     Bankruptcy of a  System: The Politics of Accreditation

     The history of the organized blind movement, according to one
of its leaders, might well be seen as a confirmation of the 
challenge-and-response  theory of social evolution propounded some
decades ago by the British historian Arnold J. Toynbee which held
that the rise and fall of civilizations has corresponded to their
ability to meet successive challenges, from without or within, by
appropriately vigorous responses.  So long as the response is more
energetic than the challenge,  said Toynbee,  a civilization may be
said to be in the ascendant.   As with societies so with social
movements,  added Kenneth Jernigan in a presidential speech;  so
long as the organized blind remain vigilant against the forces
opposed to them, capable of meeting any challenge with an immediate
response, for so long will they be a dominant factor within their
own sphere of action. 

     After fifty years of continuous challenge and response, it was
clear by 1990 that the National Federation of the Blind was still
ascending as a movement and expanding as a force in the special
sphere occupied by the blindness system. More and more that system
and its constituent agencies had come to recognize this reality and
to respect the Federation, if not for its virtue then for its
strength. But there were still pockets of resistance in the system
(rear-guard elements like those dominating most of the sheltered
workshops) which interpreted the progressive philosophy of the NFB
as a threat to their very existence. These reactionary elements
were neither as numerous nor as formidable as they once had been;
but they were as stubborn as ever in their opposition and as
determined in their efforts to retain or regain custody over the
lives of those they still perceived as their dependent wards.

     The present chapter relates the story of one such agency
challenge and of the massive response which was mustered against
it. That response, beginning in the sixties, took the form of an
aggressive and sustained campaign to reform or retire a
self-appointed watchdog group calling itself the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC). From the time of its origin in the sixties when
it was known as the Commission on Standards and Accreditation of
Services for the Blind (COMSTAC), NAC operated effectively as a 
front  organization for the American Foundation for the Blind and
other agencies of the blindness system in their effort to extend
control over all those blind persons (numbering in the tens of
thousands) who fell within the network of public and private
service. While the ostensible purpose of NAC was to provide a
neutral and objective arbiter of professional  standards  for the
field, its practical intent was to hold a whiphand over service
agencies of all kinds through the arbitrary power of accreditation
in other words, to reward its friends (by granting approval) and
punish its enemies (by withholding the prize).

     The confrontation between the organized blind and the agency
known as NAC may be dated from November, 1965, when a national
conference was held in New York City by a newly formed group known
as the Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for
the Blind (COMSTAC). The New York conference climaxed two years of
elaborate planning on the part of the American Foundation for the
Blind, which had conceived the idea of COMSTAC and was its primary
source of financial support. (The Foundation initially contributed
$225,000 over four years to the project, to which additional funds
were later provided by the U.S. Office of Vocational Rehabilitation
and, to a much lesser extent, by private foundations.) Some 300
professional workers and administrators took part in the four-day
meeting, at which the reports of a dozen technical committees were
presented for approval. The announced purpose of the conference,
with its massive panoply of professional celebrities and task-force
committees, was to  create a new and independent agency to
administer an ongoing, voluntary system of accreditation of local
and state agencies for the blind on a national basis.  The
impression sought to be conveyed was one of consensus and harmony
on the part of all interests in the field of work for the blind.
Most such groups were indeed prominently in attendance: the
American Association of Workers for the Blind, the National
Rehabilitation Association, National Industries for the Blind, the
state commissions, public and private welfare agencies virtually
the entire gamut of professional organizations with an interest in
the lives of blind people. The only concerned group which was
conspicuous by its almost complete absence not only in the
conference itself but in the numerous preliminary meetings at which
standards were initially proposed and formulated was the organized
blind.

     The idea of establishing an  independent  accrediting system
for all groups doing work with the blind which led to the formation
of COMSTAC and its successor agency, NAC was not as novel as the
conveners of the New York conference pretended to suppose. A decade
earlier the American Association of Workers for the Blind had
attempted to gain control over the field of services by instituting
a  seal of good practices,  to be obtained as a reward by agencies
conforming to the AAWB's expectations of professional conduct.
However, of the several hundred agencies and organizations in the
field only 20 or 30 applied for and received the seal; and of those
that did, more than a few were regarded by the blind themselves as
backward in their philosophy and unproductive in their enterprise.
After a short time this counterpart to the   Good Housekeeping 
seal  was quietly shelved by the AAWB.

     Apparently profiting from that earlier failure to impose its
view of professionalism and its system of control upon the entire
field, the American Foundation for the Blind moved prudently to
give the impression of independence and autonomy to COMSTAC. The 22
persons named to the commission came from a broad range of
professions, many of them outside the field of work with the blind
and most of them prestigious. Among the members were public
officials, business executives, philanthropists, academicians, and
civic leaders. Among them also were appointees of the Foundation
from within the field, high-ranking officials of agencies doing
work with the blind. Not among them, however, were any
representatives of the blind themselves; not a single commissioner
came from a membership organization of blind people. Moreover, the
paid staff director and moving force of COMSTAC was one of the
Foundation's own Alexander Handel, Foundation insider and employee,
who left his job with the Foundation for full-time employment with
COMSTAC and later with NAC.

     Even before the 1965 conference in New York, the organized
blind had reason to be apprehensive concerning the character of the
proposed accrediting agency and the quality of its standards. In
its preliminary phase COMSTAC was divided into a dozen specialized
subcommittees, each involving hundreds of people across the country
and further subdivided into smaller groups. While a few spokesmen
for organizations of the blind and the many agencies in the field
who did not want to be controlled by the American Foundation gained
admission to deliberations at the local level, their dissent from
the prevailing tone of affirmation went virtually unnoticed. In
those rare instances when they were not excluded by the contrived
selection process and were in the majority, the blind and the
agency dissenters were still effectively neutralized by the
heavy-handled tactics and maneuvers of the presiding COMSTAC
officials. For example, at the 1965 annual convention of the
American Association of Workers for the Blind, where discussion of
the COMSTAC standards was invited, only the discussion leaders had
copies of the standards, and a concerted attempt on the part of
home teachers to seek a vote on standards affecting their specialty
which seemed certain to be negative was overridden by the chair.

     It was for this reason that Jacobus tenBroek, then President
of the National Federation of the Blind, emphasized in his 1966
convention address the distinction between what he called  agencies 
for  the blind and agencies  against  the blind.   Today in this
country there are agencies which choose to work not for the blind
but with them as collaborators, colleagues, and co-equals,  he
said.  There are agencies that affect toward us a posture of
indifference and a mask of neutrality. There are agencies which
regard it as their special mission to fight the blind at every turn
and with every weapon. There are agencies such as a number of
sheltered shops which believe it is their function to control,
suppress, and sweat the blind. 

      Now comes COMSTAC,  tenBroek went on.  The latest, greatest,
and most ominous of all agency efforts to dominate the field to the
exclusion of the organized blind. COMSTAC's 22 autonomous members
for so they describe themselves are self-appointed; its tasks are
self-assigned; its authority is self-arrogated; its special
knowledge is self-proclaimed; its actions are self-serving. The
standards it presumes to set for others are misconceived,
misdirected, and miserable. Its outlook is paternalistic and
condescending. Its interest in the content of programs is
incidental if not accidental. 

     President tenBroek made it clear in this address that his
criticism was not directed at the principle of seeking an
improvement of services to the blind.  We would and do join in
every legitimate effort to improve the qualifications of workers
for the blind that is, to insure that they become more wise, more
perceptive, more humane, and more imbued with sympathetic
understanding. We would and do join in every reasonable effort to
improve programs for the blind that is, to see to it that they
liberate our people from self-imposed and socially imposed
restrictions, to restore them to normal lives and normal
livelihoods. 

     TenBroek concluded his speech with the declaration that  For
all its bright and shiny newness, COMSTAC in reality is obsolete.
Its philosophy of goods and services derives from an earlier age in
which the recipients at the end of the line were simply human
objects to whom things were done. Those were the good old days,
before the revolution in welfare. But the revolution has come and
has brought with it recognition of the recipient not as a passive
object of professional manipulation but as a responsible
participant in the making of decisions that affect his life and the
administering of programs that bear upon his welfare. Of all this
COMSTAC is unaware and uninterested. 

     In the years following that official assessment of COMSTAC by
the leader of the organized blind, a number of events occurred
which served both to confuse and to sharpen the issues surrounding
the idea of accreditation for agencies in the blindness field.
COMSTAC was itself dissolved and immediately reconstituted (or
cloned, as someone said) in the form of NAC which proceeded to
declare its autonomy and independence from the network of agencies
which had fathered and funded it. Meanwhile the National Federation
of the Blind went through its own transition in the late sixties as
Kenneth Jernigan succeeded Dr. tenBroek in the presidency; but the
succession signaled no change in the NFB's policy of vigilant
appraisal of agency activities on the accreditation front. In 1971,
five years after Dr. tenBroek's critical address on the subject,
President Jernigan submitted a comprehensive  Report to the members
of the National Federation of the Blind on COMSTAC and NAC,  which
reviewed the recent history of developments in the field and
concluded with a blistering attack on the integrity, credibility,
and viability of the watchdog known as NAC. Under the title  NAC:
What Price Accreditation  Jernigan penetrated the screen of
professional rhetoric surrounding the role of NAC and exposed the
hidden wires and batteries linking it with its parent agencies. He
concluded with a warning to Federationists to continue to insist on
a voice in the functioning, as well as the accrediting, of any and
all programs affecting their lives. The text of his report follows:

 NAC: WHAT PRICE ACCREDITATION  A REPORT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE 
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND ON COMSTAC AND NAC
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

      When the Commission on Standards and Accreditation on
Services for the Blind (COMSTAC) and its successor organization,
the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind
and Visually Impaired (NAC), came into being during the 1960s, the
leaders of the organized blind movement sounded the alarm. It was
pointed out that the American Association of Workers for the Blind
had unsuccessfully tried, during the 1950s, to gain control of the
field of work for the blind by instituting what it called a  seal
of good practices.  Of the several hundred agencies and
organizations in this country doing work with the blind only twenty
or thirty ever applied for and received this  seal.  Several of
those which did were not regarded by the blind as either very
effective or very progressive. As the decade of the '60s
approached, the proponents of rigid agency control apparently
decided to change tactics. The American Foundation for the Blind
and certain other leading agency officials adopted the idea of
establishing a so-called  independent  accrediting system for all
groups doing work with the blind. Although individual blind persons
who were agency officials were involved in the establishment and
development of COMSTAC, the blind as a group were not consulted
that is, the representative organizations of the blind were not
given a voice, except occasionally as a matter of tokenism. Thus,
the consumers of the services were not heard in any meaningful way,
and they had no part in developing or promulgating the standards to
govern the agencies established to give them assistance.

      Profiting by the earlier failure of the AAWB  seal of good
practices  experiment, the authors of COMSTAC built more carefully.
The American Foundation for the Blind appointed an  independent 
commission the Commission on Standards and Accreditation for
Services for the Blind (COMSTAC). The full-time staff consultant
for COMSTAC was a staff member of the AFB, on loan to the group,
purely as a means of demonstrating the Foundation's concern with
the improvement of services for the blind. To add respectability,
people of prestige outside of the field of work with the blind were
placed on the commission public officials, business executives, the
dean of the Temple Law School, etc. These were people of good will
and integrity, but they were not knowledgeable concerning the
problems of blindness. Obviously they took their tone and
orientation from the Foundation appointees on COMSTAC. All of these
appointees, it must be borne in mind, were high-ranking officials
doing work with the blind. Not one of them represented the blind
themselves. Not one of them came from a membership organization of
blind persons.

      As its work developed, COMSTAC divided into subcommittees,
involving hundreds of people throughout the country, since the
subcommittees further subdivided into smaller groups. Again, the
pattern was followed. The subcommittees, or the subcommittees of
the subcommittees, had, in every instance, at least one of the
COMSTAC agency officials as a member, plus people of prestige and
ordinary rank and file agency workers or board members. In fact, at
the sub-subcommittee level a few members of the organized blind
movement were even added.

      The American Foundation for the Blind and COMSTAC were later
to proclaim with pride that they had sought and achieved a broad
consensus throughout the field of work with the blind. However, the
method of arriving at that consensus was, to say the least, novel.
At Denver in the summer of 1965, for instance, the AAWB convention
was largely taken up with a discussion of the COMSTAC standards to
gather opinions and achieve consensus, it was said. Only the
discussion leaders had copies of the standards (there had been a
delay in mimeographing), and any touchy point which was raised was
answered either by the statement that it was covered somewhere else
in the COMSTAC standards or that another group was discussing that
matter and it was not properly the concern of the group in which it
had been raised.

      Home teachers from throughout the country were present and
were considering the standards affecting their specialty. The
overwhelming majority apparently disagreed with a particular item
in the COMSTAC document and suggested that a vote be taken to
determine the sentiments of the group. They were informed by the
discussion leader that a vote certainly would not be taken but that
their views would be reported to COMSTAC, which had the sole
responsibility for deciding such matters.

      Throughout the summer and fall of 1965 promises were
repeatedly made that copies of the proposed COMSTAC standards would
be made available. They were forthcoming, hundreds of pages of them
three days prior to the final conference in New York City, which
brought together hundreds of agency representatives for the
announced purpose of arriving at a final consensus. Dr. Jacobus
tenBroek and I attended that conference. Again, the democracy and
fair play with which it was conducted were novel. One had to
indicate in writing ahead of time which particular group discussion
he would like to attend. There was no assurance that his choice
would be honored. He might be assigned to another group. He could
not move from group to group at all. If he had not received a
special invitation, he could not attend the meetings. COMSTAC
appointees were stationed at the door to check credentials, and I
personally witnessed the turning away of one agency director who
had been critical of COMSTAC.

      It is no wonder that the blind people of the country felt
apprehensive. What type of standards were likely to emerge from a
commission so appointed and so conducted? Not only the blind but
also many of the agencies expressed concern. Many felt that the AFB
and federal rehabilitation officials (unwittingly aided by people
of prestige in the broader community) would impose a system of
rigid controls which would stifle initiative, foster domination,
and take the emphasis off of real service and place it on
bureaucracy, red tape, and professional jargon. It was further felt
that what purported to begin as a voluntary system would (once
firmly established) become mandatory. The AFB and other proponents
of COMSTAC and its successor organization, NAC, vigorously denied
these assertions. COMSTAC and NAC were to be truly independent.
Their very watchword was to be objectivity. They were to be the
means of improving services to blind people throughout the country
and the vehicle for progressive thought and constructive change.

      Readers of the  Braille Monitor  will remember that from 1965
through 1968 a detailed analysis was made of the COMSTAC and NAC
reports and activities. The fact that the Federation has not called
attention in recent months to COMSTAC and NAC should not lead the
blind to believe that the threat has passed or the situation
improved. Quite the contrary is the case.

      The question of NAC's independence, for example, is no longer
a matter for serious debate. The Scriptures tell us that  where a
man's treasure is, there will his heart be also.  In an official
NAC document entitled  Budget Comparison 1968 and 1969,  dated
April 15, 1968, the following items appear:

      Total approved budget calendar year 1968, $154,034; total
projected calendar year 1969, $154,000. Estimated income 1968:
grant from American Foundation for the Blind, $70,000; grant from
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, $75,000. Estimated
income 1969: grant from American Foundation for the Blind, $70,000;
grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, $70,000. 

      Today (in 1971) the overwhelming majority of NAC's funds
still come from HEW and the American Foundation for the Blind. Many
of the NAC meetings are held at the AFB building in New York, and
the executive director of NAC is a former Foundation staff member,
the same one who was on  loan  to COMSTAC. When the first annual
NAC awards were given, in 1970, it may be of significance that two
recipients were named: Mr. Jansen Noyes, president of the board of
directors of the American Foundation for the Blind; and Miss Mary
Switzer, the long-time head of rehabilitation in the federal
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Even more to the
point may be Miss Switzer's comments upon that occasion as reported
in the NAC minutes of April 24, 1970:  She predicted that difficult
times might lie ahead if agencies accept the idea of standards but
do nothing about them. The expending or withholding of public money
can provide the incentive that is needed. 

      Thus spoke Miss Switzer, confirming what Federation leaders
had predicted and COMSTAC spokesmen had denied a decade ago. The
full meaning of Miss Switzer's statement was spelled out by
Alexander Handel, executive director of NAC, as reported in the NAC
minutes of April 25, 1970:  Mr. Handel reported a new and important
step in encouraging accreditation. The Council of State
Administrators has passed a resolution that by July 1, 1974, state
rehabilitation agencies will require that agencies from which they
purchase services be accredited.  The use of the word  encouraging 
in this context is almost reminiscent of George Orwell's
double-think and new-speak of  1984  only thirteen years away, at
that. Perhaps sooner. The  encouraging  of agencies to seek
accreditation from NAC will probably be called by some by the ugly
name of blackmail. The pressure for conformity and the
concentration of power could well be the most serious threat to
good programs for the blind in the decade ahead.

