                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                         November, 1988

                    Kenneth Jernigan, Editor


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


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT 
 


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *



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

                             * * * *
 


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

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

                             * * * *

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

ISSN 0006-8829

                  NFB NET BBS:  (612) 696-1975
               WorldWide Web:  http://www.nfb.org
                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR
       PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
                            CONTENTS
                         NOVEMBER, 1988

FROM THE EDITOR     

BLIND PEOPLE SHAPING THE BLINDNESS SYSTEM 
A PANEL DISCUSSION AT THE MEETNG OF THE 
ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE 
BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED 
MONTREAL, CANADA, JULY 13, 1988    

Opening Remarks     
by Gary Magarrell

From the Canadian Council of the Blind  
by Geraldine Braak

From the American Council of the Blind  
@by Oral Miller

From the American Foundation for the Blind   
by Susan Spungin

From the National Federation of the Blind    
by Kenneth Jernigan

From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind      @BYLINE =
by Euclid Herie

Discussion of Issues by the Panel  

CHILDREN OF MINOR WIVES  
by Euclid Herie

A PROFILE OF SERVICES TO BLIND PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA      @BYLINE =
by David Blyth

THE BLIND PEOPLE OF THAILAND  
@by Wimon Ong-Amporn

GREETINGS FROM THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND  
by Geraldine Braak

WORLD BLIND UNION 

NORTH AMERICA/CARIBBEAN REGIONAL REPORT 
by Kenneth Jernigan

FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY    
by Kenneth Jernigan

REFLECTIONS ON MADRID
by Kenneth Jernigan

SMOOTHER WATERS AHEAD FOR BRAILLE MAYBE
by Kenneth Jernigan

BRAILLE UNSCATHED
by Fred Schroeder

CONVENTION 1989     

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1988


                         FROM THE EDITOR
Sometimes we devote all (or almost all) of an edition of the 
Monitor  to a particular topic. This issue is a case in point. It
is largely taken up with international matters.
A few years back, as  Monitor  readers know, the American
Association of Workers for the Blind and the Association for
Education of the Visually Handicapped merged into a single
organization, the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of
the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER). As the name implies, this
organization is primarily composed of professionals in the field
of work with the blind. It has members both in the United States
and Canada. AER holds a convention every other year, and in 1988
the meeting occurred in Montreal shortly after the NFB convention
in Chicago.
On July 13, 1988, at the AER convention an event took place which
promises to have considerable significance in the lives of the
blind of this continent. AER Division 1 (Administration) and
Division 17 (Personnel Preparation) held a joint meeting to
conduct a panel discussion entitled  Blind People Shaping the
Blindness System.  Represented on the panel were the Canadian
Council of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind, the
American Foundation for the Blind, the National Federation  of
the Blind, and the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind. Because of the tone and substance of the panel we are
printing the formal presentations of all of the participants,
along with some of the exchanges which occurred afterward.
That the organizations involved could come together for such a
panel at all is noteworthy; but if that is everything we get from
it, its momentary news value will soon be forgotten, like
yesterday's headlines.  It was agreed that there will be a
follow-up meeting by the same five organizations next spring at
the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. Again, the very
fact of this meeting and of its location underscores shifts in
emphasis and thinking. But Monitor readers can examine what was
said and judge for themselves. The moderator of the panel was
Gary Magarrell, Executive Director of the Ontario Division of the
Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
To continue the international theme we are also publishing in
this issue certain items from the 1988 convention of the National
Federation of the Blind in Chicago presentations from: Dr. Euclid
Herie, Managing Director of the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind; Mrs. Geraldine Braak, President of the Canadian
Council of the Blind; Mr. David Blyth, President of the East
Asia/Pacific Region of the World Blind Union from Melbourne,
Australia; and Mr. Wimon Ong-Amporn, an official of the
Foundation for the Blind in Thailand.
Finally, we are printing material concerning the meeting of the
World Blind Union in Madrid, Spain. At the time of this writing
(September 8, 1988) the WBU meeting is still in the offing, less
than a week away; and the NFB delegation is making plans to
attend. President
Maurer will lead a sizable contingent of Federationists, and (as
President of the North America/Caribbean Region) your  Monitor 
Editor will give a regional report, chair one of the sessions of
the General Assembly, and deliver an address. The regional report
and the address appear in this issue.
There will also be two articles on the conference on Braille in
London September 19-24, 1988. One of these articles,  Smoother
Waters
Ahead for Braille Maybe,  is being written before the conference. 
The other,  Braille Unscathed,  will be Fred Schroeder's report
of what actually happened at the conference.
Let me step out of my role as Editor for a moment to talk about
the significance of the Madrid meeting. In 1984 we of the
National Federation of the Blind did not attend the founding
meeting of the World Blind Union. Although we felt that the
International Federation of the Blind had largely ceased to exist
as an independent organization, we saw no advantage in merging it
with the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind. Moreover,
the meeting was being held in Saudi Arabia, and Israelis
(particularly, our own Rami Rabby) were being denied the right to
come. The argument was that Israel did not exist, but we felt
that whether it did or not, Rami existed and we had no intention
of attending any meeting which said that he didn't exist. 
However, we accepted membership in the World Blind Union, and a
great deal has happened since that time. Whatever may be the
situation in the rest of the world, our regional meetings have
brought Canada,
the United States, and the Caribbean close together in a working
partnership.  Speaking personally, I have found warm friends in
Dr. Euclid Herie, Mrs. Geraldine Braak, and a number of other
Canadians, as well as Mr. Wilbert Williams and others from the
Caribbean.
So we go to Spain, and by the time you read this, the Second
General Assembly of the World Blind Union will be history. What
will it amount to? Will it be the beginning of new opportunities
and progress, or simply a waste of time? At this stage no one
knows, but we of the National Federation of the Blind are going
with a large delegation
and the intention of doing everything we can to make the meeting
harmonious and successful. But, of course, we will attempt to
balance our hopes with objectivity. We will try to recognize
opportunity but also to keep perspective. I am deliberately
writing this before the meeting to give you the feel of the way
it is as we pack our bags.
When we return from Spain (just as the  Monitor  will be going to
press), I will doubtless include a report of what happened. I
will not only tell you who got elected but also what we observed
and who said what. Enough of us are going to permit the gathering
of data to form the basis for future Federation action. At any
rate that is for later.
Although (as I have already said) this issue of the  Monitor 
primarily deals with international matters, there are a few other
things which have to be included. We must begin planning for next
summer's national convention in Denver, and so we are printing an
article about it. Please read it carefully and take action. It is
not too soon to begin sending requests for hotel reservations.
You
will observe that you are to make hotel reservations through the
National Center for the Blind here in Baltimore. Do not contact
the convention hotels.
This has been a tremendously productive and successful year for
the National Federation of the Blind, and that fact is reflected
in the articles which appear in this issue of the  Monitor . We
are closer than we have ever been to our goal of equality and
first-class citizenship for the blind. Surely no one can doubt
that we will go the rest of the way.
BLIND PEOPLE SHAPING THE BLINDNESS SYSTEM  A PANEL DISCUSSION AT
THE MEETING OF THE 
ASSOCIATION FOR EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION  OF THE BLIND AND
VISUALLY IMPAIRED 
MONTREAL, CANADA, JULY 13, 1988
                         OPENING REMARKS
                        by Gary Magarrell
My name is Gary Magarrell, and I have the very real privilege of
moderating this panel on behalf of the two divisions. On behalf
of the chair
of Division 17 (Bill Graves) and of Division 1 (Kirk Walter) we
welcome you, and we hope this will be a very exciting afternoon.
This afternoon came about because of the desire of these two
divisions to have opportunities at this meeting for us to be
exposed to the thoughts of some of our key consumer leaders in
Canada and the United States and because of a feeling that many
of us have that it is very important that there be a continuing
dialogue between those who represent the consumer groups and
those who are within the professions and within the agencies
though they are not always mutually exclusive. We believe that
dialogue is important in planning, and we think it is important
that we have a chance to communicate face to face as we struggle
together as to where the blindness system is going in the future.
When we began to plan this session, we looked at who was out
there and who we would like to involve, and I think the
leadership that you see today were the natural ones to choose. We
then contacted each one of these people on our panel, who were
gracious enough to agree.  We had a phone conference; we looked
at the issue; we came up with a title; and we are here today. By
the way, this session is being taped. It wasn't in your program,
but it is tape number 71 if you're interested. I rather suspect a
few may be.
Our panel has changed somewhat from the one printed in the
program for a couple of reasons: 1) Because Mr. Gallagher, who as
you all know is with the American Foundation for the Blind as its
Executive Director, injured his back very severely this week and
is going to be laid up for at least four to six weeks; and Mr.
Otis Stephens, who is the President of the American Council of
the Blind, has very serious illness in his family, which he has
had to attend to. We are delighted, however, with those who are
replacing them, and we look forward to a good program today.
May I introduce to you our panel members. On my immediate left is
Mrs. Geraldine Braak, who is the President of the Canadian
Council of the Blind. Next we have Dr. Oral Miller (who is well
known I'm sure to most of you), who is he has another title, but
basically he is executive director of the American Council of the
Blind. Welcome, Oral. We then have in place of Bill Gallagher, at
his request, Dr.  Susan Spungin, who again is very involved in
senior management at the American Foundation for the Blind. 
Thank you, Susan. Next to
her we have Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, who is President of the North
America Region of the World Blind Union and Executive Director of
the National Federation of the Blind. And finally we have Dr.
Euclid Herie, who is the Managing Director (which means chief
executive officer) of the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind. I want to say, too,
that in the program we had Dr. Dickinson, who was going to be
introducing it. He will be very much a part of the discussion
later, and we thank him for being here as well.
The format of the afternoon is going to be as follows. We're
going to ask each one of the panel members to give a presentation
(eight
to twelve minutes at the outside). We will then have a bit of a
roundtable discussion with those who are at the table if they
want to question each other, and then we will have a good period
of time for questions and dialogue with the audience. So I am
going to turn over the mike to Mrs. Geraldine Braak, who is the
President of the Canadian Council of the Blind.
    FROM THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND by Geraldine Braak
Chairperson, colleagues, and participants: Unlike in the United
States, where there are a variety of service providers, Canada
has by and
large only one single direct service provider for the blind and
visually impaired. The single service model in Canada allows for
immediate recognition and referral by health care professionals
and effective communication and monitoring of services and
programs. Even though
the provision of high quality service to all blind and visually
impaired Canadians is a challenge that must be met by the service
deliverer in order to retain the single service provider status,
it can result at times in being apathetic through a lack of
healthy competition.

The CNIB in its internal structure constantly monitors the
quality of service delivery. Recently it completed a very
intensive survey which resulted in a service equity policy, as
well, in the past two
years. They have also worked extensively on a sight enhancement
enterprise, which adequately incorporates people with failing
vision but not yet at the level of legal blindness. The
responsibility of funding service to the blind and visually
impaired community rests with, and is shared by, the federal,
provincial, and local governments. The CNIB, through its
collective expertise, is recognized as the single service
provider.  Government responsibilities are exercised by providing
funds for services and educational programs. Yet, the level of
funding remains inadequate for effective service delivery. Even
though there are some smaller, mostly local, consumer
organizations, there exists only one national consumer
organization of blind and visually impaired persons in Canada,
the Canadian Council of the Blind.
Canada has in the past been slow in developing and exercising
consumerism and only in the last several years has become active
in the area of advocacy and human rights. Now that the different
levels of government are recognizing and accepting the valuable
input that consumers are providing, it is not only timely but
vitally important that the national consumer organization rise to
this increased awareness of its role
by developing strong leadership. Canadians by nature have been
passive, and this is especially true of the blind and visually
impaired, who have not adequately expressed their needs and
rights. Although this is now changing, much more needs to be done
in developing leadership skills. This awareness must be shared on
all levels (local, divisional, and national) to have a dynamic
impact. In order to be effective, a careful study to examine
issues (including education, employment, and access to
information) must be undertaken within the blind and visually
impaired community, and a consensus-building initiative to
outline a plan of action developed to achieve the results that
are needed.
As well as leadership training, a mechanism must be established
that allows consumers to have direct input and control of
programs and services that are presently in place and new ones
coming on stream to meet their needs. The role of the consumer
must be facilitated, clearly recognized, and accepted by those in
the service delivery system. Consumers must accept the
responsibility of closely working with funders on all levels to
insure that programs truly reflect and address the contemporary
needs of the blind and visually impaired
community. As federal, provincial, and local governments have a
responsibility to be the main funders of services, consumers must
effectively advocate for adequate funding to operate and deliver
these services.
It's not acceptable for consumers merely to criticise programs or
the lack of them. They must accept their role as an effective
liaison
with funding bodies. In Canada over the past decade several
cross-disability organizations have emerged. This
cross-disability (or pan disability) movement has a detrimental
impact on the blind and visually impaired.  What has emerged
through this trend is that the immediate perception by
government, public, and media is mobility impaired. This is a
very real concern as this greatly hinders those issues connected
with the uniqueness of blindness and its specific needs. It has
been our experience that these cross-disability organizations do
not effectively represent the issues, views, and needs of the
blind and visually impaired community, nor those of the
deaf-blind community. With this is mind, we must either join this
cross disability movement and take the risk of losing our
distinct identity or develop strong and articulate advocates
capably to represent themselves.
In order for consumers to have greater impact over the next
decade, the uniqueness of blindness, visual impairment, and its
needs must be much more strongly articulated. It is of vital
importance that the blind and visually impaired be trained in
effective advocacy and leadership and that programs be developed
to establish a national network to achieve this. Consumers must
be given the opportunity of direct input and control over
programs and services designed to meet their needs by all levels
of government, especially programs concerning employment,
education, and access to information. Consumers must become far
more aggressive in raising awareness of their rights and needs
not only at the government and service delivery level, but also
to the
media and the general public. These responsibilities must be
cooperatively undertaken by both consumers and care givers.
Several vital and successful steps have been initiated. The
Canadian Council of the Blind participates in several government
committees, submits briefs, and reviews all legislation that
affects the lifestyle of the blind and visually impaired
community. As well, we initiated a joint committee of
representatives from organizations of and for the blind to
provide a forum to address issues of common concern.
As you realize, we are strongly concerned with cross disability
especially, because it has a very strong impact. I'm sure this
will come up again.  Thank you.
      FROM THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND by Oral Miller
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring you greetings
from the American Council of the Blind and its President, Dr.
Otis Stephens, who unfortunately could not be with us today due
to the serious illness of Mrs. Stephens. We all sincerely wish
Mrs. Stephens comfort and relief from pain.
As a sort of last-minute substitute, I can't help but be reminded
of the situation the famous Dr. Spooner found himself in a number
of years ago when he was invited to a very formal occasion in
England an occasion at which it was necessary for people to
appear in pairs, whether they happened to be husband and wife,
significant other, or whatever. And as luck would have it, at the
last minute, Mrs. Spooner felt ill, wasn't able to go, and Dr.
Spooner hurriedly raced around and found someone else to go with
him. As he greeted his hostess, he said  (and in his so popular
way of fouling up the language) came up with this particular
Spoonerism. Instead of saying  Oh good evening, Mrs. Wellsley.
I'm so pleased to be here. And you will be pleased to know that I
have, due to the illness of my wife, produced a substitute,  he
said:  You will be so pleased to learn that because of my wife's
illness, I have managed to seduce a prostitute. 

Because of the possibly unfavorable connotations of that
particular Spoonerism, I will suggest to you that in the absence
of Dr. Stephens today, those of you who do have eyesight simply
close your eyes and imagine that you're listening to Dr.
Stephens. Some have said that we're not look-alikes but a little
bit sound-alikes.
The American Council of the Blind's fundamental objectives
include blind people shaping the blindness system. The  Braille
Forum  (which is our national magazine) states on its masthead 
promoting independence and effective participation in society. 
The notion that blind people are capable of making worthwhile
decisions affecting their own lives is really comparatively
recent in history. There were a few so-called educators of the
blind in eighteenth- century England and Scotland really they
were directors or managers of asylum-type operations. There were
a few more in the USA in the nineteenth century as educational
institutions were established. And more in the twentieth century.
Perhaps this could be equated to the rejection of the notion of
divine right of kings in favor of the notion of the social
contract. This is relevant in the sense that the social contract
theory recognizes that there are rights and capabilities of
people who were formerly considered to be helpless, powerless,
and certainly incapable of making meaningful decisions about
their own lives.
But just as pure democracy can't work in a complex society, and
just as dictatorship is intolerable, neither of these extreme
positions is acceptable or workable in the blindness system. It's
often very hard for many people as professional  providers  or
others as  consumers  to accept input from the other. Perhaps
this is the case with the providers because, first of all,
they're paid
for the work they do, and they may have (or they may not have)
educational and certification credentials. And it may be the case
on the part
of the consumers because they know blindness firsthand, and they
feel that no amount of education or credentials can really
qualify providers (and especially sighted providers) to walk in
their shoes.
How many here remember that popular song a number of years ago by
Joe South and Ray Stevens called  Walk a Mile in My Shoes?  (We
have some good music lovers in the audience, I see.) We
absolutely must accept and recognize the role of the other.
Because the American Council of the Blind and I happen to believe
that blind people are capable of making the blindness system
better by providing informed, considered input and providing
knowledgeable, capable leadership we ask, we request, we
encourage, and, yes, we demand when necessary by advocacy, by the
legal process, and whatever other means may be appropriate. We
demand that we be included in shaping the system no, not running
the system; but certainly in shaping it. Anyone who says that
blindness is just another physical characteristic is espousing a
head-in-the-sand notion. After all, very few people I know of (at
least, since Oedipus) have opted for blindness.
I can't help but be reminded of a letter that Dr. Samuel Gridley
Howe wrote to his friend Horace Mann in 1839 following his
appearance before the Kentucky legislature. At that time Dr. Howe
made a presentation when the legislature was considering the
establishment of a state school for the blind there. Dr. Howe
made a presentation and gave demonstrations. Some of his better
students gave demonstrations of the things they had learned, and
there was general discussion of an enthusiasm for conditions at
the recently established Perkins School.
In his letter to Mr. Mann Dr. Howe said that there was so much
enthusiasm and such warm acceptance of all the things he had
discussed, he was afraid that some of the mothers in the state
would rush out and poke out the eyes of their children so they
could live the wonderful lives being lived at Perkins. Obviously
there was much tounge-in-cheek in Dr. Howell's letter.
Although this respect and acceptance must flow in both
directions, I'm afraid that the streams have not really been
flowing equally in both directions over the years, as some of the
old vested notions have been rather hard to die. For example,
it's been rather hard for some providers to accept the notion
that blind people may know as much and, yea varily, perhaps even
more about a subject than they do. And it's been very difficult
for some blind people to accept the proposition that providers
(and especially the sighted ones) can (through using sight,
education, training, experience, and problem-solving ability)
give useful and meaningful help and information.
I'm still a bit shocked (some fifteen years later) whenever I
recall the first time I had the opportunity to appear before and
speak to what was then an AAWB workshop. I'm sure people here
remember the organization called AAWB. At that time it was my
pleasure to be invited to speak on a panel dealing with
recreational activities for blind people. And I was somewhat
disappointed at the introduction when the moderator of the panel
(who, I believe, had an initial or two following his name, as did
most of the others of us on the panel) announced that I had
invited myself to speak on the panel although I was not a
recreation therapist. That was in spite of the fact that at that
point (through participation in, through management of, through
very intense involvement of the activities of a national
organization which was a consumer organization dealing with the
subject of bowling as
an activity for blind people). I happened to know at that point
probably a hundred times more about the subject than the
moderator did, which is another way of saying he knew nothing
about it.
Or I can't help but think also about a knee-jerk type reaction I
heard yesterday in one of the panels here on the part of one
panelist following a rather technical but very incisive comment
by a sighted O & M specialist about a particular cane technique
that had been shown on a video that had just been displayed.
Besides being a nice thing to do and good business, accepting
input and leadership of the blind is now a necessity. It's a
reality. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's a mandate. It's a
mandate whose time has come and whose star is on the ascendancy.
Many statutes today, as you are probably aware, mandate that
consumers must be on various boards, councils, and planning
bodies connected with service-providing agencies. And, yes, I'm
familiar with some of the questions and some of the problems that
have come up in interpreting these statutes.
And I'd like to point out to you that, if enacted, a recently
introduced bill in the American Congress called the Americans
With Disabilities
Act (which is Senate bill 2345 or House of Representatives bill
4498 in case you may want to write that down)  The Americans With
Disabilities Act, by the way, is the largest and most
comprehensive and most ambitious bill ever introduced in the
American Congress dealing with handicapped people. You notice it
says  Americans with Disabilities. 
The term now is to refer not to the blind, the disabled, the
handicapped, but people with disabilities, or whatever
terminology. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (if it is
enacted) it would define as an act of discrimination the refusal
to allow disabled people to serve on advisory, planning, and
other boards, committees, and so forth.
We in the American Council don't believe for a minute that
blindness alone qualifies a person for a job or for a specific
position. Whenever jobs and positions are considered,
consideration has got to be given to the things that are always
considered for other people: education, training, experience,
judgment, personality, problem-solving ability, skills, and so
forth. Likewise, blindness alone doesn't give a blind person all
of the information or all of the knowledge he is going to need to
make every decision affecting his life. And, after all, when we
move this over to another area (such as education), that may be
one of the reasons why certain courses in education are required
as prerequisites for others. They're compulsory in many
specialties.

