National Center
is the most productive and the finest facility of its kind in the
nation. With this resource goes responsibility. We must ship
specialized aids, appliances, and materials to state and local
affiliates throughout the nation and to others who need them, and
the figures show that we are doing it. During the past year we have
duplicated and distributed 7,000 presidential releases, and we have
sent out more than a million pieces of literature. The volume of
material we are handling has increased more than twenty percent
over what we were doing a year ago; and this does not include
circulation of the  Monitor , which is also up substantially and
accelerating. As you know, we began making the  Monitor  available
on cassette a few months ago, and this means still wider
circulation to come. Two years ago, when we were producing 18,000
issues of the  Monitor  each month, I thought we were close to the
saturation point; but the rate of increase during the intervening
time has been faster than ever before in our history. Today we are
producing almost 26,000 copies per monthand still growing.

      Our aids, appliances, and materials have been moved to new
quarters, occupying more than 14,000 feet of shelf space, and this
does not include the more than 28,000 boxes of material stored at
the ground floor level in the Barney Street Wing. We have now
computerized the operation, and this should increase efficiency and
result in even better service. 

      We now distribute the  American Bar Association Journal  on
tape, and we are publishing  Future Reflections  (the magazine for
parents of blind children) and also  The Voice of the Diabetic 
(the newsletter of our Diabetics Division). The circulation of
these publications is increasing at a rapid rate, and there are
othersthe  Blind Educator , the newsletter of the National
Association to Promote the Use of Braille,  Slate and Style  (the
magazine of the Writers Division),  The Brief  (which as you would
imagine is published by the National Association of Blind Lawyers),
the newsletter of the Merchants Division, and the magazines and
newsletters of other divisions and local affiliates.

      The Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) Program is still
one of the most successful efforts we have ever undertaken. This
year alone we have distributed 14,000  JOB Bulletins  to blind
applicants, and we have provided information to 6,000 employers.
More than 2,000 blind job seekers have been assisted by the program
since our last report, and the number of blind people who have been
employed (which is, after all, the figure that counts) has topped
the 700 mark since the beginning of the program.

      During the past year guests from a number of foreign
countries and many agencies doing work with the blind have visited
the National Center for the Blind. Last fall the chairman of the
Royal National Institute for the Blind came from England to examine
our programs and learn about our success. This spring an
industrialist who manufactures products for the blind in India came
to the Center and talked with us about the future of technology.
Shortly after last year's convention a representative from one of
the organizations for the blind in Israel toured the Center and
sought advice about methods for promoting self-organization for the
blind in that country, and there have been moremany more.

      All of the things I have been discussing with you can be
summarized in a very few words: hope, opportunity, information, and
the belief that it is respectable to be blind. Recently a letter
came to me which illustrates what we are, how we are perceived,
where we are going, and what we must do. The letter came not from
some other country or California or Tennessee or New Mexico but
from Baltimore. This is what it said:

      I am a young mother at the age of nineteen. My son is eleven
months old and his name is David. David is blind.

      I received a packet of information through the mail from your
organization. I can't send money, but I would greatly appreciate
your help.

      I was scared from the start about being a mother, but now
raising a blind child terrifies me. I want to be the best mother
for David that I can, and I want him to lead a normal childhood.

      I have heard relatives refer to David as poor blind David and
I don't want that. I want them to think of David first, not his
blindness.

      I am so happy to have found your organization. If it would
not be any trouble, could you send me information about your
organization?

      Sincerely,

      How can we respond to that letter? This blind boy and his
mother urgently need our help, and of course they will get it. The
circumstances surrounding their situation (our educational mail
campaigns; the confusion of the parents of blind children and their
need for help; our accumulated resources of literature and
know-how; our members who have achieved success and who still
recognize the importance of participating in the movement and
continue to draw strength and knowledge from it while serving as
role models; our capacity to care; and our strength to make the
caring count)all of these bring together in a single composite what
we are and what we must remain.

      During the past twelve months we have grown mightily, but we
have not diluted our commitment or our personal intimacy of
relationship to each other or the people who seek our help. We are
stronger today and better organized than we have ever been, but
with all of our accomplishments much still remains to be done. As
I look back through the year just ended, I am proud of what we have
achieved togetheryou as members and I as Presidentand I am
extremely grateful to each of you for the support and trust which
you have given to me, your new President. I have tried to merit
that support and trust, and I shall continue to try to merit it.
Regardless of the accomplishments I make in the years ahead (and
hopefully there will be some) or the mistakes (and certainly there
will be many), I will need to count on your continued understanding
and backing. In this, the first year of my presidency, I find that
I do not know as much as I would like to know, but there is one
thing of which I am absolutely certain. The letter from the young
mother with the eleven-month-old son named David strikes home to
me. I myself have a son named David. He is three years old, and so
far as I know, he has normal sight. When my son David and that
other David (the blind eleven-month-old child of the
nineteen-year-old mother) come to manhood, they must find a better
world for the blind than we have today. That is my job. That is
your job. That is our job as members of the National Federation of
the Blindand we must not fail to accomplish it. We do it for the
leaders who laid the foundation of this movement and pioneered its
developmentleaders like Muzzy Marcelino, who died last fall; we do
it for ourselves and the blind of today; and we do it for the blind
of tomorrow, the children who are now too young to do it for
themselvesthe blind children and also the sighted children, who
will live fuller lives if the blind are not degraded as subhumans
and written off as second-class citizens. In the tradition of Dr.
tenBroek, who brought our Federation into being in 1940, and of Dr.
Jernigan, who is here today as the living symbol of our
achievements and our battle for freedom, we must continue to build
and look to the future. We in the National Federation of the Blind
are dreamers and planners and builders. The past year (with all of
its problems) has been good, because we have worked to make it
good. The coming year (again, with all of its problems) can be even
better; and I believe it will be, because we will work to make it
better. This is my commitment; this is my pledge; and this is my
report to you.

             The Movement, the Members, the Memories

     It was at that 1987 National Convention in Phoenix that Marc
Maurer delivered his inaugural banquet address as President of the
National Federation of the Blind. For him it was, in the full sense
of the phrase, a  moment of truth. Although he had been elected to
the presidency a year before, that was only a preliminary. This was
the real hour of consummationthe Federation's own ceremonial
investiture: the annual presidential address. It was important to
be eloquent, to be effective; but as he awaited the occasion Maurer
felt it was more essential to be strictly honest with his fellow
Federationists, to speak simply and openly of his own path to the
present and of his vision for the future. He could be philosophical
as well (that was a part of himself); he would surely be political
(in the Federationist way); he might even be humorous at times
(that came naturally). But the thrust of his talk would be
personal, stemming from his experience and flowing from his heart.

     And the banquet audiencenearly 1,500 of the Federation
familywas there for him, waiting and welcoming and even a little
worrying. Most of them already knew Marc Maurer, some very well,
through the nearly twenty years of his youth and maturity in the
movement. To the members of the Third Generation in particular he
was an esteemed peer and companion, one of their own. They all
wished him well; but when he rose to speak, at this unaccustomed
podium in this unfamiliar role, he was on his own. He had never
felt so alone in his life.

     It lasted only for a momenta sentence or two. Then he was into
the speech, his own composition, carried along by its cadences and
absorbed by its messages. He had given it an unusual title:  Back
to Notre Dame. The reference would become clear in the course of
the address, as he came to speak of his own schooling and
apprenticing as a Federationist. But he began on a different note,
observing that the greatest changes in history and society are
often the least dramaticmaking their impact felt slowly and quietly
over time.  The process of quiet but dramatic change is an integral
part of being human, he said.  It is also the very essence of the
National Federation of the Blind. And he went on to recall the
obscurity and indifference which attended the founding of the
organized blind movement:

      In 1940 Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and a handful of others formed
the National Federation of the Blind. Only later was it fully
recognized that these pioneers had done something so dramatic that
the lives of the blind throughout the world would never again be
the same. The spirit which came into being at our founding in
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, took root quietly. There was no roll of
drums, no clap of thunder, no blazing fire to celebrate the
eventonly Dr. tenBroek and the small group who gathered with him to
dream and plan for the future and take the first steps toward
making it happen.They could not have imagined that from that humble
beginning would spring the powerful fifty-thousand-member National
Federation of the Blind which we have become and now are. Still,
they believedthat a future could be created, that the years would
not slip away with only emptiness for the blind, that it was
possible for the blind to build and grow and come together in one
great family. That dream, that faith, has partly been realizedbut
the road stretches far ahead, and the rest is for us to do. And we
will do it. We will do it by education and unspectacular change if
we can. We will do it by more dramatic means if we mustbut we will
do it. As Dr. Jernigan has so often said, we are simply no longer
willing to be second-class citizens.

     That was how the new President began this banquet address. It
was only a beginning, as far as the speech was concerned; but it
was also conclusive, as far as the audience was concerned. For with
that ringing declaration, Marc Maurer ended all doubts as to his
leadership capacity and presidential stature. The Federation
audience knew that, when push came to shove, their President would
not only expound their view but exclaim it from the housetops; he
would exhort; he would expostulate; he would expose. In short, he
would lead.

     Following is the complete text of that 1987 banquet address:

                       BACK TO NOTRE DAME
                         by Marc Maurer

      Once in a great while there comes a dramatic changean event
so striking in its effect that forever after a new direction is
inevitable. But more often, change does not have the appearance of
drama. Instead, there is a slight shift in emphasisan alteration of
mood. Often the change that tips the scale is so slight that (at
the time it occurs) it is completely unrecognized. Only later, with
the long view of history, can it be seen that this was the
particular moment, the watershed, the critical juncture. 

      Today, the world (whether Christian or non-Christian) counts
time from the birth of Christ; but twenty centuries ago, at the
time the event occurred, the vast majority of Roman citizens were
totally unaware of it. Even if they had known, it would have seemed
of no significance. 

      Fire is generally regarded as the essence of drama. Flames
shoot dozens (even hundreds) of feet into the air, but fire is
merely oxidation at a rapid rate. Although it is momentarily
spectacular, its consequences are far less significant than those
of other forms of oxidation. In the total range of rust, rot, leaf
mold, and metabolism fire is (so to speak) only a flash in the pan,
a momentary aberration. Of vastly more importance to the people of
the world are the slow, unspectacular chemical changes which take
place every daythe oxidation of millions of tons of matter,
occurring so slowly as to pass without comment. 

      This does not mean that drama is unimportant, that fire can
be dismissed with a shrug and a yawn. Nor does it mean that the
actions of everyday life have no effect or drama. The events which
cause hope and despair, joy and depression, are of tremendous
significance even when they pass unnoticed and without remark. The
process of quiet but dramatic change is an integral part of being
human. It is also the very essence of the National Federation of
the Blind. The cumulative effect of the drama without fanfare which
is reflected in the growth of our movement and the lives of its
members is perhaps more spectacular than any other single event
which the decades have brought, regardless of how pivotal and
far-reaching that event may have seemed at the moment. 

      In 1940 Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and a handful of others formed
the National Federation of the Blind. Only later was it fully
recognized that these pioneers had done something so dramatic that
the lives of the blind throughout the world would never again be
the same. The spirit which came into being at our founding in
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, took root quietly. There was no roll of
drums, no clap of thunder, no blazing fire to celebrate the
eventonly Dr. tenBroek and the small group who gathered with him to
dream and plan for the future and take the first steps toward
making it happen. They did notindeed, could notknow what the final
outcome would be. They were people of discernment and tremendous
insight, but they could not have imagined that from that humble
beginning would spring the organized blind movement of todaythe
powerful fifty thousand-member National Federation of the Blind
which we have become and now are. Still, they believedthat a future
could be created, that the years would not slip away with only
emptiness for the blind, that it was possible for the blind to
build and grow and come together in one great family. That dream,
that faith, has partly been realizedbut the road stretches far
ahead, and the rest is for us to do. And we will do it. We will do
it by education and unspectacular change if we can. We will do it
by more dramatic means if we mustbut we will do it. As Dr. Jernigan
has so often said: We are simply no longer willing to be
second-class citizens. 

      For forty-seven years we have been working quietly (and
sometimes not so quietly) to win our way to first-class status in
society. There have, of course, been public demonstrations,
dramatic confrontations, and historic documents; but these have not
been the primary vehicles of change and accomplishment. Instead,
the individual hopes and dreams of blind peoplethe cumulative
effect of their unspectacular daily decisions and actionshave come
together to create the positive and powerful force which is
represented here tonight. No one who is in this room or who is in
any way connected with affairs of the blind needs to be told what
that force is. It is the National Federation of the Blind. 

      When I joined the Federation in 1969, there had already been
twenty-nine years of hard, dedicated work; and the results were
plain. The Federation had built a solid record of accomplishment.
There was a body of literature about blindness which undergirded
and gave direction to our efforts. The ideas and basic assumptions
contained in the writings of Dr. tenBroek and Dr. Jernigan had been
put to the test. There was no doubt that blind people could compete
successfully in business or the professions. The programs of the
Federation had demonstrated that this was not speculation but fact.
The theories worked. Blind people got jobs. The question was not if
or whether but how and when. The problem of 1969 was to expand the
scope of our activities. We needed more than a demonstration. We
needed opportunity, and not just for a few. 

      In 1969, as I came to be part of the movement, I did not know
that these things were true. Only in retrospect did I know it. In
one sense I did not (when I joined this movement) understand the
organization at all, but even in my ignorance, the Federation spoke
to me with quiet force. For the first time in my life what I
thought made a difference. It was absolutely astonishing to me that
this was sothat anyone would do something because I, a blind
person, wanted it done. I did not understand the reason for such
unusual behavior, or appreciate its significance; and although I
was fascinated with the Federation, I must confess that I did not
think it would change my lifeat least, not very much. 

