                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                          January, 1989

                    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
JANUARY, 1989

WHAT IS THE PROPER ROLE FOR A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TECHNOLOGY
by Kenneth Jernigan

COOR'S AND TOURS: PIKES PEAK OR BUST by Diane McGeorge

REFLECTIONS OF A PERIPATETIC FEDERATIONIST by Michael Baillif

AIR TRAVEL AND THE BLIND: THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY by Kenneth
Jernigan

MIDWAY AIRLINES CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT THE BACK DOOR by Marc Maurer

SINGING FREEDOM'S SONG
by Barbara Pierce

A DECISION IN MINNESOTA: THE NFB WINS AGAIN FOR BLIND VENDORS

THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT
by Barbara Pierce

LET'S HEAR IT FOR BENIGN NEGLECT: THE CHEADLES
FIGHT THE SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR SON LEARN BRAILLE by
Barbara Cheadle

LITERACY, BRAILLE, AND A FORMULA FOR ACTION by Kenneth Jernigan

BLINDFOLDED DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL: VISION SPECIALIST BLINDFOLDS
CLASS by Ronda J. Del Boccio

STATE TRAINING CENTERS AND THE ORGANIZED BLIND MOVEMENT

PHARMACY PROVIDES BRAILLE LABELS

REVEREND HOWARD E. MAY, JR. DIES
by Marc Maurer

LEE JONES DIES
by Fred Schroeder

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright (c), National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1989

      WHAT IS THE PROPER ROLE FOR A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION 
IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TECHNOLOGY
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

In the July, 1988, edition of the  Monitor  we carried an article
concerning the problem which Science Products is having with the
American Foundation for the Blind. It will be remembered that Tom
and Lee Benham (the owners of Science Products) are objecting
strenuously to the fact that the American Foundation for the
Blind is, as they see it, unethically competing with them and
threatening their livelihood.  In the words of the Benhams in
their April 4, 1988, letter to AFB Executive Director Bill
Gallagher:  It has come to our attention that AFB has submitted a
voice system to Lifescan for their review for use with the
Glucoscan Blood Glucose Monitors. 
This is high-tech language, but it deals with down-to-earth
issues.  It raises a question which has far-reaching implications
and is likely to touch the lives of most of the blind of this
country. A nonprofit organization in the blindness field
(sheltered shop, service agency, or consumer group) does not pay
taxes. It has favored status in mailing costs, and it can receive
tax-free donations and bequests. Mostly
this is beneficial to the blind, but what happens as technology
proliferates and prices come down? Does the time come when the
advantage becomes a hindrance?
As I understand it, the Benhams have a small mom and pop
operation.  Benham is bright and inventive, and his wife
apparently has a good business head and is a full partner in the
work. They do not have
a large staff, a far-flung fundraising network, or the name of
Helen Keller. They feel that they can compete in the marketplace
and that through the design and manufacture of products (products
which they feel can make life better for the blind) they can make
a living.  According to their version, they saw an opportunity in
the early 1980's to help both themselves and the blind. They
could design and manufacture a talking device to assist diabetics
in testing blood sugar. To produce such a device would require
considerable lead time and the investment of a sizable chunk of
their life savings. Moreover, Tom Benham was in his seventies.
Should they take the gamble?
They felt (remember that this is their version of it) that they
could deal with the competitive market and do good both for
themselves and the blind, but they recognized that they could not
compete against a large nonprofit organization with all of its
built-in legal and financial advantages. Therefore, they went to
New York to talk with the American Foundation for the Blind, the
only nonprofit group which they thought might be a threat. They
say that they were assured that the Foundation would not attempt
to upstage them.
With this encouragement the Benhams took the plunge. It is now
several years later; their talking technology is on the market;
and the American Foundation for the Blind (having first copied
the Benham's design) is using its nonprofit advantage and
financial power to undercut and take sales from the Benhams. I
cannot emphasize too strongly that this is the Benhams' version
of what happened, but the accuracy of
their perception has nothing to do with the basic question a
question which perhaps has low priority today but which may
ultimately come to be all-important.
First let us clear away the nonessentials. We are not considering
whether the American Foundation for the Blind is a good or a bad
outfit.  It may be one or the other, or (more probably) a
mixture. For that matter (even though their story is dramatic and
compelling) we are not even primarily considering the Benhams.
The question is the proper role of a nonprofit organization in
the production and marketing of technology. It may be the
American Foundation for the Blind, the National Federation of the
Blind, or somebody else.
AFB takes the position that the talking glucose tester is a
useful product and that they are helping blind people by selling
it at the lowest possible price. They say that the blind benefit
and that the number of sales will be too small to tempt most
manufacturers. They cite the example of the Sharp talking
calculator, the Sharp talking clock, and the IBM talking
typewriter. These items were manufactured by Sharp and IBM with
the thought that there would be enough volume
to allow them to make a profit. There wasn't. They didn't. The
products were withdrawn from the market, and mostly even the
components are not now available. Can anyone reasonably argue
that there could be any harm to the blind if a nonprofit
organization should begin to manufacture these products?
Perhaps not but what about mom and pop operations and backyard
entrepreneurs, people like the Benhams? Again, the argument can
be made that the Foundation can produce such items at a lower
price than even these individuals and groups. Is it reasonable to
raise the price so that small businesses and enterprising
individuals will be encouraged to venture? Upon superficial
examination the answer would seem to be simple but wait!
In the last century in a situation which is admittedly not
completely analogous, Standard Oil made a similar argument. It
could and did undersell everybody else in the business, and it
had difficulty seeing why anybody could object to lower prices
and better products. But some did object, and eventually almost
everybody objected. Standard Oil's lower prices were not achieved
without cost to the public. They not only received kickbacks from
the railroads which shipped their
oil but also what was called a  drawback  from their competitors. 
The drawback worked like this: Standard Oil would pay the
railroad a given amount to ship a barrel of oil. Their
competitors paid the same amount. Then, the railroad kicked back
(say a dime a barrel) to Standard Oil, not only on what Standard
had shipped but also (the drawback) on all the competitors had
shipped. Standard Oil did not regard itself as immoral or acting
against the public interest, and John D. Rockefeller was
unquestionably sincere in both his church activities and his
philanthropies.
Certainly the American Foundation for the Blind is not Standard
Oil, and its executive is not John D. Rockefeller. And, of
course, the analogy is not precise or complete. But there is at
least an element of similarity. If the Foundation and the Benhams
can (all other things being equal) produce a talking glucose
tester at the same cost, the advantage is with the Foundation.
The Benhams must pay taxes and are not likely to receive
bequests. Moreover, the Foundation (because it receives
government grants) gets subsidized by those taxes. It
can be argued that there is at least an element of the  drawback 
in the situation.
The reason monopoly is opposed and competition encouraged in the
business community is that it is felt prices will be lower in the
long run
as a result. Moreover, if there are lots of people in the field,
they keep each other honest and have the maximum incentive to
find new techniques and processes. Monopoly tends to encourage
complacency, waste, inefficiency, and poor service. This is true
in the business community, but many would argue that it does not
apply in the nonprofit area, where service instead of profit is
supposedly the objective.  However, this too is arguable.
Be this as it may, the question of the proper role of the
nonprofit organization in the manufacture and distribution of
hi-tech items
is likely to be an increasing topic of discussion. Congressional
committees are studying the matter; magazines and newspapers are
writing about it; and the Benhams are telling all who care to
listen. They have sent copies of their correspondence to members
of Congress, state and federal officials, and leaders of the
nonprofit community. Here is the latest round:
____________________
                                               New York, New York
                                                    July 26, 1988