If the blind system is going to urge concepts like reasonable
accommodation, affirmative action, and so forth on employers,
educators, government officials, and others, I believe that  That
is, if they're going to do that in the belief that blind people
are, in fact, capable of making important decisions   If they do
this in the belief that blind people are capable of living
independent, productive, fully participating, dignified (and I
might say tax-paying) lives, we in
the blindness system are going to have to accept the same
principles realistically, without stereotypes, without
assumptions, and without unrealistic
expectations.
My remarks up to this point have been rather general. I have not
attempted to anticipate what anyone else says. I have not
attempted to comment on what anyone else has said. I'll certainly
be very pleased to discuss matters more specifically as we get
further in the program. Thank you Mr. chairman, ladies, and
gentlemen.
   FROM THE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND by Susan Spungin
Thank you, Gary. On behalf of Bill Gallagher I send his regards.
He is, indeed, in great pain at the moment not only in his back
but in his heart, because he truly would wish to be with you
today. The reality of his problem was tripping over a vacuum
cleaner one Monday on the Fourth of July weekend. And in telling
that story to a colleague (a superintendent of a school for the
blind, who shall remain nameless) he quickly suggested that I run
to the national technology center
and start producing talking vacuum cleaners. There is a limit to
gadgetry.  Over the past fifty years in the United States
organizations and associations of the blind and individual blind
persons themselves have, indeed, shaped blindness sytems.
Historically the consumer movement started with the National
Federation of the Blind in the early forties, joined by the World
War II Blinded Vets (BVA) in around 1947. ACB, originally
a spinoff of NFB, established itself as a separate entity in the
sixties, along with the Association of Deaf-Blind People. And the
seventies found the low vision consumer becoming more active as a
self- determined advocate when establishing the National Council
of Low Vision Persons
to be joined by parents of visually impaired children in the
1980's NAPVI as one example. Sixty consumer groups over fifty
years have, of course, had major impact in influencing the
service delivery system in blindness, as well as on the
professionals that work within that system. Blind and deaf-blind
people themselves also influenced the system, such
as lawyers, teachers, university personnel, and the like. Helen
Keller is, of course, an obvious example, one of many deaf and
blind individuals that served both as leaders and models of
excellence, opening doors in American society never before
imagined.
But in viewing the blindness system as being shaped by the blind
versus shaped by the sighted is to do nothing more than to
continue the destructive scenario of the we/they syndrome that
has slowed progress in the field over the years. This we/they
syndrome goes well beyond the sighted/blind providers/consumer
issues to pitting consumer groups against consumer groups to
associations versus associations to providers versus providers
translated to levels of fighting over clients, Braille versus
print, residential versus public school education, etc., etc.,
etc., and so forth. It is time to stop to realize we agree in
principle
on more things than we disagree on, to work toward those mutual
goals with clear heads and mutual respect, appreciation, and
trust in each other. Shaping the blindness system has been and
must continue to be a combination of influences from both the
consumer and provider segments of our society.
One place we always run into problems, however, is in the
definitions.  In this case the eternal question who is the
consumer? The National Rehab Association defines the consumer in
three different ways: in
the context of the blind segment of our population the blind
person him- or herself; the second definition is a group or
organizations of blind individuals; and the third (and most
interesting) definition is a person speaking for consumers and/or
representing a group. The definition demands the cooperation of
all concerned parties. And, in fact, one international
organization (the World Blind Union) has already implemented the
concept of shared responsibilities by establishing a single
organization for both providers and consumers formerly two
organizations: World Council for the Welfare of the Blind (i.e. 
providers), and the International Federation of the Blind (i.e.
consumers).  In fact, two resolutions recently passed exhibit
this cooperative spirit, and they are both embraced by the
participants of the World Union and include support for
specialized service and all meetings to be held in open
countries.
Would that we be able to translate into practice in North America
the wisdom of the approach taken by WBU. Imagine what could be
accomplished if the we/they syndrome at all levels in our field
could be chipped away at and demolished. I believe it takes as a
first step one major commitment, a commitment to communication. A
seemingly simple concept but a giant challenge. Hopefully this
panel this afternoon is a step in that direction. Thank you.
  FROM THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND by Kenneth Jernigan
Last week at the National Federation of the Blind convention in
Chicago 2,443 people registered as attendees. In May of this year
the Federation distributed (on cassette, on flexible disc, in
Braille, and in print) over 28,000 copies of its publication, the 
Braille Monitor .  At my first NFB convention in 1952 barely 150
people were present, and we had no monthly publication. At that
1952 convention we spent more than fifty percent of our time
talking about the rehabilitation system what it was doing, how to
improve it, and what we wanted from it. At our 1988 convention we
had twenty-five hours of program content, and we spent a total of
forty-five minutes (or three percent of the time) dealing with
the rehabilitation system of the United States. Of that
forty-five minutes, fifteen minutes was spent hearing from the
federal Rehabilitation Commissioner; fifteen minutes was spent
hearing from our Director of Governmental Affairs, who talked
about problems blind people are having with the system; and the
final fifteen minutes was spent with questions and comments from
the audience, indicating their concern with the failure of the
system to deliver.  In short, only one percent of the program
time was used to hear from the rehabilitation system, and none of
the time was spent talking about threats to the system or how to
save it. Why?
Is it simply, as some have charged, that the members of the
Federation (all of the thousands and tens of thousands of them
or, at least, their leaders) are radicals and agency haters? No.
Such a thesis cannot be sustained. Let us turn again to the
statistics of the 1988 NFB convention.
Kurt Cylke, head of the National Library Service for the Blind
and Physically Handicapped, was with us for the entire week, and
so were several of his staff. Day after day they answered
questions, talked with our members, and planned with us for the
future. There was an atmosphere of partnership and mutual trust.
Likewise, top officials of the Social Security Administration
were present to speak and participate. The Deputy Commissioner
for Policy and External Affairs had a forty-minute segment on the
program, and
other Social Security personnel conducted a seminar and answered
questions for most of an afternoon. As with the Library, there
was no tension or confrontation only partnership and a feeling of
shared interest and mutual concern. Moreover, with Social
Security it must be remembered that many blind people throughout
our country experience problems with underpayments, demands for
return of overpayments, denial of applications, and similar
difficulties; and more often than not, the Federation represents
those blind persons in hearings to reverse Social Security's
actions. Millions of dollars and numerous professional judgments
are involved. Yet, there is no hostility only friendliness and
joint effort.
In short, our problems come only with the rehabilitation system,
with some of the private agencies which function as part of that
system,
and with a group of the educators. And even here there must be a
further narrowing and focusing, for the problem is with the
system itself and some of its more vocal spokesmen, not with all
of its component parts or personnel. An increasing number of
those in the system are beginning to take a new look and work
with us. The very fact of this panel is an evidence of the shift
in thinking.
This brings me to the topic of today's discussion:  Blind People
Shaping the Blindness System.  I think blind people must have not
an exclusive but a major role in shaping the system. Otherwise,
the system will die. Moreover, when I say  blind people,  I mean
democratic membership organizations  of  the blind, not just
blind individuals. In a sense, of course, blind people have
always shaped the system, as indeed they do today. In most cases
blind persons started (or played a major part in starting) the
agencies. There have always been blind agency directors, and
individual blind persons prominent in the community have from the
beginning served on advisory and policy boards and lent their
names and prestige to funding and public support.  Even so, the
system is in trouble. It is in danger of being absorbed into
generic programs for the disabled, of starving for lack of funds,
and of losing its position of centrality and perceived
importance.
I believe this would not be the case if the average, thinking,
responsible blind adult felt that it really mattered excluding,
of course, the blind people who work in the system.
Let me be clearly understood. I am not saying that
rehabilitation, training in mobility, assistance for the newly
blinded, and education are not important urgently important; for
they are. Rather, I am saying that year by year more and more
blind persons have come to feel that the system is not
effectively providing those things and that it is both
unresponsive and irrelevant. Remember that I am talking about the
system as a whole, not individual agencies or particular people
working in those agencies; and also remember that I am talking
about the United States. I am not familiar enough with the
situation in Canada to draw conclusions, but I do know Dr. Euclid
Herie; and I have a great deal of respect for his ability and
integrity. Also, when I visited the convention of the Canadian
Council of the Blind last month, I observed the interaction
between the Canadian Council and the Canadian National Institute
for the Blind; and I was impressed.  Of course, the principles I
am discussing are applicable to the blind of any country.
It is not, as a few have claimed, that the organized blind wish
to take control of the agencies. It is, from the point of view of
the system, far worse than that. It is that more and more blind
people
are coming to feel that, in the things that count in their daily
lives, what the agencies have to offer won't help and doesn't
matter.
If I felt that the system was hopeless and that nothing could or
should be done to improve it, I would not be here today talking
with you.  It is late, but if honest evaluation and forthright
action occur, I think the system can be saved and that it is
worth saving.  Certain things must be said without equivocation.
As a beginning, the agencies must change their attitudes about
criticism and about the role of the organized blind in decision
making. The matter of
Fred Schroeder is a case in point. As most members of this
organization know, Mr. Schroeder is blind. He taught mobility
professionally, received all of the academic credentials for
doing so, and then was denied certification by this organization.
The denial was based on the belief that a blind person cannot
safely and competently teach another blind person how to travel
or if you like, teach another blind person mobility. The National
Federation of the blind as an organization and I as an individual
thought you were wrong in that decision, and we were entitled to
that opinion. On the other hand, it was perfectly proper for you
to believe you were right to attack our position, but
it was not proper for you to attack us (as some of you did) on
irrelevant grounds denigrating our character and morals. Of
course, the same would obtain for our treatment of you.
Moreover, workers in the blindness system must resist the growing
tendency to hide behind the term  professionalism  and must stop
treating  professionalism  as if it were a mystery. There is a
teachable body of knowledge which can be learned about giving
service to the blind; but much of that knowledge is a matter of
common sense, good judgment, and experience. Most thinking blind
persons (certainly those who have been blind for any length of
time and have had any degree of success) know at least as much
about what they and other blind people want and need from the
system as the professionals
do, and it must also be kept in mind that not every act of a 
professional  is necessarily a  professional  act or based on 
professionalism.  Consider, for instance, the question of whether
children with residual vision should be taught Braille. After
careful consideration the members of the National Federation of
the Blind believe that every such child should at least have the
option of being taught to read and write Braille. Some of the
educators (especially those who cannot fluently
read and write Braille) resist this view. Is their opinion a 
professional  judgment, or is it a decision based on vested
interest? Whichever
it is, the views of the organized blind are entitled to serious
consideration and not simply a brush-off, with the statement that
the blind don't know what they are talking about, and that they
probably have bad motives and morals into the bargain.
This brings me back to what I said about Kurt Cylke and the
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped. The libraries are not in trouble, and (regardless of
economic conditions or changing theories) the libraries won't be
in trouble. They won't because the blind of the United States
won't let it happen. We don't control Kurt Cylke or the
libraries. We don't want to and besides, he wouldn't permit it.
Neither does he control us and for the same reasons.  We support
the library because we need it, because it gives useful
and good service, and because its leaders understand that they 
exist  to give us service, and that they have accountability to
us. What I have said about the library is also true of Social
Security and an increasing number of agencies and individuals in
the fields of rehabilitation and education.
But the hard core of the blindness system still resists, to its
own detriment and ours. It tries to say that it speaks for the
blind because the head of an agency is blind or because blind
people serve on a staff or board. No great intellect is required
to understand that in a representative democracy only those
elected  by  a group can speak  for  that group; that the heads
of agencies can have vested interests which transcend their
blindness; and that when an agency can pick and choose individual
blind spokesmen from the community, it can get people who will
say whatever it wants them to say.  Unless things change, I
believe the central core of the blindness system will sink into
obscurity, but I believe this need not happen and should not
happen. Blind people (and that means the organized blind) must
have a major voice in shaping the system. It must be a
partnership, and not a partnership of dominance and subservience
but of consenting equals a partnership based on trust, respect,
and mutuality. Let those things happen, and all else will follow.
Let those things happen, and the system will thrive.
                            FROM THE 
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
                         by Euclid Herie
I'm pleased to have an opportunity today as a blind person and
someone who has worked in this field for about ten years (I've
lived with the condition for most of my adult life) to give you
my thoughts on blind people shaping the future of the blindness
system. At CNIB, where I have spent now eleven years of my
working career, I'm always interested here in Canada about blind
people having input and opportunity to shape the service
organization. Many on occasion have expressed the view that that
opportunity is not adequate.  It's interesting (as Dr. Jernigan
said) that blind people in point of fact in many areas started
the system.  This was certainly true at the CNIB when Colonel
Baker and five people (seven actually, but five of whom were
blind) began this organization. Some of you probably know this is
our seventieth anniversary. Over the years the organization has
grown and flourished and somewhere a decade or two ago did lose
touch in some ways with blind people. But blind people didn't
wait for the organization to come to its own conclusions but
rather shaped the service organization in a passive, but
effective, way. Let me give you two examples.
CNIB operated twenty-five residences for the elderly blind in
Canada for decades. Suddenly (over a decade, which isn't very
long actually) blind people stopped coming to live in those
residences. The fact today is that the CNIB has two small
residences in Newfoundland and three in Ontario five out of
twenty some residences.
Workshops: The CNIB operated workshops in probably every part of
this country for decades and I would say usefully so. But blind
people stopped coming to workshops. We only have three left in
the province of Ontario, and really only two sizable ones.
Schools for the blind (which the CNIB does not operate): There
are two in this country, as opposed to fifty some in your
country. Blind parents put their kids into their local schools
and insisted that the governments provide the support services.
Blind people in our country work for the CNIB probably in the
thousands. We made our clients employees and I think, by and
large, to a great success. And many had excellent careers. For
others it
may well have been a disservice. It may have kept them from
opportunities that they would have accepted had they maybe felt
more secure and confident. Today the CNIB is competing for blind
people as employees of this country not because they wouldn't
work for us because we're an organization that we believe is on
the move (we have strong leadership); but because there are other
opportunities out there.  And the simple fact is that some jobs
pay better, there is a greater variety of careers, and so forth.
We operated a food service (and we still do). It employs about
1,200 people in this country. Now, in two of our divisions
(Manitoba and here in the Province of Quebec eight years ago) we
phased out that operation. It's in serious financial trouble in a
few parts of Canada, and it may well be in a very few years to
come that we will be out of that sort of operation. Incidentally,
blind people are working in fewer numbers in  Cater Plan.  But I
started there as a high school student in the summers. It served
a purpose in the past tense.
Those are ways (passive ways) in which blind people shaped
services in this country. It may also interest you to know that
the CNIB (you'd be interested because of the Gallaudet school
incident in Washington) in its charter and by-laws has a
requirement that the person who is the CEO in my office be a
blind person. That was probably there for the last thirty years.
Other agencies and organizations of and for the disabled in our
country have come to the conclusion that having someone with a
disability might bring a compassion and an understanding that
would be different. On the other hand, four of our ten senior
executive directors are not blind people Gary Magarrell being
one of our competent leaders in our organization on whom I rely
greatly.  The fact that he is not blind does not mean that he
doesn't have sensitivity or caring or understanding. I've always
said (because I know this issue comes up) when people tell you
about AA (and I think it's a tremendous organization alcoholics
helping alcoholics) yes, that's one model. But I wonder about
suicide prevention, if you followed that to its conclusion.
In our country we have (and I don't say this because I'm in
Quebec, as we have great respect for the Queen of Canada) finally
after 120 years received our own constitution. We have a charter
of rights and freedoms that will, in the long term in Canada,
change very dramatically the way in which disabled people will
access services. The issue of agencies will be less important
than will be the laws and the requirements.  That is a
significant factor for you and other countries to follow, because
a victory won in one country will be well used or followed in
another. The world truly is global small.
Yes, the blindness system  As someone once remarked to me, they
said,  Euclid, if you think something isn't a system, try
changing it.  I get very frustrated (and as I'm getting older
now, I get frustrated more easily) when I hear people talking
about the system and what's wrong with it, what should be done
about it, and how we should fix it, and the fact that we don't
have enough trained people in this area, or the fact that it's
underfunded, etc., etc. I keep saying, If the people who  are 
the system (whether you work for an organization, whether you're
part of a consumer group) if  we  aren't fixing it if  we  aren't
changing if  we  aren't responsive then it's somehow like we've
stepped aside and expect someone to come with a repair kit and do
some kind of surgery on the system. No, the ownership belongs
with the people who are in it. The control and the money that is
required has to come with the efforts of the people in the
system. As was recently said by Dr. Jernigan at the Canadian
Council of the Blind convention, you can't legislate or demand
self-esteem and self-respect. You have to have it; you have to
own it; you have to take it. I think that sense of responsibility
about the system applies equally.
I want just to say (and I'm almost at the point of King Henry
VIII, who reportedly said to one or more of his wives:  Do not
worry.  I won't keep you long )  The caution I have about
ownership and input and participation is, let's make sure that
someone worries about the gaps. Let's make sure that somebody
worries about the needs of people who can't and won't meet their
needs, who maybe are not very likable or very articulate. You
see, that is the danger that can happen in trying to do, or have
people do, only the things that they want to do or that they're
inclined to do. I hope that in the themes for the future as we
talk about the pan disability movement (which I happen to believe
is the greatest threat to the future)  We ought to be saying
something about that and we aren't. I hope that in the future
we're not going to be talking about stupid terms like  visually
challenged.  Blind is blind. Visually impaired is visually
impaired.  And, yes, if you're deaf-blind, that's what you are.
Not  hearing  and  visually challenged.  Euphemisms. Why do
people feel they need to say those things?
One other thing, too, is the matter of professionalism. As Dr.
Miller said, I, too, did not come here to speak on behalf of or
in concert
with anyone. Yes, I have belonged formerly to a professional
organization.  I was on the senior executive of the Canadian
Association of Social Workers for a decade. I no longer belong to
a social work organization, and I'll tell you why. Because the
organization is self- serving.  It does not represent the clients
that we served as social workers.
It never did a damned thing for the kids that I worked with for
fifteen years. Yes, it was good (and is good) for professional
development, for creating energy, and so on as long as we're
clear about what a professional association can do. Two years ago
I wrote to the AER board of directors and raised the issue as to
whether an association
of and for professionals belonged in the certification business
that I viewed that as possibly self-serving and a potential (if
not actual) conflict of interest. I never received a reply to
that letter. I hope that the new board will give it some thought.
You see, the conclusion to the future of the blindness system is 
As I was saying to Pat Vertes, who is trying to start a national
parents group in this country (for which, incidentally, the CNIB
is providing seed money)  I told Pat that because we were
providing the seed money, there would be no indebtedness, but you
damned well better be sure that we're recognized in the
literature. But then I said one other important thing to her and
her peers in Canada who want to become a viable voice for parents
of blind kids. I said the CNIB will never own the parents group.
We will work with you, but we want to work with you in
partnership, not in an ownership role. We want to help get it
started, but we have no business in running the affairs of the
parents group in this country. We will consult with them; we will
listen to them; we will cooperate; and I hope we will do a lot of
good things together. But they must evolve. And that isn't the
way that it happened in our country, because for forty years we
funded the Canadian Council of the Blind. In 1988 that financial
agreement concluded. Incidentally, the consumer movement in our
country started in 1928.
So in all of that, I've concluded about the future and the role
of professionalism and what will happen. I had one last thought
on that, and that is openness. Whatever does happen will
certainly be much more open to scrutiny. It will have to be
demystified, and it will have to stand the test. There will be no
room for the timid, for the self-serving, or those who seek to
hide behind credentials, organizations, or anything else. And,
yes, that might even apply to consumer organizations.  They, too,
will find that they must be accountable. Some are, and some are
not. Some will survive, and some will not. But one thing
is certain: We have gone to an era (and you know it from the
political life in your country and in my own and elsewhere in the
world) that there are no longer very many closed doors beyond
which the scrutiny of the camera and the microphone and the
watchfulness of people will not go. All of us, therefore, have to
put aside other issues but stand the watch for what blind and
visually impaired people, parents of blind children, the
deaf-blind, and multi-handicapped sensory impaired are going to
want in this country and elsewhere in the world.  I'm delighted
that five people (with respect to Susan, Bill would have been
here if he could) got together at the invitation of these groups
and for an opportunity to give you our message to show you that
we agree more than we disagree that we have a great respect for
each other. I would invite you to visit the Federation of the
Blind in Baltimore. I just attended their convention. I can
verify everything that people have said (that you would read in
the  Monitor ).  As politicians in my country say to me,  If
blind people would get their act together,  (it was a doctor who
said this)  then you could come and tell us what you want. 
And I said,  Is there always agreement in the medical profession? 
Well, you see, there are going to be differences of opinion,
because we're people first.
Thank you for coming to listen. We hope we have some good
discussion and questions.
                                 
