                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                         December, 1986

                    Kenneth Jernigan, Editor


     Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, 
                        and cassette by 


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT 
 


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *



           Letters to the President, address changes,
        subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
       articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
             should be sent to the National Office. 

                             * * * *
 


Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five 
dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are
requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: 
 

                National Federation of the Blind
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *

THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES

ISSN 0006-8829

                  NFB NET BBS:  (612) 696-1975
               WorldWide Web:  http://www.nfb.org
CONTENTS
                                                           
DECEMBER 1986

CONVENTION BULLETIN

NORTH CAROLINA GIVES NAC THE BOOT 

NAC THROWN OUT IN RHODE ISLAND  

THE CHANGE by Betty Pacelli

CHERYL MCCASLIN VICTIMIZED BY STEREOTYPED MISCONCEPTIONS
DISCRIMINATION COMES TO THE LIBRARY

IF I HAD ONLY THOUGHT by Gary Wunder

WE CANE, WE TAUGHT, WE CONQUERED by Christine Roberts-Boone

REFLECTIONS ON INTEGRATION by Fred Schroeder

GROWING UP WITH INDEPENDENCE: THE BLIND CHILD'S
USE OF THE WHITE CANE by Fred Schroeder

JUSTICE FOR JACKIE NOW 

ACB'S FAST-FOOD FIASCO: HERE'S THE LATEST CHAPTER 
  by James Gashel

ANOTHER STEP TOWARD VICTORY IN THE RALEIGH WORKSHOP CASE 

JOSEPH O'HARA FORCED OUT IN MISSOURI by Kenneth Jernigan

CONGRESS PASSES AN AIRLINE BILL: DISCRIMINATION MAY BE COMING TO
AN END by Marc Maurer

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW 

OPENING UP A BAG by Jane Crawford

ANNOUNCING THE 1986-87 NFB BRAILLE READING CONTEST FOR BLIND
CHILDREN by Barbara Cheadle

SPRING MERCHANTS CONFERENCE by Ramona Walhof

BLIND PASTOR GIVES CHURCH VISION by Dale James

VOICE-DIALER TELEPHONE by Kenneth Jernigan

RECIPES 

MONITOR MINIATURES  

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1986

CONVENTION BULLETIN


  The time has come to plan for the 1987 convention of the
National Federation of the Blind.  Kansas City in 1986 was one of
the most successful meetings we have ever had, and 1987 promises
to be even better.
  We are going back to Phoenix.  For those who attended the 1984
convention nothing more need be said.  We have the same three
excellent hotels, which have been upgraded and are now even
better than they were then, and most of the meetings will be held
(as they were in 1984) at the Civic Center.  It is just across
the street from the headquarters hotel, and it, too, has been
upgraded and improved.
  We will be meeting at the Hyatt, the San Carlos, and the
Heritage--which is the new name for the hotel which was the
Ramada in 1984.  The Heritage has been completely redone.  Taken
as a package, these three hotels and the Civic Center (all within
a two-block area) offer one of the finest convention setups in
the nation.  Moreover, the rates continue to be the envy of all
who know us.  Who else gets single rooms for $25 and doubles for
$28?
  The NFB of Arizona is planning an exciting array of tours and
hospitality, and the program agenda will be vintage Federation. 
Make your reservations early to have a better chance for a room
in the headquarters hotel.  Also, remember that we need door
prizes from state affiliates, local chapters, and individuals. 
Please remember that prizes should be relatively small in bulk
and large in value.  Cash, of course, is quite acceptable.  In
any case we try to have no prize of less than $25 value. 
Drawings will occur constantly throughout the meetings, and the
prizes will aggregate many thousands of dollars.
  The displays of new technology, the meetings of special
interest groups and divisions, the hospitality and renewal of
friendships, the solid program items, and the general excitement
of being where the action is and where the decisions are being
made all join together to call the blind of the nation to Phoenix
in the summer of 1987.  Come and be part of it.
  Because of the numbers we continue to attract to our
conventions, we are again using the system for handling hotel
reservations which we adopted last year.  We have constructed a
reservation form along the lines of the one we used for the 1985
convention.  Additional copies are available upon request from
the National Office.  Here is what is printed on the form.  See
you in Phoenix, and get those reservations in:

--------------------

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 1987 CONVENTION
ROOM RESERVATION FORM SATURDAY, JUNE 27 - SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1987

NAME ______________________________
ADDRESS ___________________________

CITY/STATE _____________ZIP _______

TELEPHONE (  ) ____________________

ARRIVAL DATE ______________________

DEPARTURE DATE ____________________

TYPE OF ROOM:

Single (1 Person with 1 Bed--$25.00) Double (2 Persons with 1
Bed--$28.00) Twin (2 Persons with 2 Beds--$28.00) Triple (3
Persons with 2 Beds--$30.00) Quad (4 Persons with 2
Beds--$34.00)--
 Not available at Hyatt

LIST NAMES OF ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING YOURSELF AND ANY CHILDREN,
WHO WILL OCCUPY ROOM WITH YOU:

Name:
Check if Under 18:
Arrival Date:
Departure Date:

(See Reverse Side for Details)

ROOM RESERVATION SYSTEM

  1. All reservations must be made through the National Office. 
You may call 301-659-9314 or write: Convention Reservations,
National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.  Reservations may not be made directly with the
hotel.  If you try to make a reservation through the hotel
directly and even if the hotel inadvertently accepts such a
reservation and confirms it to you, it is not a valid
reservation.  Valid reservation confirmations will be made only
by the National Office.
  2. No reservation will be accepted without a thirty dollar per
room deposit.  One half of the deposit is nonrefundable.  One
half of the deposit is refundable if notice of cancellation is
received in the National Office on or before Friday, June 12,
1987.  Except in special circumstances and with prior approval
from the National Office, deposits for rooms are nontransferable. 
In other words if you find that you cannot come to the convention
at the last minute, you cannot give or sell your reservation and
deposit to somebody else without prior approval from the National
Office.  It simply creates too much chaos and confusion.
  3. Even though a deposit must be received before your
reservation is accepted and finalized, you may (if you like) call
on the phone to be sure that you are giving us all of the
information we need and that everything is in order.  If you
adopt this procedure, you can follow up with the required
deposit.  It cannot be emphasized too strongly that no
reservation will be accepted and finalized until all required
information and the deposit are received in the National Office. 
As indicated, no reservation will be accepted without certain
minimum required information.  The required information is:

  A) Name, address, telephone number
  B) Arrival date
  C) Departure date
  D) Type of room requested: single, one person in a room;
double, which means two people in one bed in a room; twin, which
means two people in a room with each person having a separate
bed; triple, three persons in a room with two beds; and quad,
four persons in a room with two beds.
  E) Names of roommates and arrival and departure dates for each.

  4. A reservation will be assigned an acceptance number and be
confirmed only when complete information and a deposit have been
received.  Assignment to the Hyatt and overflow hotels will be
based on acceptance number.
  5. Deposits will be credited to the person making the
reservation unless a distribution among roommates is requested in
writing when the deposit is sent.
  6. Convention room rates are $25 single, $28 double and twin,
$30 triple, and $34 quad--all plus tax (currently 7.4 percent). 
In order to get these special rates, you must register for the
convention in Phoenix.  There is no extra charge for children
under 18 in the room with their parents, but names of children
should be listed on the room reservation form anyway.
  We have something over 600 rooms at the Hyatt Regency, Phoenix;
and we have the several hundred remaining rooms we need at two
other hotels, the San Carlos and the Heritage, which was formerly
the Ramada.  Our block of rooms at the Hyatt Regency, Phoenix,
consists of approximately 300 rooms, each containing one king
size bed; and approximately 300 rooms, each containing one twin
and one double bed.  Therefore, please note that there are no
quad type rooms (four persons with two beds) in the Hyatt. 
However, one roll-away bed may be added to a room at an
additional cost of $15.00 per day.  We will assign rooms in the
Hyatt on a first come first serve basis until all rooms in each
category are filled.  Then, we will assign rooms in the San
Carlos and Heritage.  This means that the first 300 requests for
a room with one bed (either single or double) will be assigned to
the Hyatt.  The first 300 requests for a room with two beds
(either twin or triple) will be assigned to the Hyatt.  After
that, rooms will be assigned in the other hotels.  After we have
filled the approximately 300 rooms which have king beds, we will
not be able to place people requesting a single room in one of
the rooms at the Hyatt with two beds.  If you want to increase
your chances of being placed at the Hyatt, you might (assuming
that this is practical for you) indicate your preference for a
twin or double but your willingness to accept whichever is
available.  If (as has already been indicated by some) you prefer
to be placed in one of the other two hotels instead of the Hyatt,
we will try to honor your request.
  If you want a refrigerator in your room, call or write the
hotel directly AFTER JUNE 1, 1987--AFTER, NOT BEFORE.
Refrigerators rent for $25.00 per day.
  Please make all checks for room deposits payable to: National
Federation of the Blind, but address the envelope to Convention
Reservations, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.


NORTH CAROLINA GIVES NAC THE BOOT


  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 (Director 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 abut 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."
  George N. Lee, Superintendent of the Governor Morehead School,
sent a memorandum concerning NAC to Dr. Richard Rideout, Director
of the Division of Special Schools for the Blind and Deaf of the
Department of Human Resources.  On October 9, 1986, Hazel Staley
(President of the NFB of North Carolina) received from Dr.
Rideout a copy of the memorandum.  NAC may still be able to claim
numbers by accrediting small out of the way groups, but the trend
is clear and the pattern irreversible:

--------------------

                          North Carolina
           Department of Human Resources The Governor Morehead
School
                 Raleigh, North Carolina

MEMORANDUM

To: Richard Rideout From: George N. Lee Re: NAC Reaccreditation

  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.  Our current accreditation expires December
31, 1987.  Our annual dues of $2,000 per year are paid up through
June 30, 1987.
  In order to be reaccredited by NAC we would need to complete
our self- assessment study this school year and have our on-site
visit by NAC next fall.  Our Table of Contents for our self-study
guide was due July 31.  It has not been done.
  For the following reasons, I recommend that we not seek
reaccreditation with NAC.  First of all, it is very costly and
time-consuming to go through this process.  Staff morale is not
high now because of cutbacks, and the public hearings are
somewhat threatening.  I would hate to put the staff through this
unless I believed in it very strongly.  I do not believe that NAC
accreditation has or will have any positive impact on educational
programs here at GMS.  Fact is I can't really think of any real
benefits of NAC accreditation.  Some of their standards are
unrealistic, such as the number of periodicals required in our
library.  We have discussed some of these standards before with
Mrs. Purser, so I won't elaborate on this point.
  Ever since I have worked in special education I have known
about the problems that the National Federation of the Blind has
with NAC.  I have been an avid reader of the Braille Monitor for
several years.  The Federation has recommended on more than one
occasion that GMS drop its affiliation with NAC.  Out of respect
to the Federation and for the other reasons mentioned above, I
recommend that we not seek reaccreditation with NAC and not pay
dues after June 30, 1987.


NAC THROWN OUT IN RHODE ISLAND


  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.  One would think that
NAC would ultimately get the message.  The blind (the people it
tells the public it is helping) never seem sorry to see it go. 
The leaders of the NFB of Rhode Island played a key part in the
de-NACing:

--------------------

                Providence, Rhode Island October 7, 1986

Dear President Maurer:
  I am writing officially to inform you that at our state
convention, it was announced by a representative from the Rhode
Island State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired that as
of December 31, 1986, they would no longer be affiliated with
NAC.  This was done by the direct effort of our people on the
Governor's Advisory Council for that agency.  These people were
Ed Beck, Mary Jane Fry, and Father Gerard Sabourin.  I wanted to
pass this information to you because I am sure, like us, you will
be very happy to hear another agency has left the control of NAC.

                              Sincerely,
           Richard A. Gaffney, President National Federation of
the Blind
                         of Rhode Island


THE CHANGE

by Betty Pacelli


  (Betty Pacelli is one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of Connecticut.)

  Sixteen hundred fifty and more Federationists from every state
in the nation sat quietly in a large, warm auditorium.  Cool air
slowly drifted down from the strategically placed vents, past
heads and laps and finally to silent, sleepy dog guides sitting
at their owner's feet.  Had a leaf been floating down by chance,
the ripple of air current would have been heard, the room was so
silent.
  An air of sadness and loss mixed with elation and expectancy
also prevailed in this auditorium.  Today was the day--the long
awaited, the dreaded, the never- could-happen day--when the old
stepped down to make way for the new.  At least there were no
surprises in store.  We knew what to expect, and we were ready.
  Once the vote was in and the president-elect was expected to
officially take office at the end of the convention, we all
settled back to business as usual.  Then suddenly it was 5:00
p.m., Friday, July 5th, and the convention was over.  He didn't
say goodbye.  He didn't make a speech.  He just asked for
forty-five seconds-- forty-five seconds to leave the hall.  And
we gave them to him--one second at a time--out loud amid tears
and cheers.  It can't be the same without him, and it shouldn't
be.  It will be better.  Hasn't it been better every year?  Why
should that change now?
  Goodbye, Dr. Jernigan.  We love you.


CHERYL MCCASLIN VICTIMIZED BY STEREOTYPED MISCONCEPTIONS

DISCRIMINATION COMES TO THE LIBRARY


  On  Tuesday, September 30, 1986, an article appeared in the
Dallas (Texas) Times Herald headlined:  "Blind Librarian Asks for
Chance in Face of Complaints to DISD."  It brought into the open
a case of blatant discrimination based on nothing more than
superstition and a generalized public belief that the blind are
not capable of performing competently.
  In August of this year Cheryl McCaslin (armed with credentials
and good references) was employed as media center coordinator in
a public school in Dallas, Texas.  Cheryl is totally blind. 
School administrators say that parents are now protesting that a
blind person cannot do the job and that consequently their
children are being shortchanged.  According to the article in the
Times Herald there is no specific allegation of any shortcoming
or inadequacy, merely the generalized expression of prejudice and
fear of the dark--not their words but ours.
  As one studies the Times Herald article, it is not difficult to
read between the lines.  If school officials publicly express the
belief that the librarian is incompetent and put her under
constant surveillance, how is it possible for her to do the job? 
In such circumstances how can parents resist the suggestion that
they protest and criticize?  After all, are they not invited to
do so?  Indeed, are they not virtually told that if they do not
criticize, they are demonstrating callous disregard for the
welfare of their children?  By their actions the school officials
are insuring that their predictions of failure will become a
reality.  If there was ever a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy,
this is surely it.
  This is not simply a local Dallas situation, nor is it merely a
case involving Cheryl McCaslin.  It involves all of us who are
blind or who believe that the blind can compete on terms of
equality and be first-class citizens.  If these insidious attacks
continue, the blind of the nation must respond.  We are now
strong enough through the vehicle of the National Federation of
the Blind to resist such attempts to return to the days of
medieval superstition and ancient concepts.  One of the principal
purposes for the existence of the National Federation of the
Blind is to see that the blind have fair treatment and equal
opportunity.  It is not pity and charity which we seek but
justice and equal protection under the law.  We are taking this
opportunity to alert the blind of the nation to the threat which
the McCaslin case poses and the action which may be required.  We
will not sit passively by and permit Cheryl McCaslin's career to
be ruined by people who have nothing more than ignorance of
blindness to justify their behavior.  Even if specific charges
were now to be made, one would have to wonder whether those
charges had not been trumped up to accomplish a predetermined
objective.  The article in the Dallas Times Herald underscores
the urgent and continuing need for the National Federation of the
Blind.  Here it is in its entirety.  It was brought to our
attention by Doris Henderson, President of the Progressive
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Texas:

-------------------

Blind Librarian Asks for Chance In Face of Complaints to DISD

by David Fritze
Staff Writer

  After the slow, traumatic failing of her eyesight, Cheryl
McCaslin went completely blind in 1977 at age 29.  But the Iowa
school librarian persisted in her chosen profession and this
August accepted a job as media center coordinator at C.F. Carr
Elementary School in West Dallas.
  Her presence has sparked a flurry of complaints from parents
whose children attend the school.  A blind person cannot
adequately handle a school librarian's job, they say.
  Administrators of the Dallas Independent School District find
themselves caught between parental opinion and federal laws
requiring special accommodation for disabled employees.
  School officials fear that removing or transferring McCaslin to
another position may result in a civil rights action--a move
McCaslin took against the Clarion, Iowa, school district after
administrators fired her as a high school librarian.
  Administrators are attempting to determine whether McCaslin,
even with the help of a full-time library aide hired specifically
to assist her, can handle the job.
  Some have their doubts.
  "I just can't help but think those young people are being
shortchanged," said Kathlyn Gilliam, Dallas school board member,
who said she's received several complaints about McCaslin.
  "When you walk into the library and the person in charge
doesn't even know you're standing there. . .  I just wonder how
effective that person can be," Gilliam said.
  McCaslin, 38, holds degrees in elementary education and library
science, and says she can perform the job better than many people
who are not blind.
  "I hope to be able to make (people) realize that just because I
have a disability, that's not going to stop me," McCaslin said.
  School officials acknowledge McCaslin has sound references and
good credentials, yet contend "it's very difficult for her to
perform her duties. .  .based on what we expect a media person to
do," said Assistant Supt. H.B. Bell.  "We're talking about a
school with a lot of critical needs, and I don't know how to go
about satisfying those needs with this person they've hired for
me."
  Bell said parents of children at C.F.  Carr have called
administrators and the principal questioning whether "someone who
is blind is capable of doing the job."  He listed no specific
complaints related to McCaslin's blindness.  "It's a general
perception," he said.
  Administrators have periodically visited the school at 1952
Bayside St.  to observe McCaslin at work.  Gilliam said during a
visit she made two weeks ago, the aide hired to assist McCaslin
appeared to perform most of the work and direct the students in
activities.
  School officials also view the placement of McCaslin in C.F.
Carr as a disregard for heightened educational needs of poor,
minority students, who comprise the majority of the school.
  "I bet we wouldn't ever have attempted (to hire McCaslin) in a
school in North Dallas, because folks wouldn't stand for that,"
Gilliam said.
  If McCaslin is transferred, "I'll just have to face the wrath
of any group that comes down on me but the parents are coming
down on me now," Bell said.
  McCaslin, who began losing her sight in 1973 because of
diabetes, denies that she has allowed the library aide to do most
of the work.  "There are just certain things I want done, and
she's the eyes," she said.
  McCaslin has started stamping library book cards and pockets
with Braille titles, and claims that when she gets to know her
surroundings she'll be able to retrieve books off shelves without
the aide's assistance.  She hopes to use cassette tapes and books
printed in both English and Braille, as well as video recorders
and other equipment, for teaching.
  "It may take me a while, but I'm going to do it," she said.
  From 1971 to 1982, McCaslin headed the media center at the
Clarion Elementary and Junior High School, where "she had a
pretty good program, really," said Kurt Weithorn, Clarion
Elementary School principal.
  "As far as taking care of the library, getting materials out to
the teachers and teaching classes, she was able to do that," he
said.
  "I think it worked because students were familiar with her from
the time she entered into the elementary school" and she held the
job several years before losing her sight, he said.
  In 1982, the library position became part-time, and McCaslin
filed a civil rights complaint with the Iowa State Education
Association, claiming the school was trying to get rid of her
because she was blind.  The complaint went before the Clarion
school board, but McCaslin later dropped the matter and took a
full-time job at the Clarion High School's media center.
  Weithorn said the high school principal opposed the transfer,
however, and after McCaslin began working, "it was just felt she
couldn't do the job."
  McCaslin was fired after a year and filed another civil rights
complaint, which "got to be kind of a nasty thing," Weithorn
said.
  McCaslin, who moved to Texas in 1984 after receiving a
fellowship to study library science at North Texas State
University, contends she was dismissed because the principal
disliked her and tended to treat her and other teachers unfairly.
  DISD administrators are afraid if they remove McCaslin from her
position, she will file a similar lawsuit.
  "According to the law, when you hire the handicapped, you must
make reasonable accommodation for the performance of a specific
job," said Deberie Gomez, head of DISD personnel.  "If in fact
she's unable to perform, then we need to do something else."
  Jeff Pearcy, vice president of the Texas Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind, warned that if DISD officials
attempt to remove McCaslin, "they better have some very good
evidence against her."
  McCaslin said she hopes a civil rights complaint will not be
necessary but doesn't intend to resign.


IF I HAD ONLY THOUGHT

by Gary Wunder


  (The following article is excerpted from Gary Wunder's lead
article in the May/June, 1986, issue of the Blind Missourian, the
newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri.)

  Once I took an English course under a teacher I particularly
wanted to impress.  This special teacher did not believe in
collecting papers every day.  Assignments would be given daily
but would be collected only once each week or so.
  My schedule was such that I had a study hall just before my
English class.  I did all my papers, but because the papers were
not collected daily, I gave them to my reader and friend, who was
also a member of the same class.  I reasoned that he could hand
in the papers when they were called for.  Assignments were not
always requested in the order they were done, and I knew of no
way to hold them and hand them in.
  Near the end of the first quarter our teacher listed the number
of total points available, the number of papers assigned, and the
number of papers each of us had turned in.  How well I remember
listening with pride until the teacher said, "Gary Wunder, 14 out
of 22, 8 papers missing."  Eight of my papers were gone?  Where? 
My friend didn't know.  Perhaps they blew out of his notebook. 
Perhaps he left them at home.  He just didn't know.  One quarter
wasn't enough.  I went through four quarters always believing I
would get a good grade, and always wondering just what had
happened to me.  What is so perplexing to me now is that I didn't
think I could do anything about it.  I was a helpless victim.
  Today this whole story sounds bizarre.  I always carried a
briefcase in school.  I could have put seven folders in the case,
one for each class.  Each folder could have had a card attached
to it with a Braille label.  Each paper in the folder could also
have had a card attached to it with the date the assignment was
done and the number of the assignment if the teacher assigned
them that way.  I could then have turned in my own papers, kept
track of them when they came back, and could have kept them to go
over before major tests.  I didn't do any of that because it
simply did not occur to me that I had an alternative.


WE CANE, WE TAUGHT, WE CONQUERED

by Christine Roberts-Boone


  (Christine Roberts-Boone is President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Nebraska.  She is also an instructor
at the Nebraska State Agency.  Her account of the visit which she
and her husband made to England last December appears in the
Spring, 1986, issue of News from Blind Nebraskans, the
publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska. 
It underscores the progress we are making and demonstrates the
fact that certain parts of the more conservative American
establishment are being left behind in progressive thinking.)

  As many of you know, in December of 1985, Doug and I traveled
to England to participate in a seminar on the feasibility of
blind persons' acting as cane travel instructors (or "mobility
officers" as they are called in that country.)  The invitation
came about because of the interest and determination of a man
named Allan Dodds, a senior Research Fellow in the Blind Mobility
Research Unit at the University of Nottingham.
  In September, 1984, Dr. Dodds had paid a visit to our Nebraska
agency to learn how it is that blind people here can teach cane
travel.  At that time I had the pleasure of meeting him and he
spent a few days observing my travel classes and learning about
NFB philosophy as it relates to the teaching of travel.  Upon his
return to the United Kingdom Dr.  Dodds prepared a paper
describing his experiences in Nebraska.  It was then decided that
a seminar should be held so that the issue could be thoroughly
discussed.  Dr. Dodds was able to convince the Royal National
Institute for the Blind that it would be most helpful to have a
practicing blind travel instructor present at this seminar, and I
was lucky enough to be asked to attend.
  We arrived in London on Sunday, December 8th, and had time for
sight- seeing before traveling to Nottingham on Tuesday where we
spent a wonderful day with Dr. Dodds and his family.  We took a
tour of the University's Research Unit which was followed by a
magnificent evening of entertainment in the historic heart of
Nottingham.
  Early next morning we caught a train back to London and
proceeded to the RNIB headquarters.  Upon our arrival we met
David Mann, immediate past President of the NFB of the United
Kingdom.  David was kind enough to invite us to dinner later in
the week, and we enjoyed a delightful evening with him and his
wife, Kate, in their London flat.
  Meanwhile, back at the RNIB, David showed us the canes which
are used by blind travelers in Britain.  There are three kinds of
canes available, and the individual chooses one, depending upon
the amount of vision he/she has.
  The "symbol cane" comes only as high as the person's waist and
is used merely to identify oneself as "a person who cannot see
very well."  The "guide cane" comes midway between the waist and
the sternum and is mainly used for identification as well. 
However, this cane is long enough to be used to find curbs and
steps if that is necessary.  The "long cane" reaches as high as
the breastbone and it is used as a travel aid.  People must hold
this cane at arm's length in order to get any environmental
information.  Consequently, one looks a little odd walking down
the street, arm stretched out ahead, cane wildly swinging.  You
see, these canes are still so short that they often do not touch
the ground when they are in use.  According to Kate Mann, many
people do not want to use long canes, though they need them,
because they feel so conspicuous when using them in the customary
manner.
  Following our meeting with David the seminar began.  It started
with a coffee hour which afforded us an excellent opportunity to
meet and get to know many of the people in attendance.  Most of
these people were "mobility officers" or "rehabilitation
officers" from various locations throughout England.  Nearly all
of them were very open-minded with respect to blind people
working as cane travel instructors.  They were all amazed at the
length of my cane and several times during the day I was
approached with questions about how it was that I was able to
travel about so freely.  Even the best of the blind at this
meeting spent much of their time going sighted guide.  I must
emphasize that this is not because they do not want independence
or because they think it is recalcitrant to travel alone. 
Rather, they have never seen a blind person with little or no
residual vision who was able to travel alone with any degree of
success or grace.
  The seminar began with Dr. Dodds presenting his findings and
asking some questions which had not been answered during his
visit to Nebraska.  He was followed by a man named Walter
Thorton, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National
Mobility Center.  Mr.  Thornton is a blind man who received his
travel training at the hands of Stan Suterko of the infamous
University of Western Michigan.  Mr. Thornton does not believe
that it is good or safe for blind people to teach travel;
however, his comments were far less damaging than we had feared
they would be after reading some of his letters in the New Beacon
magazine.  I was given a chance to speak after Walter Thornton
had finished, and during the buffet luncheon which followed Doug,
and I fielded many more questions.
  In the afternoon there was time for public comment which was
almost entirely supportive.  In fact, there was only one woman
who thought we were crazy even to consider such an idea; the
audience was quick to express its displeasure with her position. 
Finally, Dr. Dodds, Walter Thornton, and I gave our final
speeches and it was time to make a decision on what action, if
any, was to be taken on the matter.  At length, it was agreed
upon that a blind travel instructor would be hired to work at the
orientation center in the southern part of the country.  This
individual would, of course, be employed on a trial basis, but
what a victory it was for the blind people of Britain!
  Much of the credit here must go to the people who came to our
seminar with such open minds and with a genuine desire to learn
and to share their ideas with us.  Credit, thanks, and
commendation also go to Allan Dodds, who truly shares our
philosophy and our dream of independence for blind people.  He
has risked not a little in his continuing struggle to convince
the English establishment that it is neither unreasonable nor
impossible for a qualified and skilled blind person to work
successfully as a mobility officer.
  Yes, this is only a beginning, but what a beginning it is--for
all of us!


REFLECTIONS ON INTEGRATION

by Fred Schroeder


  (This article by Fred Schroeder entitled "From the President,"
appeared in the Spring/Summer, 1986 issue of The Blind Educator. 
As Federationists know, Fred Schroeder is the President of the
National Association of Blind Educators.  He is also Director of
the New Mexico State Commission for the Blind and a member of the
Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind.)

  As blind people, we have come to regard discrimination as an
ongoing condition which threatens to deny us both social and
economic opportunities.  We have learned that the real problem of
blindness is not the lack of eyesight, but the attitudes of
society.  We have also come to learn that we too are members of
society and therefore can also become subject to the same beliefs
and misconceptions about blindness which threaten to keep us
isolated from true participation.
  For this reason, it is necessary to examine the ways in which
we as blind people can effectively combat the conditioning of
society.  True integration is the goal and simply put, blind
people seek this goal in two distinctly different ways. There are
those who believe that acceptance by the majority can be gained
through a denial of our differences.  This kind of thinking leads
to an emphasis on the use of residual vision and techniques which
avoid addressing blindness as a reality.  There are those who
feel that traveling without a cane and avoiding Braille by
relying heavily on memory make blind people appear more natural
and better able to fit in.  In truth, this approach can only
result in placing the blind at a disadvantage, thereby
reinforcing sterotypic misconceptions about blindness.  It is not
surprising that this approach is widely regarded as the
"sensible" way of dealing with blindness.  Whenever members of a
minority group act out the stereotypes of society there
inevitably results a level of acceptance.  This type of
acceptance arises from the unspoken agreement between society and
the member of a minority group not to question the beliefs and
attitudes about the capabilities of those in the minority.  In
other words, if the blind go along portraying themselves as
society expects them, society will reward the blind person
through kindness and goodwill.
  Although being the easier path, it is not possible for this
type of acquiescence ever to lead to real equality.  The other
path therefore is one which requires that blind people cast off
the stereotypic view and demand first-class status through full
and meaningful participation.  This can only be accomplished if
we the blind learn to regard ourselves as equal members of
society able to function competitively on terms of true equality. 
The difference is the conception of blindness which we ourselves
hold.  If we can regard blindness unemotionally as simply another
characteristic, then we can develop pride in ourselves and the
confidence to hold our own in a competitive world.  It is this
conception of blindness which enables us to regard the tools we
need as symbols of equality rather than symbols of inferiority. 
Carrying a cane and reading Braille are tools which enable us
fully to participate.  If we regard blindness as respectable,
then the tools of blindness become symbols of our equality.
  The issue of training in alternative techniques is really a
question of the conception of blindness which we hold.  There
exists a widespread belief within the orientation and mobility
profession that young blind children should not be taught cane
travel.  Instead, the orientation and mobility profession
believes that young blind children should be taught a series of
"precane techniques" which not surprisingly are rooted in age-old
stereotypes about blindness.  Precane techniques are nothing more
than standardized methods whereby the blind feel their way
timidly, shuffling their feet to find stairs and using their
hands to find a clear path.  They are rooted in stereotypes about
blindness which can be traced back into antiquity.  The belief
that blind children should be taught cane travel is widely
opposed since it arises from a belief that blind children can
cast off the bonds of nonparticipation and integrate themselves
actively and fully with their peers.  The issue of teaching blind
children cane travel is not a question of professional theory and
methodology but in truth is a question of beliefs and attitudes
about blindness.  The real threat to the orientation and mobility
profession is that if blind children become proficient at cane
travel then they will have violated society's image of the blind
as unable to compete.  The article "Growing Up with Independence:
The Blind Child's Use of the White Cane" (which appears elsewhere
in this issue of the Monitor) discusses the need for blind
children to acquire effective travel skills not as a technical
discussion of efficiency but as a philosophical conviction that
blind children must develop a sense of pride in themselves as
blind people and with it the belief that they can achieve real
integration and true equality.


GROWING UP WITH INDEPENDENCE:

THE BLIND CHILD'S USE OF THE WHITE CANE

by Fred Schroeder

  (The following address was delivered at the Fall Convention of
the National Federation of the Blind of California in Sacramento,
California, on November 1, 1980.)