Dear Mr. Benham:
Your letter has been reviewed by various staff and board members
at the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). It has never been
AFB's
policy or intent to undercut prices of commercial developers and
manufacturers.  Every year the Consumer Products Department
catalog is reviewed and changes are implemented as indicated by
market, cost, and other factors.  This type of review will occur
again this year.
Should you desire any additional information, please feel free to
contact us at any time.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                        William F. Gallagher, MSW
                                               Executive Director
                                American Foundation for the Blind
____________________
                                       Southeastern, Pennsylvania
                                                  August 25, 1988

Dear Bill:
We appreciated your letter of 26 July but note that you have
failed
to address the issue.
If it is not your intent to undercut prices of commercial
developers and manufacturers why is your price of $399
undercutting ours by 35%?  The lowest price we have seen on the
Orange Medical Beta Scan is $475 ($595 when introduced). Your
price is 15% less than theirs, reducing the likelihood that they
will improve or produce a new model. Diascan sells for over $600.
Boerhinger Mannheim's unit sold for over $800 and was taken off
the market. Med-Equip's unit at $395 does not talk, it beeps;
your price will hurt them, too. It is obvious that AFB is using
its nonprofit benefits to undercut the prices of all of us who
have developed and worked in this market. You pay expenses with
donations; you are not obliged to make payroll for direct labor
and overhead from sales revenues. Failure of your Talking Blood
Glucose Analyzer will not affect AFB's future.
Science Products produced special employment aids for the vision
impaired on a shoestring for 25 years. We were afraid to make a
commitment to a major project because the possibility of
nonprofit competition from AFB always existed. In 1983,
recognizing the need as a result of many requests from our
customers, Tom and I came to New York for the specific purpose of
asking you and your staff what your intentions were regarding
voice output for a blood glucose analyzer.
On the strength of your assertion that you had no plans for such
a device, we made a major investment to help blind diabetics. Had
you indicated you might, at any moment, embark on such a project,
we most certainly would not have proceeded. There is not enough
dollar volume in the market to support our program in competition
with nonprofit subsidies and we know it! We accepted the risk of
for-profit competition because we know the market and we know how
to approach it. We knew that we had a good chance to bring a
successful product to the market and keep it there as we have
during the difficult developmental years before AFB's intrusion.
As of the date of this writing we are receiving phone calls from
our customers asking us to explain why we charge so much when AFB
has a unit similar to ours at half the price not only are you
taking away our business, you are also taking away our
credibility, undermining other projects in addition to the one in
question.
This is the second time that AFB has singled us out for
competitive targeting. The first was some years ago when your
representative came to our facility to review the commercial
products which we offered in our catalog. These same products
then appeared in your catalog.  It is becoming obvious that your
direct assault is intentional: You have copied our blood glucose
analyzer module, even using the same box to house the voice unit
that we used, trading on an image we have spent several years and
substantial resources establishing!
As a nonprofit organization with significant stature in your
field, you have a responsibility not only to your potential
clients but to the overall welfare of the group you serve and to
the nonprofit concept in general. You receive benefits from the
government which are currently under fire in both Washington and
at least some state capitals. Irresponsible actions in
competition with the free market may cost nonprofit organizations
dearly and the more irresponsibility law makers can see, the more
likely there is to be a curtailment of tax and mailing benefits.
My representatives in Washington and Harrisburg will be aware of
the
harm AFB has caused us, as will your representatives in New York
State.  A responsible nonprofit approach to the matter in
question would include a market study to determine the effect of
the entry of a major nonprofit manufacturer/marketer into an
already mature market. It would include not only the impact of
your competition on those already producing aids for the blind
but also on companies producing the basic commercial device: were
you asked to design a free adaptation for the benefit of one
commercial manufacturer to the exclusion of others? If such a
study was made, I would appreciate seeing a copy. Certainly no
one asked us how we would be affected and we are a major supplier
of such aids who will be seriously harmed. We are sure the blind
community is interested in knowing how you determine what
products to put in your catalog and which companies to target for
direct competition.  Smith-Kettlewell designs special aids for
the vision impaired. They are very careful not to compete with
the free market they will
design but they will not manufacture or market. They are being
responsible both to our free enterprise system and to the vision
impaired. They truly encourage others to use their varied
resources and skills to bring items to the market to help the
blind. AFB's policy seems designed for the benefit of interests
at AFB not for the benefit of the blind.
If you take away from us only one sale of a voice module for a
blood glucose monitor you are doing both us and your blind
constituents an injustice. You will deprive us of revenues:
1) to resolve individual customer problems as they arise.
2) to pursue design changes that will lead to a better and less
expensive product in the future.
3) to respond to design changes made by original equipment
manufacturers (extremely important) and to keep up with current
technology.
4) to market more widely in order to make more blind people aware
of product availability.
Our commitment to the blind market in the past has been total.
Our approach has been one of responsibility to the customer and
to the original manufacturers. We have built into the pricing of
our Digi-Voice module an allowance for wholesaling to qualified
representatives of
the glucose analyzer company so that qualified assistance is
available to the blind user at his location. Our catalog has
always contained cautionary information concerning use of the
instrument (we see no such caution in your catalog regarding
professional training).  Science Products is forced to end its
total commitment to the blind market as a direct result of AFB's
unfair and irresponsible competition.  We will continue to market
products already designed and to develop projects which require
relatively small investments of time and money.  We will be
pleased to undertake projects for which development funds can be
made available to us. We will not in future make the mistake of
investing heavily from our own limited resources since we now
know that AFB will not hesitate to move into competition on any
product we design even if we have your statement to the contrary.
You apparently want us out of the market and we lack the
financial resources and the time to resist.
Science Products has a wealth of background in development of
aids for the vision impaired. Tom Benham is one of the most
capable (if not the most capable) human engineering consultants
in the field.  He spends hours on the phone each week with
individuals discussing
their particular needs and problems (at no charge). From these
discussions he has developed and refined instrumentation
applications to be of maximum possible use to the vision
impaired. For the sake of the blind, we hope AFB has someone
comparable on staff who will provide this service while Tom is
designing equipment for industry in order to pay the rent!

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                       Lee Benham
                                          Owner, Science Products

P.S. In reviewing your letter of 18 April I note your statement
`no
such low-cost Blood Glucometer with voice is being marketed.' 
Glucometer  is the proprietary trade name of the Ames
Corporation. Science Products has been marketing the Talking
Glucometer based on the Ames device for four years, as you should
well know since it was the device we discussed with you at the
beginning of our project. `Low-cost' is easy when you pay no
taxes, mail your extensive advertising material at nonprofit
rates, and depend on tax free donations to subsidize your
programs.
____________________
                                       Southeastern, Pennsylvania
                                                  August 25, 1988