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES BY THE PANEL
 After the formal presentations the panel first discussed several
issues with each other and then took questions from the audience. 
Some of the comments from the audience were not picked up by the
tape, and parts of the discussion were repetitious; but here are
portions of what occurred: 

                 Cross-Disability and Coalitions

 Oral Miller:  A couple of comments concerning the pan-
disability situation, or whatever. It's quite clear that this
movement could endanger or harm the blindness system as we know
it. Another aspect
we must be mindful of, however, is the reality (at least, in the
U.S.A.) that whether we like it or not, many of our government
officials, legislators, etc. are thinking in cross-disability
terms. This is due, in part, to the increased activity,
visibility, etc. of other disability organizations. The blind got
there first. The blind were articulate earlier. There were a
number of provisions that were very beneficial for the blind. But
for whatever the reason that pendulum has swung some, and we have
to be aware of that. Therefore, on many issues it is necessary to
do some cross-disability coalition-type work.
Now, this doesn't mean by any means that an organization must (or
should or should even consider) giving up its identity, its own
integrity, the rights of its members, etc. But as a realistic
matter any more, we're going to have to be spending a lot of our
time simply fighting to defend a number of the programs, etc.,
that were put in for the blind early on. Now these are good
programs, good benefits, etc. But other people are wanting a
bigger piece of the same pie, and we're going to have to work
like hell to hang on to what we have.   Kenneth Jernigan:  I want
to comment on what Mr. Miller has said and to observe that at
least in our experience as an organization (and from our point of
view) it is a mistake to join coalitions. We have not done so. We
believe that every time we have flirted with
that particular thing we've lost by it. And the very fact that a
number of people now find coalition so attractive (I'm not
talking about in the blindness system but other disability groups
and legislators) is all the more reason why we should not allow
ourselves to be lulled into participating in it. I think that if
we play our cards right, we do not have to do that. That doesn't
mean we aren't in favor of other people having things. It doesn't
mean that we're heartless or anything else. But I think that we
are organized for one purpose, and that is to deal with problems
of the blind and that's what we ought to do. I think that we can
maintain that, and I think that it will make sense to people.

                    Organizations of Parents

 Kenneth Jernigan:  I want to ask Dr. Herie if I understood
correctly.  Dr. Herie, I believe that what you meant when you
said that you didn't want to  own  the parents was that if you
continued to fund them, there would be an ownership relation and
that if you continued to fund them, they could not truly be
independent that, therefore, you don't intend to do it and that
they really don't want you to do it. Or if they do, they
shouldn't. And if they do, you won't.  Did I understand
correctly? Is that all implicit in what you said?

 Euclid Herie:  Did I say all that? Yes, you're quite right.  If
they want us to fund them, we probably won't; and they don't want
us to fund them. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I
think there is a role for organizations, governments, and people
with resources to assist or to be helpful. And money is one way
of being helpful. As once was remarked to me, with money usually
goes influence.  Yes, that's true. I've made my point about the
influence I expected
in this instance. But the point is that in our country it's very
difficult sometimes to bring people together. It's very costly,
as it is in your country. We invited at a children's conference a
group of parents to come and have lunch. They set up a committee.
I didn't hear from
them again. Then one day we talked. And we said:  We'd be
delighted we'd be happy to provide some dollars for you to get a
group together and get your organization going.  And that's all
that we've done.
I don't know what the future of the organization will be, but
however it operates, it would certainly not be as part of a
funded program from the CNIB. My president's here. I'm sure he'd
support that. That would not be our mandate. It wouldn't be our
mission.

                             Braille

 Oral Miller:  If we are facing an attack or a danger or whatever
to the system (and there are several), this is certainly one.
Because (I'll put it to you very simply, ladies and gentlemen)
involved in education we may have to discuss who should learn
Braille (that is, which students), but to the extent you accept
the notion that blind children should not be taught Braille and
the school system should allow that, and the teachers' colleges
should waive the requirement, etc.   To the extent all these
things happen, you are tying behind their backs one hand of each
blind person who goes through the school system. Don't do that.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  This is one of those rare occasions when
I agree with the ACB. I certainly think that on the business of
Braille there has to be some judgment made, but I have known (and
I'm sure the other people on this panel have known and that you
in the audience may have known I hope you have) blind people who
were not taught Braille as they grew up and then lost what sight
they had, or found that the print they had been told to rely on
wasn't available to them or found that they read it so slowly
that it wasn't serviceable to them. They found themselves
effectively illiterate and became quite bitter at the system and
everything it involved. I think that shouldn't happen. What we
have undertaken to do in a number of the states (and what we will
continue to press for) is that the blind child be at least given
the option (or the child with residual vision I don't want to
quibble over terminology)  that every child who has enough visual
impairment to fall within the legal definition of blindness
be offered at least the option of learning Braille and that the
parents have some say in the matter.
I know one case currently in our area in which the parents of a
blind child want that child to learn Braille. He was learning
Braille. They moved into a new school district, and the school
authorities said,  You are abusing your child. Why do you want to
make him blind?  The school authorities positively refused even
to let him use Braille in the classroom. If the parents say (as
they have) that they will pay for private tutoring, the school
officials still say they won't permit that child to use Braille
in the classroom. I think that's wrong.
 Susan Spungin:  Not only is that wrong, Mr. Jernigan, but it
is also illegal. In light of 94-142 we have something called due
process.  We seem to be a country of extremes. We have a history
of everyone learn Braille, to the point where people are reading
Braille, to then in the sixties with the important work of
Natalie Barraga, a high emphasis on visual efficiency and using
residual vision, to at this point, I think, needing now to step
back and take a closer look and work at looking at the individual
child. It's very dangerous, I think, when we make global
statements that all children with visual loss (regardless of the
limit of that vision) should learn Braille. It
is as dangerous to take the position that all children with low
vision should automatically not learn Braille. I'm afraid that we
always look for the quick fix. And when we find these kinds of
statements, we're going to go either one way or the other and do
a disservice to both children the low vision child and the
potential Braille user.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  I want to be sure you understood what I said. 
I'm not saying that all children who are visually impaired should
learn Braille but that they should have available to them the
option of learning Braille if they want to do it and if their
parents want them to.

                        Follow-Up Meeting

 Comment from the audience by Carroll Jackson of Detroit: 
Following up with Dr. Jernigan's comments that this panel may be
a start, I'd like to know what each of you as representatives of
these consumer organizations are willing to do as the next step
to continue this dialogue and make a common statement or position
paper, as it were, concerning the needs and wants of blind
persons.
 Oral Miller:  I'll say name your meeting place.
 Susan Spungin:  The American Foundation for the Blind would be
very happy to serve as the coordinator of that meeting.   Euclid
Herie:  We don't have a national newsletter at CNIB.  The CCB
does, and I know that the organizations at this table in the
United States do. In each of the newsletters (including AER, by
the way) I hope you will print the resolution passed by the North
America Region of the World Blind Union having to do with the
pan-disability approach which will be considered by the World
Blind Union assembly this fall. I think that that should get wide
publicity. That would give you an example of people coming
together on very major common issues.
The fact is that there are twelve people in the North America
Region of the World Blind Union. From the United States we have
ACB, NFB, and the Blinded Veterans; AER, AFB, and the National
Library Service; in Canada it's the same; and it's the same in
the Caribbean region.  The twelve of us have been meeting now for
almost four years. We meet two or three times a year. Those
meetings are harmonious. There has never been anything done at
those meetings that has not been unanimous.  I think that's
wonderful.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  I think it's interesting to pose a question. 
There was a suggestion made by Mr. Miller as a follow-up to the
question from the audience about what we intend to do to try to
continue the start we have made here today. Mr. Miller said, 
Name your meeting place.  Dr. Spungin immediately said the
American Foundation for the Blind will be glad to coordinate. I
doubt that any of you thought her comment was inappropriate.
Would you have felt equally comfortable (and would everybody in
this audience have participated as enthusiastically) if the
National Federation of the Blind had said,  We will coordinate? 
If not, then we aren't ready for this kind of talk. And if you
would, then think about whether that's appropriate.
I think that a position paper is not what we need. I think what
we need are deeds and action, and I believe that the experience
of the North America Region is a good example of that.
 Susan Spungin:  Dr. Jernigan, by that comment (which I think is
a very important one) can this panel make the assumption that you
would be willing to coordinate such a meeting towards the end of
coming to grips with those things that are agreed upon?
 Kenneth Jernigan:  To show you I can give a short answer, yes.  
Susan Spungin:  Thank you. Great!
 Oral Miller:  Just an additional comment. I agree with whoever
said it earlier. Whatever is accomplished is not going to be
accomplished overnight. I've heard of so many conferences where
they spend the first three days arguing about whether they're
going to use a round table or an oblong table or a square table.
Obviously there would have to be some sort of decision ahead of
time as to a mechanism for even deciding what the issues are. And
another thing to consider:  We're not talking about a monolithic
system. There is no such thing as  the  agency or  the  provider
view on a given subject.  Mr. Jackson's agency may look one way
on a subject, and someone else another. So, if we're talking
about a continuing dialogue of a general nature and as specific
as necessary, fine. Don't expect results overnight, because (as
indicated earlier) we've got a number of long- standing either
issues or concerns or factors to be considered; and they are not
going to go away overnight.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Mr. Miller, what we will do (in follow up to
Dr. Spungin's question and your comment) is that before the time
of next year's convention of this organization the National
Federation of the Blind will issue to the organizations
represented on this panel an invitation to come to the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore.  We will coordinate that
meeting. We will provide funding to help it happen, and we will
pledge ourselves to deal only with those subjects on the agenda
on which we may find possible agreement, and to avoid subjects on
which we already have taken such positions that we know
we cannot agree. We will not discuss a subject unless there is
unanimous agreement to do so. In order to get it off of
generalities, that's what we are prepared to do. Would the ACB be
willing to participate in such a meeting?
 Oral Miller:  We have always been willing to participate in
constructive processes; and if that appears to be constructive,
we certainly will.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Well, does that appear to be constructive as
I laid it out?
 Oral Miller:  Yeah, I'm not sure that enough parties are
included.  That's my only concern.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Well, okay. But let's start with these five.  
Oral Miller:  Sure. No problem at all.

                Closing Statement by Euclid Herie

Since I'm the last panelist to speak, I want to thank you, Gary,
on behalf of my colleagues on the panel for moderating the
session today.  And I want to say that the point could not have
been more clearly accentuated in the remarks that I came prepared
to make here today that the people who do something about
problems in a system are the people in it. In the future things
will be far more open than they have ever been, and we're going
to have to be prepared to accept that.  Today, just even in the
agreement that was achieved (the agreement to meet next spring
the one factor that could have very major implications) we did
something that hasn't happened in forty years.  If you think
about it, we did something here today about shaping the future of
this system something very significant and we did it in an open
forum and not in a smoky back room. Wonderful.
                     CHILDREN OF MINOR WIVES
                    An Address Delivered by 
J. A. Euclid Herie, Managing Director 
Canadian National Institute for the Blind 
At The Convention of the 
National Federation of the Blind 
Chicago, Illinois
                      Tuesday, July 5, 1988

Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, as an individual and as the former
President of the National Federation of the Blind, has given and
continues to give effective leadership to your movement. His
commitment to the objectives of your organization is respected
throughout your country and internationally. President Marc
Maurer, the officers, and you the membership must build on Dr.
Jernigan's leadership. The National Federation of the Blind is a
formidable resource that can continue to give life and meaning to
shape a better world for people who, on a daily basis, must
contend with blindness or poor vision.
It is due to my respect for Dr. Jernigan and to the value that he
places on the quality of life for blind persons that I was
pleased
to accept his invitation to address your 1988 convention here in
Chicago.  An unfortunate conflict in my own schedule makes it
impossible for me to be here for the remainder of this week, but
you may be certain that I will be most interested in the outcome
of your deliberations and in the priorities and plans that you
will develop for the coming year and beyond.
Throughout my career I have had to write numerous letters,
articles, and addresses such as this one. I have never written a
book, but I understand that usually when a book has been
completed, the author and the publisher sit down and debate over
the title of the book.
My approach is usually to start with the title and then try to
convey my thoughts and message. It was on that basis that some
months ago I indicated to Dr. Jernigan that my presentation to
this convention would have the title  Children of Minor Wives. 
To understand my choice of that title you would have to travel
with
me to Thailand to meet Aurora, a blind woman and mother of two
teen-age children. In March of this year I was in that country to
learn more about the work of Helen Keller International and to
review a Canadian International Development Agency project to
train eye surgeons. During a reception and dinner aboard a rice
boat on the river in Bangkok, I had a long conversation with
Aurora about the quality of life for blind persons and the
struggle for full participation and equality in our society,
whether in Bangkok, Chicago, or elsewhere. We spoke
of differing cultures, religions, and traditions. It was in that
sphere of reference that Aurora equated the status of blind
people as equal
to the children of minor wives. From her description it was my
understanding that her reference was to certain cultures where a
polygamous marriage meant that the children of the primary wife
received priority or privileged status in the home, in education,
and other opportunities. The children
of the other/or  minor  wives were secondary in those
opportunities and their entitlement to them.
That evening the conversation caused me to reflect on the
progress that we as blind people have achieved in the past two
centuries and
in recent years. At the same time it accurately described the
secondary status that too many blind people still occupy in 1988.
We as blind people are part of society and so part of the family,
and to that extent we have achieved some measure of comfort and
security. On closer examination we discover that to be full and
equal participants in the family we must achieve a higher status
by becoming the children
of the  primary  wife. The single and most important difference
is that unlike the children born to minor wives, we have the
freedom and the opportunity to exercise a mobility toward that
higher status.  The first and most significant step for blind
people seeking equality was a formulation of the alphabet by
Louis Braille that would tear back the curtain of illiteracy and
darkness. Writing in 1930, Helen Keller expressed it best:  Books
are the eyes of the blind. The reveal to us the glories of the
light-filled world. They keep us in touch with what people are
thinking and doing. They help us to forget our limitations. 
As the twentieth century draws to a close, blind persons have
attained freer access to education and gainful employment in an
independent and competitive environment. At the same time, we
have discovered that the laws of the nation, written and
democratically sanctioned, must be changed or declared unjust
unless they are applicable to the majority of citizens. As an
integral part of the new Canadian constitution, the Charter of
Rights contains a specific provision with reference
to Canadians with disabilities. This is a complex piece of
legislation without precedence in our country, and there will
need to be numerous legal challenges and rulings by the courts in
order fully to clarify its application and benefit to disabled
persons. It is in this broader societal context that all of us
are working to achieve security and equal status. In your country
the National Federation of the Blind
is an impressive force toward the achievement of these twin
objectives.  In Canada the approach has differed considerably,
given the statute of the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind as a single national service organization that in this, its
seventieth year, has had an influence both in advocacy and in
service delivery.
In early years the Canadian National Institute for the Blind
operated a dozen sheltered workshops and over twenty residences
and thus became a major employer of blind Canadians. Today, only
four workshops remain in Ontario and five residences in Ontario
and Newfoundland. These facilities and services have been phased
out over the past decade in favor of community-based
rehabilitation programs. With fifty-two offices in every part of
Canada, including the North West Territories, the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind employs 2,200 persons,
and there are just under 60,000 Canadians who have voluntarily
registered with our agency. In 1985 we adopted the SEE (Sight
Enhancement Enterprise) Policy with the effect that we now serve
anyone with poor or failing vision. At the same time, the policy
was careful to enunciate that
those persons without sight or with very limited vision are the
individuals whom we serve first and always.
In more recent years  the consumer movement,  as you would
understand it in the United States, has accepted the challenge to
represent blind and visually impaired Canadians in dealing with
major concerns that would be similar, if not identical, to your
own. In recent years, as I have traveled to a few other countries
and have networked with other individuals in this field, I have
discovered
that organizations of blind persons are emerging and having an
unprecedented influence in policy formation, service delivery,
and self-determination.  It is not necessary in front of this
audience to enumerate what those challenges and priorities are.
You will have read in the  Braille Monitor  a letter written by
me concerning my own discriminatory experience with Air Canada.
That incident is illustrative of remedial efforts which we in
Canada are making to achieve equality in access
to transportation in our country. With reference to education,
children in Canada are, for the most part, integrated into the
regular public school system within their own community. Only two
schools for the blind are operating in our country. However, the
integrated approach to education can only succeed if the
environment truly provides for equal opportunity; that would
include such requirements as adequate instruction in Braille, for
example. Employment equity is a federal statute in Canada but has
limited applicability, and more is required in that important
area.  Communications and access to information are a major
priority and, unlike your service structure through the Library
of Congress, there is no effective central leadership in our
country other than what the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind is able to provide through our National Library Division.
In truth we rely heavily on resources from your country for both
Braille and talking books and magazines.
You will conclude from these observations that we in Canada share
your objectives toward equality and full participation. We can
and do learn from one another; a victory won in one country can
have a profound influence on another. As an example, the world's
first franking privilege for blind persons was introduced in
Canada in 1898.
My second and somewhat different challenge today might surprise
you.  For me, there is the major concern related to the generic
approach to disability. At a ceremony in Beijing, China, during
the week of March 14th, a national committee was established to
place various disability groups under one umbrella. A similar
consumer organizational structure exists in our country, although
they would acknowledge that they do not adequately represent the
needs of blind, deaf-blind, and visually impaired Canadians. I am
certain that this approach has been repeated in other parts of
the world, led by Disabled Persons International (DPI), who are
determined to become the international umbrella organization,
seeking to speak for and represent all disabilities. We cannot
allow that to happen.
To emphasize the depth of my concern, I would refer you to the
April, 1988, issue of the  Braille Monitor  in particular, to two
significant articles. The first reference is an article entitled 
Bill Would Merge Agencies for Handicapped.  The following
introductory comment summarizes my point:
 E. U. Parker, one of the long-time leaders of the National
Federation of the Blind of Mississippi, sent us the following
article. It appeared in the February 4, 1988,  Clarion Ledger. 
As will be quickly apparent, there is nothing new or constructive
in the proposed bill discussed in this article. Despite the
claims of its sponsor, the legislation would not result in
savings, less confusion, or coordination of services. It would
(as experience has repeatedly shown) achieve the opposite. 
In the same issue of the  Monitor  you will have read, no doubt
with considerable interest, of the news release concerning the
lottery program operated by the blind Spanish organization
operated as  ONCE.  In this article we find that issues among
disabled groups have gone beyond rhetoric or the niceties of the
board room table. We read of  riot police  called in to control
demonstrations by disabled persons, petitions to the government,
and the compromise that  ONCE  brought in by including a sizable
group of disabled persons to resolve the problems in employment
and profits relating to the sale of lotteries.  It will be
interesting to follow these developments, particularly should the
non-blind disabled contingent within  ONCE  become the voting
majority. Perhaps they have considered this. In any event, this
development underlines the problems that can be anticipated to
occur as blind persons seek independence and equality, possibly
not
only within the dominant society, but as minority members of a
numerically larger group in the generic disabled community. While
it is not my intention to dramatize the issue by describing it as 
the enemy within,  I want to recommend that any collaborative
action with cross- disability organizations, where this is
considered desirable or appropriate, must be approached with the
utmost caution. On this point there can be no compromises. It is
for this reason that the delegates from the North America Region
of the World Blind Union recently adopted a firm resolution
requesting that the World Blind Union show leadership to the
world so that priorities and issues that concern blind,
deaf-blind, and persons with poor or failing vision are, and must
be, dealt with in a distinct and unique manner.
It is out of this concern that blind and visually impaired
individuals will not be well served by the generic approach. In
fact, there could be an adverse impact since  access  will mean
ramps but may not mean access to print for the non-seeing world.
Dr. Jernigan and I, among others in this country and elsewhere,
have strongly supported the development of the World Blind Union
with the hope that it can be an international forum to balance,
or if necessary oppose, the generic approach to disability,
should such prove to be counterproductive in resolving our own
issues and problems. In the United States your organization (the
National Federation of the Blind, and others such as the American
Foundation for the Blind) can and must be out front
to resist, where appropriate, any attempt on the part of any
organization for the disabled that will not serve our interests
or falsely claims to speak on our behalf. Be aware that this is a
far greater issue than has usually been recognized, with
potentially a significance beyond what we have fully understood
to date. Within a broader and numerically larger disabled
community, we as blind persons must not allow ourselves either to
become or to be viewed as the children of minor wives.
Whether viewed in the context of our life in today's society to
include access to information, employment, transportation,
housing, leisure, or other services predicated on equality before
the law, our goal must be to enjoy the status of the children of
the primary wife.  Finally, and most important of all, we should
not seek that status in our community, or within our own family,
unless we first possess the confidence in ourselves as
individuals. Self-confident, we can develop the required ability
and full measure of self-reliance to enjoy the status of the
child of the primary wife. Where, for whatever reason, our status
is that of the child of the minor wife, we must seek the
resources and the means to alter that status to first-class
citizenship with all that that implies.
To summarize, I have touched on the fundamental priorities
relevant to equality and full participation within our society,
and the urgency and significance of a focused and concerted
approach within the blindness movement. To restate the obvious,
self-esteem and self-confidence can and will flourish within a
hospitable environment in a nation
whose citizens possess the necessary attitudinal and behavioral
prerequisites.  It is for that reason that I consider it a
privilege and an opportunity to have shared these few moments
with you at this podium to congratulate you on your success and
to urge that you redouble your efforts in order that blind people
today, and in generations to come, will never know the status of
Children of Minor Wives.
     A PROFILE OF SERVICES TO BLIND PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA    
by David Blyth
 On Tuesday afternoon, July 5, 1988, at the convention of the
National Federation of the Blind in Chicago, David Blyth was one
of the speakers
on a panel entitled:  The Blind of the World in Collective
Action.  Mr. Blyth is Vice President for Policy of the National
Federation
of Blind Citizens of Australia. He is also Chairman of the East
Asia/Pacific Region of the World Blind Union and Director of
Community Services
for the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind in Melbourne,
Australia.  Here is what he said: 

I would like to tell you a bit about the services in Australia,
or the conditions for blind people in Australia. To do this I
have to give you a profile of the agency for which I work.
I noted and would like to take the opportunity to compliment
President Maurer on his report. I thought it was a most
magnificent and inspiring report, and I can assure him that if he
will waive the copyright on it, we will play it on the radio for
the print handicapped throughout Australia.
My organization, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, was
established in 1866 as the result of a committee that provided
some educational services for deaf people. It considered that
blind children and some blind adults living in the area around
Melbourne needed an education and employment. So they established
a school for children who are blind and a workshop for adults who
are blind. This continued in that normal, institutionalized
manner, where everyone was brought in and housed and virtually
taken away from their families, for a number of years.
In the early part of this century things started to change.
Probably the first change was the establishment of a blind
workers' union, where blind people themselves decided to have
some say in their future and what was being provided and how it
was being provided. At this time in Australia we were a
collection of six English colonies. We
did not get federation until the year 1901. And federation in
Australia was more of a dream in the early days than an actual
reality, because Australia is the same size as the continental
U.S.A. However, it is certainly different in its population. Even
today we have a population of only 16,000,000. It was interesting
to fly into California and find that they've got that much, even
more.
The workshops for the blind in Australia did the normal
traditional trades. There wasn't much employment in what we would
call open industry until the middle and late thirties, and
particularly during the Second World War. This created a great
expansion with the manpower shortages which came in the 1940's,
and that continued until 1945 when the war was over. Then they
said,  Right back to the institution for you boys.  And that's
when the blind workers union and other organizations which had
been established at that time really fought their fight.

Competitive employment, as we call it today, is the real thing in
Australia. Competitive employment has progressed to such an
extent that in my state of Victoria there are approximately 1,000
blind people working. Out of that thousand there would be
eighty-one in a sheltered workshop, and that eighty-one would be
mostly blind people who have other disabilities, and a number of
them who have emotional disabilities.  So employment is not
really an issue with us anymore. Blind people can get jobs in
most industries. There is some discrimination, but very little.
Australians are protected by award wages so that everybody gets
the same wage in a certain industry. In computer programming
and all of those technical services, employment opportunities do
exist.

The RVIB, or the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind,  has as
one of its main roles today a resource organization. We provide
the training, or the assistance for training all of the
alternative formatting of material, whether it be computerized or
taped or Brailled.  And that is provided for students, people who
are training for employment, and people who are in employment. We
believe that there is not much sense in giving a person the tools
if you don't give that person a job. The RVIB has a standard
policy that all new technology shall be adapted so that it can be
used for the blind. Therefore, RVIB is helping in the workplace.
So if a blind person is working as a lawyer or in any other
position, the RVIB will make available in a usable format the
necessary books and material to help the blind person function
competitively.
The welfare services (which were, in actual fact, the mainstream,
I should imagine, of the pre-rehabilitation services) are still
there to help those who are really needy. Remember that in
Australia we have had since 1955 a  compensation for handicapped 
payment.  The blind people of Australia do receive twenty five
percent of average weekly earnings: as a right, with no means
test, no asset tests, and no denial. And that has been since
1955. Besides the welfare services, there are also services to
help blind people with housing, because this seems to be a major
problem for blind people just about everywhere I have been 
getting adequate and reasonably priced housing. So interest-free
loans are made as bridging finance, and assistance is given for
getting reasonably rated loans.
Service for children is probably the thing that causes most
concern at this time. We are in the integrated education system,
the same as you are. We are also finding that it is not the total
answer. We are finding that in some places it works really well
and that in other places it doesn't work at all and it also does
everything that's in between. We find that there are children who
emotionally cannot handle the mainstream educational system, and
there are not only blind people who face this issue. It's a
common issue in various parts of our country, so at the RVIB we
have changed our school from being a school just for blind
children to being a school for children who are blind and who
have other disabilities or other problems that stop them from
being able to use the mainstream educational system. To
try to give that some normality, we have what is called reverse
integration.  We have come to an arrangement with surrounding
schools whereby we take several of their classes for a year, and
those classes operate
with one or two blind children as part of them, working in the
segregated school.
I would like to talk now about the organizations of blind people.
The Blind Workers Union was the first one. They were ones who
pioneered representation for blind people. But they restricted
themselves mostly
to sheltered workshops. And so in 1911 the first organization of
Australia-wide blind people met, and they established the
Australian Federation of Organizations of the Blind. That
organization survived right through to gain  free of means test 
pension and many other Social Security benefits for blind people.
Today it no longer survives, because it could not change its
constitution to allow for individual members.  In Australia,
because of our distances, most blind people are not in local
organizations.
So in 1975 an organization called the National Federation of
Blind Citizens was established. It was established basically
along the lines of your organization. A lot of its preamble is
your preamble because people like Hugh Jeffreys and others who
had come to America and seen early conferences of this
organization came back with the concepts you had tried and found
workable. They have been strong and loud in their praise of your
work and of the way you work and we have adapted those principles
to Australia. There is the exception that we don't vote on state
lines, because we only have six states and it's not hard to get a
two-thirds majority if you only have to get
four of six votes to change the constitution. We decided to have
individual voting, but we do give organizations and branches
extra votes. It has worked quite effectively.
The major things we work on are similar to yours. Fortunately we
don't have the trouble with the airlines that you have and we
have other things that seem to work for us that you don't seem to
like the idea of. But that's the right of free and democratic
people, and that's why we have organizations so that we can all
be different if we so desire. So there are those things that do
work, and work well for us. Our airlines in Australia are very
regulated. We only really have two commercial airlines. They both
fly at exactly the same time to exactly the same destinations at
exactly the same fare. Everything's about exactly the same. That
is about to be changed, I understand, and I imagine we are going
to run into some of the problems that you have faced. With our 
two airline policy  the rights of all people have been
guaranteed, but with deregulation I'm not too sure.

I would now like to mention a few little things that we do that I
think work quite well. Sports are a very important part of our
life
in Australia. We have a pretty good climate, and sports are very
popular.  Cricket (which is a game that I believe is very foreign
to you) is very popular. It started in 1922 with state and
national competition played regularly by the majority, I would
say, of active blind people.  It has also been the training
ground for a lot of blind people who have become our leaders. In
each club you need administrators, and in each association you
need administrators. This is where a lot of our people got their
start. We have all the other things tandem bike riding, skiing,
and the rest of that.
In Australia we also have another organization called the
Australian National Council of and for the Blind. I think the  of 
is
a little bit of a misnomer, because the organization is mainly 
for  but it can't be completely all  for,  because I'm now the
president of it. I was the first president of the National
Federation of Blind Citizens, so you can see how it is. This
organization has some nineteen members and that's the number of
agencies that there are in Australia agencies and organizations
like agencies. Through that organization the National
Federation of Blind Citizens has been able to influence the
policies and actions of agencies in our country.
In our country we are fortunate in our small numbers, and that is
why we have been successful. I believe in partnership, and that
is what I think we have achieved. I believe that there are times
when one confronts and that there are times when one asks people
to yield a little bit more gently, and that is the way we have
approached the Australian National Council of and for the Blind.
With that we have been able to influence government to look
seriously at organizations for blind people and of blind people,
because we were facing the issue of the disabled lost in this
mire of the disabled. In that mire blind people will lose. There
is no doubt in my mind that if blind people cannot stand alone
and be recognized in their own right, we will lose and so I would
like to finish with that remark and that warning to all of us to
be vigilant. I have heard the word  disabled  being used
regularly here today by your representatives. I believe most
strongly that all disabled people are entitled to a fair go, but
the ones that I'm interested in helping at this point in time are
blind people.
                  THE BLIND PEOPLE OF THAILAND
            An Address Delivered By Wimon Ong-Amporn 
Foundation for the Blind in Thailand 
At the Annual Convention of the 
National Federation of the Blind 
Chicago, Illinois
                      Tuesday, July 5, 1988