      As I was growing up, I (like all others, blind and sighted
alike) was conditioned by my culture and society. I hoped that
there would be something interesting or important for me to do, but
I was afraid that blindness might keep me from it. When I came to
the Federation, I found blind people working and making substantive
contributions. I was told that blindness need not be a terrible
limitation. I hoped that the Federation was right, but I had
doubts. Nevertheless, I said that I believed, and I tried to act as
though I did. It was only later that I realized (with something of
a shock) that the belief had come to be a reality in my lifeand a
good while before I recognized it. 

      Dr. Jernigan taught me about blindness and the organized
blind movementand there were others. I talked with blind people who
were lawyers, teachers, factory workers, and farmers. At Federation
meetings blind leaders spoke of the power of collective action.
Soon I began to repeat what those around me were saying: that
blindness could be reduced to the level of a physical nuisance,
that with proper training and opportunity the average blind person
could do the average job in the average place of businessin short
that it was respectable to be blind. 

      Then, I went to college at Notre Dameand it was a sudden
plunge into ice water. On a campus with six thousand other
students, I found myself completely isolated and alone. I could not
find a single other person who understood what I thought I
understood or believed what I said I believed, the simple truth
that blind people had capacity and could compete. I met no one else
who thought it was respectable to be blind. The coach in the
athletic department told me that I should not take any gym classes
because I might get hurt. When signing up for an accounting course,
I was praised by the professor for my great courage. Then (without
even changing gears) the professor promised me a good grade. I got
the idea that I did not have to earn it, that just being there and
being courageous would be enough. I worked hard to deserve that
grade, and I worked hard for the other grades I got, too. It was an
unforgettable experience; and although I have physically returned
to that campus only once since graduation, I have (sociologically
speaking) been back to Notre Dame many times through the years. 

      That first semester I learned with real force (I might say
with dramatic force) that blindness could not stop me, but I also
learned that prejudice and misunderstanding might. Something had to
be done. The situation was intolerable. All of those professors and
students had to be told. I needed help. I needed the National
Federation of the Blind. As the years at the university passed, I
became increasingly active in our movement. My priorities
crystalized and became clear. 

      After college I did graduate work, and in 1977 I finished law
school. In 1978, with the help of Federation members, I got a job
in the office of the General Counsel at the Civil Aeronautics
Board. With my philosophy and idealism in hand, I went to that job
willing and anxious to work. I wanted to give of my time, my
effort, and my energy. I wanted to advance myself and the cause of
the blind. The Civil Aeronautics Board made United States civil
aviation policy. Here, I thought, is an opportunity for me to do
something really useful. However, I soon discovered that a pattern
existeda pattern which reminded me of the professor who told me
that I was courageous, and promised me a good grade. I felt right
at home. It was just like being back at Notre Dame. 

      My assignments were almost always routine. If there was a
trip to London for an international negotiation, somebody else was
asked to go. If a hearing officer needed to take testimony in a
small town to determine the feasibility of air service, I was never
sent. These assignments (calculated to vary the routine) were
highly prized and much sought after. Others went while I stayed
homeand was courageous. Sometimes there was not enough routine work
to fill my day. So I was left to occupy my time as I chose. My
superiors would have been content if I had spent my time listening
to the radio or reading. They would have been contentbut I would
not have been content. I did not want the rest of my life to be a
sham and a deception, a guaranteed succession of endless raises and
lack of meaningful work. Discrimination is not necessarily confined
to the job interview or the entry level. It can also happen after
employment is permanent and safe. 

      My job with the federal government was absolutely secure. It
would have lasted until retirement through a long and rustful life.
There was something else: we all tend to be conditioned by our
environment. I knew that if I stayed long enough and my salary
became high enough, I might begin to succumb to temptation and
rationalize. I might become accustomed to the lack of useful
activity and gradually lose my initiative, my sense of values, my
perspective, my willingness to leave, and my soul. 

      Not only had the Federation taught me about blindness but
also about self-examination, objectivity, and perspective. In 1981
I left the Civil Aeronautics Board to start my own law practice. I
knew that I might starve, but I also knew that if I starved, it
would be a starvation of the body and not of the soul. I knew that
I would be free, and not a token or a cipher. Slavery does not have
to be a matter of chains and whips. It can also be a captivity of
the mind and a shackling of the spirit. Every person in this room
can give testimony to that. We in the Federation have cut our teeth
on it, and we never stop learning it. On a daily basis we continue
to teach it to ourselves and each other, and we give it in strong
doses to new recruits. This is why some, who do not understand our
philosophy, call us militant. 

      In the practice of law my dream that I might do something
worthwhile and useful came true. Again, Federation members and
leaders helped and encouraged me. As part of my practice I
frequently found myself representing blind persons. The textbooks
tell us that American law is based on fairness and justice
regardless of who is involved or what the circumstances may be. My
job was to help make this principle applicable to the blind as well
as the sighted. 

      When I represented blind people, my opponents were often
major employers, airlines, departments of government, or agencies
doing work with the blind. Although the approaches of these
different entities might vary, their opinions about blindness
usually did not. Whether it was an airline, an employer, a
department of government, or a service agency for the blind, what
they said about blindness was always just about the same. I felt
right at home. It was exactly like being back at Notre Dame. The
blind are courageous; they will get a good grade; no need to work;
and plenty of meaningless assignments. Of course, when I insisted
on equal treatment for my clients, attitudes hardened. Those across
the table now thought the blind (and that included me) were
ungrateful, unreasonable, and unrealisticnot courageous at all but
just plain radical and militant. 

      If (after my experiences at Notre Dame and the Civil
Aeronautics Board) anything else was needed to confirm me in my
opinion that the National Federation of the Blind was not only
needed but necessary, I found it in the practice of law. It is not
that people mean to be unreasonable or that they are deliberately
cruel. Rather, it is that they have the ancient fear of the dark
and that they equate blindness with darkness, and darkness with
evil and lack of ability to perform. Despite the progress we have
made (and we have made a great deal of it), regressive attitudes
about blindness are unfortunately still the norm. 

      The director of sales for Elsafe Hawaii, Incorporated (a
company that markets safes), writes to say that he is selling a
special safe for the blind. He says: 

      I would like to take this opportunity to acquaint you with
this product, as it seems to be particularly well suited to the
needs of the blind. This safe is operated by means of a combination
that is entered via a keypad identical to a standard telephone
keypad. There are no keys required for normal operationand,
therefore, nothing to lose. I would like to make the members of
your organization aware of this product. 

      The conclusion is inevitable. This man believes that the
blind, incompetent as we are, cannot keep track of the simplest
objectsincluding keys. To help the unfortunate blind he wants to
sell us special safes, but one wonders if he understands the
implications of his own letter. If blind people cannot manage keys,
how can we collect anything of sufficient value to put into his
safe? 

      A radio commercial from the Corning Glass company for Corlon
lenses opens with a man speaking to a coat rack. He does not
possess Corlon lenses, so he mistakes the coat rack for an
assistant in the eye doctor's office. As the commercial proceeds,
the man causes a stir by almost sitting (inadvertently) on the lap
of a lady in the waiting room. Without the lenses he cannot see
her. Finally, this poor unfortunate (blinded by the absence of
Corlon lenses) attempts to leave the office through a closet and
becomes completely befuddled. Sight, according to this
advertisement, is required to prevent a person from mistaking a
coat rack for a human, from becoming lost in a closet, and from
social blunders such as sitting in other people's laps. The
inescapable conclusion is that blindness means almost total
helplessness with a dash of buffoonery thrown in for good measure.
I cannot recall having spoken recently to a coat rack, and I doubt
that you can; nor do I think the reason why blind people sit in
laps is usually that they do not know what they are doing. We are
frequently exploited by companies which take advantage of the
stereotypes about us to sell products, regardless of the truth of
their claims or the harm they do. 

      The Konica Medical Corporation of Wayne, New Jersey, provides
darkroom equipment to hospitals. Not long ago, Konica became aware
of two blind people working as darkroom technicians in a Florida
medical center. As a gesture of good will, Konica issued a press
release about the valuable work of these two blind employees. The
release said in part,  Visually Impaired Technicians Find Rewarding
Careers at Medical Center. The article went on to say,  Imagine, if
you can, what it would be like to live without the ability to see
the world around you. Simple tasks like walking, eating, and
reading would take on a whole new complexity. 

      As I studied this press release, I felt conflicting emotions.
The headline tells us that blind people are at work in rewarding
careers at a hospital; and even though I think blind people are
often pushed toward the darkroom in the mistaken belief that the
absence of ordinary light makes this job especially suitable for
them, I recognize that darkroom work is a useful activity in a
competitive occupation. But the body of the release ruins the
headline and takes it all away. It declares that the blind have
trouble with the most mundane tasks. Is it really so hard for us to
walk? And how about eating? We don't seem to have had much trouble
at this banquet. Of course, reading requires the use of alternative
techniques such as Braille, recordings, sighted readers, and the
like; but even here the situation is more a matter of coping than
crying. 

      The message of the companies in private industry is based on
a common theme. They say that blind people are different and less
able than others. Even when these companies attempt to be positive
and offer commendation, they say that we cannot do anything as well
as the sighted and that we are very limited, very special, very
deprived, very brave, and very subnormal. People with this kind of
attitude refer to the blind and other groups as  handicapable and 
physically challenged, and they use other such cutesy
euphemismseuphemisms which are uncalled for, unhealthy, unhelpful,
unconvincing, and unbecoming. 

      But if private industry is uninformed, having relatively
little exposure to the blind and facts about blindness, surely the
agencies doing work with the blind are more enlightened. One would
think so, but as we have learned to our cost, the exact opposite is
often the case. Consider, for instance, the South Carolina
Commission for the Blind. That agency was brought into being in the
mid-1960s through the efforts of Don Capps and the other leaders of
the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina. There was
also assistance from beyond the borders of the state. Dr. Jernigan
went to South Carolina to testify before the committee which the
legislature had established to study the matter, and a leading
South Carolina legislator came to Iowa to examine the programs
which Dr. Jernigan was operating at the state Commission for the
Blind. Justifiably the blind of South Carolina regard the
Commission for the Blind as theirs. 

      Imagine, then, how they feel (and how responsible staff
members at the South Carolina Commission feel) when an official
publication of the Commission embodies the worst of the harmful
stereotypes about blindness and is massively circulated throughout
the state. They are understandably outraged. But let the brochure
speak for itself. It consists of fifty-eight so- called  helpful
suggestions for families and friends of blind persons, grouped
under six headings as follows:  General,  With People,  In the
House,  Traveling,  Guiding, and  At the Table. You may have
thought that the proposition in the Konica news release (that
eating for a blind person takes on special complexity) was simply
to be dismissed as the chatter of a well-intentioned kook. 

      Listen, then, to the experts. Here is what the South Carolina
brochure says about eating. Twelve  helpful suggestions are listed
under the heading  At the Table. I can do no better than give them
to you as they come, word for word from the brochure. Here they
are: 

      1. Maintain usual standards. 2. Tell him what is in the dish
or on the plate which is being passed. 3. Don't pass things across
in front of the blind person. Expect him to share in the passing of
food. 4. Address the blind person directly so that he will know
that he is being asked to pass something. 5. Mention what is on his
plate so that he will know how to handle the food. 6. At first, if
he wishes it, cut meat, and butter the bread. 7. Get in the habit
of placing the meat to the front of his plate. It is easier to cut
there. 8. Use good-sized napkins. 9. Don't make unnecessary
comments when food is spilled. 10. If food is spilled on clothing,
mention it casually so that it can be removed at once. 11. Ask the
individual if he wants sugar or cream as these are difficult for
him to serve himself unless the sugar is in lump form and the cream
in individual pitchers. 12. When serving food, mention where it has
been placed so the individual will not accidentally knock over a
glass, paper cup, sherbert (sic), cup and saucer, etc. 

      Although these  helpful suggestions for family and friends
cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called subtle, the
pamphlet does not say precisely what it means. Let me offer the
writers at the South Carolina Commission for the Blind some 
helpful suggestions of my own. Let me say in clear statements what
their pamphlet necessarily implies, and what (though they might
deny it) I think they really mean. Keep in mind that they are
talking about you and me. Here, then, is the truthful rewrite: 

       Maintain usual standards. You do not need to be sloppy just
because a blind person (who will undoubtedly be sloppy) is at the
table. 

       Don't pass things across in front of the blind person.
Expect him to share in the passing of food. The blind person, just
like a three-year-old, will be flattered if you let him help. If he
isn't motivated by the flattery, you may have to prod him a little.


       Mention what is on his plate so that he will know how to
handle the food. The blind person is probably not accustomed to
eating in polite society and will likely not be able to identify
food without your help. In any case, it is your responsibility, not
the blind person's. 

       Use good-sized napkins. Of course, the blind person will be
messy and spill things, and you must look out for him or her. After
all, it is your responsibility. Certainly the blind person is not
in charge. You are. 

       Ask the individual if he wants sugar or cream as these are
difficult for him to serve himself unless the sugar is in lump form
and the cream in individual pitchers. After all, the blind person
can't ask for what he wants. You must take the initiative and take
care of him. 