  My topic today pertains to blind children growing up with
independence through the use of the white cane.  As is often the
case, this discussion stems from two divergent philosophies.  On
the one hand, the National Federation of the Blind believes that
blind children are simply normal children who happen to be blind. 
The other is the view of the established special education system
which believes that blind children are faced with a myriad of
problems which, by their nature and severity, require
professional intervention.
  Perhaps the motivation behind each philosophy comes from a
particular vested interest on the part of each respective group. 
The National Federation of the Blind has a vested interest in
furthering its goals of security, equality, and opportunity,
which are integrally tied to the basic assumption of the
normality of the blind.  The established special education system
has a vested interest in maintaining the concept of the blind as
having a wide range of specialized needs since this concept is
integrally tied to the very existence of the profession.
  Let us begin with a discussion of infancy.  Sighted infants are
typically encouraged to explore their environment.  Parents,
siblings, and relatives are continually providing stimulation
which helps the infant become an active participant in his or her
world.  I believe that blind children deserve the same
opportunity to develop experientially.  When a blind child begins
to walk, he or she should be provided with a light- weight
flexible cane to be used in the exploration of his or her own
environment--to seek out familiar toys and places of interest. 
The cane has long been recognized as a symbol of independence for
the blind.  Its use focuses the parents' attention on the
development of the child's independence while alleviating many of
the parents' concerns for the child's safety.
  "I am not, of course, advocating instructing a neonate in the
formal "two-point touch" technique with an arc scribed precisely
one inch to either side of the body and rising no more than one
and a half inches at its highest point.  What I am advocating is
the notion that a blind child provided with the necessary tools
will seek out new experiences and begin to explore the world. 
This will do more to develop space and body concepts than any
other activity.
  "As the child grows he or she will naturally move to outdoor
play.  At this point, the cane should be an old and trusted
companion.  The orientation and mobility profession argues that a
child using a cane at this age will develop a variety of bad
habits which will interfere with the eventual development of good
cane skills.  They say that the child should first be instructed
in "precane skills."  But what are these precane skills?  I
suggest that trailing walls and "protective arm" techniques have
very little to do with eventual effective use of the cane.  If
one is sincerely interested in providing experiences which will
eventually result in good cane technique, then one should provide
the very young blind child with a cane.  When a six-year-old
first grader begins learning to read and write, it is with an
extensive background in "pre-reading" and "pre- writing" skills. 
This background is directly related to the final task.  A
two-year-old is not typically able to read, but is encouraged to
sit on his or her mother's lap and follow along while a story is
being read.  Similarly, this same two-year-old is not yet able to
write, but is, of course, encouraged to play with crayons.  No
one worries about the child's developing bad habits while the
child experiments with a variety of ways of grasping crayons. 
Rather educators understand that the child's early play is
helping to develop the fine motor control necessary for eventual
writing.  Why then does the orientation and mobility profession
object to young blind children's using canes in an informal
manner so as to develop the fine motor control necessary for
effective cane travel?
  The orientation and mobility profession goes on to argue that
the development of compensatory skills is seriously impeded by a
young child's using a cane.  Their claim is that if a child
becomes "dependent" on the use of the cane, the child will not
learn to use his or her hearing effectively.  Alternatively they
suggest the aforementioned precane techniques.  One of these is
the "upper-hand and forearm" technique which positions the hand
and arm in front of the child in order to protect the head and
face.  While offering some limited protection the technique
causes a definite muffling of the child's hearing.  On the other
hand, the tap of the cane provides an excellent sound source
which I believe enhances the child's ability to interpret sounds
in the environment.
  I recently spoke with an orientation and mobility specialist
who has an additional year of training in the use of electronic
travel aids.  She advised that instead of a cane, a pathsounder
should be used with young children.  The pathsounder is a device
which beeps when there is an object directly in front of the
user.  She explained that a young blind child using this device
would be able to walk freely and without fear.  Further, the
child's ability to interpret environmental sounds would be
developed through the feedback provided by this device.
  It does not appear that the pathsounder can offer the blind
child any information which is not readily accessible to the
child through the use of a cane.  The cane enables a blind child
to walk freely and without fear.  In addition, the cane can be
used to provide the child with feedback concerning the location
of an opening or an obstacle.  The information gathered through
the use of a cane will certainly enable the child to learn to
interpret sounds in the environment.  The difference is that the
cane is a natural extension of the arm and hand and, therefore,
requires little in the way of sophisticated interpretation.  If
the cane touches a solid object it takes very little abstract
reasoning to understand that there is something ahead.  But what
is there in a beep which would imply to a child that there is
something blocking his or her path?  The only plausible reason
why the profession would advocate the use of a pathsounder in
place of a cane is that the pathsounder requires training and,
therefore, the intervention of a professional.  As a result,
parents are made to feel as though their children's special needs
are so complex that they are inadequate to participate in their
child's development.
  When the blind child reaches elementary school, the use of the
cane would naturally extend to the playground.  At this time, the
child will take part in exciting new activities such as jumping
rope, climbing on monkey bars and swinging on swings.  This is
also the time when a child needs to find a good place to keep his
or her cane.  When the child is finished playing he or she should
be able to recover his or her cane independently.  This is no
different from the responsibilities normally assumed by other
children of the same age.  Sighted children are expected to be
responsible for their belongings.  In other words, a blind child
should be responsible for his or her possessions as are his or
her sighted peers.
  As the blind child reaches junior high school, he or she should
be able to take for granted the ability to travel independently. 
Unfortunately, this is about the age at which most orientation
and mobility specialists believe cane travel instruction should
begin.  The child is generally provided with some basic
instruction which is not designed to develop his travel skills
overall, but rather to solve the immediate problem of getting
from and to class.  Rarely does the child ever evolve beyond the
stage of traveling memorized routes.  The age old stereotype of
the blind person's being on a memorized path is one from which
the orientation and mobility profession has been unable to rid
itself.
  The orientation and mobility profession does not fully believe
in a blind person's ability to travel safely with a white cane. 
Otherwise, why would the profession insist upon using new
electronic travel aids as an adjunct to the cane or in some cases
as a substitute for the cane.  An orientation and mobility
specialist from the Midwest typically instructs her junior high
and high school students in the use of the laser cane.  During a
lengthy discussion she was unable to explain what practical
advantage the laser cane had over an ordinary cane.  Her only
concrete reason for encouraging the use of the laser cane was
that it could be used as an "icebreaker" in social situations. 
In other words, for the sake of social contact, the blind child
should be willing to make a spectacle of him or herself.  It is
clear that she does not believe in the ability of blind children
to initiate the process of making friends.  Her comment implied
that the blind child must use flashy electronic gadgets in order
to be interesting or attractive.  In addition, I question the
effectiveness of the laser cane, particularly in the Midwest
since it will not operate in temperatures below 30 degrees.  It
is further limited by being inoperative during rain or snow.  The
manufacturer explains that in these situations the cane can be
turned off and used as an effective long cane.  One has to wonder
if the cane can be effective with the electronics shut off, why
were the cane's beeps and vibrations needed in the first place?
  We have come full circle, returning once again to my original
point.  When I speak of growing up with independence I mean just
that--true independence.  When the orientation and mobility
profession speaks of independence the term ordinarily carries
with it the unspoken qualification, "as independent as a blind
person can reasonably be expected to be."
  The orientation and mobility profession's custodial attitudes
are shown all too clearly in an article entitled, "The Electronic
Car Controversy" which appeared in the Summer 1980 edition of
News and Views, the publication of the American Association of
Workers for the Blind.  The article reads in part as follows:

--------------------

  The Northeastern Region Interest Group IX has become concerned
with electronic cars as a potential barrier to independent travel
for visually impaired people.  With the exception of the noise
produced by the friction of the tires against the pavement while
the car is moving, electric cars are completely silent....
  Although the problem of inaudible cars may well affect a number
of populations (older pedestrians, the hearing impaired, and
children) the Northeastern Chapter Interest Group IX feels that a
number of issues that impact specifically on visually impaired
travelers must be addressed on a national level.
  Implications for both street crossing procedure and safety as
well as parking lot and gas station negotiations are many. 
Considerations also exist in terms of training procedures for
traffic alignment and environmental analysis....  One company has
gone so far as to include a notation in their owner's manual and
on a label in the car alerting drivers to safety factors for
vision and hearing-impaired pedestrians.
  Beyond this, manufacturers have offered to provide the public
with "sensors" which could be worn on a lapel and operate as a
"go-no go" device, emitting some sort of signal when an electric
vehicle comes within range of the sensor.  Our objections to this
are:  first, a very small percentage of the general population
could effectively use such a high technology device and secondly,
the burden of responsibility for safety in traffic should rest on
the driver and not on the visually impaired traveler....

--------------------

  It is interesting to note that the orientation and mobility
profession does not consider it to be within the blind traveler's
capabilities to protect him or herself from the threat of
electronic cars.  They argue that an electronic sensor which
beeps when an electronic car is near, is too complicated a device
to be of practical benefit for the blind.  What a revealing
comment, clearly highlighting the profession's attitude that the
blind are both defenseless and witless.  Instead, they would ask
the blind to trust their safety to the driver, secure in the
knowledge that on the dashboard of the electronic car is a
statement cautioning the driver to be mindful of the presence of
blind pedestrians.
  It will take a long time to change society's views of blindness
and for that matter the views of the orientation and mobility
profession.  It is clear that a change, however slow, must come. 
Those of us who have grown up as blind children understand the
negative impact which these attitudes have had on our lives.  We
have experienced the heartache of being left behind and the
degradation of being taken along by brothers and sisters who were
forced to be unwilling caretakers.  The tragedy is not that of
blindness, but rather the ease with which, in the past, we and
society have sold ourselves short.  Blindness did not isolate us,
but rather our inability to travel as others.  To participate in
society was to be at society's mercy--to accept gratefully the
opportunity to be brought along, if not included.  No
professional pride or theoretical dogma should be allowed to
isolate and degrade blind children in the future.  No one has the
right to rob another of his or her self-respect by imposing
arbitrary limitations.  We must claim for the blind children of
today and those of tomorrow the right to grow up with dignity and
experience life to the fullest.


JUSTICE FOR JACKIE . . . NOW


  In the November, 1985, issue of the Braille Monitor we carried
an article entitled "No Justice for Jackie . . .  Yet--But the
Battle Has Just Begun."  In that article we told the story of
Jackie Galloway, a blind woman from Port Townsend, Washington. 
She went to a local theater with her two daughters and two
grandchildren on a Saturday afternoon (to be exact, it was March
9, 1985) to see "Pinocchio"--about as innocent an act as one
could hope to find; as American as apple pie.
  But that is not how it ended.  She was told by the theater
owner that she could not come in unless she left her guide dog
outside.  She was humiliated at the scene which was caused and
embarrassed and frightened at the confrontation.  Moreover, at
that time she was not only not a Federationist but had never
heard of the organization.  Nevertheless, she knew what was right
and stood her ground.  Finally, after being badgered and
subjected to verbal abuse by the theater owner (a Mr. Wiley), she
left in tears.
  Contact was made with the Federation, and Jackie Galloway and
the organized blind of Washington set out to see that justice was
done.  We demanded that Mr.  Wiley be prosecuted under
Washington's White Cane Law.  But the public prosecutor (a friend
of Mr. Wiley's) wouldn't bring charges.  We persisted.  It took a
demonstration in Port Townsend, an intensified public education
campaign, and a lawsuit--but we were determined to have justice. 
In the November, 1985, Braille Monitor we were compelled to begin
with the headline "No Justice for Jackie...Yet."
  However, that was a year ago, and as we have so often observed,
we have a way of persisting until we achieve our objective.  We
can now report:  "Justice for Jackie."  In the Fall, 1986, Blind
Washingtonian (the newsletter of the National Federation of the
Blind of Washington) Ben Prows writes as follows:

--------------------

Galloway Case Upholds White Cane Law Wiley Not So Wiley Anymore

by Ben Prows

  Federationists from throughout Washington and Oregon will long
remember a protest march held on July 20, 1985.  We marched in
Port Townsend to protest against the barring of Jackie Galloway
and her dog guide Lassie from the Uptown Theater by theater owner
Mr. Richard Wiley.  We will remember the months of battles to get
the county prosecutor to uphold the White Cane Law by bringing
charges against Mr. Wiley.  We will remember the prosecutor's
refusal to do his duty as a public official, forsaking the people
and the law for a friend.  We will remember the day when Jackie
Galloway stood up for her rights as a blind citizen and brought
suit in civil court to recover at least some of the damage she
suffered as a result of Mr.  Wiley's arrogant disregard for the
law.
  We will remember the long months of waiting for a court date,
and the disappointment of delays in the trial for one reason or
another.  We will also remember that Jackie stood up to the town
and hung in there despite some criticism and attacks from some
sectors of the community.
  Most of all, we will remember the day in July, 1986, when
Jackie had her trial.  The judge directed the jury to find that
the White Cane Law had been violated by Mr. Wiley.  The jury also
found that Mr. Wiley was negligent in his treatment of Mrs.
Galloway an awarded Jackie $6,550 in damages.  This is a victory
not only for Jackie Galloway but for all blind people of this
state and throughout the nation.  It took an attorney such as
Bill Knebes who understood the issue to convince the judge and
jury that Jackie Galloway must be treated as a first-class
citizen.  If Mr. Wiley had gotten away with a violation of the
White Cane Law, you can rest assured that other owners of public
accommodations would have followed suit.
  Jackie Galloway is not only a first- class citizen but an
example of a first- class Federationist.  Though there is no
chapter in Port Townsend and though there are few blind persons
in the town, Jackie hung in there and fought for her rights.  She
persisted.  She won a victory for herself and a victory for the
blind.
  The NFB provided technical assistance and support to Jackie
throughout the ordeal.  Scott Lewis, a long-time Federationist
from Port Angeles, was instrumental in providing information for
Mr. Knebes and keeping in contact with Jackie.  Bob Eschbach came
to Port Townsend to be an expert witness since he is the national
chairman of the Dog Guide Committee and a national Board Member. 
The testimony that Mr. Eschbach and Mrs. Galloway gave destroyed
Mr.  Wiley's claim that safety prevented him from letting the dog
into the theater.
  The Jackie Galloway case again demonstrates the will of the
blind to live normal, productive lives as equal partners with
their sighted peers.
  Jackie Galloway has now discovered the National Federation of
the Blind and says that she hopes to be at the state convention
in October in Vancouver.  The case is just another reason "Why
the National Federation of the Blind."


ACB'S FAST-FOOD FIASCO:  HERE'S THE LATEST CHAPTER

by James Gashel


  Early in 1984 the National Federation of the Blind led a very
successful campaign to prevent the General Services
Administration from violating the Randolph-Sheppard Act.  The
issue involved the installation of fast-food restaurants in
federal buildings in violation of the priority accorded to blind
vendors by the Randolph-Sheppard Act to operate such facilities. 
Among other things our protest took the form of petitioning and
picketing at the headquarters building of the U. S.  Department
of Education since that agency is responsible for keeping the
other federal agencies in line concerning the blind priority
requirements of the law.  The American Council of the Blind (ACB)
did not join out protest.  In fact, they complained because we
were trying to get the rules changed.
  In November of 1984 the ACB and others (including the National
Council of State Agencies for the Blind, representing agency
directors) filed two suits in the federal district court for the
District of Columbia.  Casper W. Weinberger, the Secretary of
Defense, was the principal defendant named in both suits.  The
contention of the ACB and the agencies was that the Department of
Defense (DOD) had violated the Randolph-Sheppard Act by signing
contracts with McDonald's and Burger King to open and operate
fast- food restaurants at Army and Navy bases worldwide.  Of
course, some of the locations would be in the United States. 
Therefore, the states where these fast- food restaurants were
located, priority should have been given to the blind over the
fast-food giants.
  The Council and its cohorts asked the court to grant a
permanent injunction voiding the Department of Defense contracts
with McDonald's and Burger King.  As we said at the time, that
was a mistake.  Given the complexity of the issues presented to
the court, it was about the shortest lawsuit on record.
  In January of 1985 summary judgment was given in favor of the
Defense Department and the fast-food chains.  Moreover, the court
went beyond the question at issue and made pronouncements
jeopardizing the entire Randolph- Sheppard program.  An appeal
from the lower court decision was made by ACB and the others who
brought the ill-fated case, and we were faced with a dilemma.  If
we entered the case, we risked losing credibility by keeping such
company, and if we did not enter, the appeal might be handled so
badly that every blind vendor in the country would suffer the
consequences.  Under the circumstances we had no choice.  We
filed a motion to enter the case as an amicus.  The American
Council of the Blind and the fast-food chains stood together in
opposing our entrance into the case, but the court decided
against them.
  We filed our brief.  The position we took in the court of
appeals was clear.  The dispute over the Department of Defense
contracts should never have been heard in the federal district
court (or in any court) in the first place.  It was brought to
the court by the wrong parties, for the wrong reasons, resulting
in the wrong decision.  Everything about it was wrong.
  Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act a
state agency for the blind may file a complaint with the
Secretary of Education whenever the agency finds that a federal
agency (such as the Department of Defense) is violating the
Randolph- Sheppard Act.  Having received such a complaint, the
Secretary of Education is then required to convene an arbitration
panel.  It is the arbitration panel in the first instance (not
the court) that must hear complaints of federal agency violations
of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
  But the ACB and its co-plaintiffs went straight to the federal
court, bypassing the arbitration procedure available to aggrieved
state agencies--the very arbitration procedure which we have
repeatedly used with success to win victories for blind vendors. 
The district court should have dismissed the case in the first
place.  Better yet, the court should have granted a preliminary
injunction to allow time for arbitration of any state agency
complaints resulting from the Department of Defense contracts. 
But this is not what the American Council of the Blind and the
agencies were asking the court to do.  They wanted a permanent
injunction against the Department of Defense, totally bypassing
the arbitration.  We pointed this out to the court of appeals and
explained that the court should not actually consider the merits
of any dispute arising under the Randolph- Sheppard Act until the
arbitration mechanism has been used.  The law gives any party to
the arbitration the right to appeal the decision to the courts
for judicial review, following the arbitration.  That, we told
the court, is the way the law is intended to work--and the
appeals court agreed.
  On June 13, 1986, the decision was issued in our favor.  In
contrast to ACB's loss in the district court, the appeals court
did not uphold the McDonald's and Burger King contracts.  In
fact, the appeals court reopened the question as to whether the
contracts are valid and reserved the judgment on that point.  The
lower court's decision is now nullified.  The court of appeals
properly found that the district court never should have accepted
jurisdiction over this matter in the beginning.  Any state agency
aggrieved by the Department of Defense contracts could have
requested arbitration.  Meanwhile, the court could consider
halting the contracts with a preliminary injunction.  That would
be the proper course of action under the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
the appeals court ruling said.
  Perhaps one should never be shocked by the behavior of the
American Council of the Blind.  Nevertheless, their behavior with
respect to the decision of the appeals court is just that,
shocking.  They consider the appeals court decision to be another
smashing defeat for blind vendors, branding it as a "poorly
reasoned decision."  (See the following article entitled
"Fast-Food War Continues Between Vendors and Defense Department"
by Lynn Abbott, reprinted from the Braille Forum, July-August,
1986.)  How can a decision which nullifies a devastating defeat
and re- establishes the legal status of the blind vendor priority
be labeled "poorly reasoned?"  It is true that the appeals court
did not grant ACB's request for a reversal of the lower court
decision, ruling instead that the position we took was
correct--but surely the objective should have been to improve the
lot of blind vendors, not to make points or gain prestige.
  In the article that follows, the ACB can speak for itself. 
However, readers should realize that the court of appeals
decision (which the ACB now complains of) has absolutely erased
the damaging precedent earlier established by ACB's unnecessary
and disastrous loss in the district court.  Rather than
complaining about the court's reasoning, the American Council of
the Blind should be sending thank-you notes to the judges for
bailing out the blind vendors.  Of course, they should probably
also be sending a few thank-you notes to the Federation, but that
is obviously a bit much to expect.
  Any state that wants to do so can now use arbitration to
contest the Department of Defense contracts.  That right would
have been precluded and lost altogether under the district
court's ruling.  Moreover, states may be able to block the
Defense Department's fast-food installations with injunctions
during the arbitrations.  This is what ACB now calls a further
loss and vows to fight with further appeals to the courts.  One
can only hope to be preserved from the blessings of such further
appeals.  Here in its entirety is the article which appeared in
the July-August, 1986, Braille Forum:

--------------------

FAST-FOOD WAR CONTINUES BETWEEN VENDORS
AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

by Lynn Abbott, Legal Assistant

  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit on June 13, 1986, issued a decision in the controversial
(controversial is an understatement) Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of
America, et al, v. Casper W. Weinberger, et al, case.  The
vendors, joined by the American Council of the Blind, the
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Blinded
Veterans Association, Inc., and two individual plaintiffs sought
to reverse a lower court determination which found the awarding
of fast-food contracts to McDonald's and Burger King by the
Departments of the Army and Navy to be legal, in spite of certain
provisions of the Randolph- Sheppard Act.
  The Court of Appeals opinion, authored by District Judge Louis
F. Oberdorfer (sitting on the Court of Appeals panel along with
Circuit Judges Abner J. Mikva and Robert H. Bork), stated that no
decision had been made on the merits of the case because the
plaintiffs did not pursue administrative relief prior to seeking
a judicial determination.  In other words, the court declared
that the plaintiffs did not "exhaust administrative remedies." 
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower Court's
judgment and ordered the District Court to dismiss the case.
  As stated above, the dispute began in 1984 when the Army and
Air Force Exchange Service awarded a fast-food contract to Burger
King and the Navy signed a similar contract with McDonald's. 
Because Randolph-Sheppard vendors were excluded from the bidding
process, the above-named plaintiffs expressed their concern that
such actions by the Department of Defense were in violation of
the Randolph- Sheppard Act.  [Note how the filing of lawsuits is
now described as "the plaintiffs expressed their concern...."  No
doubt another understatement.  Now back to the article.]  Under
the Randolph- Sheppard Act, it is mandated that state licensing
agencies be notified of, and that blind persons receive priority
in, competitive solicitations for cafeteria contracts on Federal
property.  [Another note, and this is typical of the problems
with ACB's lawsuits: It is not "mandated" in the
Randolph-Sheppard Act that there be any form of "competitive
solicitations" for cafeteria contracts on federal property.  The
Act requires a priority without competition.  Competitive bidding
is only something that administrative regulations have permitted,
not required.  Here again, though, the Council is misstating the
law in a manner which hurts blind vendors.  No wonder we have
problems.  Now back to the article.]  In this instance, not only
did the Defense Department neglect to notify the state licensing
agency of its action, but the Department also decided not to
consult with the Secretary of Education regarding a determination
of whether any state licensing agency would be able to provide
the desired food service.  Even the District Court recognized
that the Defense Department's "insensitivity to the plight of the
blind vendors is deplored...."  Both actions resulted in the
denial of opportunities for blind vendors to apply for either of
the two contracts in question.
  Because the Randolph-Sheppard Act contains provisions which
establish a grievance and arbitration process to resolve
disputes, it is generally necessary to initiate proceedings at
the administrative level.  However, courts nationwide have
determined that if "any resort to arbitration would have been
futile," it would be permissible to bypass the usual
administrative procedures by filing for judicial relief directly. 
In fact, when presented with this issue in District Court, the
lower court determined that the arbitration indeed would have
been futile.  Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals disagreed with
the lower court and stated that it would not be proper for the
courts to determine the complex issues of the case before the
matter went to arbitration.  [Note: Ah!  Is the ACB now saying
that they would rather have the district court's decision?  At
least that decision upheld their theory of bypassing the
arbitration.  But the balance of the decision was an unmitigated
disaster.  Would the ACB like to have it back in effect just for
the sake of saying that we can bypass arbitration?  How can you
tell?]
  The American Council of the Blind and the other plaintiffs
intend to pursue this matter further [Note: Oh my!] both legally
and administratively. [Note: Is this blustering a warning to the
court or to the blind?  Probably to both, but it certainly is
blustering.]  The Court of Appeals' poorly reasoned decision
cannot remain unchallenged, and the Defense Department's blatant
disregard of the Randolph-Sheppard Act will not be tolerated. 
[So says the Council.]


ANOTHER STEP TOWARD VICTORY

IN THE RALEIGH WORKSHOP CASE


  On October 10, 1986, a Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) ordered the opening and counting of the
ballots in a union representation case involving blind and
sighted production workers at the Raleigh Lions Clinic for the
Blind, Inc., in North Carolina.  Three years ago the ballots in
question had been placed in a safe at the NLRB regional offices,
where they had remained pending the outcome of an appeal.
  It all started in 1983 when a "Decision and Direction of
Election" was issued by the same Regional Director of the NLRB,
finding that the Raleigh Lions Clinic is an "employer" as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act, and that the blind people
who work in the sheltered workshop of the Clinic are "employees"
under the Act.  Therefore, the Regional Director decided that the
employees were entitled to vote on having a union to represent
them.  The ballots were actually cast, but the results are still
an official secret because the Clinic filed an appeal to have the
Regional Director's Decision reviewed by the full five-member
National Labor Relations Board in Washington.  The appeal would
cause a delay if not a reversal, a typical employer strategy in
such cases.
  In like manner, the October 10, 1986, Decision has also been
appealed by the employer.  The Regional Director's Decision came
in response to a specific directive from the Board ordering a
further regional review.  The Board wanted the Regional Director
to reconsider his 1983 Decision in light of two NLRB Decisions
issued on June 27, 1986.  Both cases (discussed in this article)
provide precedents for deciding on appeals such as Raleigh.
  All of this legal mumbo-jumbo and the passing of decisions back
and forth from Raleigh to Washington and back to Raleigh comes
down to the fact that the Raleigh case is now very much alive and
well.  The Board's recent decisions in the two similar (but at
first glance apparently unrelated) cases seem to have broken the
log jam.  The decisions involve nonprofit groups with close ties
to governmental agencies that are exempt from the National Labor
Relations Act.
  This is actually right on point with Raleigh.  In the Raleigh
case the Lions Clinic management has been arguing that the 
agency is fully under the control of the State of North Carolina. 
This is a new twist by which a workshop tries to secure an
exemption from collective bargaining.  Apparently the theory is
that if the workshop (private and nongovernment) claims that it
is controlled by a governmental entity (such as a state agency
for the blind, which is legally exempt), the workshop (which is
not legally exempt) can ride along on the state agency's
coattails.  At least that is what the Raleigh shop managers are
obviously hoping.  The control, they allege, comes from an
agreement between the Raleigh Lions Clinic and the state Division
of Services for the Blind, providing that vocational
rehabilitation clients of the state agency can receive
rehabilitation and work adjustment training at the Raleigh Lions
Clinic.  The state pays the clinic for these services.
  But the arrangement is much like a regular business deal
between two firms, one of which purchases goods or services from
the other or subcontracts work to it.  That does not mean that
one company is necessarily controlled by the other.  They are
simply making a normal business arrangement.
  And so it is with the Raleigh Lions Clinic and the state of
North Carolina.  The managers at the Raleigh Lions Clinic, not
the officials of North Carolina government, decide who will be
hired in the workshop and, for that matter, who will be fired. 
The managers at the Clinic (not the state) determine what wages
will be paid to blind and sighted production employees.  The
managers (not the state) decide about vacation time, sick leave
policy, insurance plans, employee discipline procedures, appeal
rights, and all other personnel policies.  If the plant is to
have a layoff, workshop management (not the state) decides who
will go and who will stay.  Product lines, marketing strategies,
and all other aspects of the plant's production and sales
operation are determined by the managers of the Clinic, not by
the state.
  These are the factors which the regional director took into
account in deciding the original case.  These will doubtless also
be the factors which the full National Labor Relations Board will
be taking into account when they decide on the merits of the
workshop's appeal from the October 10, 1986, decision by the
regional director.  At a hearing on September 16, 1986, the chief
of rehabilitation for the North Carolina Division of Services for
the Blind testified under oath before an NLRB hearing officer in
Raleigh that the Raleigh Lions Clinic (not the state of North
Carolina) controls all of the hiring, compensation, and personnel
practices which might be the subject of collective bargaining at
the Clinic.  Even on the matter of an employee grievance
procedure (which the state agency had found deficient in two
respects) the rehabilitation chief testified that his division
was powerless to order specific changes of policy and compel the
Clinic's acceptance of them.  In theory the state could cease
buying any services from the Raleigh Lions Clinic, but even that
would not necessarily control the Clinic's policies.  It would
only mean that the state would no longer have a business
relationship with the Clinic.
  In the two NLRB cases that are now being compared to Raleigh
the nonprofit agencies involved were operating under much greater
controls by exempt governmental entities.  Even so, the NLRB took
jurisdiction in one case and declined to do so in the other.  The
case in which jurisdiction was declined involved a federally
sponsored Job Corps center operating under contract with the
United States Department of Labor.  In this case the Department
of Labor maintained budget control over the contracting agency
and reserved the right to approve or disapprove the agency's
hiring decisions and policies.  Virtually all of the decisions
which could be made by the Job Corps Center were subject to
Department of Labor veto.  That would also be true of a
collective bargaining agreement.  Under the circumstances the
NLRB declined to apply the National Labor Relations Act to the
Job Corps Center because of the federal government's overriding
control.
  But following a similar analysis of the elements of control,
the NLRB decided to assert jurisdiction over a privately 
operated home for wayward youth despite the fact that the home
was licensed and supervised to some degree by the state of
Maryland.  The distinction was that the home (not the state)
determined budget and spending practices.  Salaries and fringe
benefits were not subject to state approval.  The home (not the
state) had full discretion in hiring and dismissal decisions. 
The state's involvement was to license and inspect the home and
to pay costs associated with housing and caring for the
residents.  Even though the sole purpose for the home was to
provide residential care and supervision of wayward youth on
behalf of the state of Maryland, the NLRB took jurisdiction over
a group of the home's employees because the control exercised by
the state was insufficient to make collective bargaining
meaningless.
  The control of the state of North Carolina over the Raleigh
Lions Clinic is even less than in the case of the Maryland youth
home.  This is why there is every reason for us to feel that
after all appeals are heard, the final outcome in the Raleigh
Case will be positive.  But a long struggle lies ahead.  The
Raleigh Lions Clinic has again appealed and will doubtless drag
the matter out as long as it can.  More time will be exhausted in
delays as the workshop managers continue to hope that we will
give up and go away.  But the resolve of the blind of North
Carolina and the nation to remain firm and united on behalf of
the workers in Raleigh will strengthen (not diminish) as the
months go by.
  This is a battle which the National Federation of the Blind has
been fighting for a long time.  In 1983 when the blind workers at
the Raleigh Lions Clinic found conditions unbearable, we came to
their assistance and pledged our commitment.  The initial
decision by the regional director of NLRB was favorable to us,
but the workshop management appealed.  Now, we have had a second
favorable decision--and once again management has appealed.  But
time is running out for them.  The vice will close.  The pressure
will be in inexorable.  The blind of Raleigh will have justice,
and it will be made possible because of the determination of the
National Federation of the Blind.  We want no strife or
confrontation, but we will do what we have to do.  We are simply
no longer willing to be second- class citizens.


JOSEPH O'HARA FORCED OUT IN MISSOURI

by Kenneth Jernigan


  When Tom Stevens was fired as head of the Bureau for the Blind
in Missouri in 1984, the man who was leading the parade in making
the charges of "conflict of interest" was Joseph O'Hara, the head
of the Division of Family Services, which was the parent agency
of the Bureau.  In the name of integrity and protecting the
interests of the state, O'Hara sanctioned locking Stevens out of
his office, searching his desk, and various other questionable
tactics.  O'Hara said that because Stevens had purchased white
canes from the National Federation of the Blind (canes which
could be had nowhere else and which were sold to the state at a
subsidized price) Stevens was guilty of a "conflict of interest."
  Only a year later O'Hara, who by now had been promoted to the
position of head of the Department of Social Services (the super
agency in which the Division of Family Services was housed), was
having second thoughts and trying to find a way to settle the
lawsuits which his actions had spanned.  It will be remembered
that the state of Missouri apologized for its behavior and paid
$10,000 toward the expenses of the 1985 NFB convention. 
Throughout all the questionable shenanigans which occurred in
Missouri in 1984 and 1985 O'Hara constantly emphasized the
necessity for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety by
state officials.
  Yet, what about O'Hara's own personal behavior?  It now
develops that his "conflict of interest" (unlike the one he
trumped up and never proved against Tom Stevens) was very real
and very serious.  In 1979 he and his wife established a private
company which was allegedly established "to conduct scientific
research in the area of human behavior and social welfare."  All
of that fancy double-talk translates into attempts to get
$100,000 fees from private facilities seeking government aid
which could only be granted with the sanction of a particular
state department--the one, it just so happened, headed by Joseph
O'Hara.  In 1986 O'Hara was exposed and decided to "resign." One
is never happy to learn that a government official who has been
trusted with the responsibility of administering important
programs and setting an example for others to follow has failed
the test of public scrutiny, but the blind of Missouri and the
nation are certainly not sorry to see O'Hara go.  Here are the
newspaper accounts of his so-called "resignation":

--------------------

ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986

Official Endorsed Plan For His Firm

by Terry Ganey

  Jefferson City--Joseph J. O'Hara,
director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, gave the
department's official endorsement earlier this year to a federal
grant application that would have employed a private company
headed by O'Hara.
  As department director, O'Hara recommended approval of a $4.9
million grant request made by the owners of a troubled St. Louis
nursing home to the U.S.  Health Care Financing Administration.
  If the grant had been approved, Humanalysis, Inc., a research
firm based in Jefferson City, would have been paid more than
$300,000 over five years to evaluate the performance of the
project sponsored by the nursing home.
  When the request was made, state records show O'Hara was the
president of Humanalysis, and his wife, Denise F.  Polit, was
listed as vice president.  The non-profit corporation was formed
in 1979 to "conduct scientific research in the area of human
behavior and social welfare."
  O'Hara said Wednesday that he had relinquished his position
with the company last month after conferring with deputies of
Gov. John D. Ashcroft.  O'Hara said the grant application had not
been designed to generate business for Humanalysis, but to help
the Northview Village Care Center, 2415 North Kingshighway, meet
its obligations to the elderly poor and to the state.
  The Department of Social Services, the state's largest agency,
enforces laws designed to protect patients in nursing homes and
dispenses the Medicaid reimbursement payments for the care of the
poor.
  "We send lots of letters endorsing grant requests," O'Hara
said.  "It was not inappropriate for the agency to make this
endorsement.  The fact that the owners of this facility sought
out my wife's firm did not enter into it.  This agency had a
legitimate interest in seeing a proposal funded that would help
this particular business stay in operation."
  He said Ewing Gourley, a financial consultant for Northview
Village, had asked Polit to prepare the grant request.  Gourley
is a former director of the state Division of Family Services.
  O'Hara said that if the grant had been approved, it would have
allowed Northview to collect $20 more per patient per day--a 40
percent increase--in Medicaid Payments.  He noted that Northview
had been having financial troubles, including difficulty meeting
mortgage payments on a $2 million loan from the Missouri Housing
Development Commission.
  Federal demonstration grants require evaluations of the project
being funded.  Northview's grant request said the evaluation
would be conducted by Humanalysis.
  "In order to ensure that an objective third party will be
responsible for determining the success of the demonstration, the
proposed project will be evaluated by an independent contractor,
Humanalysis, Inc.," the grant application said.  It was
accompanied by a budget that showed Humanalysis would be paid
$311,402.
  Polit prepared the grant application late last year.
  "The work itself did not strike me as having a conflict of
interest as long as the state was not making the award directly
to me," Polit said.  "In general, I have avoided seeking to work
for the state.  I have felt having Joe being the head of the
department has been an obstacle to doing work in this state."
  O'Hara's letter recommending approval was written January 3. 
Michael Spodnick, an official in the Health Care Financing
Administration's research and demonstration office in Baltimore,
said Wednesday that Northview's application was at first
rejected.  Spodnick said the applicant had to be the state agency
and not the nursing home itself.
  When the second application was filed 10 days later--this time
naming the Social Services Department as the applicant--O'Hara
ordered the reference to Humanalysis deleted from the grant
application.  Spodnick said Wednesday that the state withdrew its
grant request last month because of troubles at Northview.
  The federal government announced June 12 it would stop all
Medicare and Medicaid payments for patients at Northview because
of problems with the home.  The Missouri Division of Aging
accused the home in May of violating state regulations and
endangering the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.  It
ordered 25 of the 362 residents removed from the home as soon as
possible.
  O'Hara said he became aware last month that questions regarding
Humanalysis were being raised in the state capital.  He said he
had informed Chuck Miller, Ashcroft's lawyer, and Richard
McClure, the governor's chief of staff, of the situation.  O'Hara
said after meeting with them it was decided that he should
discontinue being president of the corporation.