I would first like to say how happy I am to be speaking with you
today.  This is the first time that I have attended a National
Federation
of the Blind convention, even though I have tried to follow NFB
activities for many years. It is an honor for me to be here in
Chicago and to have this chance to meet so many new and
interesting friends.
I would like to give you some background information on the Royal
Kingdom of Thailand. Thailand is located in South East Asia and
is one of the members of the ASEAN countries. We share common
borders with Kampuchia to the east, Laos to the north, Burma to
the west, and Malaysia to the south. Our history goes back over
1,000 years, and we are one of the few countries in Asia that was
never colonized by a European power. In fact, the word  Thai  in
our language means  Free,  and  Thailand  means the  land of the
free.  We are very proud to be a Kingdom, and our King is greatly
loved and respected by all the people of my country.
In size, Thailand is slightly bigger than the state of
California.  There are seventy-three provinces, and Bangkok is
the capital city.  Thailand has a population of fifty- three
million people, with most of the population living in rural areas
and working in agriculture.  Our main religion is Buddhism, which
is practiced by eighty- five percent of the population. The rest
of the population is composed of ten percent Muslim, five percent
Christian, and others.
We are known to be kind people who have a good sense of humor. In
fact, we have the nickname of being the  Land of the Smiles.  And
if you ever have the opportunity to visit my country, you will
find a land full of warm and loving people.
Concerning blindness, there has never been a national survey on
blindness done in Thailand, so I cannot tell you the exact number
of blind people.  Sample surveys have shown a blindness rate of
0.6 percent, which would mean that there are over 318,000 blind
people in Thailand, of which 20,000 are school-aged children.
These rates are based upon figures from the Thai Ministry of
Health and the World Health Organization.
Although there are a large number of blind people, education,
rehabilitation, and social services are still very limited. In
fact, it is estimated that less than four percent of blind
children have the opportunity to receive educational services.
There are a number of reasons that services are so limited. Among
these are financial constraints on the part of government
agencies.  We are a developing country, and the monies needed to
expand special services to blind people are not available.
Also, there is the problem of community attitudes. Although Thai
people are generally noted for their humanitarian actions, they
customarily accept disability as a manifestation of wrongful
deeds done either in this life or in a previous life. It is part
of the Buddhist belief that our present status in life is
dependent upon the merit we earned or did not earn in our last
life. Therefore, if we are blind in this life, then it is due to
some misdeed done in a previous life. This attitude has added to
the difficulty faced by disabled people in Thailand who are
trying to lead independent lives.
Education of blind children was first introduced into Thailand in
1939 by an American woman named Miss Genevieve Caulfield. Miss
Caulfield was a blind woman from the state of Pennsylvania.
Beginning with one student in a small house in Bangkok, Miss
Caulfield's work with blind children soon became well known, and
within a few short years she
had over forty students enrolled in what is today known as the
Bangkok School for the Blind. This school is now operated by the
Foundation for the Blind in Thailand.
Today the Foundation runs five units: a school for the blind, a
training center for blind men, a training center for blind women,
a library for the blind, and a sheltered workshop for the blind.
All five of these units are located either in Bangkok or in the
greater Bangkok Metropolitan area.
Besides the Bangkok School for the Blind, there are four other
residential schools for the blind. Two of these are
government-sponsored schools and are located in the north and
south of Thailand. The other two are run by the private sector.
One is located in the northeast region of Thailand and is run by
the Christian Foundation for the Blind.  This school is a
preparatory program for students before they enter integrated
education programs. The other private school is located in the
resort town of Pattaya in the southeast region.
The integrated education system was first introduced into
Thailand in 1965 with the assistance of Helen Keller
International. HKI is again assisting the Ministry of Education
to expand on the efforts started in 1965. This is being supported
by a grant from the United States government through the Agency
for International Development.  At the present time there are
about 500 blind and low vision children in ordinary school
programs. This still means that less than four percent of the
total number of school-age blind children are in any school
program. Much work is needed before all blind children in
Thailand have equal access to education.
Besides the Foundation for the Blind in Thailand, there are two
other foundations supporting services for blind people. These are
the Christian Foundation for the Blind and the Caulfield
Foundation for the Blind.
The Association of the Blind in Thailand is the only national
organization exclusively run by blind people themselves. The
Association was founded twenty years ago by a group of blind
persons with the assistance and through the initiative of Miss
Caulfield. The Association promotes the equalization of
opportunity of blind people in order that they may achieve full
participation in society. It alerts the public to
the abilities of blind persons and tries to change the sighted
public's negative attitudes and stereotypes about blindness.
The Association of the Blind, at the present time, can provide
only a very limited amount of direct services to its blind
members because of a lack of adequate financial resources. But
the Association is still trying to provide some services. These
services include: 1.  assisting its members to make contact with
other social service agencies;
2. distributing aids and appliances for blind persons at a
nominal cost; 3. setting up a small loan program for its members
in health care, education, and self-employment; and 4. providing
talking book services.
Benefits to the blind people of Thailand are still limited when
compared with neighboring countries. However, through the work of
the Association, blind people in Thailand now enjoy the following
provisions: 1. free domestic postal mailing of articles for the
blind; 2. duty-free importation of aids and appliances for the
blind from overseas; 3. the right to vote at local, as well as
national, elections (This may sound odd
to you here in the United States, where everyone is entitled to
vote, but for us blind people in Thailand, it took many years to
get the right to vote); and 4. free public transportation by bus
in the Bangkok area and fifty percent discount for bus travel
throughout the country.  Due to the limited resources available,
the Association is not in a position to serve all the various
needs of its members. However, the members help themselves by
organizing specific groups within the Association in order to be
responsible for their own special interests and needs. For
example, we have special working groups of blind women, blind
lottery ticket sellers, blind musicians, telephone operators, and
blind students.
In addition, the Association encourages its members to be active
in society. These activities include providing musical
entertainment programs, organizing a luncheon once a year for the
disabled veterans, participating in blood donation programs, and
participating in national running marathons.
The Association is also involved in public relations. Some of
these activities include a weekly radio program, which we host
for our members and for the general public. Also every October
15, which is our national White Cane Day, we organize an
educational campaign through television, radio, and the press.
The Association is a self-sufficient, nonprofit organization.
Therefore, fundraising is one of our major tasks. We receive
assistance from both national and international organizations. We
are also members of the World Blind Union.
Although progress is being made, blind people in Thailand still
face many problems. Among these are: 1. It is difficult for
services to expand because of limited financial resources.
Thailand, like most developing countries, tends to put services
for blind people at a low priority. 2. Thailand is not a welfare
state, so social welfare programs such as special tax laws,
unemployment insurance, vocational placement, social security,
etc. are not available. 3. Job opportunities for the blind in
Thailand are very limited, and most blind people are self-
employed. Most blind people make their living by selling lottery
tickets. 4. It is difficult for a blind person to enter new
professions. We have only a limited number of blind persons
working as lawyers, teachers, telephone operators, civil
servants, and so on.
But attitudes are slowly changing; services are slowly expanding;
and the lives of blind persons in Thailand are improving.
Although we are not quite as advanced as here in the United
States, I feel that we are making progress. Our future looks
bright.
Before closing, I would like to thank you all once again for
allowing me to participate in this convention. It has been an
honor for me
to attend this convention and to be able to share this country
report with you. I hope you will all some day have the
opportunity to come
to Thailand and to enjoy our hospitality. Thank you for your
attention.  And as we say in Thai,  Kop Khun Krup  Thank you...
and  Sawadee Krup  Goodbye.
                       GREETINGS FROM THE 
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND
                       by Geraldine Braak
 Mrs. Geraldine Braak is President of the Canadian Council of the
Blind. On Thursday morning, July 7, 1988, she spoke at a general
session of the convention of the National Federation of the Blind
in Chicago as follows: 
It gives me a tremendous pleasure to be here and to have the
opportunity to observe a totally different convention from the
one that Dr. Jernigan attended. Ours is totally a consumer
organization, and we are not involved in services. We are the
only national consumer organization in Canada, and our membership
structure is totally different from yours.
When I tell you that we have ninety-six members, that doesn't
sound like very much. But our structure is such that a club is a
member, and each and every club can have upwards of maybe five or
six hundred members. Yet, in our structure each club is only one
member. We represent thousands of visually impaired and blind
people, and we are most active in the areas of advocacy,
recreation, and rehabilitation but as
I have said, not service programs. Our recreation serves as
rehabilitation because the club activities are mainly geared to
absorbing the people back into the community to involve them in
social programs. You can understand how difficult it is sometimes
just to go out and have a visit with somebody or to go again into
a restaurant. Many times we try very small projects. Yet, they
are gigantic to the newly blinded person. Even the effort of
going out with a group of blind people
into a restaurant and booking about sixty reservations can be a
challenge to he newly blinded person. They are scared to come out
and be seen, because everybody will see  that I am blind.  And
out of those sixty people maybe eight show up, and you sit there
and you think,  What have we done wrong? These people are too
scared. We have failed to get our message across. 
But that is only one of the areas. We work with the government,
on many levels. I am pleased to see that many of the areas in
which we are working are also areas in which you are working. We
are proud to be able to say that we achieved last year the
requirement that
the minimum wage has to be paid to every worker, regardless of
whether that worker is employed in a sheltered workshop or not.
Another main area of our concern is exactly like what you had
this morning Braille, particularly for blind children. On June 1
we had outside of Toronto at Lake Joseph (which is a Canadian
National Institute for the Blind center) a giant forum. It was
called,  Braille and its Future Directions.  At that meeting one
of the major concerns was Braille for the children. Braille
should be taught to the children.  One of the speakers this
afternoon, Mr. Fred Schroeder, was also a speaker at the Lake
Joseph meeting and he most certainly did very strongly express
your views. The next day your President (Mr. Maurer, whom I first
met at that time) was a participant in BANA, the Braille
Authority of North America. At that time I was appointed to a
five-member national task force, which will be meeting for the
first time in early September. At that time we will most
certainly address the problems surrounding the teaching and
availability of Braille.
Another area which is of great concern to us (and I know from
your President, from Dr. Jernigan, and from the undercurrents in
this audience that it is of great concern to you also) is the
impact of the cross-disability movement. This movement is
detrimental to the interests of the blind, and I can guarantee
you that the Canadian Council of the Blind is going to do what it
can to prevent the blind from being submerged in the larger
disability population. We established about two years ago (and we
are very proud of it) a coordinating committee of blind and
visually impaired organizations, and at the present time we have
about twelve organizations that are participating. We began with
four.  As I have already said, we have only one national
organization of the blind, but there are many smaller ones maybe
only city or provincial organizations. These now have become part
and parcel of the coordinating committee, and we fight many
issues together. Each and every organization has its own goals,
its own objectives but we truly feel that the blind together can
make many achievements.  One of the first things we tackled was
the copyright law. In Canada there was a very dangerous movement
afoot by authors and artists to protect their royalties, and we
all know what an impact that would have on our talking book
library. We just could not let them go ahead with it.
I will just mention one other area. It is not legislative but the
way people perceive us in the community. In Toronto early this
year in the March of Dimes, which is a charitable organization
which does fundraising for people, there was a week-long
campaign. They came out with an advertisement on television. I
will describe it to you.  I have seen it but I haven't seen it. 
You know what I mean. It shows a person in a wheel chair, and he
is isolated all by himself.  All around at a distance are people
with blindfolds. The background music is the sound of hell, the
sound of fire and there are flames flicking around them and black
birds flying around. The message that comes through after about
half a minute of this is:  Are you going to give this person in a
wheelchair a job? If you cannot suit his capabilities, then you
must be blind. 
You can imagine our immediate reaction. We phoned them, we told
them:   Take this off of t.v., or we will get after you.  We were
told that it was none of our business. It cost them $350,000 to
have that ad on. And we said:  We don't care if it costs you
$2,000,000.  Take it off. 
I know that you are running behind schedule, so I wont' take any
more of your time. I am enjoying my stay with  you. I am enjoying
observing and participating. May you have good deliberations, and
good luck.  

NORTH AMERICA/CARIBBEAN REGIONAL REPORT
                  Tuesday, September 20, 1988 
Kenneth Jernigan, President 
North America/Caribbean Region 
World Blind Union
               2nd General Assembly, Madrid, Spain

In 1984 the International Federation of the Blind and the World
Council for the Welfare of the Blind met in Saudi Arabia to merge
and become the World Blind Union. This coming together was not
achieved without difficulty. Many (including my own organization,
the National Federation of the Blind of the United States) had
serious misgivings about the
merger, but we decided to go forward with a positive attitude to
participate in the newly established world body.
That was 1984, and we now meet in Madrid in 1988 to take stock of
the past four years and chart the course for the quadrennium
ahead.  The numbers attending this General Assembly and the hope
and enthusiasm which pervade its deliberations make it clear that
the sanguine expectations of 1984 were well founded. The World
Blind Union is a functioning reality, already possessing the
beginnings of a tradition and the framework of a protocol of
operation.
An integral part of that protocol is the regional structure of
the Union. Shortly after the Assembly in Riyadh in 1984, the
delegates of the then North America Region met in Washington to
elect officers and make plans. There were (and are) six delegates
from the United States. Three of these (the delegate from the
American Council of the Blind, the delegate from the Blinded
Veterans Association, and the delegate from the National
Federation of the Blind) represent organizations  of  the blind. 
Three (the delegate from the Association for Education and
Rehabiltiation of the Blind and Visually Impaired,
the delegate from the American Foundation for the Blind, and the
delegate from the National Library Service for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped) represent organizations  for  the blind.
Of the four delegates from Canada two represent the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind, and two represent the Canadian
Council of the Blind. At that initial meeting in Washington in
the fall of 1984 we were seeking a basis for joint action and a
means of personal understanding and cooperation. Since that time
we have held seven meetings, one each spring and one each fall,
and we have had a continuous exchange of correspondence and
individual visits.
When we look back over the past four years, the accomplishments
of
the North America/Caribbean Region have been, by any standard,
impressive.  Under the leadership of Dr. Euclid Herie, Managing
Director of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, our
region has raised $30,000.00 to endow the Louis Braille Museum at
Coupvray, France; and we are now in the process of making
additional substantial contributions.  In cooperation with Mr.
Andr Nicole and others we intend to raise enough money throughout
the world to insure the permanent financial security of the Louis
Braille Museum and to make certain that this monument to one of
the principal benefactors of the blind continues in perpetuity. 
Braille is a significant part of our heritage, and
one of the principal yardsticks for measuring the vitality and
validity of a civilization or culture is the degree to which it
shows respect and reverence for the ancestors who brought it into
being. Working with Mr. Nicole and his colleagues, we in the
North America/Caribbean Region intend to place the Louis Braille
Museum on a firm and enduring foundation.
In New York in the fall of 1986 our region hosted the meeting of
the
World Blind Union Executive Committee. It was the occasion for
constructive interaction with the United Nations and increased
public awareness of the needs and aspirations of the blind.
Our region has now been enlarged to encompass the Caribbean
Council for the Blind, and two representatives from that
organization currently serve as delegates so that our regional
structure now consists of twelve delegates: six from the United
States, four from Canada, and two from the Caribbean. Acting
through the regional structure, Canada and the United States have
provided material and technical assistance to the Caribbean area,
and there is every prospect that such assistance will continue.
We have established a regional Committee on the Status of Blind
Women, and that committee is functioning actively. The Committee
met during the time of our regional meeting in Toronto in May of
this year and presented a proposed plan of action to the full
delegation. The plan was adopted and is now being put into
effect.
At the World Blind Union Executive Committee meeting in New York
in the fall of 1986 our region presented a resolution to require
that
all meetings of the WBU officers, Executive Committee, and other
committees be open for any member of the organization to attend.
We also sponsored a resolution to require that WBU meetings be
held in countries which would not exclude for political,
cultural, philosophical, or religious reasons individuals,
delegations, or representatives of the blind from any place on
earth. Both of these resolutions were adopted by the WBU
Executive Committee, and we feel that the organization is
strengthened (both politically and morally) as a result.
Meeting in Toronto in the spring of 1988, the North
America/Caribbean Region adopted for recommendation to this
Assembly a resolution to require that the World Blind Union not
blur its distinctive role by participating in coalitions with
other disability groups. As you consider our proposal during the
meetings of this Assembly, we ask that you read it carefully,
both for what it says and what it does not say.
We would not prohibit (where appropriate) cooperation with other
groups of the disabled, but we would preserve with unmistakable
clarity the concept that the primary purpose of the this
organization is to deal with problems of the blind, not the
disabled as a whole.
So far, I have talked to you about tangible achievements which we
have made in our region during the past four years, but our most
important accomplishment has not been tangible. It has been
attitudinal and spiritual. The World Blind Union has been the
means of bringing us together to work cooperatively as a team.
There are, of course, still philosophical differences which
divide certain ones of us on particular issues, but those
differences have not been emphasized in our deliberations.  In
fact, they have receded in prominence and have gradually been
replaced by an atmosphere of joint effort to reach common goals.
And this sense of increasing closeness and community of purpose
is spreading beyond the narrow confines of the formality of the
regional structure to every aspect of our organizational
functioning and our personal and professional relationships.
Let me specify. In June of this year I went to Kingston, Ontario,
to speak at the convention of the Canadian Council of the Blind;
and in July Dr. Herie, Managing Director of the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind, and Mrs. Braak, President of the
Canadian Council of the Blind, came to Chicago to participate in
the convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Plans are
already under way for future exchanges, and the resulting shared
information and strengthened bonds of friendship give a new
dimension to what we are doing.
Last July (and I think this is clearly the result of our WBU
regional contacts) a program of truly historic significance
occurred in Montreal at the meeting of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired.
Geraldine Braak, Canadian Council of the Blind; Oral Miller,
American Council of the Blind; Susan Spungin, American Foundation
for the Blind; Euclid Herie, Canadian National Institute for the
Blind; and I, National Federation of the Blind, participated in a
two-hour panel discussion. The very fact that such
a panel could take place at all (particularly, considering the
participants) is noteworthy. It could not have happened four
years ago. Moreover, the tone of the discussion was friendly and
constructive, and positive developments resulted.
It was agreed that the five organizations involved would meet
next year at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore for a
detailed exploration of common concerns and possible programs of
joint action.  The meeting will be hosted by the National
Federation of the Blind and may (if all the participants agree)
be expanded to include the Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, and possibly
others. This, indeed, is progress.
One other item should be mentioned in this report. The North
America/Caribbean Region comes to Madrid unanimously urging the
General Assembly to elect Dr. Euclid Herie as Treasurer of the
World Blind Union. As in so many other things during the past
four years, we are unanimous in this action. We know Dr. Herie;
we like him; and we respect him.  Moreover, his competence and
experience particularly suit him for the position. He administers
a program with a large budget; yet, he finds time to deal
compassionately and sensitively with the problems of individuals.
I would like to conclude this report by making these
observations:
In a very real sense every day of our lives is a new crossroad,
requiring decisions which inevitably lead to advancement or
failure, but not
all days are equally important. Some stand out above others,
representing times of crucial significance in the history of a
person or a social movement. Madrid in 1988 constitutes one of
these landmark times.  What we do here during this brief period
may well determine the course of the affairs of the blind of the
world for generations to come.  There are certain issues with
which we must deal, both wisely and decisively. We must decide
how we will allocate the resources we have, and what we will do
to increase those resources. We must deal with the problems of
the blind of the developing countries, and must do
it in such a way that we do not give the impression (either to
ourselves or others) that there are two classes of blind people
in the world, the inferior and the superior. We must recognize
that we are brothers and sisters, and our actions must suit our
words. Above all, we must understand and support the concept that
we who are blind intend to
have the major voice in determining our own destiny. Through the
centuries others have made our decisions and settled our fate,
but that time is at an end. We are determined that it will be at
an end. We will have no more of it. The World Blind Union can and
should be the vehicle
for the emancipation of the blind. Otherwise, we default on our
responsibility.  If this organization simply becomes another
forum for meaningless talk and learned professional papers, it
will be one of the tragic lost opportunities of history. The
World Blind Union (approached in good faith and properly
utilized) can be the key to open the door of first-class status
for the blind of the world. My brothers and my sisters, let us
work together to make it come true.

                    FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION 
AND PROMOTING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
            An Address Delivered by Kenneth Jernigan 
President, North America/Caribbean Region 
World Blind Union 
At the Second General Assembly of the World Blind UnionMadrid, Spain, September 21, 1988
When the World Blind Union came into being four years ago in
Saudi Arabia, the question facing the delegates was not purpose
or method but whether the organization should be established.
Today the question is not whether but why and how. Four years ago
the General Assembly was concerned with organizational structure,
political viability, and worldwide acceptance. Today it is
concerned with the means of achieving its objectives and a clear
definition of what those objectives should be.
Of course, our Constitution has a statement of purpose. It says
in Section 1 of Article II:  The purposes of the World Blind
Union
shall be to work for the prevention of blindness and towards the
advancement of the well-being of blind and visually impaired
people, with the
goal of equalization of opportunities and full participation in
society, if necessary by special, legal, or administrative
measures; to strengthen the self-awareness of blind persons, to
develop their personality, self-respect, and sense of
responsibility; and to provide an international forum for the
exchange of knowledge and experience in the field of blindness. 
That is what the Constitution says, and the first statement of
purpose ( to work toward the prevention of blindness ) and the
last ( to provide an international forum for the exchange of
knowledge
and experience in the field of blindness ) are clear and
unmistakable.  But what about the rest of it in some ways the
very heart and soul of it?
No one would minimize the importance of preventing blindness, but
this is largely a medical problem; and the World Blind Union will
not (and, indeed, should not) ever be the prime mover in this
area.
As to providing  an international forum for the exchange of
knowledge and experience in the field of blindness,  that is
certainly important, but in and of itself it is not enough. It is
a means rather than an end. If we are to get at the real problem
of blindness, we must (as our Constitution says) find a way to
advance the well-being of blind and visually impaired people by
equalizing their opportunities; helping them achieve full
participation in society; and making it possible
for them to have self-respect, self-awareness, and a sense of
responsibility.  But how shall we do it? First of all, we must be
(and, moreover, must regard ourselves as being) an organization
of equals. This means that the primary purpose of the World Blind
Union cannot be merely to serve as a vehicle for channeling money
from those who have it to those who don't. It will be easy for me
to be misunderstood on this point, for it is a sensitive area. I
am not saying that the members of a family should not share what
they have with each other; nor am I saying that the blind of the
world should not regard themselves as a family, for they should.
Rather, I am saying that the members of a family should first  be 
members of the family and that as a consequence sharing should
follow and not just sharing of material things but also of
spiritual and intellectual things as well. It cannot be the other
way around. We cannot (because of urgent need, feelings of guilt,
superiority, or a sense of duty) create an organization
for the primary purpose of the one- way flow of money from more
fortunate to less fortunate people. We cannot because it will be
detrimental to both the givers and the receivers, because it will
create acrimony instead of harmony, and because it will not lead
to a permanent solution of the problem. Moreover, if the giving
of money is the primary purpose and everything else is
incidental, there are better and more effective ways of doing it
than through the World Blind Union.
If we are to succeed in our efforts, we must carry out the
purpose clause of our Constitution. We must help the blind of the
world achieve equality of opportunity, self- awareness, and
self-respect. Of course, this necessarily means the provision of
resources (more resources than have ever before been provided);
but it means more than that.  It means opportunity as a matter of
right, not charity; and it means opportunity stimulated and
provided from within each country as well
as from external sources. It means that we who are blind must be
members of a family (equals), sharing and working throughout the
world in a common effort for the salvation of each other, and the
salvation of all of us. It means action, not just words. It means
recognition of the fact that we who are blind are brothers and
sisters facing a common problem, which requires a common
solution, achieved through joint action.
There is something else. We must not try to impose our own
political systems or cultural values upon each other. Societal
norms are different in almost every part of the world, and if we
wish to change them, this is not the forum for doing it. Instead,
we must strive to see that the blind of every country have the
same opportunity, economic base, social recognition, and civic
responsibility as others in their culture. This means more than
money, but it means that, too.
If we are to deal with each other as equals and work together to
solve our problems, we must understand that those problems are
essentially the same for all of us whether we live in the East or
the West,
the industrialized or the unindustrialized, the developed or the
underdeveloped countries. There are, of course, individuals who
are exceptions; but
as a general rule the blind of every nation on earth (the most
developed as well as the least developed) are when compared with
others in their culture economically and socially disadvanaged.
Let me give you an example from one of the most developed
countries, my own. Recently I read a poem by an American writer,
a writer whose name I don't know. Here it is:

 When the playful dawn came down 
 to the sea, 
 I ruffled its hair with gladness.   I saw the waves and flexed
my soul   in freedom. 
 Humanity comes through the optic nerve,   And justice lives in
the eye. 
 Not creed or law or politics 
 But curvature and the nature of light.   The blind man yearns in
a land apart,   Slave though richest king. 
 Not for him the full broad sweep of   mind and spirit  
 Dark the channel, nerve and tissue;   Long eternal through the
night. 
 Day comes down to touch the ocean,   And I stand up to look and
live.   Books of science unromantic    freedom's passport to the
soul. 
  