      When I first came across this brochure, I felt that I had
gone back to Notre Dame, for it deals with something much more
far-reaching than table talk. It embodies a whole way of life, an
entire philosophy, and a complete cultural tradition. Through every
line is the implicit assumption that somebody else is in charge and
that even if the home and the table belong to the blind person, he
or she is no longer in control, no longer the host, no longer an
equal among equals. If you are still not convinced after all you
have heard, consider these other samples from the pamphlet. Here
they are exactly as they appear:

      Talk and act naturally when with a blind person. Be frank. If
he needs to shine his shoes, tell him so. Do not needlessly hurry
a blind person. He will appreciate a calm approach to the matter in
hand. Let him do everything possible for himself. In helping a
blind person, do not make him conspicuous by the way you do things.
Read his mail promptly and refrain from commenting on the content
of the letter unless requested to do so. A second reading is often
appreciated. Refrain from uncouthness in the presence of a blind
person; he can hear you picking your teeth. Be alert but
restrained; do not startle a blind person needlessly. Don't let a
blind person's hand dangle in the air. If obviously it is his
purpose to shake hands, grasp his hand and greet him. Don't limit
your knowledge and interest in the blind generally to the blind
mendicant who is sometimes a social parasite from choice. Do not
patronize blind persons; they're `just regular people' more than
you realize. In conversation, address the blind person by name if
he is the one expected to reply. Otherwise, he may not know the
remark is being directed to him. Leave the possessions of a blind
person where they have placed them unless you indicate specifically
where they may find them. When traveling, describe interesting and
beautiful scenes. Comment casually on sensations which blind
persons can enjoy such as pleasant odors, a cooling breeze, the
tinkle of a brook, etc. When taking an individual into a restroom
indicate position of toilet, paper, washbowl, soap, and towels.
When walking with a blind person, mention familiar landmarks so
that he can get his bearings. Don't push a blind person ahead of
you. Walk straight across the street. To do so diagonally may cause
the blind person to trip when reaching the curb.

      There you have in summation the philosophy of the South
Carolina Commission for the Blind, and I believe that I have never
in all of my life seen such a concentrated dose of distortion and
false notions. Is it any wonder that the blind of the state are at
war with the agency? How could it be otherwise? I have no doubt
that Don Capps and the other Federationists in South Carolina will
teach the Commission a new way of looking at blindness. Our role
may not be as limited or our temperament as passive as the South
Carolina custodians think. 

      And, of course, it is not just South Carolina. There are
other agencies in other states. Consider, for instance, the Mary
Bryant Home for Blind Men and Women, located in Springfield,
Illinois. Keep in mind, as I describe this facility to you, that it
is not a place exclusively designed for the elderly. It is meant
for the young as well. I feel it necessary to make this point since
otherwise you might have difficulty believing what you are about to
hear. 

      Therefore, I offer in evidence a letter dated March 23rd,
1987, to directors of rehabilitation agencies in a number of
Midwestern states. The letter is signed by the Administrator of the
Mary Bryant Home, who has the rather intriguing name of Frances
Trees. The letter says:

      Dear Director: 

      As you are aware, there comes a time in the lives of many
visually impaired persons when they are unable to live
independently. Some younger persons return to their homes following
their education from a school for the visually impaired. In many
cases, these young men and women are returning to homes where both
parents are employed outside the home, and find themselves staying
alone all day with nothing to do. 

      Some older persons no longer have a support system to aid and
assist them to live independently. Many are sent inappropriately to
nursing homes, where they are often endangered by not being able to
protect themselves. 

      The Mary Bryant Home is a resource I wish you would consider
when it comes to assisting individuals or families to deal with the
issue of placement.Currently our residents range in age from 24 to
96 years of age.

      Sincerely,  Frances J. Trees  Administrator 

      As we examine what the Mary Bryant Home says about itself,
remember that some of the residents are as young as twenty-four and
that they are at the Mary Bryant facility because, as Administrator
Trees says,  these young men and women are returning to homes where
both parents are employed outside the home, and find themselves
staying alone all day with nothing to do. Here are direct quotes
from the packet of literature sent by Administrator Trees to the
rehabilitation directors:

      The building is rectangular in shape, which allows the
residents to walk in a circular pattern for exerciseespecially
during inclement weather.The home is arranged for convenience, on
one levelno stairs.Hand rails are installed throughout the home.Our
full and part-time staff provide round-the-clock service to the
residents seeing to their health, safety, nutritional, recreational
and emotional needs.Leave of absence may be taken by residents for
a short period of time providing the person taking the resident out
sign a release of responsibility for injuries, accidents, or
illnesses which might occur during the time they are away from the
Mary Bryant Home.Personal property, other than clothing, may be
brought to the home only with the prior approval of the
Administrator.Food is prohibited in the resident rooms. BEER, WINE,
AND OTHER INTOXICATING LIQUOR: Only when approved by the resident's
physician please, and all items of this nature are to be kept at
the Medicine Room, not in resident's room.Incoming calls for
residents may be received on the house phones, but it would cause
less confusion and less interruption if these calls were to be made
between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.Visiting hours are from
10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Visits will be restricted when adversely
indicated in the opinion of the resident's physician and so
documented in the resident's clinical record.Smoking in resident
rooms is prohibited for both residents and visitors. Residents who
are capable of handling smoking supplies with safety may smoke in
the activity room, and we request visitors to smoke only in these
areas also.

      There is more, much morebut I think I have given you enough
to make the point. Any self-respecting blind person faced with such
an outrageous conglomeration of insulting rules, directives,
requirements, and restrictions would walk out the door three
minutes after arriving. Of course, most blind people that I know
would resist going to such a facility in the first place. With all
of the work we have done to change public attitudes, many people
still feel that the blind should live in segregated homes, or
sometimes nursing homes. In this connection I recently received the
following letter:

      Dear Sir: 

      My mother has been legally blind for about twenty years.
During all that time she has been in a nursing home in Rochester,
Indiana, and she is only forty-three years old. She has not in all
that time had any training that the blind need, such as how to read
Braille. The nursing home has been her only world because of her
inability to get around. I feel my mother desperately needs help.
She needs to be taught the things the blind need to function in
society. She is much too young to be in a nursing home. 

      I wonder if the National Federation of the Blind can help in
this matter. I don't have money or the know-how to assist her, and
I was told maybe you could help. She's wanting to get out of the
nursing home. 

      Sincerely yours,

      Twenty years of a person's life is a long timeand for this
woman (and many others like her) those twenty years are a bleak
memory of twisted hellof desolation, pain, and lack of opportunity.
We in the National Federation of the Blind are organized to make it
absolutely certain that brochures like the one issued by the South
Carolina Commission for the Blind stop being written, that
facilities like the Mary Bryant Home either change their philosophy
or go out of business, and that blind men and women have something
better to do with their lives than go into nursing homes in their
twenties. We are committed to changing public attitudes so that
manufacturers will not believe that we cannot keep track of our
keys, so that companies can no longer get away with picturing us as
helpless and pathetic unless we have eyeglasses, and so that the
public will no longer tolerate advertisements which exploit the
concept that we are especially suited to work in the dark. We are
determined to educate not merely the public at large but also our
fellow blind and ourselvesand, of course, we are doing it. 

      On Saturday, May 23rd, of this year I did not physically
leave Baltimorebut on that day (as I have so often done) I went
back to Notre Dame. I was in a clothing store, trying on the very
suit I am wearing tonight. At a critical juncture in the fitting,
the salesman said to the sighted person who was with me:  Can you
take off his shoes? I suppose I don't need to tell you that I did
not walk barefooted to Notre Dame. I removed my own shoes. 

      The changes we are making in public attitudes often seem slow
and long in coming, but (like oxidation) they remove more trash and
debris than the flames of spectacular conflagration. Since our
founding in 1940 we have removed a tremendous amount of garbagesome
by conflagration, and a great deal more by steady oxidation. We
also (even those of us who have never been to Indiana) continue to
return to Notre Damebut (thankfully) the visits are becoming fewer
and farther between. 

      For those of us who are blind, the world holds more promise
today than ever before in history. It is not that incidents of the
kind I have described are more numerous now than they formerly
were. Rather, it is that we are more aware of them and more
prepared to take appropriate action. Once they were universal. Now,
they are only usual. But since 1940 there has been a new element,
a new force which has changed the balances. You know what it is as
well as I do. It is the National Federation of the Blind. As
everyone in this room knows, we are thoroughly organized, fully
aware of where we have been and where we are going, and absolutely
unstoppable. 

      No power on earth can now send us back or keep us from going
the rest of the way to freedom and first-class citizenship. We know
it; our opponents know it; and the public at large is beginning to
learn it. As we approach the end of the twentieth century, our mood
is optimistic, and our hearts are joyous. My brothers and my
sisters, let us march to the future together! 

                         Back to Harvard

     Like Kenneth Jernigan before him, President Maurer found
himself called upon to meet with and speak before a wide variety of
groups, inside and outside the movement, as a standard part of his
leadership responsibility. Some of these encounters were largely
ceremonial; a few were confrontational; and others were, in one way
or another, broadly educational. Maurer especially welcomed
opportunities to convey the philosophy of Federationismthe doctrine
of equalityto public audiences unfamiliar with the organized blind
movement and potentially valuable as friends and allies. Such an
opportunity arrived with an invitation to address the faculty and
students of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government at a symposium in December, 1987. Many of the faculty
members in that audience were either statesmen or the advisors of
statesmen; many of the students would become future leaders. It was
a rare opportunity to influence the influential; and the
Federation's chief spokesman made the most of it. He entitled his
short speech  The Cost of a Gift, and he spoke of the nature of
charity and the price it exacted. His message, carefully reasoned
and quietly articulated, was that the blind were no longer content
with the gift of charity but demanded instead the harder bargain of
equality. And the warmth of his reception by the Harvard audience
demonstrated that the message was no less cogent and persuasive in
the groves of academe than it was in the meeting halls of the
National Federation of the Blind.

     Here is the Harvard speech:

                       THE COST OF A GIFT
                         by Marc Maurer

      The blind, the halt, and the lame have traditionally been
objects of pity and charity. This has meant a certain degree of
kindness, but the generosity has always been a mixed blessing. In
physics it is said that for any action there is an equal and
opposite reaction. In social affairs the same concept applies.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Those who receive charity
are (contrary to the popular belief) always obliged to pay for it. 

      One of the greatest problems faced by the blind today is that
we are the objects of charity. The society at large feels that it
will be called upon to give something to the blind. There is no law
which requires equal treatment for the sighted. Such a law is
unnecessary. However, there is a law which demands that the
handicapped shall not be subjected to discriminationat least part
of the time. This law is mostly ineffective. The general public is
expected to give equality to a class of persons which it regards as
not being entitled to it. 

      How do we pay for charity? What can be offered in return for
the  gifts we receive? How are the scales balanced? What is taken
from the blind (or, for that matter, from other groups) in order to
reach equilibrium? To answer this question contrast the position in
our culture maintained by the local banker or entrepreneur with
that customarily associated with the blind. As I have already said,
nondiscrimination laws apply to the blind. They don't apply to the
banker. Reasonable accommodation is required for the blind. It is
not for the banker. Charitable fund drives are conducted for the
blind. It is inconceivable that they would be for the banker.
Generosity and pity are felt for the blind. The banker gets
something else. For the banker there is sometimes a little envy,
occasionally a touch of fear, and almost always a substantial
measure of respect. The reason for the difference is that the
banker has something that most people in society want. The blind
are not regarded in the same way. 

      What pays for the charity? For a large segment of the
population the income tax deduction is insufficient to induce a
gift. Instead, there has to be another reason. Charity salves the
conscience. It is a tangible reminder for those who have done
something which they regard as less than good that their lives are
not without redeeming features. But there is something even more
powerful than the need to compensate for past misdeeds. It is the
wish to feel secure in the knowledge that the donor is helping
those less fortunate. This, of course, may be restated. If I can
regard you as an object of pity and charity, I am in a position
superior to yours. Therefore, if I make you a gift from charitable
motives, I am necessarily your superior. The blind and handicapped
pay for the charity. The gift necessarily connotes inequality. This
means that one of the most serious problems faced by the
handicapped today is that we are the objects of charity. If we
permit these circumstances to continue, we give tacit consent to
the two-class system. 

      In a relatively free society when two parties transact
business, one sets the price, and the other determines the
quantity. It never happens that one party decides both price and
quantity. If the buyer says that fifty items are required, the
seller will establish the price. If the seller indicates that the
price for a specific commodity will be one hundred dollars, the
purchaser will determine the number to be bought. The number may be
zero or some quantity higher than that. If, on the other hand, the
purchaser says that the price of the commodity will be not a
hundred dollars but fifty, the seller may decide to take the
merchandise and go home. In other words the quantity may be zero. 

      The blind (just like others) have always needed certain basic
commodities. Food, shelter, and clothing are essential. In the past
governmental institutions, charitable organizations, or benevolent
individuals have provided these necessities. But price and quantity
are never controlled by the same party. The blind demanded a
certain quantity; those who made the gifts controlled the price.
Only when blind people began to have sufficient resources to meet
basic needs, did these circumstances begin to change. If a group of
individuals within society never has the opportunity to choose
whether it will determine price or quantity, it lacks the
essentials for freedom. Until fairly recently, the blind have been
in this position. Blind people determined quantity, and someone
else set the price. Because blind people were not regarded as
having any trading stockgoods or services that could be soldpayment
had to be made in other coin, and the price was always high. 

      Blacks in America constitute a minority. As this group began
to move from second-class status to full equality, it faced almost
the same economic circumstances that now confront the blind. But
there was one significant difference. Blacks were regarded as
having the capacity for manual labor. The blind are ordinarily not
considered suitable to perform the ordinary job in the ordinary
place of business. Therefore, in the effort to become a fully
integrated part of our society, blind people are at a greater
disadvantage than blacks have ever been. This is true despite the
absence of blind slavery. The difference is that the blind are
thought of as having nothing to offer. Not only are the skills and
talents possessed by the blind not sought in the job market, but
often those blind persons who volunteer to give their time without
cost find their offer rejected. In the minds of many the final
summation for blindness is: nothing to sell and nothing that will
be accepted as a giftcomplete worthlessness. 