Board of Directors
American Foundation for the Blind
New York, New York

Dear AFB Board Member:
Enclosed is the next round of correspondence concerning AFB's
move into a mature market with an underpriced and unfairly
competitive product.
Because I appreciate and admire much of what AFB does and has
done,
I am loath to pursue this problem to the extent outlined herein.
However, I have a firm basic belief in the ability of the free
enterprise system to deliver the best products at the best prices
in the long run, and I sincerely believe that AFB's action is
unethical and contrary to our country's free enterprise
principles and the best interests of the vision impaired. I do
not believe that nonprofit benefits were granted to enable large,
tax-free organizations to force small businesses out of a market
any market or to deprive small businesses
of a fair return on investment in developing and marketing a new
product.  Also, we are fighting for our life's savings!
During the first half of the 20th Century AFB did a tremendous
service for the blind in providing special aids and appliances
not available elsewhere. In the 60's and 70's technological
advances expanded the horizons of the blind exponentially. Blind
people became independent, some affluent. Their buying power
increased. At the same time the Federal Government mandated
accessibility and third-party funds became available for adaptive
equipment. Many for- profit companies began producing aids for
the vision impaired, some in direct competition with AFB.
As a result of the entrance of free enterprise into the market,
blind people have available a variety of products conceived,
developed and produced by many creative, innovative, diverse, and
enthusiastic entrepreneurs. Mail Order businesses competing with
AFB have been efficient enough to undersell AFB on many products
even though they mail catalogs at full postal rates, pay taxes,
and have no source of revenue other than product sales. AFB is no
longer needed to deliver these products to the blind others are
doing it quite well and very competitively
If AFB continues its old approach, inevitably some of these
entrepreneurs will be harmed by unfair competition. As private
enterprise takes over more of the market, there is less left
undone, less need for a paternal nonprofit organization to
provide what the market does not.
There is little AFB can offer that private enterprise cannot do
better.  The only place left for AFB to go is into a market
already developed by entrepreneurs, the only tactic to gain a
portion of the market is to undersell. This tactic can very soon
discourage all of us if it is carried to its logical end.
A few years ago AFB developed a folding cane, not because the
blind needed another folding cane, but because cane suppliers
were selling to other retailers for the blind at the same price
AFB had to pay and AFB could not retain its market share. Result:
Donated money was used by AFB to finance development and
manufacture of a product already
on the market with the express purpose of undercutting the cane
manufacturers to retain a competitive position. There may be
other instances of this aggressive competitiveness on AFB's part
of which I am unaware.
I see AFB's present attack on Science Products as another
manifestation of this same, very dangerous, policy. Whenever AFB
decides it wants control of a product or line of products it can
simply use its nonprofit resources to undermine the competition,
discouraging entrepreneurs who could make the free enterprise
system work for the blind.
As the enclosed materials indicate, we will not be able to work
in the blind market as we have in the past. There may be others
like
us who are discouraged from participation by AFB's money and
policies.  If so, the loss to the blind is tremendous. If AFB
were providing
all that the blind might ever need, there would be no other
suppliers.  The fact that we, and others, have found projects to
work on over
the years is an indication that AFB is not doing everything for
everyone and that there is a need for people like us. But we need
security.
We need to know that we have a fair chance of recovering our
investment on any given project so that we can prepare for the
next project and
the next payroll and be in business, strong and secure, when our
customers need us in the future to service the devices we have
made. AFB has deprived us of that security.
I would be happy to discuss this problem with you and suggest
that you might get interesting responses from others who are
competing with AFB. Most are afraid to speak up for fear they
will be the next target!
For the first time in its 30 year history of serving the blind
Science Products has a full technical staff with the ability to
respond in a timely and creative way to the problems of blind
individuals.
It is a shame these resources, gathered with the good-faith
assumption that AFB would not undermine us, will be working for
industry and not for the people who could most benefit from our
long experience.  Please know that this is a very serious matter.
I believe it merits more than the non-comments we have received
from Mr. Gallagher.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                Lee Benham, Owner
                                                 SCIENCE PRODUCTS

Recipients of Letters Protesting AFB Competition 8/25/88:

Senator John Heniz
Senator Arlen Spector
Lawrence Gibbs, Director of IRS
U.S. Postmaster Anthony Frank
Executive Officer, Anti Trust Division,
Department of Justice
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Senator Alfonse D'Mato
Congressman William Green
Congressman Peter Vroon
Itala S. Cappabianca, Chairman
Select Committee to Study Business
Activities of Nonprofits
House of Representatives
AFB Officers
              COOR'S AND TOURS: PIKES PEAK OR BUST
                        by Diane McGeorge
The National Federation of the Blind of Colorado affiliate is
working to make this year's Convention absolutely unforgettable. 
We have several things going for us in this attempt: the city of
Denver, the geography of Colorado, and its history.  Keep this in
mind as you make your plans for July.  Who knows when you will be
back to the Mile-High City again!  Plan to make the most of your
time while you are here.
Friday, July 7, will be our free afternoon this year, and we
expect to offer four tours for you to choose among.  More details