      Federationists who attended the 1966 Louisville convention
will remember that a report on COMSTAC and NAC was given at that
time. I had been officially asked to serve on the NAC board. The
offer was, of course, tokenism of the most blatant sort; and the
question was whether to accept, leaving the Federation open to the
charge of approving NAC actions, or to reject, exposing us to the
charge of non-cooperation and leaving us with no means of observing
and getting information. Federationists will remember that it was
decided that I should accept the invitation. Thus, I have been a
member of the NAC board since its inception. In the spring of 1970
I was elected to another three-year term. There are more than
thirty NAC board members, of whom I am one.

      While expressing my minority views, I have tried to be
personally congenial and friendly with the NAC board members.
Nevertheless, tokenism remains tokenism. The other members of the
board not only seemed unconcerned with but unaware of the
non-representative character of NAC. It is as if General Motors,
Chrysler, Ford, and American Motors should set up a council and put
six or seven officials from each of their companies on its board
and then ask the UAW to contribute a single representative. What
would the unions do in such a situation? What would racial
minorities do if their representative organizations were offered
such tokenism in the establishment and promulgation of standards
affecting their lives? I think we know what they would do. They
would take both political and court action, and they would
instigate mass demonstrations. Perhaps the blind should take a leaf
from the same book. We cannot and should not exhibit endless
patience. We cannot and should not forever tolerate the
intolerable. I continue to sit on the NAC board, but I often wonder
why. It does not discuss the real problems which face the blind
today or the methods of solving those problems. In fact, NAC itself
may well be more a part of the problem than the solution. I repeat
that tokenism by any other name is still tokenism. In May of 1969,
for instance, I received a document from NAC entitled  Statement of
Understanding Among National Accreditation Council, National
Industries for the Blind, and the General Council of Workshops for
the Blind.  This document was sent to all NAC board members with
the request that they vote to approve or disapprove it. It
contained six points, of which one and five are particularly
pertinent. They are as follows:  1. By June 30, 1970, all NIB
affiliated shops shall have either: a. applied to NAC for
accreditation and submitted a self-study guide (or) b. applied to
the General Council for a Certificate of Affiliation with NIB and
submitted a self-study guide. 5. Certificates of Affiliation with
NIB entitle shops to membership in the General Council and to
access through NIB to: a. Government business allocated by NIB, b.
Commercial business allocated by NIB, c. Consulting services of
NIB, d. Any and all other benefits of NIB affiliation.  In other
words if a workshop for the blind wishes any contracts from the
federal government, it had better get into line and  volunteer  for
accreditation by NAC. No pressure, of course, merely a system of 
voluntary accreditation!  As you might expect, I voted no on the
NIB agreement. Along with my ballot, I sent the following comments:

      I do not approve this statement because I do not believe
government contracts and other benefits to workshops should be
conditioned upon their accreditation by NAC. Rather, receipt of
government contracts and other benefits should depend upon the
quality of performance of the workshop in question. Does the shop
pay at least a minimum wage? Do its workers have the rights
associated with collective bargaining? What sort of image of
blindness does it present to the public?

       Prior to NAC (in the days of COMSTAC) many of us said that
NAC would become a vehicle for blackmail dressed out nicely, of
course, in professional jargon. It would appear that the prophecy
is beginning to come true, earlier assurances to the contrary
notwithstanding. 

      As I say, I voted no. What do you suppose the final tally of
the ballots indicated? Twenty-seven yes votes and one no vote. How
different the results might have been if there had been equal
representation of the blind themselves and the agencies! Yes,
tokenism is still tokenism.

      In order that my position cannot be twisted or misinterpreted
I would like to say that the quarrel is not with the concept of
accreditation itself. Rather, we object to what is being done in
the  name  of accreditation. Proper accreditation by a properly
accredited group is a constructive thing. What NAC is doing is
something else altogether.

      There is, of course, not time here to go into the details of
all of the standards originally developed by COMSTAC and how being
fostered by NAC, but a brief sample is sufficient to make the
point. Federationists will remember that the  Braille Monitor  for
February, 1966, carried an analysis of the COMSTAC standards on
physical facilities. That analysis said in part:

      The standards [on physical facilities] are perhaps notable
chiefly in that they are so vague and minimal as to be equally
applicable to office buildings, nursing homes, or universities by
the simple substitution of the names of these other facilities. 

      Perhaps a brief run-down of the standards themselves would
serve as the best and most complete illustration (headings theirs).

      1.  Overall Suitability  The total facility is constructed to
best serve the needs of the particular agency. It will adequately
serve everyone concerned. It will meet the requirements of its
governing body, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
and the city building code. The physical facilities will be helpful
to the program.

      2.  Location  The facility is located where it can easily be
reached by staff, clients, and others who need to use it. The
facility should be close to shopping and other community interests.
The location is reasonably safe, with hazards minimized.

      3.  Grounds  The grounds will be large enough to allow for
future expansion. They will be pleasant ( free of undue nuisances
and hazards ), with parking areas and roadways. Signs will be
posted to help people locate the proper areas.

      4.  Activity Area  The layout of the facility will be
efficient. The facility will be designed for the planned
activities, will be large enough and well organized (reception
rooms next to entries, work areas together, etc.). Sufficient
maintenance will be provided for.

      5.  Privacy  People will have as much privacy as individual
cases call for. Confidentiality will be maintained.

      6.  Health and Safety  The health and safety codes of the
community will be met. Sufficient heat and light will be provided.
Sanitary conditions will be as good as possible. Suitable entries
will be provided for wheelchairs, etc. Safety features will be
related to the level of competence of the occupants, the activities
undertaken, and the equipment used. Adequate first aid facilities
are provided.

      7.  Fire and Disaster Protection  All buildings will be so
designed and equipped as to minimize the danger of fire. The
buildings will be inspected by local authorities and/or independent
authorities and records of inspection kept. Smoking areas are
clearly specified. Proper protection shall be provided the
occupants of the facility to minimize danger should fire or
disaster occur. Suitable fire extinguishers will be provided. Fire
alarms will be installed so as to be heard throughout the facility.
Fire drills will be held irregularly. Special provisions will be
made for fire warnings to deaf-blind.

      8.  Maintenance   The condition of the physical facility
gives evidence of planful and effective maintenance and
housekeeping. 

      9.  Remodeling  When remodeling is undertaken, it should be
to best suit the needs of the program.

      The preceding is an inclusive summary! One can imagine the
breadth of interpretation that can result from application of these
standards. One can also imagine the range of individual whim and
axe-grinding, not to say blackmail and favoritism, that can enter
into the proposed accreditation of agencies for the blind based on
such vague and capricious requirements. The danger to be
anticipated is the possibility of varying application of standards
to friends and foes when  accrediting  agencies. 

      One is tempted to dismiss this entire report of  Standards
for Physical Facilities  with the single word,  Blah!  But more
intensive study indicates otherwise. Tucked away among the
platitudes and the generalities are the age-old misconceptions and
stereotypes.

      What, for instance, is meant by the requirement that a
facility for the blind be located near to shopping and other
community interests, and that it be in a location reasonably safe, 
with hazards minimized?  The exact words of the committee are, 
Where undue hazards cannot be avoided, proper measures are
instituted to assure the safety of all persons coming to the
agency. (For example, where an agency is on a street with heavy
traffic, a light or crosswalk or other means is available for safe
crossing by blind persons.) 

      If this standard is simply meant to express the general pious
platitude that everybody ought to be as safe as possible, then what
a farcical and pathetic waste of time and money to assemble a
committee to spell out what everybody already knows. On the other
hand, if the standard means to imply that the blind are not able to
live and compete among the ordinary hazards of the regular workaday
world and that they need more shelter and care than others, the
implications are not only false but they are insidiously vicious.

      Of a similar character is the committee's statement that the
grounds must  provide pleasant and appropriate surroundings, and be
free of undue nuisances and hazards.  Surely we do not need a
special commission on standards and accreditation to tell us that
people should live in pleasant surroundings that are free of undue
hazards, if this is all that is meant. If, however, the committee
is saying that the blind require surroundings that are more 
pleasant and free from hazards  than the surroundings required by
other people, one cannot help but be unhappily reminded of the
nineteenth century concept that the blind should be entertained and
provided with recreation, that they should be helped in every way
possible to  live with their misfortune. 

      If this type of analysis seems blunt, one can only reply that
this is no time for nice words and mousy phrases. The people who
were formerly the Commission on Standards, and are now the National
Accreditation Council, hold themselves out to the public at large
as the qualified experts, the people who have the right to make
standards and grant or refuse accreditation to all and sundry.
These are not children indulging in the innocent games of
childhood. They are adults, playing with the lives of hundreds of
people.

      Federationists should review the  Braille Monitor  from 1965
through 1968 to study the COMSTAC reports in light of present
developments. I have not tried here to analyze the content of those
reports. Mostly it is bad, and the standards and rules established
by COMSTAC and NAC harmful. Let anyone who doubts this assertion
read the COMSTAC reports and the  Monitor  analyses. They speak for
themselves.

      One final matter requires comment. At a recent meeting of the
National Accreditation Council I was telling a new member of the
board (a prominent businessman totally uninformed about the
problems faced by the blind) that I thought most of the actions of
NAC were irrelevant. He seemed surprised and said something to this
effect:

       If you think what we are doing here is not relevant, what is
relevant? 

      To which I said,  Last fall a blind man in Minneapolis (a
person who had worked for several years as a computer programmer at
Honeywell and was laid off because of the recession) applied to
take a civil service examination for computer programmer with the
city of Minneapolis. His application was rejected, on the grounds
of blindness. The National Federation of the Blind helped him with
advice and legal counsel. As a result, he took the examination, and
he now has a job with the city of Minneapolis as a computer
programmer. 

       How many of the people who are on the NAC board,  I asked, 
are even aware that such an incident occurred? How many of them
think it is important? 

       Or,  I went on,  consider another incident. A few weeks ago
in Ohio a blind high school senior (duly elected by her class) was
denied the right to attend the American Legion Girls' State. The
story was carried nationwide by United Press, and the matter is
still pending. Do you see any of these people here today concerned
or excited about this case? Do you see them trying to do anything
about it? 

       Well,  my companion replied,  your organization seems to be
working on matters like this. Maybe NAC is doing good in other
areas. 

       The difficulty,  I told him,  is that the actions of NAC are
helping to create the kind of problem situations I have been
describing to you. 

       How?  he asked me.

       NAC,  I said,  accredits workshops, for instance. What kind
of standards does it use in determining whether a shop should be
approved and presented to the public as a worthy and progressive
institution? NAC is concerned about whether the workshop has a good
accounting system. It is concerned about good pay and good working
conditions for the professional staff (almost all of them sighted).
It is concerned with the physical facilities and (perhaps) whether
there is a psychologist or psychiatrist available to minister to
the blind workers. But what about minimum wages for those same
blind workers, or the right of collective bargaining, or grievance
committees? On such items NAC is silent. It will accredit a
sheltered shop which pays less than fifty cents an hour to its
blind workers. By so doing, it puts its stamp of approval on such
practices. It helps perpetuate the system that has kept the blind
in bondage and made them second-class citizens through the
centuries. It helps to slam the door on the computer programmer in
Minneapolis and the high school student in Ohio. Worst of all,
perhaps, it reinforces and helps to continue the myth that
blindness means inferiority, that the blind are unable to compete
on terms of equality in regular industry or the professions, that
the blind should be grateful for what they have and stay in their
places. The workshop example is only that, an example. The same
theme is everywhere present in NAC's action and standards and, for
that matter, in its very makeup. 

      As we talked, my businessman companion seemed shocked that
there were sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage to
blind workers. Yet, he is on the NAC board, lending his name to the
accreditation. I pointed out to him a variety of other ways in
which the work of NAC is helping to promote misconceptions about
blindness and add to our problems. I can only hope that the seeds
I planted will bear fruit.

      To round out the picture we are considering today, one
further item might be mentioned. The April 25, 1968, minutes of NAC
report as follows:

      Over thirty agencies and schools have indicated, in writing,
an interest in applying for accreditation. Official applications
have been received from six agencies. Some of these have already
paid the application fee. The American Council of the Blind is the
first membership association to apply for membership in the
National Accreditation Council.

      In a letter dated July 11, 1968, from Alexander Handel,
executive director of the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, to members of
the NAC Board of Directors an article is discussed which appears in
the July, 1968, issue of the  Braille Forum  (the official
publication of the American Council of the Blind). The article says
in part:

      It should be emphasized, however, that from the first, ACB
officers and members actively consulted with the various committees
developing the standards, and ACB was the only national
organization of the blind which both participated in and
financially supported the National Conference on Standards which
led to the formation of the National Accreditation Council.

      I give you this quotation without comment. It speaks for
itself. So do the actions of NAC. I presume all of you have read
the exchange of correspondence concerning the appearance of NAC
representatives at this meeting today. The contempt and
condescension inherent in NAC's bland assumption that it was proper
to reject our invitation to appear at this convention because a
debate might occur are clear for all to see. Likewise, the
agreement just concluded between NAC and the American Foundation
for the Blind whereby the Foundation will work with agencies and
help prepare them for accreditation is equally revealing.

      In any case the one central point which must be repeatedly
hammered home is the total irrelevance of NAC as it is now
constituted and as it is now performing. What we need today and in
the years ahead is not more detailed standards but a real belief in
the competence and innate normality of blind people, a willingness
on the part of agency officials to help blind people secure
meaningful training and competitive employment, a recognition that
the blind are able to participate fully in the mainstream of
American life. We need acceptance and equality, not shelter and
care.

      When seen in this light, NAC must be viewed as one of our
most serious problems in the decade ahead. The blind of the nation
should thoroughly inform themselves about its activities and should
insist upon a voice in determining the character of programs
affecting their lives. We should insist that state and federal
governments not delegate their powers of setting standards for
state agencies to a private group, which is not responsive to the
needs or views of the consumers of the services. It is true that
many of the agencies doing work with the blind need to be reformed
and improved, but NAC is not the entity to do it. We the organized
blind intend (in the best tradition of American democracy) to have
something to say about the scope and direction of the reform and
the improvement. We are not children, nor are we psychological
cripples. We are free citizens, fully capable of participating in
the determination of our own destiny, and we have every right and
intention of having something to say about what is done with our
lives.

     The developments which next occurred, in the period following
that report to the membership, amply confirmed the fears of the
organized blind concerning the character and purposes of NAC. The
events of one day in particular which happened to fall on December
7, 1971 involved both a confrontation and a conclusion: i.e., a
confrontation of the principal antagonists and a conclusion of the
first phase of NFB-NAC relations. The drama of that fateful
encounter in Manhattan, and the context of events surrounding it,
was later narrated in detail by Kenneth Jernigan in a special
edition of the  Braille Monitor  (August, 1972) devoted to the NAC
controversy. Under the heading,  NAC: Response to Bigotry,  the NFB
President announced the ending of his personal relationship with
NAC and the beginning of a new Federation policy and tactic. Here
is the article in its entirety:

                    NAC: RESPONSE TO BIGOTRY
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

       December 7, 1941,  said Franklin Roosevelt,  is a day that
will live in infamy.  To the blind of this country December 7,
1971, is also a day that will live in infamy. It was then that the
Board of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) met at the Prince George
Hotel in New York City and finally and irrevocably showed, for all
the world to see, what kind of organization NAC really is.

      Members of the organized blind movement will remember the
appearance of the NAC representatives at our convention in Houston
last July. Mr. Arthur Brandon, president of NAC, and Mr. Alexander
Handel, executive director of the organization, spoke to us about
NAC's purpose and objectives. Although we were in profound
disagreement with the way NAC is structured, its methods of
operation, and its basic premises, we treated its representatives
with courtesy and respect. There were no personal attacks and no
aspersions.

      Prior to our Houston convention Mr. Brandon had first
accepted the invitation to come and then, when he realized
questions would be asked and a discussion would occur, changed his
mind on the grounds that he did not wish to engage in debate. After
it was pointed out to him that NAC had received hundreds of
thousands of tax dollars and thus had some responsibility to appear
and give an accounting to the largest group of consumers of its
services in the nation, Mr. Brandon again changed his mind and once
more agreed to come but only subsequent to considerable publicity.
Obviously, he felt embarrassed and ill at ease at having to appear
at our convention.

      At this stage (apparently judging me by himself and,
therefore feeling that I, too, would find a confrontation
embarrassing) Mr. Brandon asked me as NFB President to present the
views of the organized blind at the December, 1971, NAC Board
meeting. He assured me that I would be given courteous treatment
and heard with respect. Of course, NAC's exaggerated view of its
power to inspire awe is not shared by the Federation, and the
prospect was not at all embarrassing. Rather, the invitation should
have come when NAC was first established. As Federationists know,
I accepted the invitation.

      Under date of July 13, 1971, Mr. Brandon wrote to me in a
tone and manner that showed he had learned nothing from our
convention. He seemed to be saying,  We have all had an opportunity
to vent our feelings. Now let's settle back into the old rut of
`NAC-as-usual.' 

      Under date of July 20, 1971, I replied to Mr. Brandon,
attempting once again to penetrate his bubble of complacency. I
said to him in part:

      The tone of your letter (especially that part which says  as
we look ahead we must search for ways of working together
effectively ) indicates a conception of what occurred at Houston
and of the attitudes and intentions of the blind not, in my
opinion, in accord with the facts. At Houston we did not simply
have a friendly little debate which allowed people to  blow off
steam.  We did not meet before that audience of a thousand people
simply to exchange ideas and go back home to business as usual.