      Of course, this understanding of blindness is completely
false. The blind represent a cross section of the general
population. All of the talent and all of the virtue that can be
found among ordinary human beings is possessed by the blind. All of
the abilities that others possess (except the ability to see) are
possessed by the blind. The blind people I know are as bright, as
energetic, as willing to give without counting the cost, as anxious
to do a good job, and as trustworthy as anyone else in society.
They are also as dull, as boring, as willing to take without
giving, and as lazy. In other words blind people have all of the
characteristics of the general population, except onesight. The
problem is that blindness has been regarded as the only meaningful
attribute. After it has become clear that the individual in
question is blind, nothing else matters. In the minds of many this
one factor is the final summation. 

      Do I state the case too strongly? Recently a blind man in St.
Louis, Missouri, approached the ticket counter in a Trailways bus
depot. He wanted to buy a full-fare bus ticket. The ticket agent
told him that he must produce a doctor's certificate because this
was necessary for a  handifare ticket. A  handifare ticket costs
less than the ordinary bus ticket. The blind man (a member of the
National Federation of the Blind) responded that a  handifare
ticket was not needed. He wanted to pay full fare for an ordinary
ticket. Nevertheless, the agent refused to sell him one. When the
blind man insisted on his right to pay full fare, and when he
refused to leave the counter until such a ticket was issued to him,
personnel at the Trailways bus station called the police and had
him arrested. The language used by the police and their behavior at
the depot is reminiscent of the ugly confrontations in the black
civil rights movement. 

      Last March a blind man in Washington State bought a ticket to
ride on an Amtrak train. After boarding, he tried to ascend the
stairs to the upper level of the observation car. The conductor
told him that blind people were not permitted on the upper level.
Amtrak (just like Trailways) sells tickets to the handicapped at a
reduced rate. 

      What should we do to promote a more realistic approach? I do
not recommend that all charity come to an end. Nor do I recommend
that the blind stop accepting all gifts. Instead, I urge all of us
to try to understand the nature of what we do. For all human beings
everywhere there are times that demand charity. However, there also
comes a time when responsibility must be accepted. Full
participation in society will produce more and cost less than
dependence upon charity. If we, as a culture, systematically refuse
to permit a group of people to reach its potential, then we have
set the stage for conflict. Such behavior creates an inferior
class. When the group that is regarded as inferior discovers that
the two-class system is a lie, it will insist upon its rights. When
this happens, there will be confrontation. 

      The blind of this nation (organized in the National
Federation of the Blind) are committed to achieving equality and
first-class citizenship. We regret that there is apparently a
certain amount of conflict built into the transition from second-
to first-class status. But we know that blind individuals, blind
people as a group, and our entire society will benefit if the worth
we represent is recognized and given its proper place. We are
appreciative of the kind words, the good wishes, and the donations
of those who have joined us to ensure that our struggle for freedom
comes to fruition. But we are also committed to ending forever the
philosophy which says that the proper role of the blind person is
the recipient of someone else's charity. The proper role for the
blind is the same as it is for the sighted. There should be charity
given and received on both sides. There should also be
responsibility and opportunity. 

                    Unconventional Convention

     The 1988 National Convention in Chicago broke precedent in
more than one way. In sheer size it was the largest in Federation
history; well over three thousand conventioneers filled three
hotels (as Barbara Pierce was to report in the  Monitor 's
convention roundup), and just under 2,500 of them registered
formally as attendees. Some fourteen special divisions and
committees held their own meetingsranging from the Merchants
Division of the NFB, among the oldest, to the newly created
National Association of Dog Guide Users. 

     One of the highlights of the convention was the appearance
Thursday afternoon, July 7, of radio celebrity Paul Harvey.  In the
past some of Harvey's remarks (see 1976 banquet address, 
Blindness: Of Visions and Vultures) had drawn criticism from the
blind, but Harvey demonstrated by what he said at the 1988
convention that he had read and understood the Federation's
message.  His reception by the delegates was tumultuously
enthusiastic.

     No less than twenty-six scholarships were presented at the
banquet, topped off by the $10,000 Ezra B. Davis Memorial
Scholarship of the American Brotherhood for the Blind. And the
banquet itself was presided overfor the first time in two decadesby
Master of Ceremonies Kenneth Jernigan, the Federation's former
President and current Executive Director, who was plainly enjoying
his old role as much as the overflow audience enjoyed him in it.

     The banquet had always been the culminating event and dramatic
climax of the National Conventiona celebration of community and a
renewal of commitment, a time for recognition and praise, a chorus
of voices raised in song, a great family feast. But none of these
things was the true highlight of the evening; that had always been,
and in the minds of Federationists could only be, the banquet
address by the President. This annual speech in this distinctive
setting was somehow set apart by the conventioneers from all other
talks and utterances; it had a special place in their hearts and
made a deeper impact on their sensibilities. Down the years and
decades of these National Conventionsfrom the era of the eloquent
prophet Jacobus tenBroek through the long distinguished tenure of
the brilliant Kenneth Jernigan to the new unfolding age, alive with
promise, of the Maurer Presidencythe banquet address had
registered, year by year, the mind and will and vaulting aspiration
of the movement and its people. It was the peak experience of the
convention week and the lasting memorial of the Federation year.

     So it was to be again in 1988, at the banquet of the Chicago
convention. President Maurer outlined a perspective at once
historical and philosophical within which the long upward struggle
of the blind could best be understood.  We who are blind, organized
throughout the land, have the strength and purpose to change the
course of history, at least our own history, he said.  We believe
it is our responsibility to make it happen, and we accept the
challenge with the full knowledge that the moving force is and must
necessarily be the National Federation of the Blind. Maurer's
address, entitled  Preparation and the Critical Nudge, is reprinted
in full below.


               PREPARATION AND THE CRITICAL NUDGE
                         by Marc Maurer

      Lord Bolingbroke once said that history is the teaching of
philosophy by examples. Each historical figure is remembered for
expressing in action a certain philosophy. The important moments in
time have become significant because of actions taken by
individuals which have represented specific points of view.
However, those events which have helped shape the course of history
have had more than one element. There are competing
philosophieseach seeking ascendancy. The educator Lewis Mumford
wrote that in human experience there are singular moments when the
merest nudge can move mountains and change the course of history.
These points in time are critical, because it is only then that the
balances between compelling, competing ideasalternate
philosophiescan be changed by concerted effort or individual acts
of courage. At such times, as Andrew Jackson observed, one human
being with courage makes a majority. 

      These critical points in history do not occur by
happenstance. They must be created deliberately, and with strenuous
effort. A philosophy which has guided a government or shaped the
mental processes of a social order cannot be fundamentally altered
easily or simply. Regardless of the seeming spontaneity and
suddenness of an event, no philosophy which competes with the
established norm can be fixed in the hearts and minds of a society
without an accumulation of advance preparation. Only with such
preconditioning can a new social balance be reached. But after the
old order has been sufficiently challenged that a new equilibrium
has almost been achieved, a small choice (a simple decisionor the
lack of it) may determine the course of a life or the destiny of a
people. Change ordinarily evolves over hundreds of years, but when
a fundamental difference in the way we view the world comes quickly
(even though necessarily with a considerable amount of advance
preparation), the shift in our thinking is called revolution. 

      These principles apply not only to societies and governments
but also to individuals and social movements as well. A change in
direction often takes place not because the governing institutions
have had a change of heart, but because the pressure brought to
bear by individuals organized for collective action has added the
necessary impetus. The critical point for the reordering of basic
values is (regardless of appearances) never reached individually or
spontaneously. The times are right for revolution only when
individuals have organized to create the social climate which will
permit it. Even when events follow one another with such rapidity
that a fundamental alteration is made in a relatively short time,
the causes can be found much earlier. Slavery was legal in the
United States in 1861. Four years later, after a war had been
fought, the Thirteenth Amendment (prohibiting slavery) had been
ratified. However, the seeds of the change are discernible almost
a hundred years earlier in the slavery provisions of the
Constitution, adopted in 1787. 

      We express (each and every one of us) our philosophy in the
actions of our daily lives. As a movement we declare our principles
not only in the words we use but also in the steps we take to put
those words into practice. The individual act contributes to the
totality. The philosophy of a movement is a composite. It is the
combined hopes and dreams of thousands of individualsbut it is more
than that. It is a shared ambition, a collective determination. 

      The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind is
simpleand (at least we are sometimes told) revolutionary. We
believe that blind people, organized throughout the land, have the
strength and purpose to change the course of historyat least their
own history. We believe it is our responsibility to make it
happenand we accept the challenge, with the full knowledge that the
moving force is, and must necessarily be, the National Federation
of the Blind. 

      The conviction that we the blind have not only the ability to
determine our own future but also the right to do itthe right to be
the principal architects of the programs and activities which
affect our livesis the very essence of our movement. It is the
central thread which has run through the Federation from the day of
its beginning. When the National Federation of the Blind came into
being in 1940 under the leadership of Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, the
doctrine of self-determination was an unquestioned given. This same
spirit of independence has been the prime factor in the building of
the Federation from the forties to the present. The faith (in fact,
the certainty) that our own actions can dramatically change the
opportunities available to usa faith and a certainty so eloquently
proclaimed in the speeches of Dr. Kenneth Jerniganoriginally
brought us together, sustains us today as a movement, and will give
us the strength we need for the battles of the future. Without this
unshakable core of belief and knowledge, we would cease to be the
powerful movement which we are and simply become one among the many
who attempt in this way or that to assist the blind. As it is, we
are uniquethe strongest force in the affairs of the blind today. We
are the National Federation of the Blind. 

      Implied in the thesis that we are responsible for our own
destiny is an alteration in the traditional role of the blind. All
segments of societythe blind, agencies serving the blind, and the
public as a wholeare involved; and when we have completed our work,
each of us (and each component of the social order) will be
different. 

      Some time ago I received a letter from a disabled graduate
student who asked that I provide him with incidents involving
disability and humor for a college research paper. His request said
in part: 

      I am a graduate student at Arizona State University. At
present I am involved in a research project and would appreciate
your assistance. I am looking at the dynamics involved in humor and
disability. I am seeking jokes, cartoons, or personal accounts
about the experience of being disabled. 

      Part of my interest in humor and disability stems from the
fact that I have been disabled for twelve years. During this time
I have found numerous situations in which humor has turned possible
disaster into something I could put behind me. I feel that I cannot
be the only one to use humor in such a manner and am asking others
to share their experiences with me. 

      Perhaps the writer of this letter does not believe that the
blind are a minority. One phenomenon associated with many minority
groups is that the individuals comprising those groups often become
the objects of humor. There are ethnic stories and racial slurs.
There are also jokes about the blind. However, the humor is not
really humor, and it demeans both the teller and the listenerboth
the majority and the minority. It is always a put-down, and often
an excuse. 

      There are some who will argue that raising an objection to a
little humor is overreacting.  Surely, they will say,  you would
not want to be oversensitive. Those who are unable to find humor in
a situation take themselves too seriously. Being able to laugh at
yourself demonstrates a sense of inner security. Those who cannot
do this are touchy, insecure, and without a sense of humor. 

      To which I say, nonsense! Let those who say that a little
innocent fun at the expense of the blind is harmless (and perhaps
even admirable) consider the program  Saturday Night Live. On March
5th, 1988, this comedy show carried a skit depicting a blind man
being interviewed about his blindness on a television talk show.
This ostensibly humorous routine contains one of the most dismal
and dreary accounts of blindness I have ever heard. Blindness is
the overwhelming characteristic in the man's life. Nothing else
really matters. Notice that in the midst of the gloom and the
twisted mockery there is yet the positive language of hopewhich
only makes matters worse. In the Middle Ages it was considered
amusing to decorate blind men's heads with donkey ears and make
them fight at county fairs. The ears are absent, but the jeering
and public ridicule are still with uson  Saturday Night Live. Here
are excerpts from the broadcast. The dialogue begins with the talk
show hostess:

       You've still had a fulfilling life, right? 

       Doing what, the blind man replies,  listening? Listening to
a sunset? Didn't they tell you, Honey, I'm blind. Okay? Hello?
Blind. Where are you? Can't see you. 

       I understand that. But given everything, isn't blindness
just one more obstacle to overcome? 

       Yeah, right. I'll tell you what. Why don't you try it for
about a day and a half? 

       I'm sure it's very challenging, but what about the
positives? Your other senses are heightened, aren't they? 

       Oh yeah, yeah. They're great. I can smell a little better
now. That really comes in handy on the subway every day. Not to
mention the hearing, of course. Yeah. So let's figure this one out.
Let's see, I can hear crickets chirping a little louder than you
can, and you can see? Yeah, that sounds fair. That's a fair
trade-off. Thanks, God! 

       You're a little bitter, Hal. No doubt about it. But you
haven't let this stop you from leading a normal life. 

       Well, yeah, I'm pretty much dead in the water, I'd say.
Mostly I just hang around the house and drink a lot of beer. That's
about it. 

       You know something? You're a horrible man. Do you know that?
A few weeks ago we had a blind horseshoe pitcher, and he was just
wonderful. [Here the talk show hostess breaks into tears.] And then
we had a blind sky diver, and he always managed to adapt, and he
got out there in the world

       Well they're insane. Okay, honey? They've got no grip on
reality. Guys, you're blind, okay? Calm down. Stop embarrassing the
rest of us. I don't understand it. What do you people want from us,
anyway? Do you want us to perform for you! Is that it? I'll tell
you what. Why don't I just do a little dance for you! Blind man
dancing. Okay, is that good? All right. I'm sorry. I'll think of
something to say that's nice for blind people. Okay? Something
like, okay, if you go blind, it's not so bad. You get a nice tax
thing, a little deduction there, and oh yeah, you can look right at
an eclipse. That's no problem.