will be available later, but here is enough information to whet
your appetite.  Central City is a small town famous at the turn
of the century as the richest square mile in the world.  Silver
and gold mining created its wealth, and its homes and shops have
been preserved or restored to reflect the life of this town a
hundred years ago.  The opera house and the saloon where  The
Face on the Bar Room Floor  is still visible are only two of the
buildings you can tour.  There are food and drink and shopping to
satisfy every taste, and our bus tour will have Federationists
back at the hotels by dinner time.
Another, more ambitious possibility is the trip to Georgetown. 
This, too, is a preserved turn-of-the-Century town with lots to
see and do.  After looking around and shopping a little, the
group will board the narrow gage railroad train for a thirty-mile
trip into the mountains through spectacular scenery. We will
visit the Silver Plume mine before returning to Georgetown by
train and then to Denver by bus.
Estes Park is a city located in the Front Range outside of
Denver.  Again, there is lots to see and do in the town itself,
but we can also make arrangements to travel to a ranch on the
north fork of the Big Thompson River for a dinner prepared in a
genuine chuck wagon.
For those who have limited time on Friday afternoon for
sightseeing, the tour of the Coor's brewery in Golden, Colorado
may be just the ticket.  The group will be transported in an
English double-decker bus. Golden (the home of Coor's) is only a
half hour drive from Denver, and the tour includes a look at the
bottle and can manufacturing operations
as well as the brewery that produces one of the country's best
beers.  Tourists are treated to an appropriate sample of the
product before they leave Coor's.  Needless to say, this is
always a popular trip.
A number of people have spoken to me about the possibility of
participating in a technical rock-climbing expedition while they
are in the area.  I
am delighted to report that we have made arrangements with the
instructors who work with the students and staff of the Colorado
Center for the Blind to provide a day of instruction and climbing
on Monday, July 3 and Monday, July 10 if there is enough
interest.  We must have at least ten people in the group to make
it worth doing, and no more than twenty can sign up.  The cost
will be between $20 and $25 for transportation, ground school,
and the climb.  Anyone who is interested in this unique
opportunity must contact me by May 1 so that I can make the
necessary arrangements for the group.
Even if you can't picture yourself climbing sheer rock faces, you
might seriously consider arriving early for the Convention or
staying a day or two afterward to do some sightseeing in the
area.  Denver boasts a number of interesting attractions within a
walk or city bus ride of the hotels.  The Art Museum, the State
Historical Museum, and the Denver Mint are nearby.  One can also
tour the home of the Unsinkable Molly Brown and the Brown Palace
Hotel, concluding with high tea.  Denver has two excellent
amusement parks, both of which include kiddy-lands. One of them,
Elitch's Gardens, is surrounded (as its name suggests) by many
beautiful gardens.
Aspen, with its unexcelled scenery and world-famous music school,
is accessible by bus.  So is Colorado Springs.  Here you can
visit the Air Force Academy or take the cog railroad up to Pike's
Peak.  The Garden of the Gods has incredible rock formations and
provides wonderful hiking opportunities.  The Cave of the Winds
has its entrance at the bottom, and one climbs up through the
formation.
Another possibility, if you have two days, is a trip to Glenwood
Springs where Doc Holliday, the famous gunslinger, is buried. 
Did you know that he was a dentist who came to Colorado to die of
tuberculosis?  The hot mineral baths attracted him and still draw
people from everywhere.  You could find no better, more relaxing
way to prepare for or recover from the rigors of our National
Convention than to make a side trip to Glenwood Springs.  You
must allow two days for this visit.  The Colorado Hotel, where
Doc Holliday lived, requires a reservation months in advance. 
There are, however, many other overnight accommodations in the
area.
If you have access to a car, there are a number of wonderful
trips
in the Denver area that you can take.  Lookout Mountain is the
location of Buffalo Bill Cody's grave and offers spectacular
scenery.  The Red Rocks Amphitheater provides a breathtaking
natural setting for outdoor concerts on summer weekends.  One can
enjoy a picnic supper while listening to popular artists perform. 
Evergreen is a picturesque little town that has become an artist
colony.  Much of the work of local artists is on display and for
sale.
If you would like assistance in arranging any of these tours or
want suggestions about others, you can contact Nancy Richardson
of The Western Wanderer, 6343 S. Monaco Court, Englewood,
Colorado 80111; telephone (303) 771-3820.
People who have never been to Colorado dismiss our talk about
clear
air, perfect weather, and breathtaking scenery as just so much
propaganda put out by the Chamber of Commerce or, as one might
say,  hot air.   The trouble is that it's all true!  We want you
to get to know our corner of the world a little better as long as
you are here, so plan to spend a little extra time with us in the
friendly West.  See you at the convention!
  REFLECTIONS OF A PERIPATETIC FEDERATIONIST by Michael Baillif
 As  Monitor  readers know (see July, 1988, issue), Michael
Baillif (President of the Student Division of the National
Federation of the Blind) is traveling in England and other
European countries this year on a Watson Fellowship.  On October
27, 1988, while traveling in Wales with his parents, Michael was
in an automobile accident in which he suffered minor injuries. At
this writing in early November, he is recovering and expects soon
to return to his research.  His
work so far has been confined to studying of the blind in
England.  The yardstick he is using to evaluate the condition of
the blind in the United Kingdom is the philosophy about blindness
developed by the National Federation of the Blind in the United
States.  In his report to Watson officials, Michael boldly
asserts that  the condition of the blind in England is generally
dismal.   Here are some of his ruminations and conclusions.  It
is clear that Michael takes his Federationism seriously. 