--------------------

JEFFERSON CITY POST TRIBUNE AUGUST 27, 1986

Editorials
Social Disservice

  A ray of sunshine has peeked through the thunderstorm brewing
over Jefferson City.  Joseph O'Hara is resigning as director of
the state Department of Social Services; for him, the decision is
not a moment too soon.
  O'Hara claims strong conflict of interest charges had no
bearing on his decision; if that's true, he had no business
serving as head of a state agency in the first place.
  The charges and allegations grew in weight and severity on
Wednesday.  Earlier in the day, state Auditor Margaret Kelly
joined the ranks of the suspicious and demanded Governor Ashcroft
review O'Hara's apparent misuse of his position.
  Look at the record:
  --O'Hara and his wife had formed Humanalysis, Inc., a Jefferson
City firm that does research in social work and received support
services from the Department of Social Services.
  --While serving as social services director, O'Hara also was
president of Humanalysis and even signed documents as president
requesting a federal family planning grant.  And in his official
capacity he approved a federal grant to a nursing home firm that
netted his company a fee of more than $100,000.
  --O'Hara used his state telephone number as a contact point for
Humanalysis, Inc. on documents related to the same grant
application.
  --As the potential for scandal grew, he resigned as president
of Humanalysis--but remains the registered agent.
  None of that is conflict of interest?  In announcing the
resignation, Governor Ashcroft alluded to O'Hara's "successful
management" of the state's burgeoning welfare agency during
"times of fiscal constraint."  Unfortunately, that successful
management was equally applicable to his own company.
  We have nothing against state officials delving in the realm of
free enterprise, but there are limits on such outside interests. 
One is integrity.
  When an individual accepts the responsibility of guiding a
state agency, he has to be willing to put the state's interests
above his own and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 
Joseph O'Hara apparently did not.


CONGRESS PASSES AN AIRLINE BILL:

DISCRIMINATION MAY BE COMING TO AN END

by Marc Maurer


  Members of Congress in increasing numbers have been joining our
battle to end discrimination against the blind on commercial
airlines.  This is shown by letters from key Congressmen and
Senators to the Department of Transportation.  The Federal
Register notice which we reprinted in the October issue of the
Braille Monitor takes note of the high volume of correspondence
from Congress to the Department of Transportation on behalf of
the blind.  So the government, slow to respond as it may be, is
finally waking up to the fact that airlines are discriminating
against the blind.
  Getting the government's attention is one thing, of course--but
finding a lasting solution is something else entirely.  However,
that long desired solution may soon be at hand as the result of a
bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan
on October 3, 1986.  The new law (Public Law 99-435) states: "No
air carrier may discriminate against any otherwise qualified
handicapped individual, by reason of such handicap, in the
provision of air travel."
  This is an important new declaration of federal policy, which
we can now use in our battle to be treated as equals by the
airlines.  But like most laws, the policy declaration alone does
not answer all of the questions.  Congress was clearly concerned
that discrimination is occurring on the airlines.  Also, there
was no Federal law on the books adequate to prohibit the
discriminatory acts.  In June the Supreme Court said that Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (a general prohibition of
discrimination against the handicapped by federally assisted
programs) does not apply to most airlines.
  Regulations to carry out Public Law 99-435 will now be made by
the Department of Transportation.  The new regulation may clarify
to some extent which acts are discriminatory and which are not. 
But don't count on firm answers from the regulations either. 
Only as we use the new law by applying it in particular
circumstances--then (and only then) will we truly know that an
end to discrimination against the blind by the airlines is at
hand.
  The official statements made by Senators and Congressmen as
they debated and passed the legislation will be looked to both by
the Department of Transportation and by the courts.  Laws are
interpreted by reading the Congressional intent whenever Congress
has made its wishes known.  In this case we, too, must understand
what Congress expects from the airlines and from the federal
regulators.  Therefore, we are reprinting here several relevant
excerpts from the Congressional Record.  In the first discussion
Senator Howard Metzenbaum (Democrat from Ohio) and Senator Dole
(Republican from Kansas and Senate majority leader) take note of
the discriminatory procedures which some airlines have engaged in
under existing Federal Aviation Regulations.  Senator Dole was
the chief sponsor of the airline bill.  For this reason it is
highly significant that he responded to Senator Metzenbaum
unequivocally in saying that airline procedures must conform to
the legal mandate of nondiscrimination.  Further, Senator Dole
stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (not the airlines
individually) will decide which procedures are (or are not)
required for safety.  In this connection it should be noted that
the current safety regulations of the FAA have no limits on the
seating of blind passengers.  That is something which the
airlines have sought to enforce on their own.
  Under the new policy of nondiscrimination, will the FAA be
willing to enforce the airlines' seating limitations?  That will
be one of the more challenging issues to be resolved.  But it
will be resolved.  We are now closer to victory than we have ever
been, backed by a new law that decrees that the airlines must
have a nondiscrimination policy by the airlines.  Here is what
Senator Metzenbaum and Senator Dole said about what they intend
the new law to do:

--------------------

In the Senate of the United States August 15, 1986

  Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, in
order that the intent of S. 2703, the Air Carrier Access Act, may
be clarified, I wish to make an inquiry of the distinguished
majority leader.
  Mr. Dole. Mr. President, I would be
happy to respond to the Senator's questions.
  Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, as
the distinguished majority leader knows, we are all very
concerned that the Department of Transportation implement this
legislation, upon its enactment, in an effective and timely
manner.  Toward that end, I understand that commercial airlines
have already designed procedures intended to provide for the safe
carriage of handicapped passengers and that these procedures are
placed on file with the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant
to a Federal Aviation regulation (14 CFR Sec. 121.586).
  Mr. Dole. I am aware that these procedures to which the
distinguished Senator refers have been developed by some of the
airlines.  I believe also that there have been regulations
promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration and its
predecessor agency, the CAB.  These regulations have been under
development since 1977.  They deal primarily with safety. 
However, since the Supreme Court decision in the "Paralyzed
Veterans" case in June, the regulations affect only those few
small airlines receiving direct Federal financial assistance.
  Mr. Metzenbaum. The Senator is correct.  The regulation I
referred to was promulgated in 1977 and intended originally to
provide access to air carriers for anyone who is handicapped. 
But the procedures left to each airline are not working. 
Incidents of discrimination continue in what appears to me to be
an ever increasing pattern.  In fact, the procedures themselves
may actually be discriminatory in many instances.
  A letter from the Secretary of Transportation received by me in
July, 1986, a copy of which I believe was also sent to the
majority leader, indicates that the Department does not evaluate
the airline procedures for potentially discriminatory
requirements, absent a specific complaint by a handicapped
passenger.  The only check made on the procedures by the Federal
Aviation Administration is to determine that the procedures
themselves do not pose safety problems.
  If we are going to tackle successfully this problem of
discrimination against the handicapped on airlines, we are going
to have to be sure that the procedures that each airline places
on file with the FAA do not contain discriminatory requirements.
  Mr. Dole. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Ohio that
I agree entirely with the sentiment he is expressing.  I
understand that a safety review of each airline's procedures is
already made by the FAA.  Our intent in
S. 2703 is that so long as the procedures of each airline are
safe as determined by the FAA, there should be no restrictions
placed upon air travel by handicapped persons.  Any restrictions
that the procedures may impose must be only for safety reasons
found necessary by the FAA.  Beyond this, the Secretary of
Transportation should review each airline's procedures in light
of the regulations to be promulgated pursuant to S. 2703 to
ensure that the procedures of each airline do not contain
discriminatory requirements.  This review will be essential in my
judgment for the uniform, timely, and effective implementation of
this bill's nondiscrimination policy.
  Mr. Metzenbaum. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished
majority leader for clarification of this point.  Since the
airlines already file procedures with the FAA, it just makes good
sense that S. 2703 should require a review in order to bring the
procedures into conformity with the nondiscrimination policy.  I
understand that this is the intent of the legislation.
  Mr. Dole. Mr. President, the Senator's understanding is
correct.
  Mr. Metzenbaum. I thank the Senator.

--------------------

  The next speaker to join the discussion was Senator Charles
Grassley (Republican from Iowa).  He raised a point which is dear
to the hearts of the blind, and the message must be heard by the
regulation writers at the Department of Transportation.  The
discussion points up the fact that all disabilities are not the
same.  Many people, such as the blind (as Senator Grassley
states), are not limited in their ability to use the airlines. 
Senator Dole agreed and explained further his intent that
"abilities, not disabilities," are to be emphasized by the
nondiscrimination policy.  As far as the blind are concerned, we
are not going to be regimented into an overly simplified and
single-minded mold, labeled "the handicapped."  It is clear that
the Senate majority Leader (the sponsor of the bill) agrees. 
Here is the discussion:

--------------------

In the Senate of the United States August 15, 1986

  Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of S.
2703, and I commend the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished
majority leader, for bringing this legislation to the floor
without delay.  May I simply make one brief inquiry of the
Senator?
  Mr. Dole. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Iowa, and I would be most pleased to respond to
his inquiry.
  Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I am struck by the fact that S.
2703 contains a very broad definition of "handicapped person"
fashioned, I believe, after the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  That
seems appropriate to ensure that anyone who may be subjected to
discrimination based on handicap will be afforded the protection
of Federal regulations and this act.
  However, each disability is not equally limiting, and different
disabilities impose different limitations under different
circumstances.  Many disabilities impose no limitation or
handicap whatsoever on an individual in air travel.  Constituents
of mine who are blind have made this point repeatedly-- and I
think legitimately--in their dealings with the airlines.  Is it
the intent of the Senator's bill to take these differences among
disabilities into account, especially as the regulations are
developed by the Secretary of Transportation?  My concern is that
discrimination against the handicapped often may arise by
treating everyone who is handicapped alike, regardless of the
nature or extent of the disability.
  Mr. Dole. Given the general language of S. 2703, the
distinguished Iowa Senator's concern is very important and
appreciated.  It is not our intent to regiment the treatment of
the handicapped under identical procedures that apply necessarily
in the same manner to everyone.  Rather than focusing our
attention on disabilities, we should be thinking in terms of
abilities.  Many individuals--including those mentioned by the
Senator and others--may be able to use air transportation in
precisely the same manner as all other travelers who are not
handicapped.  Others may need assistance.  Everyone must be
served in air transportation in a manner appropriate to their
abilities.  That is the intent of the nondiscrimination policy of
S. 2703.
  Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Kansas for his clarification.

--------------------

  On September 18 members of the House of Representatives got
their opportunity to speak on and vote for the bill to prohibit
discrimination by airlines.  Representative Norman Y. Mineta is
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee in the House.  He, too, has
been sensitized to the need to overhaul airline procedures that
discriminate.  Further, Mr. Mineta is not in favor of treating
all of the handicapped alike.  Here is an excerpt from Mr.
Mineta's statement:

--------------------

In the House of Representatives September 1, 1986

  Mr. Mineta. ...The bill now before us, S. 2703, will help
ensure that airlines do not discriminate against handicapped
passengers.
  During the past year I had a number of meetings with
representatives of handicapped groups and I have been concerned
with the special difficulties which handicapped persons sometimes
face when they travel.  One cause of these difficulties appears
to be that there is considerable confusion among airlines and
their employees about the obligations of an airline to furnish
the same air transportation services to the handicapped as are
furnished to other passengers.  The confusion has been increased
by a recent Supreme Court decision which ruled that nonsubsidized
airlines are not subject to the requirements of section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against
the handicapped.
  The bill now before us, S. 2703, will make it clear that
airlines may not discriminate against handicapped persons.  The
bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to enact
regulations to ensure that handicapped passengers are treated
fairly and are not subject to discrimination.
  In addition, we expect the Secretary of Transportation to
review the procedures for transporting the handicapped which the
airlines have filed with the Federal Aviation Administration. 
The review will ensure that airline procedures do not
discriminate and impose only those restrictions necessary for
safety.
  In carrying out its responsibilities DOT should bear in mind
that all disabilities are not equally limiting and that many
handicapped individuals are able to use air transportation in
precisely the same manner as travelers who are not handicapped. 
DOT should ensure that handicapped persons will receive air
transportation services geared to their capabilities.

--------------------

  These statements from congressional leaders make it clear that
a new day, filled with hope and promise, has dawned for the blind
in their battle for equality in air travel.  It will largely be
up to us (to us who are blind) to use the new law in ways which
will put an end to discrimination by the airlines once and for
all.  Congress has declared the national policy--that there must
be an end to discrimination by the airlines.  Now we must make it
all come true.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW


  Any blind person who has been the victim of discrimination by
an airline may file a complaint with DOT (the federal Department
of Transportation).  That is the case now, and it was the case
even before the passage of Public Law 99-435, which prohibits
discrimination against "the handicapped" on all airlines.  The
Secretary of Transportation (Elizabeth Dole) and other top
officials of her department have repeatedly said  in public
statements and in writing that they will promptly investigate all
complaints and take action to enforce the law.  This, too, is not
new.  However, when the government says it will "promptly
investigate" any complaint of discrimination and "take action to
enforce existing laws," the expression and the reality may, to
say the least, be divergent.
  On March 19, 1986, Marc Maurer was manhandled by United
Airlines' personnel and carried from an airplane.  He was sitting
in an overwing exit-row seat to which he had been assigned.  On
May 19, 1986, Mary Ellen Reihing was denied air transportation
because she was seated in an emergency overwing exit-row seat to
which she had been assigned on a Piedmont commuter flight.  When
Miss Reihing refused to leave her seat, the flight was canceled
and the plane taken to the hangar, where it was parked with Miss
Reihing still aboard.  On June 26, 1986, Barbara Pierce was
arrested and removed from a Trans World Airlines flight by St.
Louis, Missouri, airport police for occupying her assigned seat
in an emergency overwing exit-row.  All charges were dropped when
the police found that Mrs. Pierce had (contrary to statements by
airline personnel) not violated any law.
  Each of these incidents became the subject of a specific
complaint filed (with NFB's help) with DOT's Office of Consumer
Affairs.  The complaints were handled by the Office of the
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings.  This was a critical test of the good faith and
integrity of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Department of Transportation.  Would DOT actually enforce a
nondiscrimination policy?  Would the airlines be ordered to
remove their exit-row seating limitations?  Would the airlines be
found in violation of the law?  Can the blind be forced to move
from emergency overwing exit-row seats, seats to which they have
been assigned by the airlines?  These questions were the essence
of the complaints presented to DOT for decision and action.
  There should have been no delay and no problem in DOT's
answers.  The blind persons involved were subjected to treatment
which was different from that accorded to non-blind air
travelers.  Each of the blind passengers was able to comply with
reasonable, safety-related requests of airline personnel.  There
was no safety necessity for their removal from emergency exit-row
seats, seats to which the airlines themselves had assigned them. 
Restrictions on seating of blind passengers are not called for as
a matter of safety regulation by the Federal Aviation
Administration.  Therefore, the airlines discriminated against
each of the blind individuals in question.
  Under date of September 29, 1986, DOT's Assistant General
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings issued his
decision in a combined response to the three complaints.  The
airlines did not discriminate, he said.  This decision by DOT's
assistant counsel is, of course, not the end of the matter.  It
is only the beginning.
  Always in the past the airlines (when they have been asked
about their rules) have contented themselves with vague
generalities, shadow-boxing, and ducking.  Now, at long last,
they have been forced into the open.  They have had to explain in
writing why they think the exit-row seating limitations for blind
people are justified.  The answers are almost more astonishing
and unbelievable than the policies and the practices.
  Here is what United Airlines said in part: "On April 8, 1986,
United flight #732 landed at O'Hare International Airport and
suffered a collapsed left landing gear.  Because the Captain saw
a fuel leak from the left engine of the B- 737 aircraft, an
evacuation of the passengers from the right side of the aircraft
was executed.  Had the Captain not been able to see the fuel
leak, a passenger exiting over the wing could have seen it and
advised the crew and passengers not to exit over the left wing. 
The policy of not seating blind passengers in emergency exit rows
is plainly intended to maximize the opportunities of a safe
evacuation through removal of the exit window and assessment of
an available over-the-wing escape path."
  Is this argument reasonable?  Would the average passenger (one
who might have consumed several drinks) really stop in an
emergency evacuation, make a cool assessment, report the matter
back to appropriate personnel inside the plane, and cause a
change in the pattern of evacuation?  In the rush of passengers
to evacuate the plane, how would a passenger fare who tried to
buck the tide and re-enter the plane to find the appropriate
person to whom to report?  Would such a passenger be more likely
to be heeded or trampled?  It is reminiscent of the days when
blacks were told that they must use separate drinking fountains
for the safety of the public and barbers did not know how to cut
their hair.
  Here in part is what TWA said: "Ms.  Judy Nichols, Ms. Pierce's
secretary, submitted an affidavit which mentions that another
passenger with a mobility handicap was seated next to an
emergency exit and was not asked to move.  As previously stated,
TWA's regulations in this regard. . .are not directed toward
handicapped individuals, but only to those passengers who would
impede evacuation.  A person with a mobility problem is fully
able to read and obey the instructions for evacuation."
  If the logic of this argument escapes you, all you need do is
remember that it is airline logic.  These are official statements
provided to the Department of Transportation by airlines. 
Obviously they are filled with unfounded suppositions and false
reasoning, but the airlines had to find some kind of argument to
make.  There is no more evidence that blind people are hazards in
exit rows than there is that airline personnel are primarily
concerned with safety.  Witness the universal practice of serving
an abundance of liquor to passengers in exit rows.
  The correspondence reprinted in this article sets forth the
situation in graphic detail.  The lack of a rational basis for
the exit-row limitations is obvious, and it is equally obvious
that the superstitions and myths upon which these restrictions
are based cannot withstand logical examination.  Congress has now
passed a new law which requires each procedure of an airline to
be subjected to a nondiscrimination test.  Restrictions that do
not have a rational safety basis are not to be allowed in the
future.  The Federal Aviation Administration (not the airlines
individually) will be required to say which procedures are
necessary for safety and which are not.  Under current federal
regulations exit-row restrictions are not considered necessary
for safety.  It will no doubt be a matter of some debate as to
whether that will continue to be the case.  Meanwhile, the
airline safety hoax is now completely in the open.
  The ruling against the complaints of Marc Maurer, Mary Ellen
Reihing, and Barbara Pierce is not particularly surprising or
discouraging.  It is simply an expression of present day airline
thinking, backed by the bureaucrats at DOT.  As is so often the
case, this is not a dispute about facts to be settled by logic. 
The restrictions arise from prejudice.  We have experience in
dealing with prejudice.  Other myths and superstitions have been
overcome in our march toward freedom and equality.  The airline
battle is no different from the rest.  Now that the airline
safety hoax has been forced into the open and reduced to writing,
we must meet and destroy it with the same determination we have
shown in other such cases.  This is the challenge we face, and it
will require the combined best efforts of us all if the challenge
is successfully to be met:

--------------------

                        Washington, D.C.  September 29, 1986

Mr. James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland

RE: Complaints of Mr. Marc Maurer, Ms.  Barbara Pierce, and Miss
Mary Ellen Reihing

Dear Mr. Gashel:
  This letter is in further response to your separate inquiries
on behalf of the above individuals.  Each of these persons was
denied a seat in an over- wing emergency exit-row of an aircraft
because he or she is blind.
  I have now received and reviewed responses from United Airlines
regarding Mr. Maurer's complaint, Trans World Airlines regarding
Ms. Pierce's complaint, and Jetstream International, of
Piedmont's Commuter System, regarding Miss Reihing's complaint. 
A copy of each carrier's reply is enclosed for your information. 
For the reasons detailed below, none of the above complaints
constitutes reasonable grounds for instituting an enforcement
action against the respective carrier involved for a violation of
Part 382 of the Department's regulations, 14 CFR Part 382.
  In reviewing complaints alleging discrimination by airlines
against handicapped persons, this office considers a number of
factors before deciding whether to proceed with formal
enforcement action.  First, we attempt to determine whether the
particular action taken by the airline affecting the handicapped
person is required in the interest of safety.  If it is, then we
do not consider the action to be unlawful discrimination.  In
establishing whether a requirement exists, we look to the FAA for
assistance.  Where a Federal Aviation Regulation exists requiring
a particular action or where the FAA requires a particular action
as part of its approval or clearance process associated with
airline manuals and procedures, we consider the action to be
justified.
  Second, if there is no express safety regulation requiring a
particular airline action, we attempt to determine whether the
action was justified.  As part of that determination, we look to
the primary motive of the airline in taking the action--that is,
was the motive to improve safety or some other reason, such as
operational convenience, or a lack of knowledge of, or
sensitivity to, the abilities of handicapped persons.  We also
seek the advice of the FAA if the claimed reason for the action
is safety.
  Even if a carrier articulates a safety justification for its
action, where that action deprives a handicapped passenger of
adequate access under section 404 of the Federal Aviation Act,
its action would violate Part 382.  The duty to ensure safe
travel has always been, and remains today, the highest priority
of the Department.  At the same time, it is our duty to ensure
that all passengers, including the handicapped, have adequate
access to air transportation.  Where a carrier's voluntary action
to improve the safety of its operations denies the handicapped
adequate service, we have authority and will not hesitate to act. 
The facts of each case are of utmost importance in making these
kinds of decisions.
  Based on the information available to us, we have decided not
to take any further action at this time with respect to the three
complaints you have forwarded.  In each case, the discrimination
alleged concerned an airline's decision not to allow a blind
person to sit in an overwing emergency exit-row.  There is no
specific FAA regulation allowing or prohibiting the seating of
blind passengers in seats located in emergency exit-rows. 
However, the carrier policies in question are consistent with a
safety recommendation contained in FAA Advisory Circular 120- 32,
issued March 3, 1977, which at page 9, paragraph 9c, states:
  "Ambulatory handicapped passengers should be seated in areas in
which evacuation would normally occur through a floor-level,
non-overwing exit." (Emphasis added)
  The action taken by each of the carriers--asking the blind
passenger to move to a different row of seats--was consistent
with the FAA recommendation and did not deny that passenger
adequate service under existing regulations.  [One thinks of the
blacks who were required to sit at the back of the bus. 
Certainly they were not denied "adequate service."  But back to
the letter from the Assistant General Counsel.]  Moreover, there
is no evidence that the airlines took the actions they did for
any reason other than to improve the safety of all the passengers
on the airplane.
  Whether Mr. Maurer, Ms. Pierce, or Miss Reihing have a civil
cause of action and are due monetary relief for mental anguish,
invasion of privacy, humiliation, or other costs requested in
each of the complaints are matters properly pursued in another
forum.  The relief requested is beyond our authority.
  Our decision with respect to the complaints you forwarded is
based only on the current regulations and the information
available to us now.  The decision not to initiate an enforcement
proceeding is that of this Office and does not reflect a decision
of the Department with respect to any course of action in the
future.  As you are probably aware, the Department recently
issued Notice 86-7 (51 FR 30078; August 22, 1986) which requests
information from the public on airline practices and procedures
affecting the travel of blind passengers.  That notice
specifically requests comments regarding the seating of blind
persons in emergency exit rows, and on whether the Department
should take regulatory action to ensure that blind persons are
not denied the seating of their choice in this situation.  You
might wish to submit information to the Department to assist in
its inquiry.  A copy of Notice 86-7 is enclosed.
  Please let me or Dayton Lehman of my staff know if you have any
questions.

                              Sincerely, Samuel Podberesky
               Assistant General Counsel Office of Aviation
Enforcement
                         and Proceedings

--------------------

                     Baltimore, Maryland October 15, 1986

Mr. Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel Office of
Aviation Enforcement
 and Proceedings
Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

RE: Complaints of Marc Maurer, Barbara Pierce, and Mary Ellen
Reihing

Dear Mr. Podberesky:
  This is in response to your letter of September 29, 1986,
announcing DOT's decision not to commence formal enforcement
action in the above-captioned complaints.  By this letter I am
asking you to reconsider DOT's position on these complaints for
the reasons set forth below.
  Alternatively (should reconsideration be denied) please provide
me with a statement that the decision not to commence enforcement
with reference to each complaint is a "final agency action."  If
it is not a "final agency action," please advise me of any
additional administrative remedies which we may be required to
exhaust.
  The basis for your conclusion that none of the airlines in
question violated Part 382 appears to be that the "adequate air
service" requirements were met in each case.  But, of course,
they were not.  Each of the passengers was denied air
transportation on the flight as scheduled.  They were each
detained through no fault of their own.  Airline personnel in
each case made the decision not to dispatch the flights as
scheduled until their unreasonable demands were met by the blind
persons or (under arrest) the blind persons were removed from the
aircraft.  Under the circumstances it is hard to imagine what the
"adequate air service" standard really means.  There was no air
service as long as airline personnel held to their baseless and
discriminatory demands.
  Further, the "adequate air service" requirements of Section 404
of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Part 382, prohibits
discrimination based on handicap.  The concept of "adequate air
service" therefore includes compliance with Part 382.  However,
the decision concludes that "adequate air service" was available
and then fails even to consider or analyze the discriminatory
conditions of seating which were imposed upon each blind
passenger.
  Yet, each blind passenger was unreasonably subjected to
"separate or different" treatment.  The net effect of the
decision not to enforce Part 382 in these cases is to set aside
Part 382, as though it never existed.  The decision says in
effect that, Part 382's requirements to the contrary
notwithstanding, separate or different air transportation
services for the blind are approved by DOT, as long as some form
of "adequate air service" may be provided.
  Under this standard of enforcement, Part 382 would not prohibit
an airline from restricting blind persons to window seats in rows
that are as far from emergency exits as possible.  Some airlines
have done this, attempting to justify the seating limitations by
alleged safety reasons.  Many airlines also insist that blind
passengers wait submissively in their seats while others evacuate
first in an emergency, regardless of where the blind passenger
may be seated.  Yet the Department's present enforcement standard
would appear to permit airlines to direct the blind to wait
during emergencies, as long as the stated reason is safety and
"adequate air service" is provided despite the evacuation
restrictions.
  The decision not to enforce Part 382 is tantamount to a finding
that the three blind passengers are not "qualified handicapped
individuals."  Reliance on FAA's advisory circular (incidentally,
not cited by any of the airlines in the responses to the
complaints) appears to be the principal basis for the conclusion
that the passengers are not "qualified handicapped individuals."
But the advisory circular is not a safety regulation.  As the
decision correctly notes:  "There is no specific FAA regulation
allowing or prohibiting the seating of blind passengers in seats
located in emergency exit rows."
  It is a false and unsupportable presumption to hold that blind
persons do not qualify to sit in emergency exit rows, while all
sorts of non-blind persons with known and unknown limitations
qualify for these seats.  With respect to the blind subjects of
these complaints, both the Department and the airlines would be
hard put to prove in court that they are not as qualified as the
non-blind members of any random group of occupants of emergency
exit row seats.
  Moreover, in the absence of a specific FAA regulation, the
advisory circular should not in effect be accorded the status of
a Federal regulation.  In 1974, FAA actually proposed a
regulation that included seating restrictions for blind
passengers.  The restrictions were rejected, however, in favor of
having airlines develop their own procedures and file them with
the FAA (See 14CFR Section 121.586).  FAA does not disapprove
airline procedures which do not impose seating restrictions on
blind passengers.  According to FAA officials, the airlines'
procedures that do not have restrictions are accepted for filing,
because they do not violate FAA's safety regulations.  However,
without a shred of evidence to support a decision which is
contrary to FAA's "non-regulation" position, the decision in
these cases sides with the airlines and against FAA's stated
policy and actual practice.
  As to the safety allegations of the airlines, the presumption
should actually fall with the blind passengers, not with the
airlines.  According to the testimony of Mr. Maurer and Miss
Reihing (see their affidavits), the airline officials involved in
their cases disavowed safety concerns with respect to these
particular blind people.  It is noted, however, that United
Airlines does raise the safety issue in its written response to
Mr. Maurer's complaint.
  By all indications, DOT has failed to consider the
reasonableness (or rather the unreasonableness) of the three
airlines' responses.  As an example, we submit that the response
from United is highly speculative and preposterous.  Since the
captain in a recent evacuation observed a fuel leak on the
left-hand side of the aircraft, United reasons that a sighted
passenger using the overwing exit on the left-hand side would
have seen the leak and properly interpreted the danger of the
situation.  Then it also reasons that the sighted passenger could
have reversed the evacuation then in progress so that all of the
passengers would use the right- hand exits only.
  In the first place, we have no evidence that the fuel leak
could have been observed from the emergency exit or on top of the
wing.  If the fuel leak could not be seen from the overwing exit
(or on top of the wing), it wouldn't matter if an evacuating
passenger could see.  The leak would have to be seen from another
vantage point, such as the captain's, which it was.  But even if
the fuel leak could be seen by a sighted person in the emergency
exit row, a blind passenger in the same row could easily be told
of the danger.  In fact, all of the passengers (presumably all of
whom were sighted) were warned of the danger by the captain, and
they responded accordingly.  It would be enlightening to learn
how many (if any) of the sighted passengers observed the danger
on their own and understood what corrective action should be
taken.  Interesting as it may be, the United Airlines incident
offers absolutely no proof that blind persons are hazards in
emergency exit rows.  There was not even a blind person in the
exit row.  Nor is there any showing that the sighted passengers
saw the danger.  Under the circumstances United's safety claim
for the seating restriction applied to Mr.  Maurer is utterly
unreasonable and without foundation.
  In a similar unreasonable fashion, TWA claims that, by virtue
of her blindness, Barbara Pierce would be unable to comprehend or
follow the directions for opening and clearing the exit in an
emergency.  But this assertion lacks any showing that
comprehension and following of directions depend upon sight or
the physical ability to read the printed instructions.  As she
testified in her affidavit, Mrs. Pierce had read the instructions
for operating the emergency exit window.  She had physically
examined the apparatus.  Her intelligence level, reading
comprehension, and diversity of experience are all greater than
normal.  But according to TWA, blindness bars understanding and
the following of directions.
  Here is an example of TWA's reasoning that the DOT's decision
apparently approves of and accepts.  "Ms. Judy Nichols, Ms.
Pierce's secretary, submitted an affidavit which mentions that
another passenger with a mobility handicap was seated next to an
emergency exit and was not asked to move.  As previously stated,
TWA's regulations in this regard. . .are not directed toward
handicapped individuals, but only to those passengers who would
impede evacuation.  A person with a mobility problem is fully
able to read and obey the instructions for evacuation."
  So, reading, comprehension, and the ability to follow
directions (all qualities which Barbara Pierce has in abundance)
are the traits which make for a qualified emergency exit-row
occupant.  Shockingly it matters not that the man with a mobility
impairment could not move quickly in comparison to passengers
without mobility impairments (including Mrs. Pierce).  His slower
movements would predictably block other passengers in their
scramble to reach the emergency exit.  And once on the wing,
could the man with a mobility impairment quickly descend to the
ground and run from the plane as Mrs. Pierce could do?  From the
evidence, it is unlikely that the man with a mobility impairment
could even support himself or walk without his crutches.  He
would not, of course, have access to his crutches in an
emergency.  Yet, this mobility impaired man with sight is
acceptable in an exit-row while physically fit and agile Barbara
Pierce is not.
  Surely it is obvious that the exit-row exclusions that were
exercised by airlines with respect to Mr. Maurer, Mrs.  Pierce,
and Miss Reihing were and are arbitrary, capricious, and
discriminatory.  The exclusions were applied to these individuals
solely because they are blind and without regard to their
individual abilities.  So, too, other passengers with their
disabilities (known and unknown) were seated in exit- row seats
on their flights.  The restrictions in the case of these
individuals are based on prejudice, not safety.  The written
rationale presented by each airline demonstrates that any claim
to safety in these incidents is baseless.  In light of the
foregoing, a reconsideration of the complaints of Mr.  Maurer,
Mrs. Pierce, and Miss Reihing is certainly in order.  If a
procedure for filing or refiling these complaints is available or
required to obtain a "final agency action," please advise and
explain the procedure.  Thank you for your attention to this
response and our request for reconsideration.

                 Respectfully submitted,
                            James Gashel
        Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of
the Blind

P.S.  Secretary Dole's letter, sent to nearly half of the members
of the Senate in July, 1986, states that, "We view Part 382 as
prohibiting airlines from affording separate or different
services to blind persons who are qualified handicapped persons. 
The Department would, therefore, regard as inconsistent with Part
382 an airline practice that afforded, to blind passengers,
separate or different services that could not be regarded as
being based on a reasonable expectation that the safety of the
flight and the people on it would be
jeopardized.  The Department       would
also regard as inconsistent with Part 382 insistence by an
airline that blind passengers comply with requests to accept
separate or different services that are neither safety-related
nor necessary for the provision of air transportation."  That
policy appears to be in keeping with the intent of Part 382. 
However, the decision not to commence enforcement actions in
these complaints disregards Secretary Dole's stated policy.  The
inconsistency is that "adequate air service" is enough for an
airline to avoid being found in violation of Part 382,
discriminatory actions of the airline notwithstanding.  In case
there is any confusion or doubt about the matter, it is our
considered position that under the circumstances involved in each
of these complaints, the restrictions on seating were not
reasonably related to safety or necessary for the provision of
air transportation.  Accordingly, DOT should undertake
enforcement in accordance with the policy that Secretary Dole has
indicated.


OPENING UP A BAG

by Jane Crawford


  (Jane Crawford is from Trumbull, Connecticut.)