When I first read that poem, I thought: how literate, how
polished,
how skillfully written how absolutely gross and totally false. 
Poetry is the art of saying so much in so few words that prose
will not work as a means of expression.  It does for language
what the computer
does for science and what the aerial photograph does for a
landscape.  On nothing more than a sheet of paper you can do any
calculation which the most up-to-date computer can do, but if the
problem is complex, you will do it more slowly so much so that
you will never live
to finish it.  You will not understand the patterns and
relationships or, for that matter, even know they exist.  They
will be buried in minutiae and lost in delay.  Likewise, you can
walk the earth and map a continent, but you can never see its
patterns and perspectives.  There is too much detail, and it will
take too long to put it together.
Poetry (properly used) cuts through verbiage and speaks to the
soul.  Like the computer and the aerial photograph, it condenses
time and reveals patterns.  But we must not be misled. There is
no magic in sophisticated tools.  They are only as good as our
understanding.  Ancient astronomy predicted quite accurately the
course of the stars and the date of eclipses, but it was based on
the mistaken notion that the earth is flat and the center of the
universe.  In the absence of understanding, a computer would not
have brought enlightenment.  It would only have reinforced the
misconceptions.  Aerial photographs are equally subject to
misinterpretation.  They give us data but not the wisdom to
comprehend it.
Poetry is the same.  It does not live in a vacuum but is built on
a frame of accepted values and assumed truths.  Therefore, when
the poet tells us that humanity comes through the optic nerve and
justice lives in the eye when he speaks of freedom as a product
of sight he is not proclaiming new discoveries but repeating old
superstitions:  our common heritage man's ancient fear of the
dark, the equation
of sight with light and light with good.  He is doing what the
perceptive poet always does.  He is resolving contradictions and
distilling (whether true or false) the essence of cultural
consensus.  He is going to the core of our inner being and making
us face what we truly believe.  But, of course, an increasing
number of us do not believe it.  In fact, it is not a question of
belief.  As we go about our business
from hour to hour and minute to minute, we know from personal
experience (those of us anywhere in the world who have had any
type of reasonable opportunity) that it is false.  Blindness does
not mean dehumanization.  In our homes and our offices, in
factories and laboratories, on farms
and in universities, in places of recreation and forums of civic
accomplishment we who are blind live the refutation of it every
day.  While it is true that an overwhelming majority of us do not
have jobs and that all of us are routinely treated like children
and wards, it is equally true that many of us  do  have jobs and
that all of us are coming to realize that the problem is not
blindness but mistaken attitudes.  If even one of us can be a
scientist (and many of us are), that does
not prove that if an individual is blind he or she can be a
scientist, but it does prove that blindness will not prevent a
person from being a scientist.  In short, it proves that
blindness is not the barrier.  Sight is enjoyable; it is useful;
it is convenient.  But that is all that it is enjoyable, useful,
and convenient.  Except in imagination and mythology it is not
more than that.  It does not have mysterious psychological
implications; and it is not the single key to happiness, the road
to knowledge, or the window to the soul.  Like the other senses,
it is a channel of communication, a source of pleasure, and
a tool nothing less, nothing more.  It is alternative, not
exclusive.  It is certainly not the essential component of human
freedom.  The urge to liberty and the need to be free are
commodities of the spirit, not the senses.  They divide
civilization from savagery and human beings from animals.
Liberty has been the focal point of more study and comment than
perhaps any other idea which has ever troubled, motivated, or
inspired mankind.  It is the stuff of dreams, not optic nerves
and eyeballs.  The effort is always to understand and, by so
doing, make life better and more
in tune with ultimate reality a combination of bread and the
prayer book, food for the body and food for the soul.
Liberty and freedom.  Two words, one concept.  Always noble,
always imposing ever the dream, ever the mover of nations.  And
while we cannot capture freedom in a rigid cage, we can describe
it, seek it, and recognize its transcendent power.
Harold Laski said:  We acquiesce in the loss of freedom every
time we are silent in the face of injustice. 
Daniel Webster said:  God grants liberty only to those who love
it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. 
Benjamin Franklin said:  They that give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety.  John Dewey said:  Liberty is not just an idea, an
abstract principle.  It is power, effective power to do specific
things.  There is no such thing as liberty in general; liberty,
so to speak, at large.  Cicero said:  Freedom is participation in
power. 
Herbert J. Muller said:  Freedom is the condition of being able
to choose and to carry out purpose. 
Herbert Spencer said:  No one can be perfectly free until all are
free.  No one can be perfectly moral until all are moral.  The
nineteenth-century German writer Max Stirner said:  Freedom
cannot be granted.  It must be taken. 
So the tapestry of freedom is constantly being woven, and we are
part of the fabric; but there is something beyond.  There always
is.  Each minority (each underprivileged group) has its separate
pattern, its
road to freedom, its task to be done.  And for the blind (who
constitute regardless of differences in economic status,
nationality, religion, political
allegiance, or cultural values a worldwide underprivileged group
with a common problem and an urgent need for collective action)
that task is monumental.  It is nothing less than the total
redirection of society's effort and perception for we are not
patients, and (contrary to popular belief) our problem is not
lack of eyesight or inability to perform.
What we need most is not, as many would have it, medical help or
psychological counseling but admission to the main channels of
daily life and citizenship, not custody and care but
understanding and acceptance.  We want meaningful jobs,
opportunity, and full participation in society.  Give us that,
and we will do the rest for ourselves.  Give us jobs commensurate
with our interests and abilities, equal treatment, and a solid
economic base; and we will do without the counseling, the
sheltered workshops, and the social programs.  We will not need
them.  We have the same medical, vocational, social, and
recreational needs as others; but our blindness does not create
those needs, and it does not magnify or enlarge them.  It does
not make them special or different.  We are neither more nor less
than normal people who cannot see, and that is how we intend to
be treated.  We want no strife or confrontation, but we have
learned the power of collective action, and we will do what we
have to do to achieve first-class status.  We are simply no
longer willing to be second-class citizens.
So what must we do as a World Blind Union? How shall we achieve
our objectives of equal opportunity and first-class status? For
answer let me call on the experience of the organization I
represent. When
Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and those who joined with him organized the
National Federation of the Blind of the United States in 1940,
they did what every minority does on its road to freedom. They
shifted emphasis from the few to the many, from enhancement to
basics. In our country in the pre-1940 era those who thought
about blindness at all (the blind as well as the sighted) put
their major effort into helping
the gifted and promoting the exceptional. We of the National
Federation of the Blind took a different course. We started with
the premise that until there are food, decent clothing, and
adequate shelter, there can be no meaningful rehabilitation, real
opportunity, or human dignity. It was not that the few or the
superior were to be neglected but rather a recognition that none
can be free as long as any are enslaved. The Federation's top
priority in the early 1940's was to get (not as charity but as a
right) sufficient governmental assistance to provide a basic
standard of living for the blind who had no way to provide for
themselves.
There was something else: The Federation said that the blind had
the right to speak for themselves through their own organization
and that no other group or individual (regardless of how
well-intentioned) could do it for us whether public agency,
private charity, blind person prominent in the community, or
blind person heading an agency.  The right was exclusive, and
only those elected by the blind could
speak for the blind. The test was not blindness, and it was not
connection with an agency. Instead, it was self-determination.
That is what the National Federation of the Blind of the United
States stood for in 1940; that is what it stands for today; and
that is what I believe the World Blind Union must stand for, now
and in the years to come.  The blind of the world are a
distinguishable minority with identifiable problems which can
only be solved through collective action. Therefore, the blind
must have the right of self-determination, the right to speak for
themselves with their own voice.
It is true that the World Blind Union not only consists of
organizations  of  the blind but also organizations and agencies 
for  the blind, but it is also true that many of these
organizations and agencies for the blind are controlled by the
blind and that their leaders are chosen by the blind. We must
deal with substance instead of form, reality instead of shadow,
and fact instead of terminology.  The World Blind Union must
either be truly representative of the will of the blind
themselves, or it cannot long survive. That is not to
say that we should not have sighted members or agency members
representing only themselves or their programs. Rather, it is to
say that the organization must be controlled by the blind and
representative of the blind. This can be determined not only by
its structure but also by its programs and behavior.
If the World Blind Union is to be meaningful, it must deal with
basics.  It must address the needs of both body and soul. We who
are blind are like all of the rest. When we are hungry, we want
to eat; and until that need is satisfied, we have difficulty
thinking about very much else. But food is not enough. As I have
said, we are like all of the rest. After we have eaten, we want
meaningful jobs and useful occupation just like the rest. And
after food and jobs, we want equal participation and human
dignity just like the rest.  The blind of the world have waited
long, but the waiting must now end. Yesterday and tomorrow meet
in this present time, and we who are assembled here in Madrid (we
who are blind and those of you who are sighted and have committed
yourselves to work with us) have an unavoidable responsibility
and an unparalleled opportunity. What we do in this Second
General Assembly will have consequences for decades to come. Our
task will not be easy, but we must make this organization
succeed. The stakes are too high and the alternatives too
unacceptable to allow it to be otherwise. If we fail to meet the
challenge, the present favorable circumstances may not come again
for another generation.  If the blind of the world are to have
meaningful opportunity and if discrimination is successfully to
be resisted, we must have a world mechanism to focus the energy
and muster the resources to make it happen, and the World Blind
Union is the only mechanism we have. To build another would be
difficult at best. If all of us who are here today come to the
task with good faith, true commitment, and real determination,
tomorrow will be bright with promise. Let us put the past behind
us and work together to make it come true.
                      REFLECTIONS ON MADRID
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
In the editorial at the beginning of this issue I told you that
upon returning from Madrid I would give you my impressions of the
World Blind Union General Assembly. It has now been two weeks
since the end of the conference, and I am now settling down to
keep my promise.  The first thing I would say is that Madrid was
a mixed bag. It was
a living study in the most extreme contrasts I have ever seen
extreme poverty, extreme wealth; superb planning, poor planning;
and understanding and good order, lack of comprehension and total
chaos.
There were several days of preliminaries, but the formal agenda
got under way on Sunday morning, September 18, and concluded on
Sunday morning, September 25. There was a large delegation from
the United States (including thirteen from the NFB), a large
delegation from Canada, and two delegates from the Caribbean.
Therefore, our North America/Caribbean Region was well
represented. There was a ceremonial opening of the General
Assembly on Sunday evening, September 18, with music, speeches,
and an appearance by the sister of the King. Incidentally, the
King's sister is herself blind. On Monday morning, September 19,
the Executive Committee met, and from Tuesday through Saturday
there were sessions of the General Assembly. The official list of
voting delegates indicates that ninety-one countries were
represented.  Before talking about the specifics of the meetings,
let me give you a few overall impressions. Many of the people in
the United States could profit from studying the behavior of the
Spaniards concerning their country. Shortly after we got to
Spain, most of the NFB contingent visited the Royal Palace in
Madrid. We were given a guided tour and allowed a good deal of
leeway in touching and examining objects. Although the
architecture and furnishings were magnificent, the thing that
impressed me most was the attitude of the guide regarding Spain.
I happen to know something about Spanish history, and some of the
rulers were less than model citizens. Yet, our guide spoke with
great respect about the past kings and queens, the present
government, and the country in general. She told us with real
pride how fortunate Spain had been to have such good and wise
rulers, and she clearly meant it. Although I did not agree with
her assessment, I had nothing but admiration and respect for her
behavior. It was in sharp contrast with what many people in this
country do and say, and I hasten to add that it was not a
demonstration of repression but of dignity and pride.  While I am
talking about other countries, let me say a few things about the
Russians. We could learn something from them, too. They had a
sighted interpreter with their blind delegates, and she knew what
she was doing. She spoke English flawlessly, and she was warm and
charming not at all argumentative. Nevertheless, she promoted her
country's image and ideology.
One day at lunch I asked her to tell me what the Russian words
for Mister, Miss, and Mrs. are. With all friendly innocence she
told me something to this effect:  After 1918 the people in our
society decided that everybody should be friendly with each
other, so we did away with those titles. Now we call each other
`Comrade' to show that we care and are friends.  It didn't come
off in a preachy way, but it was not less effective for that. It
made me wonder how many of our people who attend international
meetings go with such purpose and ability and are so well
equipped.
As to the meeting itself, one's first impression had to be of the
tremendous wealth of ONCE, the Spanish National Organization of
the Blind. After reading the April, 1988, issue,  Monitor 
readers know that ONCE has hundreds of millions of dollars of net
income each year, and during the meeting of the World Blind Union
they spent with unbelievable lavishness. There were estimates
that just the transportation, food, entertainment, and other
hospitality cost over a million dollars, perhaps two million
dollars. It was all very impressive, very magnanimous, very
generously done   And yet   And yet 
On the day before the first meeting, Mrs. Jernigan and I walked
through the halls of the residential facility on the ONCE grounds
(where many of the delegates were being housed) and we found a
delegate from one
of the third world countries standing alone. His ticket had been
provided, but he did not have one single piece of money with him.
He had no mobility skills and no contacts. He could eat
plentifully at the dining hall, but he could not leave or make
contacts not because he was forbidden but because he lacked the
means and the know-how. He said he was trying to teach other
blind people in his country and that if he could get only a few
dollars, he might be able to construct a chicken coup or two for
the project he was attempting to start to help his blind students
begin to earn a little money. Not only we but also others in our
delegation bought some of his craftwork and did what we could,
but our efforts were part of a mosaic of sharp contrasts.
There were over 600 people attending the conference, and on
Monday night, September 19, ONCE divided the entire group into
fifteen subgroups and chartered buses to take them all to the
best restaurants in Madrid.  There was no stinting on the best
food and drink, and all free. This was not the exception but the
rule. Every night the food and drink were abundant and free; and
the same was true of the breakfasts, the lunches, and the breaks.
During the closing session on Saturday afternoon, September 24,
Tom Parker of England wondered aloud whether precedents were
being established which would make it impossible for the WBU ever
to meet in any poor or developing country. His was not the only
comment. At the beginning of the week there was nothing but
wonder and admiration. By the end of the week a great many people
were asking how much work could be done in the developing
countries with the amount which was being spent on the
conference.
Entertainment and hospitality are one thing. Policy and politics
are another. An individual may say:  If you will vote with me for
this candidate or issue, I will vote with you for your candidate
or issue. 
Or an individual may say:  If you will vote as I want you to, I
will give you money for your organization or project. 
In both instances votes are traded, but there is a vast
difference.  If you doubt it, ask any court or newspaper. In the
first instance both parties come to the bargaining as equals.
Combinations are put together to elect candidates or pass
resolutions, and what is being exchanged is relevant to the
business at hand. It happens every day in legislative and
executive bodies throughout the world.
In the second instance, however, (especially if you are dealing
with blind in stark poverty in underdeveloped countries) both the
buyer and the seller are damaged. They do not come to the
bargaining as equals, and often more than the vote is sold
dignity and self-respect and basic human worth.
Am I saying that money was promised to countries in exchange for
votes in Madrid? No, that is not what I am saying, or I don't
know. I do know that some people felt that that was exactly what
was happening.  As  Monitor  readers know, the North
America/Caribbean Region went to Spain with the intention of
getting Dr. Euclid Herie, Managing Director of the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind, elected Treasurer of the World
Blind Union if we could. We could, and we did.  Of the 255 votes
cast for treasurer Dr. Herie got 218, and his opponent (Mr.
Pradilla Cobos of Colombia) got 37. This was a bigger majority
than was received by either the winning candidate for president
or vice president.
Duncan Watson (chairman of the board of the Royal National
Institute for the Blind of England) was elected president. His
opponent was Dr. Rajendra Vyas of India. Dr. Vyas, who was one of
the original founders of the International Federation of the
Blind in 1964 and who worked closely with Dr. tenBroek, was
support by our region, but he was defeated by a vote 154 to 108.
For Vice President David Blyth of Australia ran against Enrique
Elissalde of Uruguay. We supported Blyth, but Elissalde won by a
vote of 142 to 119. Without significant opposition Pedro Zurita
was re-elected as Secretary-General. When considering the results
of the election, it is perhaps well to keep in mind that Europe
has over eighty votes while, as the membership is now
constituted, the entire North America/Caribbean Region has only
twelve.
Immediately after the election ONCE announced that it was giving
$122,000 to the World Blind Union. A number of people felt that
it would have been wiser if this gift had been announced earlier
in the week, or at least prior to the elections.
As to the meetings themselves, they were held in an auditorium at
the ONCE facilities. The room was luxuriously plush with every
modern convenience, but it was not as serviceable as many less
opulent facilities might have been. The seats were fixed to the
floor and very close together, and on each side of the auditorium
the seats went all the
way to the wall with no aisle. There were only two aisles in the
center.  Because of the steep slope of the floor and the
close-packed arrangements of the seats, it was not possible to
have floor microphones. When someone wanted to speak, an attempt
was made to pass a microphone across the seats. This was
inefficient and very nearly impossible.
On the other hand there were individual radio receivers for each
person, and professional interpreters translated the proceedings
into six languages English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and
Russian.  There were also special translators for the Japanese
delegation.  Not a single meeting started on time, and there was
an ongoing sense
of chaotic disorganization. I chaired the session dealing with
constitutional amendments, and the amendments were never
discussed or voted on at all. Instead dealing with the substance
of the amendments some of
the north Europeans who opposed them undertook to get their way
through parliamentary maneuver. On a technicality they challenged
Dr. Franz Sonntag's status and, therefore, his right to sign the
proposed amendment which would have permitted the president to
run for a second term.  I also opposed the amendment, but I felt
that fairness required that it be discussed and voted on. When a
demand was made from the floor that the required seven signatures
to the amendment be produced, the
WBU Paris staff said there was one signature they could not find
this in spite of the fact that we had discussed the amendment at
the officers' meeting, the executive committee meeting, and in
informal meetings throughout the week. It was, therefore, ruled
that the amendments could not be put. In a few minutes it was
announced that the lost signature had been found, but by this
time the meeting had degenerated into such chaos that there was
no point in trying to proceed.  Earlier in the week Sheikh
Abdullah Al-Ghanim had publicly said that, regardless of the
outcome of the voting on the amendment he would not be a
candidate for re-election. One would have thought this would have
taken the heat out of the issue since it is highly questionable
whether it makes sense to impose artificial limitations on the
caliber of leadership available to an organization, but this did
not seem to matter to some of the more dogmatic delegates.
As I have already said, the final official activity was a meeting
on Sunday morning, September 25, of the executive committee. Very
appropriately this meeting was conducted in a manner consistent
with what had arted late; there was troublbeen happening all
through the week. It started late; there was trouble with the
translation equipment; and after a challenge was made, the
meeting adjourned for lack of
a quorum. The business of the quorum was most interesting. Arne
Husveg (a delegate from Norway and the President of the European
Blind Union) had already lectured Duncan Watson, the newly
elected president, on the fact that in the future Watson should
be certain that he had a sighted person to tell him who was
asking for recognition. I was the one who said that I did not
believe there was a quorum present, and Mr. Watson had replied by
assuring me that he had just had a count made and that there were
nineteen committee members present. Then, David Blyth challenged
this announcement by the chair, and we insisted that a roll call
be taken. The roll call revealed that there were only sixteen
committee members in the room. At this stage Mr. Husveg, who had
been the king-maker orchestrating Mr. Watson's election campaign,
said to Mr. Watson that he wondered how we could trust what he
said in the future since he had just assured us that a quorum was
present when it wasn't.
The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary-General are
planning to go to Toronto during the next few weeks for a
planning session with the Treasurer. It was indicated that there
will be a meeting
of the officers (who are the four I have just mentioned and the
regional presidents) some time in March, place not yet
determined, and that the executive committee will probably meet
sometime late in 1989 or
early in 1990. It is planned that there will probably be another
executive committee meeting some time in 1991. The place and the
exact time of the next WBU General Assembly has not yet been
determined, but the constitution requires that it be some time in
1992. There are
many who hope that it may be possible to hold it in one of the
developing countries.
So that is how I saw what occurred in Spain, and the question
remains:  Where does it leave us? For one thing, we made many
friends in Madrid.  People from other countries got to know more
of us than ever before, and we got to know more of them. Whether
the World Blind Union can truly be a mechanism for making the
lives of blind people better will depend upon the actions of the
leaders during the next four years.  We felt that Duncan Watson
would not be able to relate to ordinary blind people as well as
Rajendra Vyas would, but Watson was elected.  We participated in
that election. Therefore, it is incumbent upon
us to work cooperatively and with good temper to try to help Mr.
Watson succeed. That is what elections are about. But it is also
incumbent upon Mr. Watson to do his part, to work toward harmony
and provide constructive leadership.
Of course, there are those who think of the World Blind Union as
nothing more than a vehicle for channeling money from those who
have it to those who don't. As I have said in the speech that is
printed elsewhere in this issue, I think this is not a valid or a
workable objective.
As I also said in that speech, it will be easy for me to be
misunderstood (either deliberately or otherwise) on this point.
We of the National Federation of the Blind should do what we can
to help other countries, but we should also be mindful of the
tremendous needs which still remain unmet here at home. We should
balance our approach and always remember that our actions must be
geared to the long-range improvement of the condition of the
blind everywhere. Sometimes that means working in other
countries, and sometimes it means working here.