                       A Beeping Nuisance

Traveling the streets of London presents to the pedestrian
numerous challenges, including roads which intersect to form all
manner of geographical patterns save right angles, and sidewalks
which are cluttered with signs, scaffolding, and every imaginable
variety of refuse. Blind travelers face an additional obstacle,
the well-meaning English pedestrian.  It is virtually impossible
for a blind person in London to approach a street corner without
being set upon by a benevolent passer-by and dragged across the
road to the accompaniment of such reassuring phrases as  You're
okay mate  or  It's all right love, we're almost there.  This
state of affairs, which is highly detrimental to one's mobility,
to say nothing of one's self- respect, can be traced to a number
of causes, none of which is more boisterously apparent than the
audible traffic signal.
Street corners of London are randomly dotted with these signals
which emit a piercing beep when it is supposedly safe to cross a
street.
These signals, in theory, are designed for the convenience and
protection of blind travelers. It is not uncommon, when walking
the streets of London, to be assaulted by the din of honking
horns, frantic sirens, barking dogs, and (rising above the audio
melee) shrieking audible signals. Although their obtrusiveness
may lead one to the contrary opinion, it is important to realize
that audible signals are by no
means placed on every street corner in London. In fact, they are
scattered throughout the city in such a whimsical pattern that
any blind traveler actually depending upon them as a mobility aid
would soon find himself cursing the lack of a beeping signal at a
busy intersection. In most cases he soon would be hustled across
the street and deposited on the opposite side by a public
benefactor. On occasion, however, the blind traveler would be
left to depend upon his own abilities when crossing the street
and, judging by the fact that the mortality rates for the blind
in England are no higher than those of the sighted, would
apparently acquit himself reasonably well in this endeavor. 
Thus, audible signals simply make a good deal of noise and are
not a mobility necessity for blind pedestrians. If this
assessment of audible signals accurately represented their entire
character, they would be a laughable curiosity, ineffective and
perhaps even charming in their own beeping way.
Audible signals, however, are far from harmless and have a
powerfully negative effect on the public perception of blindness.
It should not be surprising that the average English citizen is
so readily willing to lay hands upon blind pedestrians,
regardless of whether they desire any assistance. The profusion
of audible signals reinforces the idea that it is external
devices, rather than a blind person's senses and skills, which
enable him to perform various activities, such as crossing
streets, with competence and expedition. Accordingly, when a
member of the English public encounters a blind person standing
on a street corner at which an audible signal has not been
installed, the good citizen generally accepts his responsibility
to act as custodian of the blind pedestrian and (either
cheerfully or grudgingly) undertakes to conduct him to his
destination.
Although the English are charitable people, their good will
(which
is offered to and enforced upon blind people on the sidewalks)
generally does not extend to blind people in the job market or
legislative halls.  Audible signals perpetuate the myth that the
blind are helpless. After all, it is reasonable to ask the
question,  If a blind person cannot travel to work without the
assistance of clamorous, paternalistic gadgets, how can he
adequately perform a job without other expensive and noisy aids? 
If a potential employer has no means of providing such devices,
his experience with audible signals and blind travelers will
likely cause him to conclude (without a second thought) that
blind people are unemployable. Additionally, with audible signals
trumpeting the good will and commitment of the English public
toward their blind brethren, it is easy for matters of substance
to be ignored.  The cries of the blind for civil rights and their
shouts for independence are all too often drowned out by the
screeching of audible signals.  Perhaps the most unfortunate
result of these signals in England is
the stultifying effect which they have on members of the general
public who happen to be blind. Because audible signals have been
in existence for some time, and as a result of the virtually
inescapable assistance provided at street corners without these
signals, many blind people never gain complete confidence in
their own travel abilities. They regard the few independent
street crossings which they safely make as mere coincidence and
good fortune. Most are never afforded the opportunity to develop
positive attitudes and skills in personal mobility.  Those blind
travelers who wish to assert their independence are so beset by
audible signals on the one hand, and an overly helpful English
public misled by these signals on the other hand, that they
sometimes despair of quietly crossing even a single street with
dignity and without incident.
Audible signals are certainly not one of the more charming
aspects of London. Rather, they are among the most clamorous and
pernicious environmental hazards with which blind people must
deal.