  What does one do with a mixed bag of emotions except to sort
them out?
  Here is what is partially in my bag--a feeling of being an
outsider, confusion and chaos, admiration, pride mixed with
anger, and finally a sense of belonging.
  This bag started filling up when I arrived for my first NFB
convention in Kansas City.
  I am a sighted person, and although I had understood that the
convention was open to all who had any dealings with the blind (I
am a teacher of the visually impaired), I began to feel
alienated.  There was the confusion--all those canes and all
those dogs--all those people trying to get from one place to
another--all that sense of misdirection and even downright
pushiness on elevators and buses.  These were my initial
impressions, and I didn't want to be there.
  Then, all of a sudden, things began to come together for me.  I
attended seminars (still feeling like an outsider, especially
after hearing about "agency" people).  My thoughts were, "I'm not
one of those," and "I'm not trying to do for the blind that which
they can do for themselves," and "Holy Cow, maybe I am!" That's
when I stepped outside of myself and really looked at what was
going on.
  This convention was like any other--a mixture of people brought
together from all over the world with different educations,
different ideals, different philosophies, et cetera.  But with a
common purpose--to stand up for what they believe in and to fight
for it.  That's when the admiration began to set in--and the
pride--and the anger.
  I have no idea what it takes to organize something like Kansas
City, but I can imagine the work and dedication.  I started to
become proud of the people I met and of myself.  Chaos had become
exuberance and interest and caring.  Anger became channeled into
action, and then my sense of alienation left me.  I could make
friends here.
  I came home to find that a job I really wanted was mine.  I
will go on teaching the visually impaired, but with new
understandings of what I am really supposed to do.  It is after
all what people can do for themselves that counts.  That message
was the final item that I took out of my bag when I got home from
Kansas City.


ANNOUNCING THE 1986-87
NFB BRAILLE READING CONTEST FOR BLIND CHILDREN

by Barbara Cheadle


  Someone once said, "Eternity is a terrible thought.  I mean,
where's it going to end?"
  That's the way most of us feel whenever we think about the
downward spiral in the use and availability of Braille.  Where
will it end?  How can we get teachers to teach Braille?  How can
we get more Braille?  How can we get blind children to read
Braille?  How can we make Braille respectable again?
  Well, the Parents of Blind Children Division of the NFB and the
National Association to Promote the Use of Braille got together
two years ago and came up with an exciting project to help battle
this alarming decline in the use and respectability of Braille. 
In 1984 we announced our first annual Braille Reading Contest for
Blind Children and boldly proclaimed that "Braille Readers Are
Leaders".  That contest was a wonderful success.  We followed it
with another in 1985-86 and are now ready to launch our third
contest for the 1986-87 year.
  The obvious purpose of the contest is simple; get more blind
children to read Braille and to read more of it.  We reasoned
that reading speed and proficiency would increase if blind kids
just read more.  We also hoped that children who didn't enjoy
reading would discover, just by participating in the contest,
that Braille was fun and was also a valuable skill.
  That is what we hoped would happen, and it did!  Teachers and
parents now say that their blind children and students are
reading more Braille and enjoying it more, just because of the
NFB contest.  One teacher was stunned at the number of pages one
of her students read.  She really hadn't believed that the
student could do so well.  Other teachers are thrilled with the
progress their students make.  The contest motivates the students
to start reading, they say, but soon the reward is simply in
reading Braille itself.  Parents learn, too.  One parent told us
that it had not occurred to them that Braille could be read for
fun and pleasure.  Her son, who once only read school
assignments, now reads extensively for his own pleasure and
information.  Another parent said she hadn't realized how little
was available in Braille until her daughter entered the contest.
  The best result of all is that through this contest we are
demonstrating to these blind children, to their parents,
teachers, friends, and other members of their community, that it
is respectable to be blind.  The techniques the blind may
use--such as Braille--are not inferior substitutes, but viable
alternatives.  Blind people, we say, can compete on a basis of
equality.  Because of the NFB and this contest, more blind
children are now getting the confidence and skills they need to
compete.  When we publicize the contest, we are also helping
educate the public and making it possible for all blind persons
to have more opportunities.
  Like the previous contests, the 1986- 87 contest is open to all
blind school- age children in kindergarten through twelfth
grades.  The contest begins December 1, 1986, and ends March 1,
1987.  Registration forms are to be sent in at the beginning of
the contest, and official entry forms are due no later than March
10, 1987.
  Children compete in one of five categories, and first, second,
and third place winners are selected from each category. The
winners receive cash prizes of $50.00, $25.00, and $5.00; special
T-shirts proclaiming "I'm A Winner.  Braille Readers Are
Leaders"; and certificates.  Every contestant receives a Braille
certificate and a ribbon just for entering.
  Federationists can help promote and publicize the contest by
seeing to it that contest entry forms are distributed widely to
teachers, parents, and librarians in their city or state.
  Whenever possible, we arrange for Federationists publicly to
present the awards to the winners.  If you have contestants or
winners in your area, make sure that they get proper recognition
at school awards ceremonies, your state convention, local chapter
meetings, or any other appropriate occasion.  Also, contact the
newspapers and other news media in your area about contestants or
winners in your community.  The contest is an excellent
opportunity to get the NFB name and philosophy out to the public. 
Because of the nationwide attention that is now being focused on
illiteracy in the U.S., this would be an especially good time to
catch the media's attention about Braille and the problem of
illiteracy among blind children.
  To get entry forms or more information about the contest, write
or call; Betty Nicely, President, NAPUB, 3618 Dayton Ave.,
Louisville, KY 40207; phone (work) 502-897-6439 or (home)
502-897-2632.  You may also contact: Barbara Cheadle, National
Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD
21230; (301) 659-9314 or at home, 301-644-4149.


SPRING MERCHANTS CONFERENCE

by Ramona Walhof


  (The Blind Merchants Division of the National Federation of the
Blind has for a number of years held a meeting somewhere in the
nation each spring.  In view of the problems which are now
occurring in the vending program throughout the country, it is
especially important that blind vendors attend these meetings and
inform themselves so that they may take collective action.)

  Begin planning now for the spring Merchants Conference!  It
will be April 3 - 5, 1987, at the Day's Inn in Detroit.  In many
ways Michigan has the best program for blind vending facility
operators anywhere in the country.  Larry Posont, President of
the NFB Merchants Division, is also Chairman of the Michigan
Vendors Committee and has been for a number of years.  Al Harris,
President of the NFB of Michigan, is on the Board of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind.  Others have made contributions, and it
has taken time, but the Randolph-Sheppard program in Michigan
leads the nation, and both agency staff and vendors would tell
you they are planning many improvements still to come.
  Friday, April 3, we will tour several different types of
vending facilities in the downtown Detroit area.  Saturday's
program will deal with many business concerns with a banquet in
the evening.  Sunday morning will be our business meeting. 
Adjournment will be no later than 1:00 p.m.
  This is the best chance blind business people will have during
1987 to share experiences and ideas.  In addition, it is a chance
to see how a strong vendors committee works.  Spring merchants
conferences have been getting more exciting every year, but 1987
will undoubtedly be better than ever before.
  If you cannot come, make sure someone from your state does come
and brings back a report.  If you miss this meeting and run into
trouble at home, you probably would have got some of the answers
at the conference.  Make your plans now to come.
  Hotel rates are $40.00 for single rooms and $45.00 for doubles. 
Address reservations to:  The Day's Inn, 313 Michigan Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan 48226; or phone (313) 965-4646.


BLIND PASTOR GIVES CHURCH VISION

by Dale James
Times Religion Editor


  The following article appeared in the September 27, 1986,
Huntsville (Alabama) Times.  As Monitor readers know, Reverend
Frank Lee was elected to membership on the Board of Directors of
the National Federation of the Blind at the convention last
summer in Kansas City.

--------------------

  When the congregation of Lakeside United Methodist Church
learned their new pastor was blind, they were understandably
concerned.
  Would he be able to minister to their needs effectively?  Were
they getting short-changed?
  "At the time we knew he was coming, back in June, the church
was apprehensive," recalled Hayward Handy, director of
communications at Lakeside.  "There were mixed reactions to the
news that he was blind.  We were unfamiliar and unacquainted with
this situation."
  That was before they actually met the Rev. Frank Lee.  For Lee,
however, having to prove himself is nothing new.
  Methodist ministers serve under the appointive system and are
reassigned to a new church every three years on average.  Each
new assignment has meant that Lee must overcome the same
misconceptions about his abilities that other blind people often
face.
  "I pastored my first church in Lafayette (Ala.) in 1972," said
Lee, a large man with a gentle laugh.  "When I first came into
this (North Alabama) conference, nobody knew me.  They thought
they were being cheated.  They were asking the question, 'What in
the world are we going to do with this poor blind man?'
  "But after six years I proved I could do the job and they
stopped asking.  They had more doubts than I did.
  "From there I moved up the road about 25 miles to Roanoke.  By
then, they already knew a little about me."
  The congregation at Lakeside no longer questions Lee's ability
to minister either.
  "We haven't done anything special to accommodate Pastor Lee,"
Handy said.  "He oriented himself to the building very quickly. 
He can go anywhere and do anything you'd expect a sighted person
to do.
  "If you didn't know, you wouldn't know."
  Lee concedes that being blind presents a number of obstacles
for a pastor, but none that can't be overcome.
  "Driving is a problem," he said.  "I have to depend on my wife
or some other member of the congregation to drive me to the
hospital or wherever.  But once I get there, the actual
ministering is no problem.
  "A lot of times I might need to know the facial expression of a
person I'm talking to.  But if I can get them to say something,
their voice usually gives away their facial expression.
  "Reading, naturally, is another problem.  That sometimes causes
a problem in getting information in a timely manner."
  Reading the Bible, though, is no problem.
  "We've got Braille Bibles in just about every translation now,"
he said.  "If it's not in Braille, I can get it on tapes."
  One of Lee's most uncanny talents, as far as his sighted
congregation is concerned, is his ability to recognize
members--and there are 255 of them--by just the sound of their
voices.
  "I work at that because the people I work with like for me to
recognize their voices, and I like to be able to do that,"
explained Lee, a graduate of the Alabama School for the Blind in
Talladega.  "Some of them get upset when I can't, but I try
hard."
  Trying hard seems to come natural to Lee.  This year the
National Federation of the Blind chose Lee as one of the 24
outstanding blind students in the nation and presented him with a
$2,000 merit scholarship for his doctoral studies at Gammon
Theological Seminary.
  The NFB is the nation's oldest and largest consumer group of
blind people.
  Lee also uses a standard typewriter with skill and accuracy ("I
do better on the manual typewriters than I do on the electrics"),
is proficient in the use of a Braille writing machine, and plays
piano and organ.
  "A lot of people have got the wrong idea about blind people,"
he said.  "The biggest problem about being blind is often other
people's attitudes."
  Those attitudes range from ignorance to outright hostility.
  "I think it's up to the blind person to put forth a decent
disposition," Lee said.  "But you have to remember that not all
sighted people are easygoing either.
  "I try to be true to the profession of the ministry.  I try to
be as cordial and reassuring as I can be.  I can do this not in
spite of my blindness, but because of my blindness."


VOICE-DIALER TELEPHONE

by Kenneth Jernigan


  In the course of my work with the National Federation of the
Blind I come across all kinds of people and all kinds of
specialized aids and devices.  Mostly the people are interesting,
and the aids and devices less so.  Sometimes there is a sparkling
exception.
  Such an exception occurred recently when I had occasion to
examine the Voice-Dialer Telephone and to talk with its inventor
(at least, I assume he invented it), Sid Mehta, who heads up a
company called Innovative Devices.  Mehta said that he had been
working on artificial intelligence technology for several years
and that the Voice-Dialer Telephone was one of the results.  As
he described it, the Voice-Dialer is a regular telephone which
calls a number when you speak the name of the person you want to
call into the telephone mouthpiece.  He said that the phone has
several other features, including the ability to tell you the
telephone number of any person whose name and number you have
keyed into the system.
  When I tried the Voice-Dialer, I found it to be a delightful
experience.  It plugs into any regular telephone jack, and it
also requires a regular wall electrical outlet.  You push a
button and the telephone tells you to say the name of the person
you wish to call.  If you don't speak with enough volume, the
phone says: "Louder."  It has various other comments it may make,
such as:  "Not long enough" if you say only one syllable in an
attempt to confuse it.  Assuming you have pronounced the name in
a reasonably understandable manner, the phone asks you to say it
again.  This allows it to make sure of recognizing your voice. 
It will then ask you to insert the number attached to the name
you have just spoken.  You do this on a regular touch-tone phone
pad.  Then, you hang up.  After that, any time you pick up the
phone and say the name, it will dial the number for you.
  It is keyed to your voice and will not respond to other voices,
but with care and repeated effort you can sometimes trick it. 
You may insert up to a hundred names and numbers, and if more
than one person wishes to call a given number, each of you will
need to say the name and key the number into the instrument.  If
two people key in the same name and number, it uses two of the
hundred possible places.  The phone does, indeed, have a
directory.  If you push a button and tell it the name, it will
give you the phone number you have previously keyed in.  These
are some of the features of the instrument.  There are doubtless
others, but these are the ones I tried.
  As with everything, the Voice-Dialer has advantages and
disadvantages.  My experimenting indicates that if you unplug it
from the wall, the numbers that have been keyed in are lost, but
this simply may be my lack of understanding of how to operate the
instrument.  The cost of the Voice-Dialer is just under $250.00. 
It is certainly fun to play with, and it could have real value to
a person who (for whatever reason) has difficulty in dialing
telephones or remembering or looking up numbers.
  The NFB is not selling these phones since they are readily
available at the same price we can get them.  If you are
interested in more information, you can call a toll-free
number--1-800-345-3553.  You can also write to: Innovative
Devices, 1333 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 254, Santa Clara,
California 95051.  Mr.  Mehta says that he accepts American
Express, Master Card, and Visa.  He also accepts personal checks,
but shipment of the phone will be delayed until the check clears.


****************************************

RECIPES

****************************************


  (Note: Diabetes is one of the leading causes of blindness.  It
follows that a sizable number of Federationists are diabetic. 
Not only diabetics but also many other people are interested in
desserts which are low in calories and require little or no
refined sugar.  The following three recipes were taken from the
October-December, 1986, Voice of the Diabetic, which is the
newsletter of the Diabetic Division of the National Federation of
the Blind.)


SUGARLESS PUMPKIN PIE

Frances Allen
Columbia, Missouri

  Put these ingredients into your blender in this order:  1
16-ounce pumpkin or 1-1/2 cups of fresh cooked pumpkin; 2
teaspoons Sweet-N-Low; 1/2 teaspoon of each of these:  salt,
ginger, nutmeg. Spoon stir spices into pumpkin:  2 teaspoons
cinnamon, 2 eggs, 1 14-ounce can skim evaporated milk.
  Instructions:  Mix on medium speed.  Pour into unbaked pie
crust.  Bake at 425 degrees for 15 minutes.  Bake longer if
needed.  If knife comes out clean after insertion, pie is done. 
When cooled, Equal may be sprinkled over pie.  Top cooled pie
with D-Zerta whipped topping mix.
  Yield, number of servings: 8.  Diabetic exchanges: 1-1/2 bread;
1-1/2 fat.  Number of calories per serving:  185.


DIABETIC GRANOLA BARS

Ken & Linda Carstens Virginia, Minnesota

Ingredients:
3/4 cup grapenuts
1-1/4 cups uncooked rolled oats
1/2 cup raisins
1/2 cup peanut butter 2 teaspoons vanilla 2/3 cup water
4 teaspoons honey

  Instructions:  Mix together, adding water last.  Some people
prefer to use a little less water.  Divide into portions and
freeze.  Eat frozen.
  Yield, number of servings: 12.  Calories per serving: 157. 
Diabetic exchanges:  1/2 medium fat meat, 1 bread, 1/2 fat, 1/2
fruit.


APPLE CRISP

Carol Anderson
Randolph, New Jersey


Ingredients:
4 cups peeled, sweet apples 1/4 cup water or apple juice
4 teaspoons brown sugar substitute 2 teaspoons lemon juice 3/4
teaspoons cinnamon 1/2 cup oatmeal, uncooked
2 tablespoons chopped walnuts
1 tablespoon brown sugar substitute 1 tablespoon soft vegetable
oil
  margarine

  Instructions: Combine apples, water (or juice), brown sugar
substitute, lemon juice, and cinnamon; toss lightly to coat
apples.  Layer on bottom of 8- inch baking dish.
  Heat oven to 375 degrees.  Combine oats, nuts and brown sugar
substitute.  Add margarine and mix well.  Sprinkle over apples. 
Bake about 30 minutes.  Serve warm or chilled.
  Number of servings: 4.  Calories per serving: 201.  Diabetic
exchanges: 1-1/2 fat, 1 fruit.

****************************************


  (Note:  The following recipes are submitted by Tony Sohl, who
is a member of the Tempe-Mesa Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind of Arizona.)