   SMOOTHER WATERS AHEAD FOR BRAILLE MAYBE by Kenneth Jernigan
A number of leaders of work with the blind in England  acting
through the Braille Authority of the United Kingdom (BAUK) have
for a long time been advocating major changes in the Braille
code.  At least some people in the United States and the rest of
the world
have agreed with this move for sweeping change. However, the
overwhelming majority of blind people throughout the
English-speaking world seem to favor no radical alterations in
standard Grade 2 Braille. At the time of this writing (early
September, 1988) we are less than three weeks away from a major
conference which is to be held in London to consider these
matters.
When I was in Britain in the fall of 1987, I went to Edinburgh to
visit the Scottish Braille Press. At that time I talked with the
head of the Press, Jake Adams, about the London conference which
is now approaching, and he told me that he was strongly opposed
to any major changes in the Braille code. I agreed with him and
said that I would discuss the matter with people in the United
States, which I did.
It will be remembered (see  Braille Monitor  for
September-October, 1988) that the National Federation of the
Blind passed a resolution opposing radical changes in the Braille
code at our 1988 Chicago convention, and our representative to
the London conference (Fred Schroeder) will go to the meeting so
instructed. However, the July, 1988,  New Beacon  (the magazine
published by the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the
United Kingdom) makes it seem likely that the upcoming London
conference will be smoother and less controversial than had been
anticipated. By the time this issue of the  Monitor  reaches the
readers, the question will presumably (at least, for the time
being) be settled but I am sure it will rise again. At any rate,
here is what the  New Beacon  says:

Braille Reform Withdrawal of 
New Contracted Braille

 Bill Poole (Chairman, Braille Authority of the United Kingdom)
writes:  At the annual general meeting of the Braille Authority
of the United Kingdom on June 13, I moved a resolution, which was
seconded by David McCann, the Secretary of BAUK, and carried
unanimously, to the effect that New Contracted Braille should be
immediately and unconditionally withdrawn on the grounds that
public opinion is clearly overwhelmingly against the adoption of
this code as a replacement for Grade 2 Standard English Braille.
It was further agreed that the widest and speediest publicity
should be given to this important decision.  This means that
there will be no further campaigning activities, and the national
ballot will be canceled. The time, money, and energy that will be
saved can all be put to better use, and public anxiety about the
future of the Braille code should now be laid to rest. The
British delegation to the International Conference on English
Literary Braille in September will not support as an alternative
to New Contracted Braille any proposals for a major reform of the
contraction system of Grade 2 which may be brought forward by
other countries. I intend
to write at greater length in the next issue about the wider
implications of this decision.
                        BRAILLE UNSCATHED
                        by Fred Schroeder
 As noted elsewhere in this issue, the article  Smoother Waters
Ahead for Braille Maybe  was written prior to the London Meeting;
and this one by Fred Schroeder is a report of what actually
happened.  Fred Schroeder (NFB Board Member and Director of the
New Mexico Commission for the Blind) is not only an expert on
Braille but also one of the most promising of the group of our
recently developing leaders. Here is Fred's report of the London
conference. 

At this summer's national convention in Chicago, Federationists
were made aware of an upcoming International Conference on
English Literary Braille. Of chief concern was the news that a
number of delegates
to the conference were actively promoting radical changes to the
existing Grade 2 Braille Code. Wholesale change of Braille would
result in making Braille virtually unreadable by present readers
throughout the English-speaking world. The ensuing chaos which
would occur would unquestionably have resulted in a substantial
reduction in the number
of Braille readers overall. In addition, availability of Braille
(already in scarce supply) would have been further reduced since
many transcribers would likely not have undertaken to retrain in
a significantly different code.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed by the nearly 2,500
blind men and women from throughout the country that the Braille
Code, with all of its imperfections, represents the means by
which blind people can attain true literacy, and, therefore,
efforts at substantial Braille reform should be resisted. The
position taken was not simply a conservative clinging to the
familiar for the sake of the status quo. Instead, the opposition
to Braille reform emerged from an understanding that the real
problem facing the blind stems from a lack of availability
of Braille and a lack of adequate Braille instruction for blind
children and newly blinded adults throughout the United States.
The convention adopted a resolution expressing this view in
opposition to proponents of large-scale Braille reform.
The International Conference on English Literary Braille was held
in London, England, the week of September 19 through September
24, 1988. Delegates from nine English-speaking countries (United
States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sri
Lanka, Nigeria, Zambia, and South Africa) participated in the
conference. In addition to delegates, approximately forty
observers attended the conference and participated in discussion
of many of the papers. In order for a delegation to be
recognized, at least half of its members had to be
representatives from organizations of the blind. I served as one
of the U. S. delegates, representing the National Federation of
the Blind. Michael Baillif (President of the Student Division of
the National Federation of the Blind) was in London on a research
fellowship and attended the conference as an observer.
The London conference was a follow-up to a conference held in
Washington, D.C., in the fall of 1982. During the Washington
conference much emphasis was placed on unifying the Braille Code
internationally. A number of differences exist in North American
Braille from Braille produced in the United Kingdom. For example,
in North America we routinely
use the capital sign to indicate capital letters, whereas in the
United Kingdom this is not the practice. In addition, North
America and the United Kingdom reverse the signs for outer and
inner quotation marks.  In North America the outer (or double)
quote is a one-cell Braille sign and the inner (or single) quote
a two-cell Braille sign. In the United Kingdom the outer quote is
the same one-cell Braille sign as ours and the inner quote the
same two-cell sign as ours. The difference is that they represent
the opposite print symbols. A print book produced in the United
States uses a double hash mark for outer quotes and
a single hash mark for inner quotes. In the United Kingdom print
books regularly use a single hash mark for outer quotes and a
double hash mark for inner quotes. To the Braille reader the use
of quotations will look the same in the U.S. or the U.K., while
the Braille symbols used are reflecting opposite print symbols.
Another difference exists in the use of decimals in literary
Braille. In the U.K. the symbol used for the decimal point is the
same symbol we use for the comma.  For this reason the number
4.123 produced in England would look like the number 4,123 to a
Braille reader in the U.S. The task of unification is much bigger
than it might first appear. This is not surprising in view of the
fact that differences between North America and the U.K. are more
widespread than simply in the area of Braille. During
the London conference members of the U.K. delegation found great
amusement in our use of the term  certified  to describe Braille
transcribers since in England the term  certified  means that a
person
has been certified to a mental institution. In the U.K. Braille
transcribers are  certificated. 
At the 1982 Washington conference it was agreed that neither
North America nor the U.K. would adopt any code changes until the
London conference, allowing time for research internationally for
the purpose of unifying the Braille code. The London conference
was originally scheduled for September, 1987. In the summer of
1986 it was announced that England was developing a radically
different Braille code intended to replace the present Grade 2
Braille system. The new code, known as  New Contracted Braille, 
was touted as having significant advantages over the Grade 2
system. Proponents of  New Contracted Braille  sought to have the
London Conference postponed a year in order to have time to
further develop new contracted Braille and
to test its acceptance by Braille readers. Although many opposed
postponing the London conference, particularly for the purpose of
promoting a code intended to replace Grade 2, it was eventually
agreed that the London conference would be held in September of
1988.
In the preparation for the London conference Bill Poole, Chairman
of the Braille Authority of the United Kingdom and the Developer
of  New Contracted Braille,  surveyed Braille readers throughout
England. The responses he received were overwhelmingly against
the adoption of a replacement code. For this reason this past
June Mr.  Poole announced that he was withdrawing New Contracted
Braille from consideration as a replacement code to Grade 2.
Citing the survey, Mr. Poole gave as his reason for withdrawing
New Contracted Braille the fact that it had failed to gain
widespread acceptance among Braille readers. This left nineteen
papers to be considered at the London conference, many proposing
significant changes to the current Grade 2 Braille Code, yet none
as sweeping as the changes included in New Contracted Braille.
As the London conference opened, it appeared as though Braille
would be changed. The only question left to be settled was in
what ways and to what degree. Numerous proposals were introduced,
ranging from suggestions for a simplified code and introduction
of new signs to changes in or elimination of certain existing
signs. It was proposed that signs be created for words such as 
is  and  at  and that the current symbols for the slash and
parentheses be changed from one-cell signs to two-cell signs.
Others proposed adding a number of new short form words, while
still others proposed eliminating many of the short form words in
current use.
In the July, 1988, issue of the  New Beacon , a publication of
the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Federation's
resolution concerning Braille, along with a letter from President
Maurer, were published. President Maurer's letter rang out as the
voice of reason, calling for restraint by would-be reformers in
order to preserve Braille in its present form. As the conference
progressed, the wisdom of President Maurer's words became
increasingly evident. As each new change was considered, it
became clear that unforeseen consequences would inevitably
follow. The change in the slash from a one-cell sign to a
two-cell sign (dots 5, 2) while eliminating confusion in one
context would have caused confusion in others. The two-cell slash
would certainly make the writing of fractions more cumbersome and
would introduce
new confusion since the proposed two-cell sign is the same sign
presently used for the ditto mark.
By Friday, September 23, discussion of conference papers was
coming
to an end. The next step was to agree on any changes by means of
resolutions.  At the end of the Friday morning session (which,
incidentally, I chaired) the Federation's resolution opposing
radical change was read to the conference delegates. It was
pointed out that the overwhelming sentiment of blind people is to
promote Braille in its present form. The need is for a renewed
emphasis on the importance of Braille resulting in better teacher
preparation, better training for blind children
and newly blinded adults, and greater availability of Braille
overall.  As the Friday morning session came to an end, delegates
prepared to consider resolutions summing up the work of the
conference.
As resolutions were presented, they reflected a continued
commitment to unification of both North American Braille and
Braille produced in the U.K. An international council will be
established to serve
not as a worldwide rule-making body but rather as a means of
coordinating the work of Braille authorities in English-speaking
countries. In the spirit of unification, some minor changes were
agreed to, such as eliminating the  natural pause rule  used in
the U.K. This rule was eliminated in North America a number of
years ago because of its ambiguity and the difficulty which it
presented in computer translation of Braille. The natural pause
rule required that the words  and, for, of, the, with,  and  a 
not be written together without a space when there was a natural
pause between any of these words. The resolution eliminating the
natural pause rule brings the U.K. into conformity with North
American practice. As anticipated, a compromise was reached on
the adoption of the capital sign in the U.K. It was agreed that
its usage would be studied. However, it was generally
acknowledged that the U.K. is moving in the direction of
eventually using the capital sign in literary Braille. The only
change agreed to, which is likely to result in a difference for
the average reader, concerns the writing of unit abbreviations.
In Braille, unit abbreviations such as inches, pounds, and
degrees are written preceding the number. It was agreed that it
is preferable to follow print convention in the writing of unit
abbreviations.
Now that the London conference has come and gone and with it the
latest threat of radical Braille reform, blind people can rest
easier knowing that Grade 2 Braille has once again escaped
unscathed. The preservation of Braille represents tangible
evidence of the power of collective action. We as blind people
chart the course and determine our own future. We recognize that
the real problem of blindness stems not from blindness itself but
rather from public misunderstanding about blindness. Similarly,
the problem of literacy for the blind stems not from problems in
the Braille code but from a lack of emphasis on Braille and a
lack of understanding that Braille enables blind people to
function on terms of real equality with the sighted. If
it is believed that blindness represents inferiority, then it
follows that the techniques and tools used by the blind are
likewise inferior.
By changing societal conceptions of blindness, we promote an
understanding that as equals the tools we use represent the means
to that equality.  That it is respectable to be blind and that
Braille is the means to literacy for the blind must be cherished
and protectively defended as the twin symbols of our equality.
                         CONVENTION 1989
The time has come to plan for the 1989 convention of the National
Federation of the Blind. Chicago in 1988 was perhaps the most
successful meeting we have ever had, and 1989 will be even
better.
We are going to Denver. We have not been to the Mile-High City
since
1949, and as Federationists know we are now a totally different
organization many times bigger, more complex, and more mature.
The convention will headquarter at the Radisson Hotel Denver,
located at 1550 Court Place. Because of our growing numbers we
will use three other hotels, all within a short walking distance
from each other. The other hotels are: the Hyatt Regency, the
Holiday Inn, and the Comfort Inn. Our hotel rates continue to be
the envy of all who know us. They are the same for all four
hotels: $26, single; $28, double and twin; $30, triple; and $32,
quad all plus tax (currently 11.8 percent).
The NFB of Colorado is planning an exciting array of tours and
hospitality, and the program agenda will be vintage Federation.
Make your reservations early. 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 always 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. In Chicago in 1988 the
grand prize, which was drawn at the banquet, was $1,000 in cash.
We are not certain what Colorado will give for the grand prize in
1989, but you can be certain that it will be worthy of the
affiliate and the occasion. If you have door prizes, bring them
with you to the convention or send them to: Jon Deden, 1000 South
Clarkson Street, Denver, Colorado 80209; telephone (303)
722-2529.
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 Denver in the
summer of 1989. Come and be part of it.
For the past few years (Chicago in 1988 was an exception) we have
been handling convention reservations through the National
Office,
and that is what we are doing for the 1989 convention. Room
reservation forms have been widely distributed, and all you need
are available from the National Office. In addition, we are
printing the form as part of this article. There is every
indication that we will break all attendance records at the 1989
convention. Therefore, even though
we have a large block of rooms you should not delay making your
reservations.  Those who did not heed this warning had to
scramble for rooms in 1988 because of the record-breaking
attendance. Denver in '89 will be the best we have ever had. Come
and help make it happen.

                             RECIPES
 Mrs. Karen Gastel, who works in the accounting department at the
National Center for the Blind, is an active member of the
movement.  She recently submitted the following four recipes. 

                        BAVARIAN GOULASH
This hearty, homey stew combines well with dark bread and beer
when
celebrating Oktober the German way.

Ingredients:
1-1/2 pounds cubed beef
1/4 cup vegetable oil
4 onions, chopped
2 tomatoes, peeled and chopped
Salt and pepper
Paprika
1 bay leaf
1-1/2 cups meat stock
2 tablespoons flour
1/2 cup burgundy or other red wine

Heat oil. Add beef and onion, saut until meat is browned. Add
tomatoes.  Season to taste with salt, pepper, and paprika. Add
bay leaf. Pour in stock, cover and simmer for 1-1/2 hours or
until beef is tender.

In cup or small bowl, mix flour and wine, stir into goulash.
Continue stirring until thickened. Serve with dumplings,
potatoes, pasta, or rice. Makes 4 to 6 servings.
                            ROULADEN

I suggest serving these beef rollups with red cabbage and boiled
potatoes
or dumplings.