      What that audience was telling you, and what I have been
trying to tell NAC for several years, is simply this: The blind of
this nation are not going to allow all of their service programs to
come under one uniform system of control with the tune called by
the American Foundation for the Blind and the accompaniment played
by HEW. The blind are not opposed to reasonable and proper
accreditation far from it. The blind do not oppose good agencies,
government or private, which are doing good work. However, the
Federation does not believe that NAC is properly constituted, that
its standards are reasonable, that it is responsive to the
aspirations and desires of consumers, or that it is a positive
factor (as now structured) in the field of work with the blind.

      Mr. Brandon made no response to my letter, and I prepared to
go to New York in December. Under date of November 29, 1971, Dr.
Patrick Peppe and Adrienne Asch, members of one of the local New
York City affiliates of the Federation, wrote to Mr. Alexander
Handel, executive director of NAC, to ask that they and other
interested blind persons be permitted to attend the December 7 NAC
meeting as observers. Their letter was courteous and respectful. It
made no demands or threats; it only requested. The full text of the
letter reads:

      Dear Mr. Handel:

      As consumers of services of agencies serving the blind, we
would like to be present at the December 7 meeting of NAC. Since
NAC was established to be the accrediting authority for agency
service, our lives are vitally affected by its deliberations and
actions. Therefore, we ask that we and others both the organized
blind and the unaffiliated but concerned consumers of services be
permitted to observe this meeting to learn more about the current
policies and plans of your organization.

      We would appreciate hearing from you by letter as soon as
possible. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

      Yours truly,  Adrienne Asch, Secretary  Patrick V. Peppe,
Member, Executive Committee, The Metropolitan Federation of the
Blind/Affiliate: The National Federation of the Blind.

      Mr. Handel wasted no time in replying. His letter dated
December 1, 1971, could serve as a model for insult and
condescension. It should be read and re-read by every
self-respecting blind person in the land. Its lesson should be
learned well and never forgotten. It should be remembered whenever
and wherever blind people meet in private homes or in public
gatherings, for business or for recreation.

      Mr. Handel wrote to Dr. Peppe and Miss Asch as if they had
been small children or mental cripples. He suggested that since the
December 7 meeting was to be a  working business session  rather
than a meeting at which provision could be made for observers,
perhaps Dr. Peppe and Miss Asch might like to meet with him
privately at some mutually convenient time so that they could make
comments and ask questions. He said that he was  pleased to know 
of their interest in NAC, that he would be  glad  to add their
names to the mailing list. He said that he would  look forward to
hearing  from them and hoped they would telephone him at their
convenience. Finally, in a P.S., he explained that the annual
meeting of NAC was open to members and invited them to join up.

      Lest you think I exaggerate, here is the entire text of Mr.
Handel's letter:

      Dear Miss Asch and Mr. Peppe:

      We are pleased to know of your interest in the work of the
National Accreditation Council and we shall be happy to provide you
with information about our current policies and plans. If you would
like to have your names added to the list of persons who regularly
receive our newsletter and other materials, we should be glad to do
so.

      Meanwhile, since the meeting to which you refer is a working
business session of our board rather than a session at which
provision can be made for observers, I should like to suggest if
you wish to know more about our program that you meet with me at
some other mutually agreeable time.

      As you know, our standards are available in Braille and
recorded. We welcome your comments and suggestions on all or any of
these standards. By meeting where a mutual exchange is possible you
would be in a position to raise questions and express your views
regarding the matters which, as you indicate, are of vital concern
to blind persons.

      Please telephone for an appointment at your convenience. I
look forward to hearing from you.

      Sincerely yours,  Alexander F. Handel

      P. S. The Annual Meeting of NAC is  open  to its affiliated
members. Such affiliation is available to the National Federation
of the Blind and is also open to local and state organizations of
the blind. (See leaflet.)

      Dr. Peppe, Miss Asch, and other blind people in New York City
then went to the press. When a reporter called NAC headquarters,
Miss Anne New (NAC staff member) revealed more than she realized.
She was quoted in the press as follows:  You don't necessarily put
a majority of TB patients on the board of a tuberculosis hospital.
We know what the patient wants to be treated as a human being and
not some sort of cripple. We stress this in our standards again and
again. 

      If Miss New does not understand why we as blind people object
to her statement (and she probably doesn't), she makes our point
for us. If Mr. Handel does not understand why we find his letter
insulting, condescending, and unresponsive (and, again, he probably
doesn't), then he only underscores what we have been saying for
years. How could anything better illustrate NAC's total isolation
from reality, its complete irrelevance!

      It was in this atmosphere and with this background that I
went to the Prince George Hotel in New York City late in the
afternoon of December 6, 1971. The first event was a cocktail party
held in Mr. Brandon's suite. I was met at the door with an air of
hostility and resentment.

      I think it is pertinent here to call attention once again to
the structure of NAC, as well as to the usual format and tenor of
its meetings. The American Foundation for the Blind and the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are, of course, firmly
in control. Officials of both have membership on the NAC board; and
the executive director, Mr. Handel, is a former Foundation
employee. In addition, several other selected agency leaders have
membership. To add respectability, people of prestige from outside
of the field of work with the blind have been placed on the board
public officials, business executives, university deans, labor
leaders, etc. These are people of goodwill and integrity, but they
are not knowledgeable concerning the problems of blindness.
Obviously they take their tone and orientation from the American
Foundation for the Blind and its hard core inner circle.

      The atmosphere of the NAC board meetings is invariably
snobbish and pretentious almost pathetically so. The civic and
business leaders on the board are made to feel that they have been
asked to join an exclusive  private club,  a body of national
prestige. There is a good deal of socializing and no sense at all
of involvement with the  gut  issues facing the blind. There is
much gracious, high-toned exchange of compliment and some very
businesslike talk about finances. There is considerable discussion
about  professionalism  and the maintenance of high standards in
work with the blind; but if these people were asked to sit down for
serious conversation with a blind welfare recipient or sheltered
shop employee or college student or secretary or working man or
housewife, they would react with outrage and indignation if they
did not die first of shock, which seems more likely. Here are a
group of people who hold themselves out to the public as the
setters of standards and the givers or withholders of accreditation
but who will not deign to mix with or listen to consumers. In fact,
as you will shortly see, they even deny (unbelievable though that
is) that the blind  are  consumers.

      Under the circumstances it is not surprising that I was
greeted with hostility and resentment when I entered Mr. Brandon's
suite. Very shortly I was engaged in conversation with Mr. Joseph
Jaworski, a lawyer from Houston, Texas. Mr. Jaworski, whose father
is a top official of the American Bar Association, was recently
added to the NAC board. The reason is fairly obvious. He is a
person who evidences no background in or understanding of the
problems of blindness but who seems to have many opinions on the
subject. He spoke somewhat as follows:

       I have read all of this material about NAC which you sent to
the board members, but tell me: What's the  real  complaint? 

      I replied that the real complaint was just what we had said
namely, that NAC had been conceived and structured
undemocratically. I told him that since the primary function of NAC
was to make decisions concerning the lives of blind people, the
blind themselves should have a major voice in determining what
those decisions would be and not just individual blind persons, but
elected representatives of constituencies. I told him that the
blind representation on NAC was only tokenism (six out of
thirty-four) and that even the tokenism was largely window dressing
since four of the six represented only their agencies or themselves
and, by no stretch of the imagination, constituencies of blind
people.

      He responded in this manner:  There are black people in the
city of Houston, and they do not have a majority or equal
representation on the city council. Yet, the city council governs
them and makes decisions about their lives. 

       Yes,  I told him,  but the primary purpose of the Houston
City Council is not to make decisions concerning blacks, or even
the blacks of Houston. Its primary purpose is to make decisions
about the  people  of Houston (of whatever color); and, in the
proper democratic tradition, the  people  of Houston control it
entirely. This is all we are asking of NAC that the people who are
primarily concerned with and affected by its decisions have a major
voice in its operation. 

      Mr. Jaworski did not seem to understand the distinction, nor
did two or three others who were listening in. The rest of the
cocktail party passed without event, as did the dinner which
followed.

      After dinner the board began its first business session. The
question arose as to what should occur if an agency applied to NAC
for accreditation and if the accreditation should be denied. Should
the agency have a right to appeal to the entire NAC board, or
should the decision of the subcommittee called the Commission on
Accreditation be final? I suggested that the NAC board holds itself
out to the public as the accrediting body and, therefore, that it
cannot properly delegate final accrediting authority to a
subcommittee.

      At this stage Mr. Fred Storey, a sighted theater owner from
Atlanta, took the floor and said:  I think we ought to follow the
example of other accrediting bodies in this matter. Since Mr.
Jernigan seems to know so much about it, why doesn't he tell us
what other groups do? 

      I responded that I didn't know what policy other accrediting
groups followed. To which Mr. Storey replied:  Then, why don't you
be quiet and keep your mouth shut! 

      I did not answer in kind but simply told him that as long as
I continued to be a member of the board, I would decide when and on
what questions I would speak. In fairness let it be said here that
not all of the board members approved of Mr. Storey's boorish
behavior. Two or three of them came to me privately afterward and
expressed apology and regret. However, not one of them stood up in
the meeting to call him to task or say a single word of protest;
and the Chairman, Mr. Brandon, expressed no disapproval.

      After the meeting I went to the front of the room and
reminded Mr. Brandon of his promise of courteous treatment and of
how he had received no personal abuse but only respect at our
Houston convention. His tone was one of petulant fury. He said: 
Some of the board members feel that  you  have been abusive to
them.  He went on to say:  I was never treated so discourteously in
my life as at your Houston convention. 

       Mr. Brandon,  I said,  can you really say that the
Federation or I personally did not treat you and Mr. Handel with
personal courtesy and respect? 

       Well, no,  he said,  but you inflamed the audience with your
speech. Besides, I don't have to listen to you, and I can't control
how NAC board members treat you when they disapprove of your
conduct. 

      At this, I told Mr. Brandon that I now released him from all
of his promises of courtesy and fair treatment and that I would
publicize his behavior and that of the board for all to see, which
I am now doing. As I walked back through the room, I was accosted
by Mr. Storey. He was furiously and childishly belligerent.  I'm
Fred Storey,  he said,  and I just want to be sure that you know
that I'm the one who told you to shut up. 

       Look, my friend,  I replied 

       I'm not your friend,  he said. (To which I could only
answer:  I believe that's the truth. ) He went on:  You hide behind
words like courtesy and fair play. Your real purpose is to create
dissension and trouble. You have no business on this board. You are
not one of us.  This is what he said. I leave it to all who
attended the Houston convention or who care to listen to the
recordings to determine whether we treated the NAC representatives
with respect. I also leave Mr. Storey's loutish behavior to stand
as its own commentary, on himself and on NAC.

      The next morning the NAC board assembled as usual, behind
closed doors. About a dozen local blind persons (representing the
organized blind of the area) appeared and sought admission as
observers. The request was denied. Apparently fearing to leave
these blind people unwatched, NAC stationed a staff member outside
of the door to remain with them throughout the day. A delegation of
four board members left the meeting to talk with them. It brought
back the news that the group would be content if only two of their
number could be admitted as observers, pledging to cause no
disturbance or say a single word.

      I offered a motion to admit the observers. Although the
discussion that followed was somewhat characterized by the petty
hostility and ill temper of the night before, the substantive
question at issue received attention. Dr. Melvin Glasser, director
of the Social Security Department of the United Auto Workers Union,
said that NAC was only exercising the usual prerogative of any
corporation to hold its board meetings behind closed doors.  What
about your own organization, the Federation!  he said.  Its board
meetings are not open. I couldn't come and attend. 

       Ah, but you could!  I told him.  Come on. We would be glad
to have you. Our board meetings are open to all, members and
non-members alike. 

      My motion was defeated with only six  yes  votes and twenty 
no  votes. It may be interesting to note that four of the six  yes 
votes were by blind people, and one of the remaining two was by a
black man. In other words two-thirds of the blind members of the
board (even the agency representatives) could not bring themselves
to vote no, and the black representative of the Urban League also
stood to be counted, though he said not a word in defense of the
motion and must, therefore, share in the shame of NAC's sorry
behavior. In any case the blind were excluded, and the NAC staff
member stood guard over them throughout the day. As the NAC minutes
admitted,  It should be noted that the demonstrators were peaceful
and courteous. 

      With respect to the matter of closed meetings and secret
conduct of affairs, NAC is almost paranoid in its behavior. As a
NAC board member, I had great difficulty in even getting a list of
the names and addresses of the other members. Finally, under date
of May 1, 1971, I received the list; but its form was interesting.
On the top line of the first page (printed in capitals, presumably
for emphasis) was the word  confidential.  Admittedly one might not
be proud to have people know he was associated with NAC; but why,
in the name of all that is reasonable, should the very names of the
NAC board members be kept secret?

      Late in the morning I was asked to present the statement
which Mr. Brandon had earlier invited me to give. Federationists
are too familiar with my views to need them repeated here. They
were presented in detail at the Houston convention and in the
September, 1971,  Braille Monitor .

      Company unions serve many purposes. In this connection, the
arrangement of the NAC agenda is interesting. Immediately following
my presentation, Judge Reese Robrahn, president of the American
Council of the Blind, delivered a statement. In general he defended
NAC and said that while it had some weaknesses and imperfections,
ACB supports it since ACB is a  constructive  organization. In an
apparent attack upon the NFB for its criticism of NAC and its
criticism of some of the so-called  professional  literature about
blindness issued by the federal government and the American
Foundation for the Blind, Judge Robrahn said:  Anyone with normal
intelligence can dissect and distort any standard, sentence or
paragraph. This, however, cannot be considered a validation of the
attack on a standard, sentence or paragraph. 

      Judge Robrahn, by implication, defended NAC for not denying
accreditation to sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage
to blind workers. Under the circumstances this is not surprising.
It dovetails with the fact, which the ACB has failed to publicize,
that Mr. Durward McDaniel (ACB Washington representative) now
serves as a member of the board of National Industries for the
Blind, the infamous organization that controls merchandise orders
from the federal government to the sheltered shops. Of course,
Judge Robrahn also failed to mention the appearance of Mr. McDaniel
in Minnesota last year (with the support of agency officials) to
organize an ACB affiliate when the Federation in that state was
fighting for the rights of collective bargaining for the workers in
the sheltered shop of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind. Many
of the blind of the state felt that the ACB affiliate was being
organized as a company union, fostered by the shop management to
divide the workers, break their resistance, and confuse the public.

      In this same vein Mississippi agency officials told
Federation organizing teams early in 1972 that they would not give
lists of names of blind persons to the NFB but that they would give
them to the ACB. Later, when the small Mississippi affiliate of the
ACB was established, the reports of pressure for membership by
agency officials were graphic and widespread.

      Judge Robrahn attempted to leave the impression that the ACB
is large, growing fast, and about to approach the size of the NFB.
The facts, of course, are something else again. Affiliated
organizations on paper are not necessarily organizations of
actuality or substance.

      After Judge Robrahn's presentation there was considerable
reaction by the members of the board, particularly to my remarks.
Of special interest were the comments of Dr. Melvin Glasser, the
United Auto Workers representative. He said that NAC was not
properly a social action group but a standard-setting body. I tried
to point out to him that NAC could not avoid engaging in social
action. By accrediting and giving its stamp of approval to a
sheltered shop which pays fifty cents or less per hour to blind
workers, NAC helps perpetuate the system. If its standards for
determining which shops should be accredited do not take into
account the wages of the workers, then those standards are
irrelevant; and they constitute a form of social action, keeping
the blind down and keeping them out.

      What an irony that one should have to explain such matters to
a representative of organized labor! Have the unions really become
so management-oriented and so out of touch with ordinary people!
Obviously Dr. Glasser did not stand at the gates of Ford and
General Motors in the 1930s and see the hired thugs beat the
workers who tried to organize and improve their condition. Neither
did I, but I sat in the NAC meetings of the l970s and watched the
performance of Melvin Glasser. It is a long way from the factory
gates of the thirties to the suave manner and condescending
behavior of Dr. Glasser in New York, but his shame is none the less
for the distance. Those early working men and women who fought and
bled to establish his union, who sometimes risked their very lives
for the concept of minimum wages and the right to organize, must
stir in their troubled graves at the prospect of such behavior by
a representative of the UAW.

      Dr. Glasser also advanced a novel theory about what a 
consumer  really is. He said that, as with hospitals, so with the
blind. Consumers of the services of hospitals are not just the 
patients  but all of the potential  patients  therefore, everybody.
Thus, the consumers in the field of work with the blind are not
merely those who are now blind but also those who may become blind
in other words, everybody. Therefore, he (Dr. Glasser) is as much
a consumer and has as much right to representation as you or I. Not
only would it appear that the representatives of organized labor
support sweatshops and management, but they've also become sophists
it would seem.