                   Lunch At The Hard Rock Cafe

Lunch at the Hard Rock Cafe on Piccadilly Street is an
indispensable experience for anyone wishing to explore the
contemporary culture of London. The Hard Rock Cafe stands as a
mecca to which people fond of rock and roll memorabilia, loud
music, and American cuisine flock with unwavering devotion. Among
the characteristics which make it unique, the Hard Rock Cafe
possesses some, such as long entrance lines, deafening music, and
several sets of stairs, which would be anathema
to the typical blind person described by conventional negative
stereotypes.  Of course, these characteristics, for a blind
person with positive attitudes and proper skills, as for a
sighted person, are simply part of the atmosphere of the Hard
Rock Cafe to be embraced or rejected
as one's general taste and outlook dictate. There are many blind
people in England who would like very much to have lunch at the
Hard Rock
Cafe but who are prevented from enjoying this experience, not by
discrimination or by lack of competent travel skills, but by
their own restrictive and self-deprecating attitudes.
There is an essential difference between the approach to
blindness adopted by the Federation in America and that taken by
the average blind person in England. This distinction has been
characterized in the following way: A Federationist in America
would say,  I'm blind, so what?  Whereas, a blind person in
England would say,  I'm blind, please excuse me.  This
observation, which was actually made by an Englishman, is not
meant to be critical of anyone but to emphasize the vital
importance of attitude to us as blind people.  In England many
blind people are vociferous in insisting upon their
respectability as individuals. Paradoxically, however, most
attempt
to gain this recognition without first asserting that it is
respectable to be blind. The end result is that, although they
possess both the
right and the ability to dine at the Hard Rock Cafe, many blind
Englishmen nevertheless are excluded from its premises by their
own feelings of timidity and insignificance. It is impossible to
establish the dignity of the person who happens to be blind
without first proclaiming and believing that blindness is
respectable. If we attempt to live
this contradiction, we are left with entitlements equal to, or
exceeding, those of the sighted but not the social status and
personal confidence needed to transform these stagnant benefits
and privileges into equality.  As part of my research project, I
reside at a hostel for the blind
in London. The hostel embodies a number of subtle contradictions
which reinforce the idea that blind people are almost, but not
quite, as good as the sighted. The very concept of a hostel for
the blind implies that.  Although blind people may be competent
enough to gain an education and exercise a vocation, they are
nevertheless either unable or not welcome to reside within
conventional society. Some revealing assumptions about blindness
are made within the hostel. For instance, blind residents are
expected as a matter of course to climb flight after flight of
stairs to reach their rooms. The myth that the blind have
difficulty with stairs is appropriately disregarded. By contrast,
however, there is a strict prohibition against the moving of
furniture for fear it may present an insurmountable obstacle to
blind residents. Thus, while one debilitating stereotype is
broken, another even more groundless and damaging assumption is
accepted in its place.
The attitude toward the white cane is worthy of note as well.
Canes are rarely found in use around the hostel. And, in fact,
residents are actively discouraged from carrying their canes into
the dining
room. Officials claim that they would present a hazard to other
residents.  Interestingly enough, each table in the dining room
is provided with a pot of boiling tea at every meal. It is
automatically assumed that residents will have no difficulty in
helping themselves to the steaming tea. Isn't it reasonable to
expect that if an individual possesses the common sense and
dexterity to pour tea without scalding himself or his neighbors,
he will be capable of using his white cane in such a way that it
will present no annoyance or threat to other diners?  If at first
glance these contradictions seem minute, consider the
message they send. When the idea that the blind require special
accommodation and attention is constantly reinforced and when the
white cane is
viewed not as a badge of freedom but as a clumsy annoyance to be
dispensed with whenever possible, one cannot assert with any
conviction or credibility that it is respectable to be blind.
In any case, others are not going to take us to lunch at the Hard
Rock Cafe, nor should they. We must go there ourselves  and we
must teach society that our right to be there is as legitimate
and respectable as that of anyone else with whom we happen to
stand in line, listening to the music and anticipating the meal.