      That is what millions of people heard and saw less than six
months ago on  Saturday Night Live; and far from being funny, it is
disgusting; it is sick; and it is a straight-out lie. Blind people
(we are told) get a tax deduction. We drink a lot of beerand sit at
home. Even those of us who are successful (a success, it should be
noted, which betokens insanity) have only been able to succeed by
engaging in some sort of recreational pursuit. The responsibilities
of citizenship, the participation in community activities, and the
holding of a job are not even considered. If this is what passes
for humor, forget it. If this is what we are supposed to cultivate
to prove we are adjusting, we will remain unadjustedand write a new
script. We don't control the air waves; but we recognize a lie when
we meet one, and we also know enough to avoid being conned into
being satisfied with second-class status on the grounds that we
have a duty to demonstrate a so-called sense of humor. Again I say,
forget it! We have put behind us the donkey ears of the Middle Ages
and the donkey tails of  Saturday Night Live. We have thrown off
the pathos and bitterness, the dejection and gloom, and the passive
docility which have traditionally been expected of us. Instead, our
mood is one of hope, accomplishment, and the joy of discovery. We
know that with reasonable opportunity we can compete on terms of
full equality in society, and we also know that with reasonable
opportunity the sighted can come to accept us for what we are. 

      What is required is a redirection of public attitudes and
beliefsand remarkable as it may seem, one of our principal areas of
effort must be with the very governmental and private agencies
which have been established to help us do the job. The sad truth is
that the agencies often have worse attitudes about us than do the
members of the general public. They portray us as helpless and
inept. An issue of the  Journal , a District of Columbia newspaper,
tells of a teen-age girl who wanted to help the blind. Influenced
perhaps by the attitudes of those who work at the agency where she
volunteered, she decided to write a cookbook for the blind.
Sometimes misconceptions about blindness are veiled and hidden, but
not this time. This is the way the article describes her work: 

      Cooking hurts when you're blind. It is a vexing daily chore
for America's eleven and one-half million blind and visually
impaired populations, according to the American Foundation for the
Blind. For many of them, it is a frustrating and defeating stumble
around the kitchen for sustenance conducted dimly or in total
darkness by people who long to be as self-sufficient as the rest of
sighted America. 

      That's why seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Warshawsky plucks our
heart strings with the recent publication of her Braille and
large-print cookbooks for the blind. 

      The high-school student from Shaker Heights, Ohio, took two
years to write and design her cookbook, only part of a busy
schedule of study and volunteer work at her local Society for the
Blind. 

      [The article continues with quotes from the student.]  I
couldn't get  The Miracle Worker  out of my mind, said the high
school senior, in a telephone interview.  I saw the movie in the
second grade, and it changed me. It made me see how we could help
the blind by just taking some time to think about them, to work
with them a little. 

       So [the article continues] in ninth grade this idea comes to
me, she explained.  I saw how the blind people I volunteered for
had such a terrible time with food. It's so frustrating and
dangerous in the kitchen for them; they solve the problem of eating
by getting into a rut, sticking to apples, lunch meats, and
sandwiches; and malnutrition is a real problem for many of them. 

       But what really excited me, she recalled,  was all this new
food that can be easily prepared, food that is nutritious and hot,
the kind of foods blind people once hadwhen they could see. 

      So the article says, and it is hard to know how to respond to
such a messy mishmash of misinformation. Has this student really
met blind people? What influences were brought to bear to teach her
that the ordinary kitchen is for the blind a dangerous and
frustrating place, a veritable minefield of terror and booby traps?
How did she conclude that malnutrition is a serious problem for
those of us who are blind? Did the local agency for the blind
(reinforced by the American Foundation for the Blind) give her the
impression that blind people stumble around the kitchen, feeling
defeated? No matter how it came to be, the misunderstanding of
blindness has now been learned. A book has been written containing
the most blatant misrepresentations about blindness. Opportunities
which might have been available will never be, and it has all been
done in the name of helping the blind. Instead of this half-baked
collection of underdone ideas, we prefer reality and a more
positive view of our prospects and possibilities. We reject this
gloomy assessment, along with the bitterness and blight
traditionally associated with blindness. Rather, our mood is one of
hope, accomplishment, and the joy of discovery. We believe that we
who are blind, organized throughout the land, have the strength and
purpose to change the course of historyat least our own history. We
believe it is our responsibility to make it happenand we accept the
challenge, with the full knowledge that the moving force is, and
must necessarily be, the National Federation of the Blind. 

      A company calling itself Safe-E-Scape of Tampa, Florida,
writes to tell us that it has devised a set of burglar bars, which
are most appropriate for the blind. These bars, which fit on the
inside of the window, have a locking mechanism which is opened
without a key. In writing to me Safe-E-Scape says:  We feel that
this product can be very important to blind people everywhere and
of every economic and social level. We are, of course, a for-profit
concern and are first seeking customers who (we feel) most need and
will best accept our product. 

      That is what they say, and I ask you: Why are these burglar
bars particularly appropriate for the blind? Why more for us than
for others? Are we less able to protect our property than the
ordinary sighted citizen? Is there a concerted effort by criminals
to seek out the homes of the blind? As far as I know, the property
of blind people is not more valuable than the property of the
sighted. Or, is the reason for selling this product to the blind
contained in the fact that there is no key? If the blind are more
helpless than others, there is a need for greater protection. But
the very helplessness of blind people contains inherent
disadvantages. Those who are helpless may misplace a key (or worse
still) may not be able to use it even if it is not lost. These
notions are all contained in the advertisement for the special
burglar bars for the blind. 

      And they are also contained in a bill considered by the House
of Delegates of the 1988 Maryland General Assembly. The bill (which
embodies the inherent assumption that the blind and other so-called 
vulnerable groups need special, segregated laws to protect them)
was entitled  An Act Concerning Crimes Against the Elderly and
Vulnerable. The language of this legislative measure leaves no
doubt as to what is meant by those who are  vulnerable. It says, in
part:

      The maximum sentence allowed by law for commission of any
crime of violence may be doubled for commission of that crime of
violence against a person who is: (1) 60 years old or older; (2)
Blind; (3) Paraplegic; or (4) Quadriplegic. 

      According to this bill, if you are blind, you are more
vulnerable (in fact, twice as vulnerable) to crimes of violence
than other people are. But our experience teaches us otherwise.
Blindness does not mean that keyless burglar bars or extra legal
protection is required. We are able to live in the world as it is.
I am pleased to say that the bill for the vulnerable died in the
Maryland legislature. The views of the Federation helped kill it,
and we hope that the misunderstandings about blindness which it
represented are also on the way to being killed. 

      In our organizational efforts and our daily activity our mood
is one of hope, accomplishment, and the joy of discovery. We
believe that we who are blind, organized throughout the land, have
the strength and purpose to change the course of historyat least
our own history. We believe it is our responsibility to make it
happenand we accept the challenge, with the full knowledge that the
moving force is, and must necessarily be, the National Federation
of the Blind. 

      Traditionally those who seek to tell the story of blindness
exaggerate and distort. They tell us that blindness alters the
mental processesthat we who are blind are characterized by
heightened sensitivity, extreme joy, and deep gloom. There is, for
instance, the report some time back in  People  Magazine concerning
a blind child who became so depressed while attending a school for
the blind that he forgot how to smile. He had to be taught how to
move his face. 

      However, as we know from our own personal experience,
blindness and depression are not necessarily synonymous. Nor (as we
can testify) does blindness carry with it some of the other
peculiar results, weird side effects, and odd-ball associated
characteristics which some have claimed. In the book  And There Was
Light  by the blind author Jacques Lusseyran, we find this
astonishing passage:  Shortly after I became blind, I felt
indescribable relief, and happiness so great it almost made me
laugh. Confidence and gratitude came as if a prayer had been
answered. I found light and joy at the same moment, and I can say
without hesitation that from that time on, light and joy have never
been separated in my experience. 

      To which one is tempted to respond: Yuk! One blind person
could not move his face; the other felt relief and happiness. The
only way I know to reply to such fantasy is by calling on the
poets. If memory serves me, James Russell Lowell said something to
this effect: 

      Here comes Mr. Poe with his raven,  Like Barnaby Rudge; 
Three-fifths of him genius,  And two-fifths sheer fudge. 

      I would agree with Lowell, but I would change the ratio. 

      National Industries for the Blind, the agency which
distributes millions of dollars' worth of government contracts to
sheltered workshops for the blind, has recommended that a special
sandpaper-type material be attached to the floor in buildings where
blind people walk. The blind (or so National Industries for the
Blind apparently believes) cannot effectively get around by any
other method and should follow the sandpaper to find their way. 

      Then, there is the opinion of a researcher into low vision,
reprinted some time ago in an issue of the  Architectural Record .
As you might expect, the findings of this researcher are couched in
terms of architectural barriers. However, the conclusion reached
is, to say the least, astonishing. 

      One of the most difficult architectural barriers faced by
partially sighted persons [the publication says] is locating a rest
room in a public building and determining whether it is for men or
for women. This problem can be easily solved by affixing panels to
rest room doors in such a way that visually impaired persons can
readily identify the facilities. Those on men's rest room doors
should be an equilateral triangle with a vertex pointing upward,
and those on women's rest room doors should be a circle. The edges
of the triangle should be one foot long, as should be the diameter
of the circle, and all panels should be one-quarter inch thick. The
color and gray value of these geometric figures should be distinct
from the color and gray value of the doors. [I interrupt to ask you
to disregard the hidden Freudian pornographic symbolism contained
in this treatise and to say that there are other (possibly even
better) ways of determining which bathroom is which. But back to
the article.] 

      If this were done [it continues] even the totally blind could
touch the edge of a panel and easily determine whether it is
straight or curved. 

      As I ponder this report, I confess to a certain curiosity.
Are the geometric shapes intended to represent the people
involvedmen triangular with straight edges, vertex pointing upward;
and women circles with lots of curves? It is embarrassingly
suggestive. Let me simply leave it at this: although it is often
important to find a bathroom, most blind people seem to manage; and
I believe it is a foolish and overdramatic exaggeration to describe
the matter as one of the most important problems faced by the
blind. 

      Shortly before last summer's National Federation of the Blind
convention an item appeared in the  Honolulu Advertiser  which
declared that there are characteristics of blindness which are
advantageous in marriage. Here is the item in full:

      Marriages among blind people last longer statistically than
marriages among people with good eyesight. Or, so our Love and War
man has been informed. He doesn't doubt it. It's common knowledge
that the blind tend to be better lovers than the sighted. For two
reasons: 1. It's quite comfortable for them to communicate with
their hands. 2. And, they make love with inner visions of each
other, which remain forever as they so desire. 

      So there you have it. You may have been under the impression
that blind people were just like everybody else except that we
can't see. Not so! We have the ability to communicate with our
handsand besides, there is that special inner vision which we
conjure up when making love. When reading this piece of so-called
news from the  Honolulu Advertiser , I wondered where the reporter
got his information. In my experience with thousands of blind
people (some of whom have attended conventions of the National
Federation of the Blind), I have reached the conclusion that the
mating patterns of the blind do not vary substantially from those
of the larger society. Let any reporter interested in field testing
come to this gathering of blind people from throughout the nation.
I suspect that the research will show that we have about the same
experience (and the same attributes) as othersjust as loving, just
as bad, just as wonderful. 

      The Queen's University of Belfast has a program for teaching
the blind about dentistry and oral hygiene. There is even a kit
with models and tape recordings. The brochure has this to say about
the course:

      The Queen's University of Belfast Touch Tooth Kit has been
developed by the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry
within the University. 

      It is a complete dental health programme for the visually
impaired. 

      It includes the smells and sounds of the dental surgery,
large models for the student to feel what he is learning, and a
complete set of Teachers' Notes to lead them through an up-to-date
programme of dental health education. 

      Why anyone would want to experience the smells of dentistry
without being compelled to do so is something I can't understand.
Why a university should think that blind people need the sound of
the dentist's drill, the spicy aroma of tooth decay, and the feel
of a deteriorating molar is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the
designers of this course have concluded that the psychological
stresses for blind people have been too great. Consequently, they
may have decided that the blind are abnormally interested in the
bizarre. How else can the existence of this dental education
program for the blind be explained? Why is the ordinary dental
hygiene program not enough? Most of the blind people I know have
teeth, and the toothbrush is not an unknown quantity. I venture to
say that blind people are as aware of dental hygiene as the sighted
are. If the message were not so destructive, it would be amusing.
The basic assumption is that blindness necessarily means diminished
ability, that we do not have the capacity to learn with the
ordinary tools in the usual way. As with so much else, we reject
this assessment. Rather, our mood is one of hope, accomplishment,
and the joy of discovery. We believe that we who are blind,
organized throughout the land, have the strength and purpose to
change the course of historyat least our own history. We believe it
is our responsibility to make it happenand we accept the challenge,
with the full knowledge that the moving force is, and must
necessarily be, the National Federation of the Blind. 

      Agencies for the blind have been established to provide
services to blind people. However, the actions of the officials of
some of these agencies frequently represent the most difficult
problems that we face. It is unfortunately too often true that the
agencies established to serve the blind create more problems than
they solvemore than would have existed if they had never been there
at all. 