      I wonder how Dr. Glasser would like a dose of his own
sophistry. Let us consider his union, for instance. Most people in
the country are potential workers in the auto industry. Therefore,
they should be eligible for membership in the UAW. They should be
able to vote and hold office. After all, it is not only the actual
workers but the potential workers as well who must be considered.
Even the children will be potential workers someday, and certainly
the senior citizens were potential workers once. So the entire
American population has equal rights in the UAW. False reasoning?
You bet!

      Next Mr. Robert Goodpasture, former head of National
Industries for the Blind, took the floor. He made a very
strongly-worded attack upon me and said that he would move to
censure me if a mechanism were available but that, since it was
not, he would content himself with his statement. He was
particularly incensed that I had made public the vote concerning
the link-up between NAC and National Industries for the Blind. Well
he might wish to keep that agreement secret in view of its
disgraceful implications. I told him that I had never pledged to
keep NAC's actions secret and that I had no intention of doing so,
now or in the future. I told him that I felt the blind had a right
to know what NAC was doing and to have a voice in it.

      Then, I moved to have his remarks printed verbatim in the NAC
minutes. He and several other board members seemed surprised at
this motion and said,  What! Do you want what he said printed! 

       Yes, I replied.  His comments make my point better than
anything I could say. Let them be printed for all to read. 

      As you will see, the entire text of the NAC minutes is being
reproduced in the Monitor .

      Most of the rest of the day was taken up with the usual
trivia which characterizes NAC. It might be worth noting that Mr.
Robert Barnett, director of the American Foundation for the Blind,
came back to the meeting after lunch with this comment:  The people
outside say that one reason they don't like us is because we have
accredited a local New York agency which is anathema to them. Well
I guess we'll just have to change our standards.  He said this with
a snicker and a smirk as if to dismiss the demonstrators as kooks
and nonentities. He might have done better to listen to them.

      Their feelings of disgust for him and what he stands for were
at least as great as his for them. As one of them later remarked: 
The blacks may have their Uncle Toms, but we have our Uncle Bobs. 
In mid-afternoon I left, feeling that NAC was a total loss that if
anything were to be accomplished, it must be by confrontation, and
not in the conference room. We are now left with two questions.
What do we do next, and where do we go from here? It is to these
questions that we must address ourselves.

      In the first place Mr. Storey and Mr. Goodpasture are right.
I have no business on the NAC Board. Mr. Storey told me:  You are
not one of us!  No, thank God, I am not; and I hope I never will
be. I do not see how any blind person or any true friend of the
blind can keep his sense of honor and self-respect and serve on the
NAC board. Therefore, I am no longer a member of NAC. I do not ask
them to accept a resignation or to recognize the fact that I have
quit. I simply take this occasion and this means of letting the
world know that I am not part of NAC and that I do not want my name
associated with it. We will now see if they add to their other
faults the bad taste and boorish behavior of trying to expel me
after the fact. Let them. We can give their petty action (if they
choose to take it) suitable publicity.

      Next we must consider NAC's presumptuous behavior in thinking
it can hold closed meetings. First we tried reason and persuasion.
These were spurned. The blind were not even allowed to have two
silent observers in the room. NAC will regret the day. We will now
adopt different tactics. NAC will probably try to conceal the time
and place of future meetings, (just as it writes  confidential  on
the list of the names of its board members), but we will track them
down. Wherever they go and whenever they meet, we the blind will go
to the doors and demand admission not only the local blind but as
many of us as possible from throughout the country. We will recruit
our sighted friends and supporters to swell the numbers, and we
will not take  no  for an answer. Whatever is required to make NAC
responsive to the needs and problems of the blind, we will do. I
have never participated in a demonstration in my life, but enough
is enough. This is the time to stand and be counted.

      We will send material concerning NAC to federal officials and
to every member of the Congress of the United States. Our local and
state affiliates and members must follow up with personal contacts
and letters. Further, the blind of each state must demand that
their state and local agencies not seek accreditation from NAC. If
such accreditation is sought, delegations of the blind must call on
the governor and go to the press. If an agency has already achieved
accreditation, we must demand that the accreditation be repudiated.
The blind of each locality must assume responsibility for informing
their legislators, governors, public officials, and news media of
the threat which NAC poses. When NAC representatives are asked to
appear on programs, we must protest and demand equal time.

      In short, we must treat NAC like the evil which it is. We
must make it behave decently or strangle the life out of it. We
must reform it or destroy it. We must have at least equal
representation on its board and make it truly serve the blind, or
we must kill it. It is that simple. NAC absolutely must not be
allowed to take control of the lives of the blind of this country,
regardless of the costs or the consequences. If we permit it, we
deserve what we get. If we submit meekly while we still have the
power to fight, then we are slaves, and justly so.

      But, of course, we will not submit, and we will not fail. The
right is on our side, and the urge to be free sustains us. December
7, 1971, is a day that will live in infamy, but the stain of that
infamy will be cleansed. The shame of that day will be erased. I
ask you to think carefully about what I have said. Then, if you
will, come and join me on the barricades.

     By the seventies the gulf between the blindness agencies
supporting NAC and the organized blind themselves led to a
breakdown of communication and a systematic effort by the agency
coalition to freeze out blind organizations or their
representatives from NAC meetings. There resulted a series of
dramatic confrontations, organized by the National Federation of
the Blind, which soon became a regular annual event held at the
time and place of scheduled NAC conferences. In one year the
landmark year 1973 there were actually two such confrontations with
NAC, the first one in Chicago attended by 300 blind people, and the
second in New York attended by no less than 1,500 blind Americans
from all parts of the country. Each of these massive encounters
contained a story replete with drama, inspiration, and human
interest as may be seen from the successive reports on the two
events published in the  Braille Monitor . And each of the two NAC
confrontations drew broad public attention symbolized on both
occasions by the interview of National Federation of the Blind
President Jernigan on nationwide television, first in Chicago and
then on NBC's  Today Show  in New York. Following is a collection
of brief first-hand reports by participating Federationists as they
appeared in the  Monitor :

                           INSIDE NAC
                        by Ralph Sanders

             On the Barricades in Chicago: A Preface

      I had arrived in Chicago early Tuesday morning to serve,
along with John Taylor, as an official observer during the NAC
meetings on June 20-2l. I was also there to work on the
demonstrations by more than three hundred Federationists who had
come, by every means imaginable, from throughout the country to let
the members of NAC's board know just how the blind of this country
feel about their kind of  accreditation without representation. 

      Tuesday was hectic. We were busily preparing for a press
conference for Dr. Jernigan for early Wednesday morning. When the
busload of Federationists from California arrived, they all pitched
in. As others arrived, things began to fall into place. Finally,
Don Morris and I braved the late afternoon Chicago traffic and the
outrageously expensive cab fares to venture downtown to finish
arrangements for the press conference.

      When we returned, materials and signs were ready.

      The first feeling of great excitement was apparent when those
present met in Don's suite in mid-evening. Following the meeting,
a few of us who had not had time earlier sought dinner. As a
foreshadowing of the next two days, this was hardly finished when
we learned that the Iowans, more than seventy strong, had arrived
at the hotel. Again, we met to outline plans.

      The next morning, Wednesday, we left a good-sized contingent
at the O'Hare Inn to picket as NAC board members arrived, and the
rest of us ventured downtown.

      The press conference went very well. With Dr. Kenneth
Jernigan speaking on behalf of the blind of this country, our
position was articulately expressed.

      By the time those of us who had attended the press conference
arrived at Chicago's Civic Center, picket lines were up on all
sides. The public of Chicago heard and read our message. With
little time to spare, we finally boarded buses and cars and headed
for the O'Hare Inn.

      When I disappeared to take up my post as an official
observer, I was comforted knowing that some three hundred blind
persons manned the barricades in front of the hotel and in the
central courtyard.

      The Girl Scouts Do It! Why Not NAC?

      With the moral support gained from knowing that the boards of
directors of such groups as the American Red Cross and the Girl
Scouts of America hold closed board meetings, the board of
directors of NAC, meeting in Chicago on June 21, 1973, reaffirmed
their policy of  openness  with closed meetings.

      McCallister Upshaw, board member from Detroit, moved the
resolution. Although, in the future, any guests attending a board
meeting will have to be there on special invitation from the board
of directors, Mr. Upshaw said he didn't feel that the two observers
from the National Federation of the Blind should be asked to leave.
(One has to wonder what position he would have taken if a
representative from  Dialogue  magazine had not also been in
attendance.)

      The only dissension against the resolution came from our
beloved  Uncle Bob,  Bob Barnett, from the AFB. No, he wasn't
opposing the idea of closed meetings. He simply felt the whole
discussion was a waste of time and that NAC ought to get on with
the serious items on its agenda.

      Based on the quick, unanimous vote in favor of the
resolution, one can assume that all of the board members thought
consumer participation a waste of time.

      A provision of this resolution would allow any group or
person who wishes to present to the board a matter dealing with NAC
to do so. It is important to note this section of the resolution
for it was less than three hours later that NAC, keeping to its
true colors, went against its own resolution.

      John Taylor had given Peter Salmon copies of a memo from Dr.
Jernigan which asked for the minutes of the NAC meeting and asked
that the organized blind be permitted two observers at future
meetings of the executive committee. John Taylor requested that Mr.
Salmon read the memo and distribute copies, which we provided, to
the members of the board. Mr. Salmon said that he would do this.
Keep in mind that this occurred prior to the adoption of the
resolution.

      As the NAC meeting was nearing its end, with the members of
the board nervously trying to get out to their planes to be jetted
home to their agencies and corporations, and the memo still not
having been announced, John Taylor addressed the chair to ask that
it be done.

      Peter Salmon replied, as my notes reflect, that he had
discussed the matter with the NAC executive committee; and that it
was felt that it was not an appropriate time to present the matter.
A number of items in Mr. Salmon's message should raise the blood
pressure of the blind of this country: This action contradicted, if
not the letter then at least the professed intent of, the provision
of the resolution adopted earlier by the NAC board allowing
presentations to the board. In addition, there had been no mention
of any meeting of the executive committee (perhaps Mr. Salmon
gauged the sense of the executive committee by consulting with
Uncle Bob). Finally, the sequence of events concerning the NFB memo
makes it clear that the resolution barring observers from board
meetings only formalized what has been the NAC policy all along
claiming  openness  while operating in secrecy.

      These actions should provide final proof to any blind person
still having questions about it that NAC intends to continue on its
merry way, adopting  professional standards  and methods of
self-evaluation despite what the blind themselves think. After all,
the members of the board of NAC have devoted years to helping the
blind; why shouldn't they know what the blind need?

      The annual meeting of NAC took place the previous afternoon,
Wednesday, June 20, at Chicago's O'Hare Inn. This was an open
membership meeting attended by representatives of agencies
accredited by NAC, agencies seeking accreditation, NAC sponsors,
NAC board members, and most anyone else who happened along.

      The most serious business conducted at this session was the
election of board members to fill vacancies created because of
deaths or resignations of current board members and because some
board members were rotating off and could not, for one reason or
another, stand for reelection.

      Those elected to the board were: Howard Bleakly, formerly of
Pennsylvania, now residing in Illinois, apparently appointed
because of personal wealth; William T. Coppage, head of the
Virginia State Agency for the Blind; Dr. John Craner, professor of
educational psychology at Brigham Young University; Floyd Hammond,
co-owner of a lumber company in Phoenix, Arizona, also apparently
appointed because of his wealth; Howard Hanson, director of the
South Dakota State Agency for the Blind; George Henderson, Jr.,
vice-president of Burlington Industries, Atlanta, Georgia, again
apparently only for his wealth; [?] Morris, member of the
Connecticut State Legislature; Bob Riley, Lieutenant Governor of
Arkansas; and Lou Rives, Jr., of the Federal Department of HEW,
Civil Rights Division.

      Following election of board members, there was a report
regarding the re-evaluation of agencies which had been accredited
by NAC. This discussion led to one regarding how an agency might
determine its effectiveness.

      Dan Robinson, the newly elected president of NAC and a CPA
with the accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company,
offered the thought that this depended in large measure on the
objectives set by the agency. One must assume that, by Mr.
Robinson's standards, if a rehabilitation agency sets as its goal
the placement of job-hungry blind persons in a sheltered workshop,
and if after a year it is determined that all job placements,
regardless of skills, have been made in a workshop, then the agency
is highly successful.

      At 5:00 p.m. the same day there was a cocktail reception at
which John Taylor and I divided in an attempt to visit personally
with as many members of NAC's board as possible.

      I got an opportunity to talk with many of them, including
such notables as Dan Robinson and Morton Pepper. I asked Mr.
Robinson to define  consumer.  He had barely gotten into some sort
of unintelligible definition (it went something like this: a client
is not necessarily a consumer of an agency, nor does a consumer
have to be a client) when he announced that his boss, presumably
from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company, had arrived, and he
danced out of earshot. I had the distinct pleasure of dining with
Fred Storey, a millionaire NAC board member from Atlanta, Georgia,
with whom all  Monitor  readers should be familiar for his previous
outlandish behavior. True to form, he was just as insulting as ever
toward our President, and toward the integrity of our movement.
Present with us were a number of other board members including Dr.
Gerry Scholl, from the University of Michigan; and George
Henderson, a new board member from Atlanta. There were others
there, but memory fails me.

      They were generally as discourteous as they thought they
could be, which I assured them was fine. Had I come to Chicago
simply to enjoy the company, I would most certainly have been out
on the picket lines and not in the lions' den. As with Daniel, God
was kind to me, and the dinner session ended early.

      The meeting of the board of directors of NAC began at 9:00
a.m. on Thursday. I have already referred to some actions taken by
the board. Most of the time was devoted to nice, friendly remarks
from Peter Salmon, Dan Robinson, and others, complimenting other
members of the board who had either assisted in getting financial
gifts from somewhere or who were leaving the board.

      I think that there would be general interest in the financial
report, however.

      It was reported that NAC had started this year with a
projected budget of $293,000 but that the budget was now reduced to
$278,000 this, it was alleged, because of sound fiscal management
by NAC's staff. It was further reported that by June 21, $102,000
had already been spent. Also, an additional $30,000 would have to
be raised to reach the $278,000 now projected. The contribution by
the Department of HEW has been dropped from $100,000 to $90,000. It
was quite obvious from many comments that NAC anticipates this
being the last year that federal support is offered. Perhaps they
anticipated the power of the Federationists marching outside.

      Great attention was given to a donation of approximately
$12,000 from a Mrs. Moses and $100,000 from the Goldman Foundation,
or some such group. (John Taylor and I did not receive printed
copies of the materials that everyone else had before them, so we
must rely on our notes.) There was much concern expressed about
future sources of financing.

      Keep in mind the amount of money NAC needs to operate, and
consider that in 1972 fourteen agencies applied for, and eight
received, accreditation. Also, remember that the agency seeking
accreditation bears a great deal of the cost.

      It was reported that NAC has now accredited some fifty
agencies. If this sounds impressive, remember that there are more
than five hundred agencies in this country.

      Other weighty matters discussed included changing NAC's
fiscal year from January 1 through December 31 to July 1 through
June 30.

      The other interesting action taken by the board was the
decision to allow the executive committee to determine the time and
place of the next NAC meeting.

      Sitting through the NAC meetings, I kept asking myself just
which of the actions they took did they not want the public to know
about? Just what warranted closed, secret meetings? From what are
they cowering? Apparently something must have gone on in Chicago
that John Taylor and I did not attend and which they wish to keep
secret.

      They likened themselves unto the Red Cross and the Girl
Scouts. It probably never occurred to them that both these
organizations operate entirely on private funds, seeking no money
from Washington, and that neither of these groups takes actions
which determine policies for agencies funded by state and federal
tax dollars. But then, they don't care, I'm convinced, about the
public's dollars. To them it is simply a question of  professional
standards. 

      I went to Chicago hoping that reason might prevail; that
these  distinguished  gentlemen might still be able to appreciate
the real importance of consumer participation.

      Sitting on the DC-9, winging my way back to Arkansas,
homeland of J.M. Woolley and the new NAC Board member, Lieutenant
Governor Bob Riley, I recalled the events of June 20 and 21 in
Chicago. It is not that these people disagree with us; it is that
we speak different languages. Picture Dan Robinson's remark: the
word  consumerism  has become so bastardized as to be meaningless.
They really don't appreciate what most blind Americans face as a
part of daily life. To them a blind American is Peter Salmon, who
took occasion to talk about his chauffeur. No, NAC is not going to
have a change of heart and reconsider consumer participation. Each
of them will try to forget that there were several hundred blind
men and women outside, protesting their actions. This they cannot
do, however, for they were too aware of our presence. Little was
said to acknowledge the demonstration at least but you could read
in their reactions that they were afraid: afraid that things
wouldn't be as they had been in the days when the sheltered
workshop was considered kind and the agencies' services weren't
questioned. A number of them, I am certain, were questioning their
participation in NAC. They will do a great deal of thinking in the
weeks to come. One should not be too surprised to see a number of
resignations in coming months.