BEEF PIE

1-1/2 pounds ground beef 1/4 cup instant onions
1/4 cup chopped green pepper
1 8-oz. can tomato & mushroom sauce 1 8-oz. can green beans
(drained) 1/4 tsp. cumin seed or powder 1 can Pillsbury Crescent
Rolls 1 egg (slightly beaten) 2 cups shredded cheese

  METHOD: 1. Brown and drain beef.  2.  Stir in remaining
ingredients except egg and cheese.  3. Place flat crescent rolls
in greased 10-inch pie plate.  4.  Pour in meat mixture.  Pour
egg evenly over all.  5. Bake at 350 degrees for 30-45 minutes. 
6. Top with cheese and let sit.
  FOOTNOTE: Instead of the tomato sauce with mushrooms just use 1
8-ounce can of tomato sauce and 1 4-ounce can of mushrooms.


NO PEEK BEEF CASSEROLE

2-pounds stew beef cut in 1-inch pieces 1 envelope onion soup mix
1 can cream of mushroom soup 1 4-ounce can of mushrooms 1/2 cup
red wine (optional)

  METHOD: 1. Combine all ingredients in crockpot.  Stir together
well.  2. Cover and cook on low 8 to 12 hours (high 5 to 6
hours).  Serve over noodles or rice.


SLOPPY JOANS

In a non-stick skillet combine:  16-24 ounces cooked ground beef
2 tablespoons dry onion flakes 1/2 cup tomato sauce 1/2 teaspoon
dry mustard 1 rib celery, chopped 1/2 green pepper, chopped 2
teaspoons dry parsley
1 tablespoon worcestershire sauce

  METHOD: Cook over medium heat for 10 minutes, stirring
occasionally.  Serve on hamburger buns.


CHICKEN TAHITIAN

  In a baking dish: four whole chicken breasts, skinned, meat
side down.  Bake at 375 degrees for 30 minutes.

Combine in small saucepan:
1 cup crushed pineapple with juice 2 tablespoons soy sauce
1 medium green pepper, chopped 1/2 teaspoon pepper

  Heat sauce until hot.  Add: 4 teaspoons cornstarch dissolved in
1/2 cup water.  Stir until thickened.
  Turn chicken over and pour sauce over and return to oven for 30
minutes.


MONITOR MINIATURES * * * * * * *


**Perhaps a Word Wasn't Enough:
  In a recent issue of the Monitor (it was either
August-September or October; we don't want to take the time to
look it up) we carried a miniature entitled "A Word to the Wise." 
It suggested (maybe too gently) that those who want items carried
in the "Monitor Miniatures" section should study the format and
submit the copy in such a way that it could be run without
rewrite or editing.  Apparently the message needs reinforcement. 
Specifically, if material is submitted which is longer than the
ordinary miniature, it will have to be rewritten or not carried. 
This means that (unless it is of extreme urgency or catches the
fancy of the editor) it will automatically move to the bottom of
the list if something else of proper length and equal interest is
available.  Likewise, readers will observe that we often say with
respect to a miniature:  "We have been asked to carry the
following announcement," or something similar.  This is done to
indicate that we are not necessarily advocating or supporting
whatever is being sold or pushed or announced--not that we are
against it but just that it should not be attributed to us.  If
you really want something carried (after all, it's free
advertising), you should be willing to study the pattern and
format of the column.  Usually we will eliminate what some would
call "self- serving language"--claims such as "our machine is
super fast"; "this is the world's greatest"; et cetera.  Again,
you should study the format.  If whatever it is is really that
good, submit a full-scale article about it and we will consider
carrying it.  The "Miniature" column is not the place for
editorials-- except, of course, ours.  Also (and this may appear
to be simply repeating what we said about length, but we don't
think so) in the "Miniature" column we will always eliminate a
sentence such as:  "The speakers were interesting, and everybody
had a good time."  Maybe they were, and maybe everybody did--but
a miniature (despite the length of this one--after all, editors
take license) must be straight to the point and concise. 
Finally, as we said before, literacy is a plus.  The bottom line
is this:  A miniature must be interesting.  Otherwise, it won't
be read.  In short:  brevity, attribution when indicated, no
exaggerated claims, proper format, something to say, and
literacy.  A big order?  Yes.  But, then, that's the way we are. 
Just trying to avoid a little work and get the mag read.  That,
too, is a big order.

**New Baby:
  "Dennis and Dorothy Neely of the Gateway City Chapter of the
NFB of St.  Louis, Missouri, are proud to announce the arrival of
their daughter Alicia Meggin, born July 30, 1986, at 11:42 p.m.,
weighing six pounds, ten ounces, nineteen and three-quarter
inches long.  Alicia's parents and brother Dennis, Jr., are doing
fine."

**Brailler Wanted:
  Del Gray writes:  My sister is blind and is in need of a
Perkins Brailler.  We are trying to find a used one.  If you know
of any, could you please write us at:  Judy Cave, Route 1, Box
1794, Holts Summit, Missouri 65043.

**WordPerfect:
  WordPerfect is a word processing program widely available for
general use.  If a sighted person wants to learn to use
WordPerfect, he or she can study a print manual.  FlipTrack
Learning Systems has now issued an announcement which says in
part:
 "FlipTrack Learning Systems has introduced a self-study
audiocassette course to teach both beginning and advanced use of
WordPerfect software on an IBM PC or compatible computer.  In 4
audiocassette lessons of about 2 hours each, How to Use
WordPerfect enables the blind or visually impaired computer user
to work 'hands on' with the WordPerfect program itself--to
create, edit, print and merge-print a wide variety of documents. 
FlipTrack's course assumes that the user has a computer, the
WordPerfect software and a way to 'read' onscreen text through
voice synthesization, magnification or Braille output.  How to
Use WordPerfect sells for $89.  For more information about this
or more than 20 other audio-based computer courses, write
FlipTrack Learning Systems, a division of Mosaic Media, Inc., 999
Main Street, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.  Or call 800-222-FLIP
(In Illinois 312-790- 1117)."

**To Inform the Public:
  Being a member of the National Federation of the Blind means
different things to different people.  To Ken Rust of Minnesota
it means sending a letter to a newspaper.  The following article
appeared in the September 7, 1986, Minneapolis Star and Tribune:
  "BLIND JOB HUNTERS:  The difficulties Jim Mastro has
experienced in his quest for employment (article, August 31
points out a problem that is familiar to many blind job-seekers. 
The national unemployment rate for the blind is approximately 70
percent.  This statistic is rarely mentioned in the media.
  "As long as some employers maintain their present attitudes and
misconceptions about blind applicants, a large number of talented
people will continue to be overlooked in the job market.  No
longer are the blind forced to stand on street corners with tin
cups.  Many of us are lawyers, accountants, computer programmers,
and teachers.  Isn't it time for employers to look at our
qualifications for employment, rather than our physical
disabilities?--Ken Rust, Metro Chapter, National Federation of
the Blind, Minneapolis."

**LITUANUS:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
LITUANUS, an English language quarterly publication pertaining to
Lithuanians and their heritage, is now available on cassette. 
The annual subscription rate is $20.  Remit all payments to
Gintautas Burba, 30 Snell Street, Brockton, Massachusetts 02401.

**Bingo Machine:
  We have been contacted by Mrs. Esther Molat, Stratford 36C-CV,
West Palm Beach, Florida 33417; (305) 686-6685.  Mrs. Molat says
that she has invented an electronic game playing machine--which,
among other things, is used by blind persons in playing bingo. 
For further information contact Mrs. Molat.

**Certified Transcribers:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  "Triformation Braille Service, Inc., is seeking sighted
certified Braille transcribers to work at their Braille
production facility in Stuart, Florida.  Immediate openings. 
Salary negotiable.  Please call (305) 286-8366 or write to TBS,
Inc., 3142 S. E. Jay Street, Stuart, Florida 33497."

**Rhode Island Convention:  Catherine Gaffney writes:
  "On Saturday, September 27, 1986, the NFB of Rhode Island had
its annual convention and banquet at the Holiday Inn in downtown
Providence.  One of the highlights of the day was a mini JOB
seminar.  Other speakers included a representative from the
Regional Library, someone from a local parents group for blind
children, someone speaking on new programs for the elderly blind,
and a representative from the Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation.  The
two crowning events of the banquet were the very moving keynote
address by Diane McGeorge and the announcement from a
representative of the Rhode Island State Services for the Blind
and Visually Impaired that as of December 31, 1986, they would no
longer be affiliated with NAC.  Elections were also held and
officers for the next two years are:  President, Richard Gaffney;
First Vice President, Barry Humphries; Second Vice President,
Ruth McGarrity; Treasurer, Kenneth Brackett; Recording Secretary,
Mary Jane Fry; Corresponding Secretary, Cathy Gaffney; Sergeant
at Arms, Tom McGarrity; and two board positions held by Howard
Applegate and Grayce Grout."

**Poster Contest:
  From South Dakota comes the following:  "The National
Federation of the Blind,
Black Hills Chapter, will sponsor a White Cane Day Poster Contest
in the Rapid City Elementary Schools.  Students will learn about
Braille, the use of a long white cane, and dog guides; and they
will also learn that blind persons participate fully in life. 
Prizes will be presented to the top 36 winners at the Rapid City
Public Library on Friday, October 10, 1986, at 4:00 p.m.  The
public is invited to join us."

**Rhymes:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  That time of year is here again.  Why not give that special
friend or loved one the best.  Give a gift of old- fashioned
rhyme.  MATTERS OF THE HEART, by Marita Lyn Tabron, a book of
poems that "Says It All," full of heart-felt passion and
compassion.  Print and cassette copies are $8.00 each; Braille
copies are $20.00 each.  Make your check or money order payable
to Mary Walker.  Send your request to Marita Lyn Tabron, P.O. Box
497446, Chicago, Illinois 60649."

**Reading:
  Deanna Morss, the former President of the NFB of Wyoming, now
lives in California.  She has asked us to carry the following
announcement:
  "Reader service available for most college textbooks excluding
technical books such as math, biology, chemistry, etc.  Student
must provide tapes and print copy of textbook to be read.  Fee is
$4.00 per hour.  Fast, dependable service.  For more information
contact Deanna Morss, 3050 S. Bristol #15H, Santa Ana, California
92704; phone (714) 751-7504."

**Accessories for Perkins Brailler:  We have been asked to carry
the
following announcement:
  "October 20, 1986--Howe Press today announced the introduction
of three new products, all designed to enhance the use and
flexibility of its Perkins Brailler.  Each product was developed
as a result of consumer needs and requests.  A 'Soft-side carry
case' with handles, shoulder strap and inside pocket is now
available for $39.50.  This item was designed to free up the
user's hands.  The shape matches the Brailler and it is navy blue
with gray trim.  Also available is a 'print copy holder' for the
Brailler which attaches to the handle.  At $29.50 this simple but
strong device places written material at eye level, facilitating
the transcription process.  Finally, an exciting product which
makes the preparation of Dymo Tape far easier.  Howe Press has
finalized the design of a 'Dymo Tape Holder,' which inserts into
the Perkins Brailler and securely holds the plastic tape during
Brailling.  This unit retails for $15.95.  Interested individuals
should contact Howe Press, 175 North Beacon Street, Watertown,
Massachusetts 02172; (617) 924-3490, regarding purchasing
information."

**Computer Talk:
  Tandy Way of Tampa, Florida, writes:  "I am not a commercial
distributor,
just an individual selling some highly demanded but rare items
from my home.  For sale: 'Compuserve Information Users Guide'
latest edition.  Gives you an in- depth study of how to use your
time wisely on the data base.  Available on cassette NLS format
4-track $25.00.  Notch cutters for notching the reverse side of
your disks for use with Apple and other computers with
single-sided drive heads $12.00.  A series of tapes of the
tutorial variety called 'a different approach."  These tapes are
for the IBM compatible computers.  Subjects include: the proper
way to set up a hard drive, $15.00; the power of the batch files
and MS DOS, $15.00; and programming in basic, a 3-tape series,
$45.00.  Packages of 10 disks double sided double density,
$12.00.  All the above include shipping.  Make checks payable to
Mr. Tandy Way, 8909 Peppermill Court, Tampa, Florida 33634. 
Phone after 6:00 p.m. week nights, any time weekends (813)
885-7182."

**White Cane Celebration:
  State and local affiliates should consider whether they are
taking full advantage of the opportunities for public education
afforded by White Cane Safety Day.  The following announcement
was released by the Des Moines Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind of Iowa:

To all area blind children and their families:
  The Des Moines Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of Iowa would like to invite you to participate in this year's
White Cane Safety Day Celebration, sponsored by our chapter. 
White Cane Safety Day is a day on which we as blind people
celebrate the freedom to go where we wish, with the aid of white
cane or dog guide, and the freedom to work in occupations of our
own choosing.  We also take advantage of this opportunity to
remind sighted people of the pedestrian laws and equal access
laws that protect the right of blind people to enjoy these
freedoms.
  October 12-18, Olmstead Center, Drake
University:  Posters done by the winners of this year's White
Cane Safety Day Poster Contest will be displayed in the
exhibition area, first floor.
  October 15, 6th & Walnut Streets, downtown Des Moines:  Des
Moines Metro Transit Authority drivers and staff will ride city
buses to the Capitol and Drake's Olmstead Center blindfolded,
with white canes.  6th & Locust Streets, downtown, at noon--Des
Moines police officers and cadets will travel the intersection
blindfolded with canes.  Visit by the NFBI mystery creature.
  October 18, Southridge Mall:  White
Cane Obstacle Course for the public--try your luck!  Also,
videos, Braille writing demonstration, a live band with blind
musicians, the NFBI mystery creature, and other surprises.
  Please come and enjoy yourselves.  Meet with our members, and
learn more about adult blind people.  We would be glad to have
you be our guests.

**Ohio State School for the Blind:  Franklin B. Walter, Ohio
Superintendent of Public Instruction, writes:
  "The Ohio Department of Education is celebrating the Year of
Reflections: A Bicentennial Celebration of Public Education.  The
year 1987 marks the 150th anniversary of the Ohio State School
for the Blind.  This institution was the first residential school
of its kind to be established in the United States with public
funds.  One of its alumni, Samuel Bacon, was instrumental in
establishing similar schools in four other states."

**Twins:
  President Maurer reports that he recently received a call from
Arie Gamliel in Jerusalem.  Arie and Nurit are the proud parents
of twin boys born at 6:05 and 6:07 p.m., Jerusalem time, October
27, 1986.  President Maurer says that Arie did not know how long
the twins were, but he said that one is dark and the other fair. 
They weighed approximately four pounds each.  Their names are
Uziah and Gil'ad.  Congratulations and much joy to the house of
Gamliel--now doubled in size.

**Stays Mainly in the Plain:
  At the 1985 NFB convention Jennifer Kellogg of New Mexico was
awarded the American Brotherhood for the Blind scholarship in the
amount of $6,000.  Her plans were to work toward a degree in
government with the hope of joining the diplomatic corps of the
United States.  In furtherance of this goal she has been studying
abroad.  On a card to Dr. Jernigan postmarked October 7, 1986,
Jennifer said:
  "Hello from Spain!  I'm studying at the University of Alicante
for the fall semester.  I'm having a wonderful time.  I'm living
with a family.  They're terrific.  My Spanish is getting better
every day.  I'm studying hard and, of course, spending plenty of
time at the beach."

**Large Print Torahs:
  The Jewish Braille Institute of America, 100 East 30th Street,
New York, New York 10016; (212) 889-2525, has produced a large
print English edition of the Torah, the five books of Moses.  It
is available without cost from the Jewish Braille Institute.  A
Hebrew large print Torah is currently being typeset in Israel and
will be available soon from the Institute.

**Dies:
  Jim Willows, one of the leaders of the NFB of California,
writes:
  Alice Preston, a long-time member of the Federation, died after
a short illness in early September.  Alice was living in
Cincinnati, Ohio, at the time of her death.  Alice was most
active in the NFB of California during the decades of the
sixties, seventies, and eighties.  She held many offices and
chaired several important committees during that era.  Those of
us who knew her remember Alice's enthusiasm and cheerful
determination in all of her activities.  Alice was a source of
strength to many of us through the chaotic year of 1978.  She was
less active after leaving California, but she continued to live
Federationism until her passing.

**Maine Convention:  Pat Estes writes:
  On August 23, 1986, the National Federation of the Blind of
Maine met in convention in Auburn.  We were very pleased to have
our new National President, Mr. Marc Maurer, as our keynote
speaker.  We enjoyed his address and found his cross examination
of various agency heads quite stimulating.  According to our
state constitution, the following board members were elected: 
Pat Estes, President; Connie Leblond, Vice President; Mike
Jacobois, Secretary; Jeanne Hume, Treasurer; Debbie Brown,
Michelle Swift, and Sandy Sanbourne as Board Members.

**Married:
  Anthony Cobb and Marie Thaler were married November 15, 1986,
in Baltimore, Maryland.  In true Federation style they attended
the meeting of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind earlier in the day and then celebrated their wedding
ceremony in the evening.  Congratulations to the newlyweds.