                        The Power of Law
When considering the importance of the laws which governa
society, one is inevitably confronted with the question,  Are
laws the expression of a society's values, or are the values of a
society determined by its laws?  The safe answer is, of course,
that laws are both a cause and an effect of the various beliefs,
desires, and attitudes of a given society.  This philosophic
point is of more than pedantic interest to us as blind people,
for the laws which govern the country will play a central role
for better or worse in determining the extent to which our
efforts to achieve first-class citizenship will be realized. 
Nowhere is the dynamic power of the law more apparent than in its
effect upon the blind of England and America.
The attitude of the general public in England regarding blindness
is as benevolent, although not so well informed, as the attitude
about blindness exhibited by most Americans.  The English, who
for the most part have not been exposed to the positive
philosophy propounded by the National Federation of the Blind in
the U.S., generally assume
that blindness is a terrible tragedy rather than a simple
characteristic.  Accordingly, instead of being recognized as an
emerging minority group, the blind
are viewed as a diligent, although pitiable and inferior,
subculture.  The result of this perception is that charitable
solicitations and custodial legislation are warmly supported by
the well-meaning English public, while attempts to gain civil
rights protection and to establish government assistance programs
which foster independence often meet with the cold shoulder of
societal indifference.
Given this social climate, it is not difficult to imagine the
nature of the laws which exist (or, more frequently, do not
exist) concerning blindness.  In England a blind person has
virtually no civil rights protection.  It is common for dog guide
users to be denied entrance to restaurants and even taxi cabs. 
Such discrimination occurs with the sanction of the English law. 
On occasion, blind people are told that they may not attend a
given theater or cinema unless they are accompanied by a sighted
attendant.  In such instances there is no recourse to civil
rights provisions of the law, for such provisions do not exist. 
The proprietor of any private or public establishment can legally
discriminate against the blind, simply by claiming that his
actions are based on safety considerations.
The effect of this license to discriminate within the law is much
more pernicious than the actual examples of injustice which are
countenanced.  The fact that blind people are not accorded
dignity and respect under
the law fosters a view of them as a class which is somehow not
deserving of the considerations and rights guaranteed to the
average citizen.  This trend, attributable to the lack of
constructive laws, works such mischief that I recently sat across
a pub table from a dog guide user and listened with astonishment
while he passionately defended the right of a restaurant
proprietor to deny entrance to any person using a dog guide.  One
can see a vicious circle being established.  Bad attitudes lead
to destructive laws which in turn perpetuate even worse
attitudes.  The laws pertaining to blindness in America are
generally, although by no means universally, superior to
comparable English laws.  The American airline industry's exit
row seating policy toward the blind undoubtedly does rival the
absurdity of repressive laws held over from the 19th century,
whether in England or not. The very fact that the airlines have
to date been successful in committing substantial injustices
against the blind and flouting anti- discrimination laws
poignantly demonstrates the shortcomings of current civil rights
protection afforded to the blind.  For the most part, however,
the American laws that refer to blindness reflect and reinforce
the positive attitudes
about blindness articulated by the National Federation of the
Blind.  White Cane Laws, prohibiting discrimination against the
blind by public establishments, exist, in one form or another, in
every state, and civil rights protection for the blind is
increasing across the country.
In California, Maryland, and a growing number of other states
discrimination against blind people using dog guides has recently
become a criminal as well as a civil offense.  This new
protection under the law has a significance which extends beyond
ease of enforceability and is of benefit to all blind people
regardless of whether they use dog guides.  In this case, the law
enunciates the principle that the blind
are first-class citizens against whom discrimination will not be
tolerated.  The cycles of cause and effect, attitude and action,
are inherent in the law.  These cycles can run either powerfully
in favor of, or in opposition to, the attempts of the blind to
gain equal status and fair treatment within society. As we are
successful in fostering positive attitudes about blindness and
reinforcing them through legislation, we will mold the law into a
staunch ally which will support us in our efforts to achieve
first-class citizenship.