      It is interesting to note that at least one NAC board member,
Bob Buckley, from Iowa, resigned prior to the board meeting. What
is particularly enlightening is the fact that neither his name nor
his resignation were mentioned during any of the meetings to which
John Taylor and I were invited. They are scared: scared of what can
happen when a board member copes with personal integrity, and
scared to acknowledge resignations. The question we must answer is
how scared they will become. The answer lies in our hands.

      Following the end of the board meeting, John Taylor and I
found our friends in force in the central courtyard, where a
dialogue was underway between Don Morris, our ever present and
always energetic chairman, and Bob Barnett,  Uncle Bob.  But all we
got was more evidence that we apparently speak different languages
we  English  and they  NAC-anese.  Barnett was finally saved from
his embarrassment when two of his friends dragged him from our
midst. It seems that Mr. Barnett was about to miss his lunch. Oh
well! It was extremely reassuring to sit in the meetings knowing
that hundreds of blind friends were outside, braving the sun and
fatigue to express the feelings of tens of thousands of blind
people from throughout the country, loudly, but peacefully. Our
honor, in contrast to NAC's deception, must stand as a symbol:
something for all of us to follow in the coming months as we pursue
the reformation or disappearance of NAC. Let history record just
who it was that failed to meet the issues. NAC, the dirt is on your
hands, not on the hands of the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, or the
blind of this country.

            OUR CAUSE GOES MARCHING ON : OUTSIDE NAC
                          by Don Brown

       Glory, glory, Federation;  NAC needs some alteration.  Start
with representation   Our cause goes marching on. 

      This song, spontaneously created and sung on the Chicago
picket lines, captures the spirit and mood of the three hundred
Federationists who came from all over this nation to demonstrate
their concern and protest their grievances to the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped. Despite NAC's efforts to keep the time and location of
their summer board meeting a secret from the National Federation of
the Blind until the last moment; and despite NAC's choice of the
O'Hare Inn for their meeting place, a hotel hidden away from the
mainstream of Chicago's activity in the airport complex; and
despite the choice of the meeting time, June 20th and 21st, in the
middle of a work week, the National Federation of the Blind
demonstrations against NAC can only be judged an overwhelming
success.

      I arrived in Chicago in the middle of the afternoon on
Tuesday, June 19th, the day before the first NAC meeting, and found
a large group of Federationists from several states already busily
at work putting together picket signs in the National Federation of
the Blind demonstration headquarters located in the O'Hare Inn. The
work went cheerfully and quickly, perhaps because we are becoming
more proficient in sign assembly with each passing NAC
demonstration. The first briefing session took place at nine
o'clock that evening. Don Morris urged a standing-room-only crowd
that flowed into and down the hall to keep their cool during the
demonstrations and to be on our guard against whatever NAC might
throw at us. Don pointed out that, based on previous experience, we
could expect almost anything from NAC, and he pointed out that we
had to maintain restraint at all times.

      The next morning, Wednesday, June 20th, Federationists
clambered aboard two Greyhound buses; and, leaving a large
delegation of demonstrators behind to man picket lines at the front
of the hotel, we headed for the downtown Chicago Civic Center. We
were greeted there by a large delegation of Illinois Federationists
swelling our ranks to well over one hundred enthusiastic
demonstrators. We stationed ourselves on the four corners of the
block, at the doorways to the Civic Center, with the remainder of
us circling the block. All of us carried signs and handed out
thousands of handbills to the public. Deep concern and indignation
were often expressed by those Chicagoans we had the opportunity to
reach that morning. Later that morning President Jernigan arrived
from a successful press conference and joined us  at the
barricades.  Carrying a picket sign, President Jernigan marched
around the block. The number and enthusiasm of the Federationists
at the Civic Center that morning can be measured by the number of
Federationists who attempted to give President Jernigan and each
other handbills. President Jernigan spoke to an interested public
by microphone from a platform, eloquently expressing our cause and
what they, as concerned citizens, could do to help create an
atmosphere in which NAC would be responsive to the needs of the
blind.

      At noon we boarded the Greyhound buses for the
bumper-to-bumper trip back to the O'Hare Inn. Three picket lines
were maintained throughout the afternoon and evening of June 20 and
the morning of June 21. Two picket lines were at the front of the
hotel, one on either side of the hotel's front entrance, while a
third group maintained a vigil around the hotel swimming pool. The
NAC board meeting room was adjacent to this courtyard area. We
walked for hours, singing songs, chanting slogans, and talking to
hotel guests.

      The Chicago press was on the scene throughout Wednesday
afternoon. Newspaper reporters talked to Federationists from all
over the country while newspaper photographers captured on film the
number of demonstrators for their reading public. Television
cameras and microphones were in view that afternoon recording the
action and enthusiasm of the festive but disciplined singing and
chanting marchers.

      The picket lines were disbanded at 9:00 p.m. Wednesday
evening, and we returned to the National Federation of the Blind
demonstration headquarters for a briefing session at which Don
Morris commended the gathered Federationists for their enthusiasm,
hard work, and self-discipline.

      The next morning at 8:00 a.m., a Greyhound bus carried a
group to the airport terminal where they carried signs and gave
handbills to the passing public. Thursday morning the press
evidenced their interest by their presence, many staying on the
scene longer than some of the NAC board members themselves. The
bulk of the Federationists were on the three hotel picket lines by
8:00 a.m. Thursday morning. By midmorning the bus had returned from
the airport complex and the largest group of Federation
demonstrators of the two day meeting began a vigil for the
emergence of the NAC board members from their meeting. We all
gathered in the inner courtyard adjacent to the NAC board meeting
room and softly sang and chanted songs, quietly standing and
holding our signs. The NAC board meeting dispersed at 12:30 and the
successful National Federation of the Blind demonstration ended at
1:00 p.m. We returned to the National Federation of the Blind
demonstration headquarters where we were briefed on the closed NAC
board meeting by our two observers.

      By any measure, the demonstration was a success. One is moved
by the dedication of Federationists who traveled thousands of miles
at tremendous personal expense and inconvenience, either
individually or in groups, as the National Federation of the Blind
of California and the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa did
by chartered bus. The solidarity of the group, its self-discipline
and enthusiasm were an impressive testimony to those who
participated. The impact that we had on Chicago can be measured by
the extensive and favorable press coverage that we were given by
the local news media. The impact that we had on NAC can be measured
by the open hostility that we encountered in many NAC board and
staff members. This hostility is witness to our effectiveness for
it accurately reflects the feeling of many NACsters that their
position of credibility in the eyes of Congress, the blind, and the
public has been shaken, and that they are on the run, and that they
know that the National Federation of the Blind will continue to
track NAC.

             REFLECTIONS OF A RANK-AND-FILE PICKETER
                        by Nancy Smalley

      Where does a  Freedom Bus  go? What is a  NACster ? On June
17, 1973, thirty-one California Federationists boarded their bus
and left for Chicago. This  Freedom Bus  was chartered by the
National Federation of the Blind of California and was financed
largely through donations from California's fifty local affiliates.
The enthusiastic travelers paid for the rest of the trip out of
their own pockets.

      The destination of this bus was Chicago's O'Hare Inn, or 
NAC-land.  NAC, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, was holding its
semiannual conference, and Federationists from all over the nation
wanted to be present to voice their disapproval of NAC's acts.
Giving NAC accreditation to sheltered workshops which pay far below
minimum wage standards, for example, is not met with a great deal
of acceptance by most blind people. The organized blind have no
voice in this so-called accreditation although they are most
assuredly affected by it. However, once an agency receives this
accreditation it is eligible for federal funds from the Department
of HEW. Approximately $600,000 of taxpayers' money has been used to
date. Blind people feel that if they, the consumers of the services
of these agencies, can voice no opinions regarding these services,
then federal funds should not be used for such a program. Thus,
hundreds of Federationists felt compelled to personally protest the
activities of NAC. The California  Freedom Bus,  with its load of
weary travelers, pulled into Chicago Tuesday morning, June 19. But
these Californians had come to work; and, after a shower, a change
of clothes, and a bite to eat, they were busy at work assembling
picket signs in the headquarters suite. Phones were capably handled
by Judy Boyle [who is multi-handicapped] during most of the Chicago
stay. The picket sign assembly line went on into the evening, but
finally the last one was completed and stored for easy
availability. That night a briefing session was held relating to
events for the following day. Californians greeted and mingled with
Federationists from other states. Don Brown and Arthur Eick had
flown in and joined the group. Mr. Eick, in his eighties, proved
there was no generation gap in this high-spirited group which was
composed of college students and right on up the ladder of
accumulating years.

      Wednesday morning found our group back on the  Freedom Bus, 
but this time only to take the short trip into Chicago's Civic
Center Plaza. Hundreds of Federationists carried picket signs and
passed out handbills all morning at the Plaza. To further interest
and educate the public, Dr. Jernigan and other blind leaders used
the Plaza's public-address system to explain our cause. Around
noon, picketers, picket signs, and handbills were back on the bus
heading toward  NAC-land  where  NACsters  had gathered.

      Bob Acosta, ably assisted by Don Brown, was our committee
member from California to help coordinate the demonstration.
Organized picketing continued throughout Wednesday afternoon and on
into late evening while the NAC banquet was in progress. This
degree of organization could not have been accomplished without a
great deal of hard work on the part of many people. Don Morris, of
Iowa, and Ralph Sanders, of Arkansas, were on top of the situation
at all times. Dr. Jernigan himself was seen with a picket sign in
his hand. Bob received complete cooperation from the Californians,
and Bob's own voice could often be heard leading our people in the
chant,  NAC, No! Blind Rights, Yes! 

      While a majority of people were at the Plaza Wednesday
morning, a group remained to cover the O'Hare Inn. This group was
most ably organized and overseen by Kathy Northridge and Mary
Catalano.

      When Thursday morning rolled around the rather tired
picketers were back in line, picket signs and handbills in hand,
but still enthusiastically singing and chanting. By now most of our
people had sunburned faces and blistered feet. Marching on a picket
line is no easy task. Braving the elements such as the sun and wind
takes a lot of strong will and fortitude.

      Federationists were on hand until the final NAC meeting
adjourned. But NAC would not talk to us, with the exception of Mr.
Talbert, who met briefly with the Californians. John Taylor was not
allowed to give his short statement. John and Ralph Sanders surely
attended those meetings as silent observers. Bob Barnett, from the
American Foundation for the Blind, talked briefly with some of us
as he left the meeting but refused to see the seriousness of the
matter. Were all our efforts going down the drain? Was NAC
completely unfazed by our presence? I think not. They were, indeed,
aware of our presence; and they must have realized we are not about
to give up the fight. The National Federation of the Blind is going
to pursue this matter to the finish.

      Thursday afternoon, June 21, the Californians once again
boarded their  Freedom Bus  and braced themselves for the long trip
back to Los Angeles. Would there be a letdown on the return trip
after all the events of the past week? No indeed; there was not.
This hearty crew had just begun to fight. Earl Carlson was a mass
of bandaids covering the blisters on his feet that he received
while acting as messenger throughout the large complex of the
O'Hare Inn. Ed Crespin was another who covered the area, assisting
people and substituting for picketers needing a break.

      A feeling of happiness, success, and togetherness existed
throughout the group. Repeated choruses of  Glory, Glory,
Federation  could be heard sporadically during the trip. Although
the trip was long and tiring, it was relieved with jokes and
stories, courtesy of Al Gil and others, singing, and a general good
time until the final stop where we parted company.

                 NAC: CONFRONTATION IN NEW YORK

      The Federation's most historic event, aside from its
founding, occurred most appropriately on Dr. tenBroek's birthday,
Friday, July 6. At about mid-morning a foundation-shaking (American
Foundation for the Blind-shaking) rollcall took place. As the
President of the National Federation of the Blind called the names
of the states, the delegates arose and made their way to their
appointed places, secured state standards and picket signs, and
marched the half mile, two-by-two, and four-by-four, on  the
sidewalks of New York  with dignity, pride, and great decorum, to
fill busy Madison Avenue between 27th and 28th Streets, curb to
curb, chanting  Fifty thousand blind people/Can't be wrong,  and 
We can speak/For ourselves.  There, before the building which
houses NAC, the President of the National Federation of the Blind
presided over the hanging of NAC in effigy and its burial in a huge
wooden coffin (which had been carried in the line of march by some
of the Federation's finest and  heaviest ) with such pomp and
circumstance as the occasion deserved. President Jernigan addressed
the crowd and delivered the following eulogy:

      Eulogy for NAC

      They came, they said, to help the blind the poor, unfortunate
blind. They came, they said, to help the agencies the many agencies
who help the blind. They came, they said, to establish standards to
improve the services provided to the blind the poor, unfortunate
blind.

      Instead, they came and they hurt the blind. They came, and
they gave sanction to agencies which provide sub-standard services
to the blind. They came, but they came with repression, with bad
faith, and with attempts at political control of the blind.

      In the beginning there was the American Foundation for the
Blind. And the American Foundation begat COMSTAC. And COMSTAC begat
NAC. They came from the welfare establishment, and they came from
the dens of political power. They came, and they gave us NAC NAC,
which was conceived in sin and born of corruption.

      And when we, the blind, saw this NAC and learned of its ways,
we came saying,  NAC is not competent to speak for us at best, it
can speak with us. 

      But they would not listen. NAC would not listen. The American
Foundation for the Blind would not listen. When we said,  Let us
take part,  they closed their doors. When we said,  Let us speak
for ourselves,  they closed their ears.

      Finally we came marching marching to take part, marching to
be heard, marching to be free, marching to be treated like human
beings. And when we came marching, they closed their eyes. They
locked us out, and they turned us out, but we are here today
because they cannot turn us off. We have tried every channel of
communication to bring about reform of NAC. It is not that NAC
cannot hear us: They don't want to hear us.

      But they will hear us. They will know we are here today in
the largest gathering of blind people ever assembled in the history
of the world. And whenever and wherever NAC meets again, we will be
there.

      NAC is not alone in the harm it has done to the blind, for
some of the blame must be shared by officials of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, who have given NAC over $600,000 of
the taxpayers' money.

      We have come too far to forget the American Foundation for
the Blind and its role in creating NAC. We have come too far to
forget the role of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company and other
wealthy corporations in supporting NAC. We have come too far to
forget, for the hurt to blind people has been great.

      We have come today to confront NAC. We have come to confront
its secrecy and its refusal to talk with us. We have come seeking
redress of our grievances and the righting of our wrongs. If NAC
will not listen to us, then the Congress will listen; and the
public will listen. Our cause is just.

      We have come to assert our independence. Hear us, NAC. Hear
us clearly. We shall determine our own destinies and be free from
you and all that you represent. We have come here to put NAC aside.
We have come to put away that which has hurt us and replace it with
our own freedom.

      The communications media were there in force and in all their
forms. The ubiquitous Miss New, NAC's all-around  coverup girl, 
came as usual to dissuade the press, radio, and TV people from
listening to us with her familiar phrase  but it is all a
misunderstanding  on the part of the blind, of course. It would
seem that the blind don't appreciate NAC's efforts to run their
lives for them. There were many on-the-spot interviews with
President Jernigan and other Federationists.

      The ceremonies over, most of the marchers returned to the
convention. However, several hundred boarded waiting buses for the
ride uptown to the headquarters offices of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell,
and Company. The huge building on Park Avenue is set well back from
the street. It was noon hour, the weather was pleasant, and many
people were out on the building's large plaza.

      It was obvious that our group was expected. The first
Federationists off the bus were greeted by a well-groomed young man
who asked seemingly innocent questions spurred by curiosity as he
walked the picket line with the marchers. Groups of men in twos or
threes approached others with questions about the reason for the
picketing, who the marchers were, whom they represented, what the
Federation had against NAC, what had Dan Robinson done, and such
like. All were answered, politely and in full.

      While the pickets marched and chanted in front of the
building, a delegation of Federationists, led by Don Morris of Iowa
and Ralph Sanders of Arkansas, went up to the offices of Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell, and Company to see Mr. Robinson. Needless to
say, they were not received by NAC's new president, and his
emissary was anything but polite; in fact, he was rude and
threatening. But whether there was direct communication or not, NAC
got the message.

      This great effort to carry our case to NAC and the public
would not have been possible without the complete cooperation of
New York's public officials and especially its fine police force.
The convention expressed its feelings by unanimously adopting the
following Resolution:

      Resolution 73-15

      WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind conducted the
largest demonstration of blind people in the history of the world
to protest against the harmful actions of the National
Accreditation Council; and

      WHEREAS, this protest demonstration involved the movement of
upwards of two thousand demonstrators across midtown Manhattan with
attendant disruption of traffic; and

      WHEREAS, the complete assistance of the New York City Police
Department was rendered with utmost courtesy, efficiency, and
friendliness: Now therefore,

      BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in
convention assembled this 6th day of July, 1973, in the City of New
York, that this organization instruct its President to convey our
heartfelt gratitude and deep appreciation for the invaluable
services rendered by the Police Department of the City of New York;
and

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a special message of thanks be
given to Captain Wiener of the New York Police Department who
showed more devotion and understanding in two hours than NAC has
shown during its entire existence; and

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be
delivered to the Honorable John V. Lindsay, Mayor of the City of
New York.