      Last year a supervisor in the vending program of the Division
of Eye Care of the Department of Human Services of the State of
Maine sent a written directive to all blind vendors in the state
expressing her opinion that the blind are not only incompetent but
at least as immature as small children. Here, in part, is what she
said:

      It has come to my attention recently that some of you are not
aware of the guidelines for operators regarding dress and hygiene.
Although this is not a formal dress code, excessive deviations
deemed by the program supervisor to be detrimental to the image
which we want to convey of viable small business people in the
community will be noted and may become part of a corrective action
procedure. [I interrupt to say that this portion of the document
seems clear enough. There is no formal dress code. However, if you
do not follow the informal dress code, action will be taken against
you. But back to the text.] 

      Jeans are permissible as long as they are in one piece,
clean, and fit properly. [Again, I ask: Why were such instructions
given? In the vending program, blind vendors are supposedly
operators of independent small businesses. Is it proper for a state
official to send a memorandum to licensed vendors telling them to
wash their jeans? What does it mean if a state official thinks it
is necessary to instruct an entire class of people that the pants
they wear should be in one piece? These are the directions
ordinarily reserved for small children or the mentally defective.
However, this is not all that the state of Maine thinks should be
addressed to independent blind vendors in its program.] 

      Clothes should, of course, [the document continues] be clean
and complimentary. Beyond that, the clothes you are wearing should
not be provocative in any way, by this I mean that there should not
be a lot of bare skin showing (shoulders, low necklines, et
cetera), fit should be good without being tight, proper
undergarments should be worn, midriffs should not be bare. We are
operating public businesses, not the bar at the country club. 

      I already mentioned [this official continues] that clean hair
(washed several times each week) is essential. Hair style should be
attractive and neat, whether long or short. This means that regular
hair cuts are expected, no matter what style you've chosen. Facial
hair is acceptable as long as beards and mustaches are trimmed and
clean. Men should shave every morning unless they can demonstrate
that their facial hair growth is not visible over longer periods. 

      In order to eliminate unpleasant body odors, [this
supervisor's letter goes on] a shower or bath each day and the use
of deodorants is imperative. Hands should be washed with soap and
water frequently and fingernails must be clean. Most people need to
wash their hair at least every other day, especially in this type
of environment. 

      Remember that this state official is talking to people who
are supposedly operating their own businesses. Although much of the
substance of her directive is objectionable, the primary problem is
in the tone and the spirit. Of course, one should wash one's hands
and wear clean underwear, but the condescending tone of the order
is intolerable. Is it any wonder that the blind of the state rose
in condemnation of such statements? Within a few weeks the
directive of the vending supervisor was rescinded. The reason for
the change is not hard to find. The members of the National
Federation of the Blind of Maine had taken concerted action and had
said,  Enough! The result is indicative of what is happening
throughout the country. Our mood is one of hope, accomplishment,
and the joy of discovery. We believe that we who are blind,
organized throughout the land, have the strength and purpose to
change the course of historyat least our own history. We believe it
is our responsibility to make it happenand we accept the challenge,
with the full knowledge that the moving force is, and must
necessarily be, the National Federation of the Blind. 

      Sometimes there are incidents which underscore with dramatic
force the urgency of the work we do and the magnitude of the task
still left for us to accomplish. Recently a person flying from
Baltimore to Indianapolis on USAir, found a paper attached to his
ticket. It said  unaccompanied child. Written across the face of
the document was the word  blind. There were spaces on the form to
indicate who would be responsible for the traveler, both at the
origin and destination of the flight. The person flying that day
was the president of the National Federation of the Blind. I was
that person. I had been classified automatically in the same
category as small unaccompanied children. 

      Less than two months ago a totally blind woman, Shelia
Marque, called to ask for the help of the Federation. She has been
blind for less than a year. Her husband is a custodian at the First
United Methodist Church in Chanute, Kansas. The Marques live in the
country with their three children, and Mrs. Marque is a student,
studying elementary education, at a nearby college. Although she
has qualified for student teaching, there has been no placement.
Faculty members at the university tell her that it is not possible
to find a teacher willing to work with her. 

      Sometimes Mrs. Marque rides into town with her husband. While
he performs custodial duties at the church, she explores the town
and practices with her cane. When the travel is finished, she
returns to the church to wait for her husband to complete his
tasks. Mrs. Marque called because of what happened to her when she
wanted to attend a funeral in the church. She was told by officials
of the church that she should not be in the building because it was
bad publicity to have a blind person on the grounds. She called us
to ask if someone could do something about this discrimination. As
she said,  I have been blind for less than a year, and all I have
faced are setbacks. And where, one wonders, shall the blind worship
if not at church? Where, indeed! 

      What a picture! The blind are ridiculed on  Saturday Night
Live. We need separate burglar bars and cookbooks. There should be
special laws to protect us. We forget how to smile and must be
taught to move our facesor alternatively, we smile constantly and
are surrounded by light. We must have sandpaper on the floor to
guide us, and circles and triangles on the bathroom doors to
intrigue and inform us. We must be told when to change our
underwear and wash our hands. We need to be taught the smells of
the dentist's office. We make good lovers because we know how to
use our hands and have inner visions. And finally, we are not even
permitted to come to the church. Is this a picture of gloom and
despair? Not at all. 

      We are better off today than we have ever been before. We
recognize the prejudices and misconceptions which we face, and we
are organized to do something about them. The fact that we
understand and catalog does not mean that we feel bitterness,
defeat, or despair. When we identify these injustices and bring
them into the open, the very fact of doing so begins the process of
change and improvement. Yes, many of the governmental and private
agencies are negative in their outlook and are still mired in the
past, but others (a growing number) are working with us in progress
and partnership. And increasingly throughout the country we are
establishing training programs of our own to serve as models and
touchstones. 

      Likewise, although the media and the public at large are
still characterized by outworn notions and lack of information
about the true nature of blindness, the progress toward
enlightenment and change has been amazingly rapid, and it continues
at an accelerating pace. More people today are with us than against
us, and the balances are constantly shifting in our favor.
Invariably when the press and the public understand, they are with
us. 

      But we do not need to rely on logic and statistics to see
what we are achieving. Look about you! Never before in the history
of the world has such an assemblage as we have in this room tonight
been brought together. In the presence of this determined, united
multitude, can you doubt our ultimate success? In the final
analysis our future will be what we determine it to bewhat we are
willing to work, plan, and sacrifice to make it be. We can ask for
no more, and we can accept no less. 

      There are critical times for a nation, a social order, an
individual, or a movementtimes when a nudge or a single act can
make the difference. But no such critical time has ever occurred
without extensive advance preparation. The final act may
precipitate the event, but the act cannot occur without all of the
others which went before it. Which step is more importantthe first
or the last? The answer, of course, is that neither is more
important. Both must be taken for either to be significant or at
all memorable. And there are also the steps betweenthe ones we are
taking nowand have been taking through all of the years since the
National Federation of the Blind was established. Changes in the
social fabric can only be made after individual effort has created
the climate and prepared the way, and in the complexity of present
society individual effort is lost unless it is joined in concerted
action. This is a lesson we have learned welland we have also
learned the value of the first step, and patience, and the long
view. And something more! We have come to understand the importance
(indeed, the necessity) of knowing when to refuse to wait, when to
reject patience, when to say no to delaythe courage and judgment to
insist that freedom and opportunity must be now, not tomorrow! All
of this comes with the maturing of a movement, and every movement
must either mature or die. We have no intention of dying. Rather,
our mood is one of hope, accomplishment, and the joy of discovery.
We believe that we who are blind, organized throughout the land,
have the strength and purpose to change the course of historyat
least our own history. We believe it is our responsibility to make
it happenand we accept the challenge, with the full knowledge that
the moving force is, and must necessarily be, the National
Federation of the Blind. 

      The philosophy of our movement is expressed in the individual
actions of each of usand make no mistake! Act we will! Our
prospects have never been as bright; our determination has never
been as strong; and our goal has never been as clear. My brothers
and my sisters, let us march together to the future! 

                  1989: An End and a Beginning

     The last year of the decade was also the final year of the
first half centurythe formative fifty yearsof the organized blind
movement in the United States. And, as it happened, 1989 was itself
a year of decision and a harbinger of hope. By the time of the
Denver convention in July, the National Federation of the Blind was
clearly turning a page of its history and on the point of turning
what Kenneth Jernigan had called  the corner of time.

     This sense of simultaneous arrival and departure found
expression in the ferment and excitement of convention activity at
Denver, both in the formal events of the business agenda and in the
spontaneous happenings characteristic of this massive gathering of
the clans. During the week there was joy and there was sorrow; it
was all in the family. The undercurrent of joy was sufficiently
strong to be identified by Barbara Pierce, Associate Editor of the 
Monitor,  as the defining mood of the convention.  It was joy, she
wrote in her follow-up report on the event,  the quiet joy one
sometimes stumbles upon in the midst of hard work and challenge, a
momentary pause in the frantic rush of activity, during which one
savors the contentment of a job well in hand and the love of
colleagues who share a dream.

     And the sorrow arose from the successive passing, only weeks
before the convention, of two beloved Federationists, Jim Walker of
Nebraska and Connie McCraw of Maryland. There was sorrow as well in
the illnesses of several delegates during the course of the
convention, at the involuntary absence of others for reasons of
health, at the memory of comrades-in-arms who had fallen. And there
was sorrow of another kindmore chronic and hard- edgedat the
persisting folly of all those agencies and institutions of the
blindness system still clinging to the superstitions of the Stone
Age. But this was a sorrow that issued not in silence but in
resounding condemnation punctuated by satireas in the new
Federation song that sprang from the camaraderie of a post-banquet
gathering around the grand piano at the Hyatt Regency Denver,
commemorating the struggle against exclusionary practices by the
U.S. State Department. In part the song went like this (to the tune
of  Yankee Doodle):

      The State Department keeps us out;  They say that we're not
able;  They won't let our readers in  To read their secret cables.

      (Refrain):  State Department let us in;  We want to serve our
nation;  We will fight until we win,  `Cause we're the Federation.

     At this 1989 convention, and most notably at the banquet,
there was a pervasive sense of transition that gave an additional
charge to the always electric atmosphere of the annual meetings.
And the banquet this year let no one downand left no one out.  The
banquet was again, wrote Barbara Pierce,  what the banquet always
is for the Federationthe apex of the convention, the high point of
the Federation year, the very touchstone of our movement. Balloons
(courtesy of the Cambridge Chapter of the Massachusetts affiliate)
festooned the banquet hall, and TVs with giant speakers broadcast
the festivities to an enthusiastic overflow crowd outside the hall.
The master of ceremonies, to everyone's delight, was the
Federation's President Emeritus and current Executive Director,
Kenneth Jernigan, who announced at one point toward the end of the
program:  Let me now tell you what's next on this evening's agenda.
We'll do these things. We will present the scholarships; we will
recognize some other people from the head table; we will ask the
hotel personnel to take a few minutes to clear the tables; and we
will then begin the morning session.

     What some in the banquet audience were already calling the 
spirit of '89 found its appropriate expression in an address of
singular power and resonance delivered by President Marc Maurer.
His speech, entitled  Language and the Future of the Blind, was
subsequently published in  Vital Speeches of the Day  and came to
be widely admired beyond the boundaries of the organized blind
movement. Taking as his theme the interconnection of speech and
behavior, Maurer called for a sweeping change in the  bad habits of
ordinary speech as a means to the changing of minds and the reform
of attitudes. In order  to change a pattern of behavior, he
declared,  we must change the habit of speech. Does blindness mean
darkness and despair? Many people have thought so, he said: But the
Federation proposes to refute that myth, alter that perception, and
change that meaning. His speech was an eloquent first step in that
direction.

     Following is the text of the 1989 banquet address:

              LANGUAGE AND THE FUTURE OF THE BLIND
                         by Marc Maurer

      One of the most powerful instruments for determining the
prospects of an individual, the future of a social movement, or the
development of a culture is languagethe expression in writing or
speech of human thought. However, there is at least one theory
which maintains that language possesses its power because the
relationship between thought and speech is very often
misunderstood. According to this thesis these two (thought and
speech) are not separate entities at all. They are one. Thoughts
cannot occur without being verbalized (either physically or in the
mind), and words cannot be spoken or imagined without expressing
thought. The words and the thought are the same. 

      The historian and essayist Thomas Carlyle once noted that
language is not the garment of thought but the body of it. Modern
anthropologists have advanced the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, which
declares that all of human culture is fabricated by language. The
poet Percy Bysshe Shelley said that man was given speech,  and
speech created thought. Samuel Taylor Coleridge observed that 
language is the armory of the human mind, and at once contains the
trophies of its past and the weapons of its future conquests.
Socrates asserted that language is the guiding spirit of all human
endeavor.  Such as thy words are, he said,  such will thine
affections be; and such as thine affections will be thy deeds; and
such as thy deeds will be thy life. If the language is modified,
the thought is also altered. If the thought is shifted, the deed
cannot remain the same. Therefore, to change a pattern of behavior,
we must change the habit of speech.

      If this theory is true, patterns of speech are at least as
important to the future of the blind as the buildings possessed by
the agencies, or the money appropriated for rehabilitation, or the
gadgetry designed to lighten the burden of life for us. The policy
statements, the laws, the public pronouncements in print and on
television, the scholarly papers of those conducting so-called 
research into the nature of blindness, the thought processes of
employers and the public-at-large (sometimes expressed in words but
more often simply internalized without being uttered), and our own
words and thoughtsthese will determine the future for the blind. If
the language is positive, our prospects will be correspondingly
bright. If the words used to describe the condition of the blind
are dismal, we will find that our chances for equality are equally
bleak. However, this is not a matter to be left to fate. For
thousands of years false and downbeat words have been forced upon
the blindwords like  wretched ,  purposeless ,  unfortunate . But
we are no longer willing to abide such labels. We are not
inarticulate. We will write our own story and use our own words.
Our thoughts will be the dreams of tomorrow, and the language will
say: success, independence, freedom!