Ingredients:
3 pounds chipped steak (about 12 slices)
1/2 pound bacon
4 onions, divided
Yellow mustard
Salt and pepper
2 tablespoons oil
2 cups water
2 tablespoons flour
About 1/4 cup water

Lay out the steaks flat. Cut bacon slices in half. Cut 3 onions
into quarters. Place a piece of bacon and a piece of onion on one
end of each steak. Spread mustard (as thickly as you prefer) on
remaining part of meat and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Roll up
from onion end and secure with toothpicks.
Slice remaining onion and brown in oil along with rolled steaks.
When evenly browned, pour 2 cups water over meat. Bring to a
boil, lower heat, and simmer for 2 hours. Combine flour with 1/4
cup water. Add to pan, cooking and stirring until thickened.
Adjust seasoning if necessary. Makes 6 generous servings.

                    REAL GERMAN POTATO SALAD
This is the real thing, unlike what passes for German potato
salad
in your typical supermarket deli department. What Oktoberfest
celebration would be complete without this authentic item?

2 pounds boiling potatoes
1/3 cup salad oil
1/3 cup vinegar
3 tablespoons chopped onions
Salt and pepper
1/2 pound bacon, fried crisp and crumbled
4 hard cooked eggs, cubed

Boil unpeeled potatoes until tender. Drain, peel, and thinly
slice or cut into bite-size pieces.
In a large bowl combine potatoes, salt and pepper to taste,
vinegar, onions, bacon, and eggs. Mix. Serve hot or cold.


                       HAZELNUT MACAROONS
Light-as-a-cloud chewy bites these are. Purists will want to use
blanched almonds or hazelnuts with the skins rubbed off, but it
really doesn't matter whether you grate the nuts with the skins
or not. A food processor is very handy for that chore.

Ingredients:
3 egg whites
1 teaspoon lemon juice
3/4 cup sugar
2 cups shredded hazelnuts or almonds
Whole hazelnuts or almonds, optional
Melted dark chocolate, optional

Preheat oven to 325 degrees. Line baking sheets with wax paper or
kitchen parchment.
Beat egg whites and lemon juice until stiff peaks form. Add sugar
very gradually, beating continuously. Fold in shredded nuts until
evenly blended.
Drop mixture by teaspoonfuls onto lined baking sheets. Top each
cookie with a whole nut, if desired. Bake for 30 minutes. If
cookies start to brown, slightly reduce oven temperature (cookies
should not brown).  Let cookies cool completely on paper before
removing.
If preferred, instead of topping cookies with whole nuts, cooled
cookies can be dipped, upside down, in melted chocolate. Makes
about 30 cookies.  

                       Monitor Miniatures


**To Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  Please
tell your members that I have for sale for $3,760, including
insurance and postage, a VersaBraille P2C. Contact: Julie
Addington, 103 West 7th Avenue, Easley, South Carolina 29640. 

**Blind Photographers:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
David Milner, 2001 Ader Road #114, Fort Worth, Texas 76116, would
like to correspond with blind people interested in photography.
Both professionals and amateurs are asked to write to him.

**Free Catalog Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Slaughter
Enterprises, 8053 South Phillips, Chicago, Illinois 60617, sells
a variety of gift items through the mail. Free large print or
Braille catalogs are available. Requests for catalogs may be sent
in handwriting or typing, but Braille is preferred.

**Elected:
Stewart Prost writes:
 The Tidewater Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Virginia elected the following officers for the coming year:
President, Deborah Prost; First Vice President, W. T. (Bill)
Parker; Second Vice President, Harry Vandevander; Secretary,
Stewart Prost; Treasurer, Willard Nichols; Board Members, Robert
Southard and Carrol Brooks.  **VersaBraille and Accessories:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: For Sale: 
Model P2C VersaBraille from TSI, in good condition. Included are
the AC power unit/battery charger, Braille and print manuals,
overlay tapes, back issues of  VersaNews  on VersaBraille tape,
as well as various computer manuals and books, also on VB tape.
There is also a service agreement good through April of 1989.
Cost, $1,500 or best offer. Contact: David Andrews, 1012 Hilltop
Drive, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, or call 913-864-4600 (days) or
913- 843-0351 (evenings and weekends).

**Dies:
We regret to report the death on September 7, 1988, of Bruce
Gibson, one of the leaders of the National Federation of the
Blind of Delaware.  Bruce died of complications from diabetes. He
was formerly president of the Wilmington Chapter and first vice
president of NFB of Delaware.  He was liked and respected and
will be greatly missed.

**Free Bible Cassettes for Blind and Visually Impaired:  We have
been asked to carry the following announcement: Free Bible
cassette tapes of the New Testament in 27 languages are available
as a gift free of charge to every person who is visually impaired
or blind. These audio cassette tapes run at commercial speed (4,8
cm/s), and are provided to those who desire the Scriptures and
furnish valid certification of the visual impairment or
blindness. Portions
of the Old Testament, Bible Studies, and Bible Messages are also
available in several languages. This is not a lending program!
All materials are free of charge and meant to be kept. One set of
Bible cassettes is offered to each eligible person in the
language of his/her choice.  All that is needed is a request from
the individual with a certification of the visual impairment from
a doctor who specializes in eye care.  Certification can also be
provided by an organization, library, or agency that is
recognized for its work with the blind. The certification should
be written on doctor/agency letterhead stationery, give the full
name and address of the individual, and verify that the person is
legally blind. We will ship directly to the recipient. Contact: 
Bible Alliance, Inc., Post Office Box 621, Bradenton, Florida
34206, a non-profit and non- denominational organization.
Telephone (813) 748-3031.

**Elected:
Helen M. Smith, Corresponding Secretary of the National
Federation
of the Blind of Marion County (the Indianapolis chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Indiana) writes to say that
recently the following people were elected as officers of the
chapter: Jim Peterson, President; Pamela Schnurr, First Vice
President; Jean Brown, Second
Vice President; Tony Schnurr, Recording Secretary; Helen Smith,
Corresponding Secretary; Diane Griffiths, Treasurer; and Bill
Cameron, Representative to Chapter at Large.

**Large Cell Braille:
Under date of September 12, 1988, we received the following
letter:

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Our volunteer group has been developing a library of large- cell
stories for the touch-impaired Braille reader. There is very
little available in this medium. The large-cell machine became
available only last year. It is an improvement over the older
jumbo Braille, because the cells are large but the dots are
regular size, giving more space between dots therefore, more
tactile sensation. We would like to reach
the people who need this to enjoy reading. Since they themselves
cannot read the  Braille Monitor , please ask your readers to
notify those who need the large cell about our offer. We will
send either a list of available stories and articles, or samples,
or new volumes as they are done. We are still able to send them
without charge but are very grateful for all tax-deductible
donations to help with the expenses of producing the books, which
are duplicated on thermoform.
This is one instance where I believe the thermoform is actually
preferable.

People can contact us for the list or for us to send a sample
story
by writing to: Northern Nevada Braille Transcribers, 1015 Oxford
Avenue, Sparks, Nevada 89431, telephone (702) 358-2456 Voice or
TDD.

**Dies:
We regret to report the death on September 16, 1988, of Paul
Cromwell, one of the staunchest and most dedicated members of the
Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Maryland. Although Paul did not hold office in the chapter and
was not a leader of national prominence, he was known and liked
by Federationists throughout the country because of his volunteer
work in food preparation during seminars.  Quiet and unassuming,
Paul was one of our best. He died from pneumonia after a very
brief illness.

**Elected:
Mary Beaven writes: At its state convention held in Louisville
September 9-11, 1988, the NFB of Kentucky elected the following
officers: Betty Niceley, President; Tim Cranmer, First Vice
President; Robert Page, Second Vice President; Mary Ruth Maggard,
Third Vice President; Robbie McClave, Recording Secretary; Mary
Beaven, Corresponding Secretary; Dennis Franklin, Treasurer; and
Orville Phillips, Chaplain.

**New Presidents:
There are probably more state conventions in the fall than at any
other time of the year. At the time of this writing we have heard
of three changes in state presidencies. Ed Meskys replaces
Theresa Herron as President of the National Federation of the
Blind of New Hampshire; Wendy Bybee replaces Karl Smith as
President of the National Federation of the Blind of Utah; and
Mike Smith replaces Dick Porter as President of the National
Federation of the Blind of West Virginia.  Congratulations to the
retiring presidents for jobs well done and to the new presidents
upon their election to office.

**Mild Heart Attack:
We have just been informed that Robert Winn, head of the Hadley
School for the Blind in Winnetka, Illinois, has suffered a mild
heart attack.  Apparently he was mowing his lawn when he was
stung by several bees.  This caused a sharp increase in blood
pressure. He was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed as
having had a mild heart attack. We understand that Dr. Winn is
now at home recovering.

**North Carolina Convention:
Hazel Staley writes: The National Federation of the Blind of
North Carolina held its annual convention at the Holiday Inn in
Goldsboro September 9-11, 1988. It was our biggest and best yet.
We registered 150 people. The major emphasis of the agenda was
the importance of Braille to blind persons, the importance of
having Braille properly taught to blind children in the public
schools, and the importance of establishing in one of the state
universities a program to train teachers to teach blind children.
Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for state school
superintendent were present and spoke to the convention. Also on
the convention agenda were the director of the newly organized
preschool program for blind children and an attorney who  has
done considerable advocacy work for handicapped children. A
proclamation signed by Governor Martin declaring September
as Braille Month in North Carolina was read and presented to the
affiliate.  Our national representative, Glenn Crosby,
participated in our convention and was very helpful to us. A fun
feature of the banquet agenda was a group of singers from
Raleigh, who call themselves  The Exit Row . They sang four
Federation songs and were loudly cheered by the audience. We
raised our PAC pledge $75 per month. The following officers were
elected for two-year terms: President, Hazel Staley of Charlotte;
First Vice President, Wayne Shevlin of Raleigh; Second Vice
President, Patricia Tessnear of Wilson; Secretary, Mabel Conder
of Charlotte; and Treasurer, George Best of Charlotte. Board
members elected for two-year terms are Jim Rowell of Greensboro,
Jim Mitchell of Durham, and Byron Sykes of Greensboro. Carry-over
board members are Danny Herring of Tarboro, Pat Coley of
Goldsboro, and James Benton of Raleigh. Our 1989 convention will
be held in Raleigh.

**World Literature to be Offered:
We recently received the following release from the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped:

Bestsellers and long-time favorites from other English- Speaking
countries will shortly be available to patrons of the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library
of Congress, through a World Literature Book Club that will begin
operation in the spring of 1989.
 The club will give people the opportunity to read and experience
more books, and different books,  says NLS director, Frank Kurt
Cylke.   It's a way to broaden what the Library of Congress can
offer and at the same time take advantage of material already
recorded for blind and physically handicapped readers. 
The book club will begin on a trial basis to determine reader
interest and establish procedures. It will operate for a two-year
period, offering books recorded in English- speaking countries
such as Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand,
and South Africa. The club was made possible through the
cooperation of libraries in these countries serving blind and
physically handicapped individuals.
Books in languages other than English will be added in 1991, when
the trial period is completed and evaluated.
Club members will receive monthly print brochures announcing main
selections for that month, plus one or more alternates and other
titles still available. They will be asked to select up to three
titles in order of preference.
 This concept is a new one, in a way,  says Mr. Cylke.  It's
based on book clubs print readers are familiar with, but it's for
library patrons, not purchasers. 

**Congratulations:
As  Monitor  readers know, Mrs. Evelyn Riggan received the
Distinguished Teacher of Blind Children Award at the National
Federation of the Blind convention in Chicago last July. Under
date of August 29, 1988, she received the following letter from
Verne Duncan, Oregon State Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Dear Mrs. Riggan:
Congratulations on your selection as  Teacher of Blind Children
of the Year.  I am proud, but not surprised, that a teacher from
Oregon was selected for this honor. Your outstanding abilities
and caring attitude throughout your career has greatly benefited
the children you have taught. Additionally, your efforts to
provide the best education possible for visually impaired and
blind students has contributed to the quality programs available
in Oregon.
Thank you for all you have done for these young people. I wish
you the very best as you continue with your career. The world is
fortunate to have the footprints you leave behind and the vision
of the future you see ahead for all students, whether sighted,
visually impaired, or blind.

**New Chapter:
We recently received the following information:  The Siouxland
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa was
organized recently and elected the following officers: Richard
Crawford, President; Dorothy Westin, Vice President; Karen
Clayton, Secretary-Treasurer; and Laurel Bohlander and LeeAnn
Back as board members. It will serve the Siouxland areas of Iowa,
Nebraska, and South Dakota. Its purposes are to be a support
group for the blind and their families and friends, to further
the rights of the blind, and to promote public awareness of the
abilities and needs of the blind. 

**AFB Receives Grant to Make 
Tactile Exhibition:
In a news release dated August 24, 1988, the American Foundation
for the Blind said:  The National Endowment for the Arts has
awarded a $40,000 matching grant to the American Foundation for
the Blind
to construct and install tactile scale models of historical
Washington, D.C., buildings and monuments so that blind and
visually impaired visitors can appreciate their architectural
design. Called `Capital Sights Not Always Seen,' the exhibition
is scheduled to open at a yet undesignated permanent location in
downtown Washington in the
fall of 1989. It will include tactile scale models of such major
buildings and monuments as the U. S. Capitol and the Lincoln
Memorial, while additional information about the historical,
political, and cultural forces that shaped the nation's capital
will be provided through an audio component and brochures in
Braille and large print. 

**Cassettes for Humor and Food:
 Computer Crackup  is a stereo cassette filled with a pleasing
plethora of pungent puns, wonderful one-liners, and just general
jokes, all to lift the spirits of the commuter, patient, and
everyone else.  It contains no ethnic slurs or obscene language.
Copies are $4 each.

D.E.A.N. stands for Delicious, Easy, Affordable, Nifty. The
D.E.A.N.  Microwave Compendium is a voice-indexed cassette of the
best microwave recipes known to the compiler, along with useful
hints for microwave use. Most of the recipes contain fewer than
eight ingredients.
To order copies of either of these cassettes write to: Dean
Martineau, 6809 Sacramento Street, S.W., Tacoma, Washington
98499; (206) 581-3622.

**For Sale:
 I have an Echo Speech Synthesizer which works with an Apple 2E
Computer. The Echo is in good condition, and I would like $150 or
the best offer for it. If interested, contact: Dave Roberson,
Post Office Box 955, Cornell College, Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314; or
call (319) 895- 5815. 

**Elected:
Barbara Fohl writes:  The Members at Large, NFB of Ohio Chapter,
elected officers by mail during the summer months, and the
following were voted into office: President, Elizabeth Haag; Vice
President, Steve Alspach; and Secretary-Treasurer, Barb Fohl. The
editor of our cassette newsletter, which we send out monthly to
our members, is Wayne Ingle. 

**Catholic Inquiry:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  Would
you like to know more about prayer and serving God through the
Catholic faith? We have available twenty- three sets of tapes at
fifty cents per tape on a variety of subjects, including prayer
and meditation, retreats, talks about outstanding Catholic
priests, and many others.  We invite you to send for our free
listing of tapes by contacting:  Catholic Inquiry for the Blind,
228 North Walnut Street, Lansing, Michigan 48933; (517) 342-2500.


**Elected:
Lois Nemeth writes:  On September 24, 1988, the Milwaukee Chapter
of the National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin held its
annual elections President, Cheryl Orgas; Vice President, Bonnie
Peterson; Treasurer, Debbie Jacobson; and Recording and
Corresponding Secretary, Lois Nemeth. The two board positions
will be held by Vicky Collins and Mike Hall. 

**Dies:
Richard Gaffney, President of the National Federation of the
Blind
of Rhode Island, writes:  On Wednesday, September 21, 1988,
Stephen Garabedian died after a short illness. He entered the
hospital the Saturday before for the removal of a lump from his
arm, and the doctors found that his body ws full of cancer. Steve
has been a member since our organization reorganized in 1970. He
served as treasurer from that time until 1972 when he left for
open heart surgery. He returned to the same position in 1974 and
remained there until 1981, when again he left because of illness.
For the past eighteen years, he remained a good, hard-working
member and was very instrumental in much of our
fund raising. He will be deeply missed by all the members of our
affiliate. 

**Crystal Connection:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: The
Crystal Connection is proud to announce its second fall catalog
on audio cassette tape ($2.50, or free if blank C-60 cassette
supplied) of our various goodies. We have astronomical t-shirts
(S - XXL), new age items, 70 kinds of thirty-six-inch endless
chip necklaces and earrings, stained glass suncatchers, custom
jewelry work, and lots more. The Crystal Connection is owned by
NFB member Jane Sibley, 28 Avon Street, #3, New Haven,
Connecticut  06511. Please consider us when doing your Christmas
or Hanukkah shopping.

**Co-Edits Book:
A recent release from the Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues announces the publication of the book  Women With
Disabilities .  The co-editors of the book are Michelle Fine and
Adrienne Asch. As  Monitor  readers know, Adrienne Asch is a
long-time Federationist from New York. The release announcing the
publication of the book
says in part:  Twenty-two researchers and therapists have
contributed to the new book,  Women With Disabilities , focusing
on problems that face disabled women in American society and
suggesting possible directions to integrate them more completely
in the arenas of intimacy, work, and politics for the benefit of
disabled persons and society
as a whole. The book follows recent trends away from medical and
rehabilitative models to focus on the total interaction of
disabled persons with their cultrual and social surroundings.
This feminist anthology covers psychological, political, and
cultural issues affecting 18 or 19 million Americans with
disabilities. 
**Married:
Lisa Warner, Secretary of the Capital District Chapter of the NFB
of New York, writes:  The Capital District Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of New York is proud to announce
the marriage of our treasurer Bill Schultz to Emma Sanders on May
28, 1988. We wish them success and happiness in their life
together. 

**Elected:
Kim Hrubes writes:  The National Federation of the Blind of
Washington, Spokane County Chapter, held its yearly elections on
August 2, 1988.  Those elected for the next year are: Albert
Sanchez, President; Gloria Whipple, Vice President; Kim Hrubes,
Secretary; and Paul Whipple, Treasurer. The two board of
directors positions were filled by John Croy, former secretary,
and Bill Tubbs, long-time member. 

**Fracture:
Lora Van Lent and her husband Joe are two of the mainstays of the
National Federation of the Blind of Iowa. On Monday, October 3,
Lora stepped into a hole on a sidewalk in Des Moines and fell and
broke her leg. It was a serious compound fracture, requiring her
to spend a week in the hospital. She is now at home recovering,
and the doctor says that she may have to be off of her feet for
from four to six months. She says that before the accident she
often wished she could have time off from work but not like this.

**When Vice Presidents Confer:
At the last election Nancy Painter was elected First Vice
President of the Potomac Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Virginia, and Jerry Yeager was elected Second Vice
President. Apparently vice presidents do not always discuss
political matters for on Friday evening, October 7, 1988, at the
Carlisle House in Old Town, Alexandria, Virginia, Nancy Painter
and Jerry Yeager were wed. The reception was held under a canopy
tent on the terrace, where Federationists and other friends and
family gathered to listen to a string quartet and wish the happy
couple well.