                 WE DID NOT GIVE UP AND GO HOME
                       by Shirley Lebowitz

      The first time I ever carried a picket sign was in December,
1972, when the NAC board of directors held a meeting at the Prince
George Hotel in New York City. I joined a small but determined
group of Federationists to demonstrate for meaningful consumer
representation on the policy-making board of NAC. In spite of the
cold, strong, winter winds, we did not put down our picket signs,
give up and go home. We spoke then, but NAC did not listen.

      Six-and-a-half months later we organized another
demonstration. This time there was a longer line of marchers at the
O'Hare Inn in Des Plaines, Illinois, and in spite of the blazing
hot summer sun, we did not put down our picket signs, give up, and
go home. Because of the lack of pedestrian traffic at the O'Hare
Inn, we could not speak to the  man on the street  but we came to
be heard by NAC, and they did hear us, but once again, they did not
listen.

      Two weeks later on July 6, 1973, an army of Federationists
from every state affiliate joined us as we moved the barricades to
the doorstep of the NAC offices at 79 Madison Avenue, New York.
Once again, we were seen and heard, and, just as before, NAC did
not listen.  When will they ever learn? 

     During the seventies, and beyond, the organized blind kept up
a drumbeat of activity marches; confrontations; TV, radio, and
press interviews;  Monitor  articles; and more protesting the
policies and practices of NAC and its companion agencies. The
persistent campaign was not long in bearing fruit; by the end of
the decade NAC had not only lost credibility within the blindness
system, it had lost the government funding (provided by Health,
Education, and Welfare) and also had lost increasing numbers of
agencies no longer interested in its accreditation. Gradually but
steadily NAC saw its vaunted power reduced and its authority and
reputation put in question. Although it struggled on into the
eighties, clinging to its remnant of clients and cursing the name
of the organized blind, NAC ceased to be a major impediment in the
path of the movement and became instead a minor nuisance.

     Among the instrumental factors in the decline of NAC was an
authoritative critical analysis of the agency in the form of  An
Open Letter to Directors of Agencies Serving the Blind Concerning
N.A.C. and its Accrediting Practices  which was published in the 
Braille Monitor  in 1978 (August-September issue). This
comprehensive report, written in scholarly language and
painstakingly documented, reviewed the history of NAC with
reference particularly to certain key cases which had gained public
notoriety during the decade of the seventies (those of
NAC-supported sheltered shops in Cleveland and Minneapolis, plus a
state agency in Florida). The full text of the  Monitor  report
follows:

      AN OPEN LETTER TO DIRECTORS OF AGENCIES  SERVING THE BLIND
CONCERNING N. A. C.  AND ITS ACCREDITATION PRACTICES

      The purpose of this letter is to provide information about
the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind
and Visually Handicapped (NAC) information we hope will cause you
to consider seriously whether NAC accreditation is the way to
achieve or maintain high standards of service within your agency.
The information is presented to you by the National Federation of
the Blind, the nation's largest consumer organization of the blind,
themselves. Because the Federation has been the collective voice of
the blind for nearly 40 years, and because in that time we have
been associated with most of the advances in programs and civil
rights for the blind, we feel that we can speak about  quality
services  with some weight. Yet because we have been at odds with
the National Accreditation Council for more than ten years, and
because our efforts to reform NAC have led NAC's officers to
characterize the Federation, among other things, as the  negative
forces of misguided, counterproductive elements,  some agency
directors have come to regard the National Federation of the Blind
as just one side in a political struggle.

      Recognizing that this intense controversy has tended to call
into question the objectivity of both NAC and the National
Federation of the Blind, this letter will rely as little as
possible on judgments. It will concentrate on evidence from sources
outside of the Federation from court judgments, from federal
investigations, and from people in the field unconnected with the
National Federation of the Blind or NAC. This sort of evidence has
been piling up for a number of years. We believe there is no longer
a question about the worth and purpose of NAC accreditation.

      It will be necessary to provide a context for the information
we wish to present; and it will be necessary to make a number of
judgments in order to do so. These judgments particularly those
relating to events and trends now some ten or more years in the
past could be supported as amply as more recent events. We shall
not do so, since one of our purposes here is to state the case
briefly. The past, except as a general background, is unnecessary
to prove our case. Discount our judgments if you wish to; the
events of the last few years speak clearly, and they are verified
by evidence that cannot be discounted.

      Background

      It is generally accepted that the last fifty years have seen
a revolution in attitudes toward the blind. Before that  stretching
back through history there was an unquestioned belief that the
blind are helpless, suited only for custody in special institutions
or, at best, for work in a few handcraft trades (such as chair
caning and broom making) or the simple, repetitive tasks performed
in the traditional sheltered workshop.

      This view of blindness now is recognized by most people as
limiting and obsolete. With the development of alternative
techniques to overcome a lack of sight, the blind have emerged from
their age-old isolation and joined the mainstream of society. The
trend toward emphasizing ability rather than disability took some
getting used to, but gradually most of those in the field of work
with the blind embraced it. Certainly the blind welcomed a
philosophy that freed them from their rocking chairs and asylums.

      But as happens when any major change in attitudes occurs,
there was opposition to the new philosophy of blindness. This was
a remarkable thing: Why should those who had devoted their lives to
helping the blind resent the progress of the blind toward
independence and full participation? The answer is a very common
and human one. Some professionals were unable to see beyond their
financial and psychological investment in the status quo.

      Within the last five years, a questionnaire was distributed
to the administrators of sheltered workshops in the country. Near
the end appeared the question:  Do you find that your blind clients
are less grateful today for what you are doing for them than they
were ten years ago?  This is the psychological investment in a
nutshell. A few decades ago, an agency director put it a different
way when he said:  To dance and sing, to play and act, to swim,
bowl and rollerskate, to work creatively in clay, wood, aluminum or
tin, to make dresses, to join in group readings or discussions, to
have group entertainments and parties, to engage in many other
activities of one's own choosing this is to fill the life of anyone
with the things that make life worth living. 

      In answer to this, Jacobus tenBroek, founder of the National
Federation of the Blind, replied:  Are these the vital channels of
self-expression for you? Are these the indispensable ingredients
that make life worth living? Or are these only the minor and
peripheral touches that lend variety to a life well-filled with
more substantial things such as a job, a home, and the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship? 

      Some professionals understandably felt that the blind were
biting the hand that had fed them for centuries. The blind didn't
see it this way; they felt that an establishment had grown up that
fed on their dependency, that depended on their dependency.

      The financial investment of some professionals in the old
attitudes is even easier to understand. Work with the blind has
long been a place for wealthy philanthropists to direct their
contributions and their friends and cousins. Salaries for blindness
professionals are high, the emotional rewards are great, the public
acclaim for those who enter the field gratifying.

      A typical case is the traditional lighthouse or sheltered
workshop. Blind workers even today may be paid as little as 25
percent of the minimum wage. Shop managers, on the other hand, are
usually paid generous salaries and work with excellent security and
in comfortable conditions. Often a good deal of social recognition
goes along as an added benefit (if only in the social mixing with
the wealthy who support the lighthouses). But when the blind begin
to discuss extending minimum wage laws to the shops, or talk about
unions, or demand places on the shop board of directors, it is seen
by management (and rightly so) as a threat to their traditional
perquisites.

      This fear of change and resistance to new attitudes was
widespread in the 1940s, at the time of the founding of the
National Federation of the Blind. But it has largely died away as
professionals saw the stunning results of the new ideas. As the
blind gained access to education, to the common callings and
professions, it became obvious that work with the blind could be a
much more positive and truly rewarding endeavor than it had been in
the old days of custodialism.

      To some, though, this whole trend was a pill so bitter that
it could not be swallowed. The agency with the greatest investment
both financially and psychologically in the old system was the
venerable American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), a New York
agency that came close to dominating the field in the early part of
this century and which had amassed vast financial resources as a
result of its pre-eminence. It was involved in some of the early
advances in technology for the blind; it virtually owned Helen
Keller (it has used her name to raise millions and millions of
dollars); in Congress and literally around the world, the AFB was
regarded as the ultimate authority on blindness.

      As the Federation grew (concurrent with the change in public
attitudes toward the handicapped), the American Foundation's
domination of the field declined. But unlike most of the other
traditional agencies, the Foundation was unwilling to adapt itself
to the new situation. It resisted the notion that blind people
could speak for themselves; indeed, it labeled their insistence on
doing so a form of neurosis growing out of their blindness.
Gradually, professionals and agencies in the field who, for
whatever reason, found the new independence of the blind
inconvenient looked to the Foundation for support. The American
Foundation for the Blind became a bastion of the old style
custodialism.

      The Origins of NAC

      This division in the field and the Foundation's waning
prestige led to the establishment of the National Accreditation
Council.

      In the early 1960s, the AFB announced the formation of a
Commission on Standards and Accreditation for Services for the
Blind (COMSTAC). Later this became the National Accreditation
Council. The ostensible reason for COMSTAC and NAC was laudable
enough. As expressed in 1976 by Louis Rives, Jr., NAC's current
president, this was as follows:

      The standards and accreditation system of which NAC is the
voice came from within the field from the experience of blind
people, from government and other suppliers of services to blind
people, and from the public which supports agencies and schools for
the blind. All agreed there should be some objective way to
determine whether an agency or school is doing a good job. In 1967
they joined in creating NAC to provide this objective determination
through a voluntary system of accreditation.

      The broad consensus Mr. Rives refers to is a public relations
fantasy. The American Foundation for the Blind believed it already
represented such a consensus; NAC was an attempt to impose the
AFB's views on the rest of the field.

      There were no open forums to develop standards. Meetings were
held that were advertised as having this purpose; but those who
attended were handed standards that had been formulated beforehand.
Criticisms of this procedure and the standards themselves were
ignored. Indeed, those who were thought to be hostile to the AFB
were turned away at the door. (In 1973 the National Federation of
the Blind prepared three publications documenting the early history
of NAC. These are available to anyone who wishes to explore the
matter further.)

      The origins of NAC, the make-up of its board of directors,
and the trading of staff between NAC and the AFB make NAC's claim
to represent an objective consensus untenable. Even without all
this, NAC's financial history removes all doubt in the matter. In
1968, according to NAC documents, $70,000 out of a projected budget
of $154,034 was to come from the AFB; most of the rest came from a
$75,000 grant by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. In succeeding years, particularly after HEW cut off its
funding, the AFB increased its contributions to make up for other
losses of income. In fiscal 1977 (according to the NAC Annual
Report), out of a total income of $301,962, the AFB provided
$188,000.

      Nor has the Foundation's support been limited to direct
grants. When a small band of National Federation of the Blind
members broke away in the early 1960s to form the American Council
of the Blind (ACB), the Foundation courted the group, spurring it
to attack anyone who questioned the value of NAC accreditation.
More recently the Foundation began making direct grants to the ACB.
Immediately after these grants began, the ACB's magazine, the 
Braille Forum , began printing NAC-originated attacks on the
National Federation of the Blind. ACB staff members have been put
on the boards of NAC and the Foundation.

      During the early years of NAC, despite Mr. Rives's statement
about  voluntary  accreditation, the blind witnessed a variety of
attempts by the AFB to pass legislation or guidelines at both the
state and federal level to condition government funding on NAC
accreditation.

      Concerning the NAC standards themselves, at first all that
could be said was that they placed an overwhelming emphasis on
ensuring that agency staff would enjoy job security and their
traditional privileges. The standards were also concerned with the
details of the agency's bureaucratic structure. The agency's effect
on its blind clients on whether they were being prepared for
independent participation in society was a secondary, and
apparently irrelevant, consideration.

      Irrelevant as the NAC standards were to the real concerns of
blind people, it soon became clear that they were irrelevant for
another reason. It became clear that NAC accreditation did not
depend on an agency's adhering to the standards. Our reasons for
concluding this are discussed later; but there is no reason to
doubt that it is so: NAC officials concede the point.

      At the NAC annual meeting held in November, 1977, in Phoenix,
an observer asked about the discrepancy between the practices of
accredited agencies and the language of the standards. Wesley
Sprague, chairman of NAC's Commission on Standards, replied that 
every agency has when they're reaccredited or accredited has to
abide by the standards of the various sections as pertain to them. 
But then Richard Bleecker, NAC's executive director, interrupted to
explain:

      Excuse me, as I may add a postscript to the answer. I want to
be complete in responding to Mr. Parker. And I would love nothing
more than to concede the correctness. However, I must point out
that not every accredited agency is able to meet every standard.
And meeting every standard is not a precondition to accreditation.
In fact, no accredited agency as yet meets every standard.
Accreditation and standards are a direction, and it's a process of
improvement. To be accredited, the agency must either meet the
standards or have an awareness and commitment to attempt to meet
them.

      To which we would simply add that if the  precondition  to
accreditation is only a  commitment to attempt to meet  the
standards, accreditation becomes meaningless.

      The Decline of NAC

      What must an agency do, then, to gain NAC accreditation? It
must give public support to the American Foundation for the Blind
and NAC, or some of the agency's directors must also be members of
the AFB or NAC boards. To understand why NAC would adopt such a
practice (and we believe the fact that it has will not be in
question by the end of this letter), we must look at the setbacks
NAC has received in the last few years.

      At first NAC accomplished a respectable number of
accreditations each year. In 1970 (the year NAC had its highest net
gain), 16 agencies were added to its list. At that time NAC had
high hopes of continuing this rate of growth. According to a 1974
report on NAC by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO):  During
the SRS team visit in March, 1973, NAC told the team its fiscal
year 1978 projected budget was $379,000 and an estimated total of
200 or about 50% of the approximately 400 organizations serving the
blind and visually handicapped would by then be accredited. 

      Yet even when this statement was made, professional and
agency support for NAC was dropping away. In fiscal 1975 the net
gain was four agencies; in fiscal 1976 it was five; and in fiscal
1977 it was only three. Thus by the end of 1977, instead of nearing
its projection of 200, NAC had only 67 accredited agencies. (We use
the term  net gains  because during this period several agencies
made the decision not to renew their accreditation when it
expired.)

      Another setback occurred in 1973 when an ad hoc committee of
the American Library Association's Round Table on Library Services
to the Blind stated:  It is the consensus of the committee members
that the NAC standards as they pertain to library service for the
blind are no longer relevant.  Following this, NAC withdrew its
library standards and no longer accredits libraries.

      A major setback was the loss of HEW funding, which in the
early 1970s accounted for roughly half of NAC's budget. The GAO
report discusses the termination of the grant that provided this
funding:  The Director, Division of Project Grants Administration,
SRS, told us that the NAC grant was recommended for phase-out in
1975 by the Division of Project Grants Administration because of:

       - NAC's poor performance record;

       - Low acceptance of NAC accreditation by blind agencies.

       - A low cost-benefit ratio. *

      (*This GAO report, made in response to a request from
Congressman John Brademas and published in September 1974, has been
talked about widely by NAC and represented as clearing NAC of all
the criticisms brought against it. As will be clear from the few
portions already quoted, the report simply recounts what GAO
investigators were told by the people they talked to. The GAO found
no financial malfeasance which is all that an  accounting office 
can determine but then no financial wrongdoing had been alleged.
The problems with NAC have nothing to do with accounting.)

      Two other occurrences from this period (1973-1975) are also
represented by NAC officials as absolving it from criticism. One is
an HEW study done in 1973, the other is a statement inserted in the 
Congressional Record  by Congressman Brademas. The HEW study was
made by a panel heavily weighted toward NAC. One of the panel
members was Louis Rives (now president of NAC and even then a
strong partisan of the agency). Another member was Arthur Korn, who
had been involved in the organization of COMSTAC, NAC's
predecessor.

      The circumstances surrounding the Brademas statement speak to
NAC's credibility. Speaking in July, 1975, NAC executive director
Richard Bleecker said:  You may remember Congressman Brademas as
the one who called on the U.S. General Accounting Office, the
official investigative arm of the Congress, to make a thorough
study of these charges and accusations [against NAC], a study
which, as you know, did not sustain them. Since then, Mr. Brademas
has been looking with great care at this whole thing to see what
the fuss is all about. And, I am pleased to report, he has recently
inserted a statement in the  Congressional Record  that
uncompromisingly recognizes NAC as a responsible and effective
standards-setting, accrediting body. 

      However, when the Federation contacted Mr. Brademas's office,
we learned that the statement in question had been prepared by NAC
and that Mr. Brademas inserted it in the  Record  as a courtesy
gesture. As Mr. Brademas himself later wrote:  I am troubled to
learn that my insertion of a report of NAC's programs has been
construed as singling out for recognition of NAC's accreditation
process. Rather, I intended my statement and the report of NAC's
work to be included in the  Congressional Record  as information
for those interested in standards for agencies that serve visually
handicapped people. 

      Finally, NAC relies heavily on the fact that the U.S. Office
of Education has NAC on a list of  Nationally Recognized
Accrediting Agencies and Associations,  a list which includes
accrediting bodies for everything from embalming to landscaping.
Yet in the summer of 1976, when NAC applied for a grant from the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped the section of the Office
of Education with expertise in blindness the proposal was rejected.
All of these instances show what is generally recognized in any
event that approval or disapproval by the government is a political
process and that most government reports have in them something for
everyone.