      In 1940, as the National Federation of the Blind was brought
into being, there was almost nothing in the language to combat the
erroneous but generally accepted view that blindness meant
ignorance and inability. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, the founder and
first President of the National Federation of the Blind, and the
handful who worked with him to pioneer our movement had to commence
the process of altering the patterns of thought by correcting the
language. He and those others had to begin to create a literature
of independence and freedom for the blind. In the 1950s Dr. Kenneth
Jernigan, one of the most powerful writers ever to consider the
subject of blindness, joined Dr. tenBroek in building a climate of
understanding that would permit the blind to achieve equality. A
new language began to appear with new adjectives for the blind. The
words employed by Dr. tenBroek and Dr. Jernigan were upbeat,
shot-through with vitality, and suffused with confidence. This new
method of expression carried with it an innovative pattern of
thought, and the altered mental process brought action. No longer
were the old words permitted to stand alone. No longer were the
limitations of those words accepted without challenge. We came to
understand that it is with the blind as it has been with other
minorities: the liberation of lives begins with the liberation of
language.

      Today, at our forty-ninth convention,  blindness  does not
mean what it did when the Federation was established. The word
itself has changed because the thoughts associated with it have
changed. In 1940 the dictionary definition was the only readily
available explanation of blindness, and the dictionary was entirely
negative. In 1989 there is a substantial body of literature which
indicates that the dictionary is wrong. Blindness does not mean
helplessness, lack of purpose, inferiority, or absence of
intelligence. The dictionary definition will not stand close
examination, and we are not willing to let it serve as the
definitive statement of our hopes and aspirations. We are the
blind, with our own story and our own wordsand we intend to speak
for ourselves.

      Recently an advertisement appeared from the Carrollton
Corporation, a manufacturer of mobile homes. Apparently the
Carrollton Corporation was facing fierce competition from other
mobile home builders, who were selling their products at a lower
price. Consequently, the Carrollton Corporation wanted to show that
its higher priced units were superior. In an attempt to convey this
impression, the company depicted the blind as sloppy and
incompetent. Its advertisement said in part:  Some manufacturers
put out low-end products. But they are either as ugly as three
miles of bad road, or they have so many defectscrumpled metal,
dangling moldings, damaged carpetthat they look like they were
built at some school for the blind. What a description! There is
the ugliness of three miles of bad road, or crumpled metal,
dangling moldings, and damaged carpet. The slipshod work is all
attributed to the incompetence of the blind. It is not a portrayal
calculated to inspire confidence or likely to assist blind people
to find employment. However, the work that we in the Federation are
doing is paying dividends. When it was called to the attention of
company executives that the advertisement was negative and harmful,
they apologized for its publication and withdrew it. The
manufacturer changed its public representation because of the
protest of the organized blind movement.

      It is not hard to imagine why a manufacturing company might
misunderstand the nature of blindness. Such companies do not have
routine association with us. Although their misrepresentation of
the abilities of blind people must be brought forcibly to their
attention, it is reasonable to suppose that the ignorance they
sometimes display stems from lack of information. The same cannot
be said of agencies for the blind. They hold themselves out as
knowledgeable about blindness and thoroughly familiar with every
aspect of our lives and behavior. It is, therefore, ironic that
some of the most false and damaging literature written about
blindness comes directly from these agencies.

      The Delaware Center for Vision Rehabilitation distributes a
brochure called  Images . This flier leaves no doubt about the
opinion of the Delaware Center regarding the ability of the blind.
The grammatical construction is that of the agency. Here is a
portion of the language used:  The eyes and vision are priceless
parts of every person, shaping their attitudes, experiences,
expectations, and physical and mental capabilities. As I read this
statement, I wondered if they could really believe it. Do our
attitudes differ from those of the sighted? Do our physical and
mental powers change with the loss of sight? If our mental
capabilities are altered, do they get betteror worse? The brochure
from Delaware does not say, but the context leaves no doubt as to
what they think. 

      On the other hand, an article appearing in the  Columbus 
[Ohio]  Register  about two years ago answers this question
differently. The headline says:  Nearsighted found to have higher
IQs. The article goes on to say:  While the nearsighted may need
glasses, their lack of perfect vision could be a sign of high
intelligence, say researchers who studied myopic Israeli
teen-agers. Doctors tested 157,748 Israeli military recruits, ages
17 to 19, and discovered a link between nearsightedness and high
IQs. `There can be no doubt about the reality of the correlation
between myopia and intellectual performance,' wrote Drs. Mordechai
Rosner and Michael Belkin. Still, they wrote, the `cause and effect
relationship is not clear.' 

      This is what the article saysand of course, it does not go on
to claim that the more restricted your vision becomes, the more
intelligent you getuntil at total blindness you arrive at total
genius. But it does suggest that there may be a correlation. Did
the learned doctors construct a faulty test? Did they make a
mistake in the way they administered it? Or did they simply fall
victim to the ancient stereotype that the blind are peculiar and
possessed of mysterious powers? Who knowsand in a very real sense
who cares? We who are blind are neither specially blessed nor
specially cursed, and one misconception is as bad as the other.
Regardless of that and the claims of the doctors, there has not
been, so far as I know, a rush of employers to hire the blind
because of our superior intelligence. Even if we were smarter than
the sighted (and I don't believe for a minute that we are), the
public attitudes about blindness would likely remain just about
where they area lot of superstition, growing enlightenment, and a
long pull ahead. 

      A reporter from the  Chicago Tribune  recently said
categorically and unequivocally that:  A sighted person with the IQ
of a genius would be hard-pressed to make tuna salad while
blindfolded. In other words, even if those who are blind have
greater intelligence, it doesn't really matter. Sight is essential.
Those who lack it cannot even get around their kitchens to make
tuna salad.

      The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
recently issued a tech brief on its newly developed 
Public-Facilities Locator for the Blind. This is a device intended
to help the blind become more independent in daily travel. The
document describing the new aid is suitably couched in technical
terms. It says in part:  A proposed coded infrared transmit/receive
scheme would enable a blind person in a building to detect and
locate specific `landmarks', such as elevators, water fountains,
restrooms, and emergency exits. A synthesized voice would announce
a landmark. Each landmark (the document continues) has a code. A
pulse code modulation (PCM) scheme transmits each one, the code
being the binary grey code (a one chip encode/one chip decode). The
transmitter gives out a burst of two identifications; for example,
`men's roommen's room,' and repeats it continuously at an even
cadence. That is what the tech brief says, and there is more of
this high-flown technological jargon in the NASA report. Computer
signals have been devised for the stairwell, the lady's bathroom,
the escalator, and the telephone. When we tell these space
technologists that their legerdemain is not only unnecessary but
harmful to the blind, they will probably say that we are
super-sensitive and that they are only trying to help. They will
not understand that the presence of such gadgetry will encourage
both the blind and the sighted to believe that we need complex
adaptations of the environment for the simplest acts of our daily
lives and that those who work in such modified buildings will be
quietly and inevitably indoctrinated to the conclusion that
blindness means abnormality and incompetence. Of course, there are
dozens of ways in which technology can serve our needs. However, if
it is truly to be useful to us, its designers must recognize the
fundamental capacity of the blind for full integration into society
on the basis of equality. Specialized aids and appliances must
enhance independence, not stand as a declaration that the blind are
so lacking in intelligence that we cannot even find the bathroom or
the telephone. How often we have been told that one of the major
problems of blindness is being able to find the bathroom. 

      One thing is certainthe mickey mouse contraptions and the
prejudice against blindness that they represent must go! We will no
longer permit the scientists and engineers to imply that we are
somehow peculiar and strange. If necessary we will build the
equipment we need for ourselves. We the blind are abroad in the
land, and we will not remain silent while the technocrats combine
antiquated fantasy and modern science to form a spurious portrait
of the helpless blind. We have found our voice, and we know how to
use it. They cannot tell us how it is for the blind. For we (as was
said on another occasion) have been to the mountaintop, and we know
how it is for the blind. The technologists can work with us if they
will. But we know what we want and how to get it. And we intend to
speak for ourselves.

      One of the oldest and tiredest jokes about the blind is that
the Braille system works better on a date. Now, there is a company
that has decided to try to capitalize on that sick so-called sense
of humor. An outfit calling itself Valley Enterprises prints
T-shirts with easily feelable raised dots. The name they give to
this printing is so predictable as to be both inevitable and
totally disgustingthey call it  Body Braille. There are six
preprinted messages available on the back of their T-shirts or
sweat shirts. They will also print them on the front, if you like.
Blind people across the country have heard these messages over and
over again. Here are the six:  Out of Sight,  Keep in Touch,  Touch
of Class,  Hands on Experience,  Feeling Good, and  Handle with
Care. According to the maker of these shirts, the purpose of the
company is not merely to raise money for its owners. Instead, they
say:  `Body Braille' clothing is a unique means of communicating
self-awareness and self-expression for individuals who are visually
impaired, a means to raise the consciousness of the sighted public,
and an avenue for all people to demonstrate their support of the
visually impaired. 

      To which I reply:  Yuk and double yuk. Why is it that this
company (and so many other people) feel that they have to offer a
socially acceptable justification for poking fun at the blind?
Blind people do not make a practice of feeling one another up, and
we are unwilling for any other group to assume that we door, for
that matter, that it would be all right if we did, or that it is
all right for them to do so with us as an excuse. Furthermore, I,
for one, am tired of the slightly off-colored humor that is so
often claimed to be funny. The blind are like others. We will find
the times and the places when intimacy is appropriate. Otherwise,
leave it alone, and do not talk or act as if we (like the slaves of
a bygone time) are generally available.

      There is a well-known theory which holds that all blind
people require psychological counseling and adjustment. This bald
proposition has been given sufficient credence by certain agencies
for the blind that they have permanent psychologists on staff to
minister to the needs of their clients. Blind people seeking
assistance from these agencies are not asked whether they want
psychological services. It is simply assumed that all who are blind
need them. Often those who try to avoid the psychologist are
informed that the ministrations of this specialist are part of the
package if they want help in learning the skills of blindness (such
as Braille and mobility), securing financial aid for college
tuition, or gaining assistance in locating a job. If the blind hope
to receive any service at all, they may have to endure the testing,
the questioning, and the probing into every corner of daily life
and personal behavior.

      Perhaps you imagine that this psychological review is of the
standard sort. Don't you believe it. Some of the agencies (no doubt
employing their years of experience and so-called research tools)
have decided that the usual tests are insufficient. After all, the
standard psychological examinations are designed for the sighted.
The blind are different. They are blind. Therefore, an alternative
series of tests (special tests just for the blind) has been
designed and is now in use. 

      The American Foundation for the Blind has produced a special
psychological test called  The Anxiety Scale for the Blind.
Apparently the putative experts believe that there is a need to
measure psychological stress in the blind and that no ordinary
analysis will do. Here is a sample of what the test designers say: 
Although there are a number of general anxiety measures available,
counselors and psychologists working with blind clients may
question the use with the blind of instruments that have been
constructed for the sighted. The purpose of research on the Anxiety
Scale for the Blind (ASB) was, they go on to say,  to provide a
measure of manifest anxiety which could be standardized on
populations of blind persons and which later could have wide
applicability in the field of work for the blind. There you have
it. It is necessary to test the anxieties of blind people, and this
is no ordinary task. The anxiety felt by the blind is special. It
is certainly not the same as the anxiety felt by the sighted. And
these are the people who are charged with providing services to the
blind. We have many hundreds of blind people meeting and enjoying
themselves at this banquet tonight. Forget your good spirits for a
moment, and ask yourself whether you have special anxiety. Do you
feel it? Well, I don't either. And what kinds of services do you
suppose will likely be offered with this anxiety scale as a
background?

      The next revelation of these so-called experts (from the
American Foundation for the Blind) is that they intend to test us
all. Psychological examinations have traditionally been given in
this country to select groups to achieve specific purposes. They
have not been given to entire populations for nonspecific reasons.
However, the designers of the Anxiety Scale for the Blind tell us
that its use is to be much broader. Although the authors developed
this test with students attending schools for the blind, they say: 
Local norms should be established for blind persons in various
environmental settings such as the home, the sheltered workshop,
and the competitive work situation. But this is not all. They go on
to recommend that there be, in their words:  a study of the effects
of manifest anxiety on the academic achievement of blind students;
a study of the effect of anxiety on learning mobility skills; a
study of manifest anxiety in relation to social behavior in
courtship and other social situations; a study of the effects of
anxiety on success in the competitive work environment; and a study
of manifest anxiety in leadership potential among blind persons. 

      The environment of George Orwell's  1984  has, I am glad to
say, not yet been fully imposed upon the general population, and we
are not going to have it for the blind either. We don't need
special testing beyond that given to others in our education, our
jobs, or our social lives. If we have reasonable opportunity and a
fair chance to compete for jobs on equal terms with others, we will
hold our own as well as the next person. We are not freaks; we are
not basket cases; and we are not so fragile that we will break. Our
problems are more in the area of civil rights and vocational
exclusion than maladjustment and the need for counselingand don't
you forget it.

      But back to the testers and the anxiety scale. After
informing us that there is virtually no aspect of the daily lives
of blind people that should not be subjected to the rigors of this
mental measuring stick, the testers list seventy-eight statements.
The person being examined is expected either to agree or disagree.
Here is a sample from the seventy-eight. As you consider these
statements, ask yourself how much confidence is inspired by the
language employed. 

      Statement number two:  I almost always trust the people who
guide me. 