      NAC-Accredited Agencies

      We now turn to an examination of a few of the agencies
determined by NAC to be providing quality services to the blind.
Our general thesis is that the test of an accrediting system is not
its public statements but the programs it approves. In choosing
examples we have focused on agencies whose problems go beyond
differences of philosophy.

      In 1972, the blind of Florida received services from the
NAC-accredited Bureau of Blind Services (this has now been
reorganized into the Office of Services for the Blind). It was the
state licensing agency for the federal Randolph-Sheppard program
(under which blind persons have a priority to operate vending
facilities on federal property). As the state licensing agency, the
Bureau had responsibility for managing the support services for the
vending facilities, a number of which were located at Cape
Canaveral.

      A state licensing agency may take (or  set aside ) a portion
of vendors' earnings for certain purposes that are narrowly defined
in federal law. These include (1) maintenance and replacement of
equipment; (2) purchase of new equipment; (3) management services
(in other words, the payment of the salaries of stand supervisors);
and (4) assuring a fair minimum return to other operators. The law
makes it clear there may be no exceptions to these categories, and
it says that the  set-aside  must be  reasonable.  In Florida, the
Bureau determined that it was reasonable to take 6-1/2 percent of
the vendors' gross profits. If a vendor were making a net profit of
about 20 percent, this set-aside would amount to one-third of his
income.

      But in 1972, it emerged that the Bureau of Blind Services was
withholding another five percent of gross profits from the vending
operations at Cape Canaveral (or about another twenty percent of
net profits) and transmitting this money to the recreation fund of
the Cape's sighted space workers. When the local newspapers
publicized this illegal additional set-aside, the Bureau stopped
withholding it. This, however, was just the beginning. The stand
supervisor then went to the vendors with a consent form authorizing
the Bureau to withhold two percent of gross profits. When one of
the vendors refused to sign this, he was told he would lose his
vending stand. The vendor, James Parkman, went to court.

      At this point the Bureau changed its mind. The suit was
dropped after the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services (of which the Bureau was a part) issued the
following directive:

      (A) There shall be no approach of any kind whatsoever to any
blind person working in the vending stand program by any employee
or agent of the Bureau of Blind Services, including any blind
person working in the vending stand program, regarding
contributions to the NASA Exchange Council or to any other
organization, group, or fund of any kind except for standard
practices such as asking state employees if they would consider
contributing to the United Fund or participating in group
insurance.

      (B) There shall be no action taken by the Bureau of Blind
Services, its agents, or employees, including blind persons working
in the vending stand program, adverse to the interest of any blind
person working in the vending stand program because of his refusal
to contribute to any organization, group, or fund, including, but
not limited to, the NASA Exchange Council, United Fund, group
insurance, nor shall any such refusal be considered in any manner
by Bureau of Blind Services with regard to any action adverse to
the interests of any blind person working in the vending stand
program, including, but not limited to, transfer and termination.

      The practice that this directive ended indicated an
insensitivity to the rights of the blind vendors. It also, of
course, worked a severe financial hardship on them. The blind of
Florida considered that it was not an example of  quality service. 
Whether it was or not, it undoubtedly was a violation of federal
law. Throughout this time, the Bureau of Blind Services was
accredited by NAC. Despite the Bureau's violation of the law and
its coercion of the blind vendors to stifle their complaints, the
agency was judged by NAC to be maintaining a high standard of
service.

      The case of the NAC-accredited Cleveland Society for the
Blind is similar to the one discussed, but it goes much further.

      In the early l970s, the Cleveland Society was the so-called 
nominee agency  for the Randolph-Sheppard program in Ohio (that is,
the state licensing agency contracted with the Society to manage
the vending program). Each year the Cleveland Society received a
part of its operating budget from the United Torch Services.

      The problems with the Society's management of the vending
program began to come to light in the fall of 1972, when Cleo
Dolan, executive director of the Society, sent a memorandum to the
vendors stating that  we are anticipating and expecting the [snack
bar] managers to participate in the United Torch Service campaign
at the same degree as our regular staff persons. We have
tentatively agreed among all of us who are so vitally involved in
the United Torch Services campaign this year, that any gifts less
than one- half of one percent of the total earnings of a worker
would not be an acceptable pledge.  Once again, we point out that
this 1/2 percent was of gross earnings, or several times that in
net earnings.

      When the vendors protested the peremptory tone of Mr. Dolan's
memo, he wrote back, saying:  We are concerned that we have
undoubtedly not provided sufficient strong administrative
guidelines and have attempted to involve those who are employed to
a greater degree, which apparently has weakened our program. 

      Mr. Dolan concluded by stating:  Again, I personally doubt
that you failed to get the message that we were attempting to
communicate, and I think your interpretation was correct. Namely,
we do feel strongly about the support of the United Torch Services
and we doubt that further elaboration on the reasons should be
necessary to this particular group. 

      Earlier we discussed the amounts that may be  set aside  by
an agency administering the Randolph-Sheppard program. Shortly
after these memos from Mr. Dolan, the Cleveland Society began
deducting an additional set-aside which it called a  service
charge.  At this point the vendors hired a lawyer and began looking
into the Society's management practices. The result was a lawsuit
claiming that the Society had, over the years, withheld funds in
excess of $l million  for purposes other than those permitted by
the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act. 

      This was not the only irregularity found in the Society's
management of the vending program. In order to operate a vending
facility, a blind person had to sign a contract granting the
Society the right to summarily terminate his or her job if the
Society decided the vendor had violated any of the contract's
terms. These terms covered such matters as diet, dress, bathing
habits, use of body deodorants, changes of underwear, and nightly
sleep most of them in such discretionary terms that the vendors
were at the complete mercy of Mr. Dolan. Nothing in the
Randolph-Sheppard Act gave the Society the authority to require
such a contract, and this too was made part of the vendors'
lawsuit.

      The federal court has yet to rule on the issues in this suit
(there have been delays involving jurisdictional matters), but the
evidence caused the State of Ohio to terminate its contract with
the Society to manage vending stands on state or federal property.

      The National Accreditation Council, however, took no action
at all. Despite the evidence of illegal conduct and, far worse,
gross insensitivity to the human dignity of the blind vendors, NAC
continued to regard the Cleveland Society for the Blind as an
example of  quality service.  It is no coincidence that at that
time Cleo Dolan was a member of the board of trustees of the
American Foundation for the Blind.

      A more blatant example than either of these is the
Minneapolis Society for the Blind. As part of its program the
Minneapolis Society operates a sheltered workshop for the blind.
The Fair Labor Standards Act allows such workshops to pay a blind
employee less than the statutory minimum wage if it is shown by a
work evaluation that he or she produces less than a sighted worker
laboring in the same conditions.

      In 1974, a blind man (Lawrence Kettner) was put through such
a work evaluation by the Minneapolis Society. The Society did not
know that Mr. Kettner had already been hired by a private company
at a rate above the minimum wage and was only seeking temporary
employment in the Society's workshop until his other job began.

      Mr. Kettner was evaluated over a period of 14 days; but time
studies were made only on the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth days
of the period. His duties were changed thus it was difficult for
him to develop proficiency in any one task. The equipment available
to him had breakdowns although he was being measured against
sighted workers using functioning equipment. Finally, there were
delays in receiving supplies yet this was not taken into account by
the evaluators. Still, Mr. Kettner's productivity increased
markedly between the time studies (from 42% of normal productivity
to 79%), stressing the gross unfairness of placing the time studies
near the beginning of the evaluation period.

      Mr. Kettner was then asked by the Society to sign a
minimum-wage waiver indicating that he was capable of only 75%
normal productivity. When he resisted, he was told he would sign or
receive no pay for the work he had done in the workshop. Needing
the money (and with another job already arranged), Mr. Kettner gave
in.

      This incident was investigated by the U.S. Department of
Labor, which issued a finding that the Society had violated the
regulations promulgated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

      Once more, here is a violation of the law that is not simply
a matter of technical detail. The violation was committed in order
to benefit the agency's administration at the cost of tangible
damage to blind clients. The matter was brought to NAC; but the
Minneapolis Society for the Blind remained an accredited agency.

      This was just the beginning. During this same period, the
Minneapolis Society decided to build an addition to its workshop.
The contract for mechanical work was awarded to a firm owned by the
man who was both president of the Society and chairman of the
building committee. Although this was widely reported in the
Minnesota press, once again NAC took no action to suspend the
Society's accreditation.

      Reacting to such abuses as the Kettner case, a number of
blind persons in Minneapolis decided to seek a voice in the
Society's operation. The board of the Minneapolis Society was
elected at an annual meeting by the members of the Society. The
Society raised funds through mail solicitations, and anyone who
donated a dollar or more automatically became a member. So these
blind Minnesotans joined the Society.

      The Society reacted by expelling all of the members, limiting
membership (and thus the privilege of electing the board) to the
board members themselves. This action was beyond the board's
authority under the articles of incorporation. Not to be stopped by
this, the board now came forth with an amendment to the articles
which it said had been passed in 1966. This amendment granted the
board the power to make further amendments. To be valid, such
amendments must be filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota.
The Society board claimed that although their amendment had been
passed in 1966, it was not filed with the state until 1972 due to
a  clerical oversight. 

      When the blind persons who had been expelled began discussing
a lawsuit, the board members realized they had been too hasty. The
board reinstated the membership (although no new members were
allowed to join). They also enrolled (without being requested to do
so and without collecting any fees) all the members of several
large community organizations (the Kiwanis Club, the Council for
Jewish Women, etc.). They then called one last membership meeting
to gain approval of their expulsion of the membership. The blind
who wanted to join were not even permitted to attend as observers.
They went to court instead.

      The court, ruling in July, 1977, declared all of the
Society's actions to be violations of state law and rescinded them.
The judge stated:

      The only reason, therefore, to terminate membership on April
19, 1972, was to eliminate the criticism of the Society by the
plaintiff members and to preclude them from increasing their voice
in the membership. Membership termination was a subterfuge for
expulsion of the plaintiffs without having to comply with
reasonable procedures for expulsion.

      The judge went further:  At a time when the evidence clearly
reflects the need for active and concerned board leadership, the
Society blatantly rejected the services of those who had the
greatest knowledge of the feelings of the blind and who had
progressed the furthest in overcoming the harsh realities of their
handicap. In so doing, the defendant violated Minnesota [state
law]. 

      This matter also was brought to NAC's attention. NAC took no
action of any kind. It is no coincidence that a member of the
Minneapolis Society's board Raymond Kempf is also a member of the
NAC Board.

      Consumer Participation

      These examples the Florida Bureau of Blind Services, the
Cleveland Society for the Blind, and the Minneapolis Society for
the Blind speak to the standard of administrative regularity to be
expected in a NAC-accredited agency. NAC also asserts that its
accredited agencies must have a high degree of consumer
participation. (At the 1977 NAC annual meeting, board member Reese
Robrahn stated that NAC is unique in the field of accreditation due
to this insistence on consumer participation.) Considering that the
Minneapolis Society was willing to violate state laws according to
the judge for the sole purpose of excluding consumer participation,
some may wonder how NAC defines the concept.

      The NAC concept of consumerism is seen more clearly in the
events that occurred at the NAC-accredited Chicago Lighthouse for
the Blind. The Chicago Lighthouse manages a large sheltered
workshop operation. In 1976, its shops were the subject of a
landmark ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Previously, such shops were excluded from the protections of the
National Labor Relations Act on the theory that they were
rehabilitation programs rather than business operations. In 1976
the NLRB reversed this position (on the simple evidence of the
large profits of such  rehabilitation  programs) and ordered a
union election at the Lighthouse.

      The National Federation of the Blind, reacting to the abuses
of the blind workers, had been involved in this NLRB decision. (As
an example of the sort of thing we objected to, the Lighthouse
created two categories of workers. Sighted workers who were called 
workers  received the minimum wage and generous fringe benefits.
Blind workers who were called  clients  received, in general, less
than the minimum wage and no fringe benefits. In many cases there
was no difference between the duties of  workers  and  clients. )

      Although about 85 percent of the shop-workers had signed
union pledges before the NLRB ruling, when the election was held
the workers voted against a union 68-50. This change of sentiment,
it seemed clear to us, was due to the campaign of intimidation
carried out by the Lighthouse management. Even before the election
was held, the principal union organizer was fired. The management
worked to convince the blind workers that a union would mean the
end of their jobs and the closing of the shop. (A charge of unfair
labor practices brought by several of the workers was not accepted
by the NLRB, but it is indisputable that today all of the blind
persons who labored to organize a union have been fired or laid
off, as have many of those who voted for a union.)

      The Federation considers this series of events an indication
that the Chicago Lighthouse did not maintain a high standard of
service to the blind; but it is brought up here for other reasons:
It was one of the first times it became clear that NAC was actively
involving itself in the internal affairs of an agency of which it
was also purporting to be an objective judge. At the 1976 annual
meeting of NAC, Fred McDonald, the executive director of the
Lighthouse, made the following statement:

      I want to publicly thank Dick [Richard Bleecker, executive
director of NAC] and NAC for what they did to help me in Chicago at
a very, very troubled time. As you know, I took over there as the
new director of the Chicago Lighthouse just a year ago the first of
December; and at that time we were under considerable fire from the
National Federation of the Blind and, on top of that, from a labor
union.

      Whether or not you feel that blind shopworkers deserve the
legal protections that are extended to sighted workers, it is
surely unheard of for an accrediting agency to become directly
involved in the affairs of an agency it accredits. Such a practice
destroys even the semblance of the objectivity that must be the
dominant characteristic of accreditation.

      Returning to the question of consumer participation, it
appears to have been at the instigation of Richard Bleecker that
the management of the Lighthouse decided to organize its own 
consumer organization  made up of blind Lighthouse staff members.
The inference is not farfetched. At the 1976 NAC annual meeting,
Fred McDonald referred to a demonstration planned by the Federation
to protest the firing of the union organizers. He said:

      Our friends downstairs, when they arrive in Chicago on
Friday, are going to have a greeting committee of about another 100
blind people that are going to be carrying placards that say  We
speak for ourselves; National Federation of the Blind does not
speak for the blind of this country.  And again, the base of this
support has come right from Dick's meeting with our board in
Chicago; and this was very, very important help. 

      This  consumer group  was formed by the Lighthouse and named,
ironically, the  Independent Blind of Illinois.  Its president,
Dennis Schreiber, is a Lighthouse staff member. Since then Dennis
Schreiber has been active. To give an example of his activities, a
blind federal employee delivered a speech in California. This blind
man began by stating that his views were his own, and that he was
not speaking for the government. Some days later, the head of the
agency employing this man received a letter from Dennis Schreiber,
writing as president of the Independent Blind although the letter
was on the stationery of the Chicago Lighthouse, and suggesting
that the agency take action against its employee. The revealing
point was that in his speech this blind man had criticized not the
Chicago Lighthouse, but the American Foundation for the Blind.

      At NAC's 1977 annual meeting, Dennis Schreiber carried this
further, suggesting:

      I am asking you to send telegrams to Governor Robert Ray of
Iowa and Acting Governor Blair Lee [of Maryland], State Capitol,
protesting the harassment, attempts at intimidation, and an attempt
at the complete destruction of the National Accreditation Council.
If we can get 100 telegrams on the respective desks of these
Governors from all over the country, we will make these Governors
wonder what is Kenneth Jernigan and Ralph Sanders trying to do.

      At the time Ralph Sanders was President of the National
Federation of the Blind and an official in Maryland's programs for
the blind. Kenneth Jernigan was the immediate past President of the
Federation and an Iowa state official.

      Perhaps the officers of NAC and the Lighthouse would explain
this example of  quality service  by saying that because the
National Federation of the Blind has made strong efforts to reform
the National Accreditation Council, National Federation of the
Blind officers both present and past deserve to lose their personal
livelihoods. Even if one were to accept such a justification, it
seems obvious that NAC has put itself in a position where it is
impossible to judge the Lighthouse's program objectively. How could
NAC officials take an objective view of activity they themselves
had instigated?

      Activities Other Than Accreditation

      There might be some justification for interference that
sought to upgrade the programs of an accredited agency. This was
not the case in Chicago. In that instance, and in enough others to
form a consistent pattern, NAC began to take retaliatory action
against those who were less than whole-hearted in their
partisanship. At its last two annual meetings, NAC officials have
railed against those they regard as  counter-productive elements, 
and they announced plans for  dealing decisively with these hostile
elements. 

      This retaliatory activity became the province of a group
called the  National Committee for the Advancement of Standards  or
NCAS. At the 1977 annual meeting the NAC board elevated the NCAS to
the same level as its Commission on Standards and Commission on
Accreditation and projected that this new area of activity would be
increasing.

      Even before the NCAS was formally organized, NAC had been
moving in this strange new direction. One of the better documented
examples concerns the National Council of State Agencies for the
Blind (NCSAB), an organization of directors of state agencies
serving the blind.

      During 1975, the members of the NCSAB began questioning the
organization's official position as a supporter of NAC. Finally the
organization voted to withdraw that support pending meaningful
reform of NAC.

      The next chapter occurred in February, 1976, at a meeting of
the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
(CSAVR). A small group of directors of NAC-accredited agencies
convened an unauthorized meeting of the NCSAB. Present at the
meeting were NAC president Louis Rives and NAC executive director
Richard Bleecker. The group voted to declare that this was an
official NCSAB meeting. They further voted to declare the office of
NCSAB president-elect vacant, and they then chose one of their
number (James Carballo) to fill the  vacancy. 

      Nor did they stop at this. With Richard Bleecker suggesting
ways to do it, the group began changing the NCSAB by-laws. At Louis
Rives's suggestion, they also voted to resume NCSAB support of NAC.
As Robert Pogorelc, the actual president of the NCSAB, later wrote: 
If the NAC executive director is responsible for involvement in the
`politics' of private and/or public organizations in the field, in
order to further the cause of NAC, I believe that this fact should
be published. 

      In a later letter, to NAC president Rives, Mr. Pogorelc was
more definite:

      It is ridiculous for anyone to pretend that NAC has conducted
itself in such a manner as to serve as a high model for accuracy,
fairness, decency, openness, and propriety. The fact of the matter
is that NAC has, in its relations with the NCSAB, frequently
conducted itself in a manner such as to present, at least in my
mind, very serious questions as to appropriateness, propriety, and
ethics. Perhaps some may wish to deny that NAC has frequently,
through covert tactics in which representatives of state agencies
have been provided inaccurate and misleading information outside of
the spotlight of a public meeting, injected itself into the
internal affairs of the NCSAB. I very seriously doubt, though, that
those denials would have very much credence with state agency
representatives who have witnessed or been exposed to the process.

      After this meeting, James Carballo1 began taking action as 
president-elect ; he called yet another unauthorized meeting of the
NCSAB. The actual NCSAB sought a judicial restraining order. A
Mississippi court (Mr. Carballo lives in Mississippi) granted the
order, enjoining  James Carballo from holding himself out as the
president-elect or president of the [NCSAB] and further, from
representing to members of the National Council of State Agencies
for the Blind and other interested persons that the unauthorized
alleged annual meeting of the NCSAB scheduled for September 20,
1976, in Hollywood, Florida, is a valid meeting under the bylaws of
the NCSAB. 

      This court order did not deter NAC for long. The next legally
constituted NCSAB meeting was scheduled to be an election. The
NAC-AFB group let it be known (and this was later publicly admitted
at the meeting) that travel expenses were available to NCSAB
members who supported NAC. As a result, many who had previously
taken no active part in the organization turned up for the
election, which understandably produced some officers favorable to
NAC. The efforts by NAC to dominate the NCSAB have continued
unchecked.

      The pattern was continued when NAC began to organize attacks
against agencies whose only offense was not to seek its
accreditation. This came to light when the Youngstown (Ohio)
Society for the Blind decided to seek accreditation from the
Council on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) rather
than NAC. Immediately the Youngstown Society found itself under
attack.

      The Federation first became aware of this when our
Washington, D.C., affiliate met with Charles Fegan, the director of
the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind. The Columbia Lighthouse at
this time was considering whether to renew its NAC accreditation.
Mr. Fegan was explaining to a public meeting that he did not regard
himself a partisan of NAC. To illustrate this, he said he had not
complied with a request that he write to the director of the
Youngstown Society, opposing its decision about NAC. When he was
asked who suggested that he write such a letter, Mr. Fegan
demurred, perhaps realizing that he had already said too much,
considering the consequences that had been visited on others who
publicly criticized NAC. In the circumstances, no answer was
necessary.

      It is important to remember that at this very time the
Columbia Lighthouse was weighing the merits of re-accreditation.
The request from NAC had the double purpose of harassing the
Youngstown Society and reminding the Lighthouse of what would
attend a decision not to renew its accreditation.

      A month earlier, in March, 1977, Cleo Dolan, executive
director of the Cleveland Society for the Blind, wrote a memorandum
to one of his subordinates, which read in part:

      As you know, we have long understood that the Youngstown
Society for the Blind was planning to be accredited by CARF rather
than by NAC because of the pressure from the National Federation of
the Blind group. This is in spite of the fact that CARF has never
accredited an agency for the blind, nor do they have standards for
such areas as mobility and home teaching services. It is further
our understanding that the Youngstown Society is proceeding with
the approach that CARF standards, as they must be accredited by
July to comply with the RSC policies. [sic]

      In light of the above, it is our belief that we should start 
winding down  our relationship with the Youngstown Society for the
Blind. It is recognized that we have funneled the Radio Reading
Program state support through the CSB [the Cleveland Society for
the Blind] and had planned on several other cooperative working
arrangements pertaining to the Radio Reading Service including
sharing a WATS line. However, if they are anticipating  deserting 
the field of work with the blind, then it is our belief we should
react the way National Federation of the Blind has advised their
membership and are causing Youngstown to react accordingly. In
other words, if they choose to be accredited under CARF standards,
then we will request that no further cooperation or assistance be
afforded the Youngstown Society for the Blind from any of the staff
of the Cleveland Society for the Blind. We will want to sever all
communication and relationship in the same manner in which it has
been recommended that they react with accredited agencies, since
they are willing to follow the dictates and policies of National
Federation of the Blind.

      For these reasons we would like to have you clean up all the
outstanding obligations they have in relation to the Radio Reading
Service so that all bills can be paid and we can make a clean break
in our relations at the time their final decision is made with
reference to accreditation.

      Federation members in Youngstown encouraged the Youngstown
Society's decision. Needless to say, they had no tool of coercion
to equal Mr. Dolan's, nor would they have used it if they had. Mr.
Dolan equates failing to seek NAC accreditation with  deserting the
field of work with the blind.  For him it is reason enough to
attempt to cripple the radio reading service for blind persons in
that part of the state served by the Youngstown Society.

      There are many lesser examples of what NAC calls the 
advancement of standards.  When the State of California rescinded
a decision to require NAC accreditation of blind agencies doing
business with the state, partly on the advice of a consumer
advisory board, NAC went over the heads of state rehabilitation
officials to complain to Governor Jerry Brown. Writing to the
Governor's assistant, Richard Bleecker stated:  I am interested in
learning more about the advisory committee's function, composition,
representativeness, and decision-making process. Would you be so
kind as to provide me with a statement of the committee's purpose,
the names of the three organizations that are represented, as well
as a copy of the minutes or other record which contains the
substance of the committee's discussion of the accreditation issue.

      When the board of the Illinois Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation (DVR) met to consider a decision by the DVR director
to require NAC accreditation of blind agencies contracting with the
state, NAC brought to the meeting Fred McDonald, executive director
of the Chicago Lighthouse. Mr. McDonald acted as spokesman for the 
Independent Blind of Illinois.  He produced a letter supporting NAC
that had 64 names on it. When the letter was examined, however, it
emerged that the names were not signed but typed. (Since many of
the names were of people in Mr. McDonald's employ, even their
signatures would have indicated little about the  independence  of
their views.)

      At this meeting, in response to questions from the DVR board,
it was brought out that NAC had never revoked the accreditation of
an agency on its list. This appeared to carry great weight with the
DVR board, which later voted to rescind the requirement that
agencies contracting with the state seek NAC accreditation. NAC was
shown to be an accreditation system without teeth, more interested
in bolstering its prestige with numbers than enforcing high
standards of service.

      Shortly after the DVR meeting, NAC revoked the accreditation
of one of its agencies. In the circumstances, who would believe
that the decision was made on its objective merits. NAC decided it
must have an answer the next time such a question was raised.

      Conclusion

      We began this open letter with the premise that the National
Accreditation Council was formed by the American Foundation for the
Blind in order to perpetuate its tradition of benevolent
custodialism, and further, that this was not a positive
development. It is a difficult premise to prove because its
validity depends on another premise that the blind are capable of
independence and normal lives.

      But over the years the problems with NAC have changed in
nature as well as in dimension. This happened because the theory of
work with the blind espoused by NAC has lost ground with the field
as with the public it is far more outmoded now than ten years ago.
NAC has had to change its thrust simply to remain in existence. It
has become the focus for the defensive activities of a very small
group of agencies. They are agencies whose directors or programs
have been shown by court decisions, or independent studies, or
client experience, or federal audits to be substandard. They are
agencies whose boards, in general, are interlocking with those of
NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind (this has become more
the case over the years).

      We support as must all people of sense the desire of a school
or agency to be approved by a reputable accrediting body. But those
responsible for making this decision should examine what they are
purchasing. NAC accreditation is expensive: it is a commitment of
either public tax money or funds contributed by a charitable
public. The only valid justification for devoting funds to
accreditation is that such accreditation ensures the maintenance of
high program standards. With relation to NAC, such a contention
becomes absurd in light of NAC's approval of the actions of the
Florida agency, the Cleveland Society, the Minneapolis Society, and
the Chicago Lighthouse, and its own actions regarding the NCSAB,
the Columbia Lighthouse, the Youngstown Society, and the California
Department of Rehabilitation.

      A majority of agencies and consumers has concluded that NAC
accreditation does not ensure high standards of service. It lends
an agency no respectability or credibility whatever.

FOOTNOTE

1. James Carballo is the director of Mississippi's Vocational
Rehabilitation for the Blind, an agency accredited by NAC. An audit
of the agency completed by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare in late 1977 provides a clear example of what NAC considers 
quality service.  According to the  Jackson Capitol Reporter  of
December 1, 1977: 

      The audit, a copy of which was secured by the  Capitol
Reporter , reveals that out of 138 blind rehabilitation clients
randomly selected by the HEW auditors, only one had finally been
placed in a job in the competitive market. Even then, the audit
showed, the one blind person had to take a job as a clerk, whereas
she was trained to be a special education teacher.

      Out of 526 blind persons the state agency had shown as
rehabilitated in fiscal 1976, the audit shows, almost 85 percent
were making less than $2.50 an hour and most were making less than
the minimum wage.

      The state agency, according to the audit, violated federal
regulations by using Social Security trust funds, Supplemental
Security Income funds, income derived in part from use of federal
funds, income from vending stands operated by the blind, and 
contributions  from vendors paid in part with federal funds to
match federal funds.

      Mr. Carballo's part in the NCSAB affair and the results of
this HEW audit taken together are a clear paradigm of NAC
accreditations: NAC provides its seal of approval to a substandard
rehabilitation program; In return the agency publicly supports NAC
(or, as in this case, goes a good deal further).

     By the mid-1980s it was clear that NAC was disintegrating. As
major state programs for the blind dissociated themselves from the
organization and rejected its accreditation, NAC moved to recruit
smaller and less well-known groups to bolster its numbers. Articles
appearing in the  Braille Monitor  in 1986 and 1987 graphically
illustrate what was happening. Excerpts and representative
headlines follow:

      NAC Bites the Dust in Kansas   Braille Monitor , March, 1986

      Actually it happened on the last day of 1985, but on January
10, 1986, it became official: Kansas State Services for the Blind
renounced NAC's accreditation. 

      Division of Services for the Blind  Supervisor's Meeting
Minutes  January 17, 1986

       Present :   Suzannah Erhart   Jayne Frost   Caroline Lauer 
 Richard Schutz   Robert Sheldon

      NAC has been notified that DSB [Division of Services for the
Blind] plans to discontinue NAC accreditation. CARF [Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities] accreditation for the
rehabilitation center and Kansas Industries for the Blind should be
pursued. Richard Schutz will order the necessary CARF materials.

      Michigan School for the Blind De-NACs   Braille Monitor, 
March, 1986

      In a brief news release issued in early February the Michigan
Department of Education announced that the Michigan School for the
Blind (MSB) would not seek re-accreditation by the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC). The announcement declared that the residential
facility could better serve its students by undertaking its own
self-study, using an in-state monitoring team. The message was
clear MSB had decided to  de-NAC. 

      North Carolina Gives NAC the Boot Braille Monitor , December,
1986

      In the March, 1986, Braille Monitor we reported that the
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Handicapped (NAC) had been kicked out of Kansas and
Michigan. Now, NAC faces new disasters. North Carolina is joining
the parade.

      The National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina held
its annual convention during the weekend of September 12-14, 1986,
in Raleigh. One of the items which was slated to receive attention
was the accreditation of the Governor Morehead School for the Blind
by NAC. The school had been accredited since 1972, and the blind of
the state were determined to bring the nonsense to an end. A
resolution had been drafted and was slated for presentation on
Sunday morning, September 14; but it never happened. On Saturday
afternoon, September 13, Dr. Richard Rideout (drector of the
Division of Special Schools for the Blind and Deaf of the
Department of Human Resources) announced to the cheering delegates
that the Governor Morehead School had decided to end the NAC
accreditation.

      NAC often talks about the good which it has done and the
general public acceptance which it is receiving. However, if any of
its board members are at all perceptive or concerned about the way
the blind (the people they supposedly do so much to help) feel,
they should think long and carefully about the reaction in North
Carolina. At the announcement that the Governor Morehead School
would de-NAC the blind cheered. When the school gives up its
accreditation, no facility working with the blind anywhere in the
state will be NAC-accredited. As the joyous delegates chanted:  NC
is NAC-Free.  

      Memorandum

      To: Richard Rideout, Director  Division of Special School for
the Blind and Deaf  Department of Human Resources  From: George N.
Lee, Superintendent  Governor Morehead School  Re: NAC
Accreditation

      The Governor Morehead School has just been reaccredited by
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools for the next five
years. This is important to our school.

      The school has also been accredited by the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Impaired since 1972. 

      I do not believe that NAC accreditation has or will have any
positive impact on educational programs here at Governor Morehead
School. Fact is I can't really think of any real benefits of NAC
accreditation. 

      NAC Thrown Out in Rhode Island   Braille Monitor , December,
1986

      The past year has been a time of hardship for NAC (the
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Handicapped). A few months ago NAC was told it wouldn't be
needed anymore in Kansas. At about the same time it got a similar
message from Michigan. And these messages didn't come from small,
insignificant agencies. They came from the Kansas State Services
for the Blind and the Michigan School for the Blind. This fall it
was the turn of North Carolina. The Governor Morehead School for
the Blind (North Carolina's residential school) decided NAC
accreditation was not worth continuing. As the superintendent of
the school pointed out, the institution had been accredited for
more than a dozen years, so it was in a position to know whether or
not NAC accreditation is beneficial.

      NAC keeps trying to smile bravely, but the rejection slips
keep coming. This time it is Rhode Island. At the annual state
convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Rhode Island
on September 27, 1986, a representative of the State Services for
the Blind announced that NAC accreditation was being dropped at the
end of 1986. The blind of the state were overjoyed and greeted the
news with cheers. 

      American Foundation for the Blind Criticizes NAC   Braille
Monitor , January, 1987  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .  

      National Braille Association Cuts its Ties With NAC   Braille
Monitor , September, 1987

      As everybody knows, the last couple of years have been a bad
time for NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). The North Carolina
school for the blind, the Michigan State School for the Blind,
Kansas State Services for the Blind, Rhode Island State Services
for the Blind, and others decided they had had enough and withdrew.
There is an old saying to the effect that nothing wins like
success. The reverse of that coin is that nothing loses like
failure and NAC certainly offers graphic testimony to the truth of
it all.

      One of the latest to leave NAC's sinking ship is NBA (the
National Braille Association). Established in 1945, the NBA is
described in the 1984 edition of the American Foundation for the
Blind  Directory of Agencies Serving the Blind in the U.S.  as
follows:  Brings together those interested in production and
distribution of Braille, large type, and tape recorded materials
for the visually impaired. NBA Braille Book Bank provides
thermoform copies of hand-transcribed texts to college students and
professional persons; NBA Braille Technical Tables Bank has a
collection of over 300 tables which supplement many of the texts;
through NBA Reader-Transcriber Registry blind people can obtain
vocational daily living material at below cost; through Braille
Transcription Assignment Service requests of college students for
Brailled textbooks are filled. Publications to aid transcribers
include:  Manual for Large Type Transcribing  and  Tape Recording
Manual, 3rd Ed. , available from LC/DBPH;  Teacher's Manual and
Tape Recording Lessons , from NBA national office;  Guidelines for
Administration of Groups Producing Reading Materials for the
Visually Handicapped , from LC/DBPH;  Handbook for Braille Music
Transcribers , from LC/DBPH; and NBA  Bulletin , issued four times
a year to membership, available in print, Braille, or tape.

      This is how the National Braille Association is described by
the American Foundation for the Blind. Put briefly, it is the
nationwide organization of transcribers. It has both prestige and
stability. It has been one of NAC's sponsors from the very
beginning. Therefore, its withdrawal must be particularly troubling
to NAC. 

      No NAC for Mississippi Industries for the Blind Braille
Monitor , October-November, 1987  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

     The foregoing excerpts from the  Braille Monitor  show clearly
the pattern of NAC's decline in the eighties. In state after state
NAC found itself rejected and on the defensive. By the end of 1989
the American Foundation for the Blind had reduced its long-standing
contributions, and agency after agency had withdrawn. The NAC board
had been reduced in size, and there was widespread speculation that
the demise of the organization was imminent. The majority of the
knowledgeable blind of the nation, along with most responsible
agencies in the field, were now finding NAC a stumbling block to
progress and a hindrance rather than a help.

     