      That statement assumes that the blind need guidance, that
this need causes dependency, and that the lack of freedom of
movement results in anxiety. The implication is that the blind
person cannot function without the superior knowledge or judgment
of somebody else and that a degree of decision-making power and
control will necessarily be surrendered. All people require
guidance from time to time. This is as true of the blind as it is
of the sighted. However, hidden in this statement is the
insinuation of an innate helplessness by the blind. If this is what
they believe, they are not well acquainted with the energy, the
resourcefulness, and the self-reliance of blind people. One is
tempted to reply with an answer like this:  I do almost always
trust the people who guide me, except when the guidance comes from
the people who designed this test. But back to the psychological
examination. The statements go on. Here are some of the others. Ask
yourself what is meant by each and how you might respond.

      Number six:  I am uncomfortable when I must eat with sighted
persons. 

      Number ten:  I would say that blindness has completely ruined
my life. 

      Number fifteen:  I refuse to carry a cane because it makes me
appear helpless. 

      Number nineteen:  I would say that in most cases blind people
should marry other blind people. 

      Number thirty:  I don't worry about being blind. 

      I interrupt to ask how could one help it when the
psychologists are trying to ram it down our throats? But there is
more to the test.

      Number thirty-one:  I would not date a sighted person. 

      Number thirty-seven:  I would say that I often feel unwanted
when with my blind friends. 

      Number thirty-eight:  Sighted people rarely make me feel
useless. 

      Number forty-one:  I often find it difficult to express my
ideas when in the company of sighted people. 

      Number forty-nine:  Frequently, when I am with sighted
persons I have trouble with my words. 

      Number fifty-one:  In familiar surroundings, I sometimes have
a feeling of being absolutely lost. 

      Number fifty-five:  I have about the same number or fewer
fears than my blind friends. 

      Number fifty-six:  I have to be cautious in the company of
sighted people. 

      Number fifty-seven:  Because I cannot see, life is a constant
state of stress. 

      Number sixty:  I constantly think and often talk about being
able to see well. 

      Number sixty-four:  I am more irritable when I am with
sighted people than when I am with blind people. 

      Number sixty-five:  I frequently feel uneasy about competing
with sighted people. 

      Number sixty-eight:  I am overly sensitive about my physical
condition. 

      Number seventy:  Frequently, I feel that a familiar room has
changed shape. 

      Number seventy-three:  I do not mind asking sighted people
for help. 

      Number seventy-four:  I often worry about looking ridiculous
to sighted people. 

      Number seventy-five:  Often I am not polite to sighted
people. 

      There is one statement among the seventy-eight which
exemplifies the approach of the whole miserable examination. It
reads:  I often feel under strain because I must stay alert. Now,
I ask you, why is it necessary for the blind to be more alert than
others? Are blind people more likely to get into trouble? Are we
more accident-prone? Is there something about the blind that makes
us miss factual information if we do not concentrate more
diligently than others? What could possibly be the need for this
extraordinary vigilance? Have the testers really met the blind and
worked with us on a daily basis? Can they truly understand our
fundamental ability, our wishes, and our aspirations? There must
have been some reason for including this novel suggestion. Perhaps
the explanation is contained in statement twenty-nine. It says:  I
would say that blindness is a personal punishment. Did these
psychological experts learn their scientific principles from
ancient mythology or venerable lore? Blindness, a punishment? From
whom does the retribution come? Such a statement, in a supposedly
even-handed psychological test, puts one in mind of the old Middle
Eastern proverb:  When you see a blind man, kick him. Why should
you be kinder to him than God has been?

      Dependence, rejection, uncertainty, frustrationthese are the
words associated with the portrayal of the blind in this test. The
Anxiety Scale for the Blind is certainly not a document that will
engender peace of mind. The set of idiotic statements is well
named. It will certainly cause anxiety in the blind, in those, at
least, who are gullible, inexperienced, or beaten down enough to
take it seriously. And it will also cause anxiety in the rest of
usan anxiety to eradicate such misbegotten notions as those
advocated by the test. 

      The blind are not less secure or more sensitive than others.
It is not reasonable to suppose that lack of sight indicates mental
imbalance. The experience of tens of thousands of us shows that it
is not so. This so-called scientific test is not really based on
evidence at all. It is a sham dressed up in the jargon of science,
and its image is harmful to the blind. Its symbolism is the archaic
language of deprivation and fear. We reject this prejudicial,
ridiculous document because it does not represent blindness as it
is. We will not permit it to stultify our hopes and curtail our
opportunities. Instead, we will build our own images and use our
own words. The language will be ours, and we will say it like it
is. For the blind there will besuccess, independence, freedom!

      So often those who consider the subject of blindness focus on
the dining table. Everyone must eat, and the blind are no
exception. One company, Liblan, Incorporated, of Wheeling,
Illinois, has designed and patented a special dish and spoon for
the blind. In a letter to me Liblan's president says that his
company has developed a special  Plastic food container and utensil
construction designed for manipulation by the sense of touch only.
I was asked to send letters of endorsement to major manufacturers
so that they would produce this special bowl and spoon for the
blind. I leave it to you to determine whether I did.

      A report in the  Tulsa  (Oklahoma)  World  states that a
nonprofit organization called New View, Incorporated, has
established a program to encourage awareness of blindness by
inviting public officials to breakfast and insisting that they eat
blindfolded. The results are predictable. All the misconceptions of
blindness are enhanced and reinforced by the brief experience. Why
are supposedly knowledgeable people willing to believe that
blindness can be understood within half an hour? The alternative
techniques required for a blind person to function (not to mention
the philosophical implications of blindness) are far more complex
than the skills required for perhaps a hundred other tasks.
Nevertheless, it is assumed that blindfolding a group of public
officials for an hour or less will teach them about blindness.
These same public officials know that it takes longer than that to
learn how to drive a car or shoe a horse. Still, they are urged to
think that they know all about blindness with absolutely no
training. Here is the way it appeared in the  Tulsa World : 

      If you want a lifetime appreciation of sight, try life
without it for half an hour.

      A dinner fork becomes a spear when you can't see it coming
toward your face. Rich foods make you thirsty, but you don't drink.
A glass is a water tower. A reach through the darkness could be a
spill and flood everyone's meal. 

      Coffee is drunk with hesitation. A sip can become a gulp. A
gulp can become a scald. 

      You make a lot of noise with eating utensils when you're
blind. You stick your fork heavily onto empty china, and with your
increased sense of hearing, it sounds as if you're beating drums to
everyone's annoyance. 

      You don't talk as much during a meal when you're blind. The
loss of one sense amplifies the others.

      You hear more, and restaurant background music becomes
blaring. You think you're shouting just to speak above it. 

      You eat less when you can't see. To hunt for food is to push
it off your plate, onto the table, onto your lap. Scambled eggs can
burn like a brand.

      One napkin isn't enough when you're newly blind. You wipe
food onto the napkin, then you wipe it back onto your face. 

      You know you're blind and suspect you're bothersome.

      People who involuntarily lose their sight have a problem with
sorrow about what they can't do. People who voluntarily lose it
have trouble with guilt about what they can. When you're blind you
no longer care that the Russians boycotted the Olympics.

      You can't even cut your food. Yet the real blind people shave
and brush their teeth. You finally think more about their braveness
and bravura than your own blindness.

      The newspaper reporter tells us that the blind are brave for
shaving; that blind people cannot cut their food; that one napkin
is not enough for the newly blinded; that blind people eat less,
talk less, and make more noise than the sighted; that the loss of
sight heightens the other senses; that the blind are full of grief,
and the sighted full of guilt. All of this occurred because an
agency for the blind wanted to impress (and doubtless get money
from) public officials by frightening them into believing that it
was dealing with a catastrophic situation. The inevitable result is
that the agency will receive deference and (no doubt) more sympathy
for its fund-raising efforts. But what will the blind receive? More
public misconceptions to overcome; more difficulty in finding jobs;
and more problems in having the opportunity to live normal,
ordinary, everyday lives. 

      If these misstatements, false notions, and devastating
descriptions were not so serious, they might be downright funny.
However, they have a dramatic impact on the lives of each of us.
With this kind of public perception about blindness the job market
is closed. The professors at educational institutions may not turn
us away, but they will not regard us as serious students. Service
in positions of responsibility in government or the private sector
will not be available. However, the article in the  Tulsa World ,
with its mistaken notions about blindness, is only one of the
public utterances about the blind. There are many others. Our work
in the Federation has continued for forty-nine years, and there are
measurable changes.

      For a number of years one of the problems facing the blind
was that we were banned from jury service because of blindness.
Indeed, in some states the laws still specifically restrict us from
being selected. However, the work of the Federation is bringing
change. In many states the laws now say that the blind cannot be
categorically excluded from jury service. One indicator of our
progress is shown by a poll conducted recently by radio station WBZ
in Boston. Ninety-five percent of those questioned said that blind
people should be allowed to serve on juries. One word, one image,
one symbol, one thought at a timewe are changing what it means to
be blind. One word, one image, one symbol, one thought at a timewe
are achieving independence, self-sufficiency, and equality. The day
when the blind can no longer be excluded from jury service is not
a dream for the distant future. It is within our reach. First, jury
service. Then, other rightsthe right to employment on terms with
others, the right to live peacefully in our homes without unwanted
interference from government officials, the right to travel without
harassment or intimidationthe right to participate fully in all the
activities of daily life.

      The psychological tests, the blindfolded public officials,
the patented dishes and spoons for the blindall of these have an
impact on our personal lives. Shortly after last year's convention
I received a letter which describes eloquently in unadorned prose
the problems we face. The Federationist who sent it knows
disappointment and frustration first-hand. The letter contains an
exceptional poignancy, more for what it does not say than for what
it does. Here it is:

      September 30, 1988

      Dear President Maurer:

      Two years ago I decided to move back home for convenience
reasons. In the past few months I have been treated worse by my
mother than by airline personnel or a stranger on the street. Let
me give you a few examples. I was asked to take a pot of coffee
from the house to my father's machine shop, which was only about a
four minute walk either by the road or through the trail in the
woods. Well, by the time mother had the coffee ready, and I was
ready to go, she changed her mind and said I might fall down with
it and hurt myself. Mr. Maurer, I have never fallen down on my way
from the house to the machine shop. 

      Another incident: every time food is served at the table,
whether it be spaghetti or hamburger meat, it comes to me in a
bowl. Not only that, but with a spoon. I asked once, why the spoon?
She replied,  I thought you could handle it better that way.

      The other night was better than that. I was served soup with
several sheets of newspaper under the bowl. I wanted to say
something about this, but we would both just get mad and have a
fight. I threw a spoon at her one time. And then, of course, I felt
embarrassed and humiliated afterward. 

      I am tired of my mother's negative remarks toward me as to
what I can and can't do as a blind person. It seems like, after 37
years, she ought to know damn well what I can and cannot do. Just
what can I do to change her attitude about blindness? 

      Well, tonight for dinner fried fish was served with tartar
sauce. Then, I noticed she was laying paper down before she served
the plate. I asked my father,  Where is your paper for your plate?
He explained he didn't need paper. So, I just got up and walked
away. 

      What can I say to this Federationist? How can I answer his
letter? It is bad enough that the agencies promote negative
attitudes about us, that the advertisers belittle us in order to
sell their products, and that the newspapers misunderstand and
compound the problem. But it is even worse when the members of our
own families (conditioned by the words and thoughts of society) do
the same. It makes little difference that more often than not the
members of our families put us down and treat us like children for
motives of love. The tragedy, the pain, and the loss hurt no less
for the lack of malice. 

      Sometimes, in our humiliation and frustration, we may think
the first best step is to leave the table hungry for a nightbut
this is no answer, no remedy, no solution to the problem. There
must be concerted action and coordinated effort to change public
attitudes and improve the social climate. And we are taking those
actions. We are making those efforts. The members of our families
are part of the general public, and so are the agencies and their
psychologists. For that matter, so are we. 

      For thousands of years we who are blind have been regarded as
incompetent, and for the most part we have accepted the legends we
have been taught. But that time is at an end. It is true that some
still tell us that we cannot perform in the factory or workshop;
that we have an altered mentality; that we are unable to handle
routine tasks in the kitchen; that we require extraordinary
technological devices to help us find the bathroom; that we need
raised dot T-shirts to enhance our self-awareness; that we suffer
from special anxiety; that we cannot use ordinary tableware; that,
when we finally get to the table, we will eat less, talk less, and
make more noise than others; and that our lives are filled with
grief. 

      But it is equally true that these are not any longer the
predominant elements of our lives. In 1940 we organized to speak
for ourselves through the National Federation of the Blind, and in
the intervening half century the blind have achieved more progress
than ever before in all previous recorded history. We have replaced
the ancient terms of negativism with a new language of hope, and
society has increasingly come to accept us for what we arenormal
people with normal aspirations and normal abilities.

      More and more the words (and therefore, the thoughts and the
deeds) of the work place and the home, the school and the church,
the street and the playground reflect this new mood. And underlying
it all, fueling the change and focusing the progress, is (as it has
been for the past half century) the National Federation of the
Blind. With all of the problems and all of the work we still have
to do, we come to this meeting tonight with a feeling of hope and
a mood of gladness. We come with a joy and a certainty of triumph.
At long last we know who we are and what we must do. We are
organized, confident, and prepared for what lies aheadand no force
on earth can turn us back. Our words, our thoughts, and our dreams
reach for a tomorrow which is bright with promise, and the heart of
that promise is the individual determination of each of us and the
unshakeable power of our vehicle for collective actionthe National
Federation of the Blind. The past has belonged to others, but the
future belongs to us. Let us speak, think, and act in support of
each otherand we will make it all come true!

     