                   NFB of the United Kingdom 
National Conference

The National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom
(NFB-UK) held its annual National Conference the weekend of
August 26-28, 1988, at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
The event, which was a conference of delegates rather than a
convention of the general membership as we hold in the United
States, was attended by approximately one
hundred people.  Included in this number were voting delegates
representing twenty-nine local branches of the NFB-UK from
throughout the United Kingdom.
The primary business of the Conference was the consideration of
motions which establish the policies and priorities of the
organization for the upcoming year.  Among the issues most widely
discussed were the need for a comprehensive disability income and
the importance of gaining increased consumer representation on
the governing boards of voluntary agencies for the blind.  One of
the high points of the weekend occurred on Saturday morning when
Tom Clarke, an influential Member of Parliament, addressed the
Conference.  He assured delegates of his sympathy with the move
for a comprehensive disability income, and he expressed strong
support for the goals and activities of the NFB-UK.
On Sunday morning all conferees participated in a forum
discussing
the future of the NFB-UK.  The desirability of developing the
comparatively small organization into a mass movement like the
Federation in America was the main theme of the morning's
speakers.  Ideas ranging from establishing a youth wing to
affiliating with other organizations
of the blind were contemplated as a means of achieving this
growth.  Although no answers were produced by the forum, it
furnished some interesting food for thought and provided a
glimpse into the possible future of the NFB-UK.
The National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom has
ahead of it a long journey on the road to changing what it means
to be blind and establishing the respectability of blind people. 
Its members are energetically and diligently working to improve
the lives of the
blind in the United Kingdom.  I salute them as colleagues and
friends.  The road they travel is the same one we in the United
States follow. The precise obstacles confronting them may differ
from those facing us, but the causes are the same:  public
misunderstanding, ignorance, and prejudice.  I am grateful to
have come to know these brothers and sisters, and I am stronger
for having walked with them during these weeks in England.
                    AIR TRAVEL AND THE BLIND 
THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY
@ATTRIBUTE = An Address Delivered by 
Kenneth Jernigan 
At The Annual Convention of the 
National Federation of the Blind 
Wednesday, July 6, 1988
@ATTRIB LAST = Chicago, Illinois
When we met for our convention last year in Phoenix, the problems
which blind persons are having with the airlines were a major
topic of discussion. During the past twelve months the
discrimination and abuse have grown worse. Today the situation is
such that no blind
person anywhere in the country can board a plane without fear of
harassment, public humiliation, and possibly arrest and bodily
injury.
The incidents involve almost every aspect of air travel
insistence that blind passengers pre-board, insistence that we
post-board, demands that we demonstrate our capacity to fasten or
unfasten a seat belt, requirements that we sit (or not sit) in
various sections of the plane, and even attempts to take our
small children from us when we are boarding or leaving the
aircraft. But the item which has unquestionably created the most
heat and publicity centers around exit row seating. It is not
that blind passengers have asked to be assigned to these seats
but that airline personnel have repeatedly put us there and then
insisted (with great public commotion) that we move. In these
confrontations the word  safety  is always trotted out and made
the excuse
for every unreasonable and illegal act which anybody cares to
perpetrate.

In May of 1987 Joseph Sontag and Nancy Kruger were arrested on a
Simmons Airlines plane. Members of the Simmons flight crew
insisted that Sontag and Kruger give up their canes instead of
being allowed to keep them at their seats as permitted by federal
regulations, and when Sontag and Kruger refused, the police were
called. We filed a complaint with the federal Department of
Transportation, and although almost a year
has passed, nothing has been done about it and there is no
indication that anything will be done about it.
In October of 1987 Bill Meeker (a blind employee of the U. S.
Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs) was traveling on official business. He experienced what
has almost come to be the standard airline treatment. He boarded
a Midwest Express airplane for Milwaukee and took his assigned
seat. He learned that it was an exit row, and almost immediately
thereafter he was confronted and ordered to move, being told that
he was violating a federal regulation.  When he said that he knew
the law, that no such regulation existed, and that he would not
move under such circumstances, he was arrested.  As is typical in
these cases, the charges were later dropped.
Last November Robert Greenberg was refused transportation by
American Airlines. He was assigned a seat (an assignment he had
not requested) near an emergency exit and was then publicly and
abusively ordered to move. When he refused, the flight was
canceled and the passengers were told to leave the plane.
Everybody but Greenberg was then reboarded.  Not only was he not
permitted to reboard, but he was also told that he could never
ride another American Airlines plane again at any time in the
future. He was also denied a refund on his ticket. Once more,
we filed a complaint with the federal Department of
Transportation and again nothing has happened.
In January of this year Congressman James A. Traficant introduced
H.R. 3883, the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act. There
are now 110 cosponsors of that bill, which is pending in the
House of Representatives. In February Senator Ernest F. Hollings
introduced the same bill, S. 2098. That bill now has twenty-four
senate cosponsors.  These bills by Senator Hollings and
Congressman Traficant prohibit any special seating restrictions
for blind air passengers.
Shortly before last year's convention we got a ruling from the
Maryland Attorney General that it was unlawful for airlines to
apply special seating restrictions to the blind. The
effectiveness of that ruling
was proved when Sharon Gold, who was flying from Baltimore to
California, showed it to the American Airlines crew who were
trying to make her move from her assigned seat before takeoff.
She did not move, and she was not arrested or taken off the
plane. As you will remember, we brought copies of the Maryland
ruling to last year's convention and asked all of you to move
quickly and firmly to set up meetings with every state attorney
general in the nation, and with the manager
of every airport. At that time I said to you:  Show them the
Maryland ruling, and remind them that their state has a white
cane law, which has the same provisions that the Maryland law
has. Get a ruling from your attorney general. Get an agreement
from your airport manager.  Once you get the ruling, make many
copies of it, and see that every blind person who flies has one
in his or her pocket. 
Today the attorneys general of ten states have made such rulings,
and since Chicago is a central transfer point for air travel, the
ruling by Illinois Attorney General Neil Hartigan has special
significance.  Attorney General Hartigan is here today, and not
only the blind but all others who believe in the rule of law
instead of whim and special privilege owe him a debt of
gratitude.
If we were really dealing with a question of safety, no one
(blind or sighted) would object, but we are not. Consider, for
instance, the opinion of an airline pilot. In an affidavit made
in 1985, he says in part:
 I, Jared Haas, being first duly sworn, depose and state: I have
been a pilot for many years. I currently fly 727 aircraft, and I
have been employed to do so since June of 1974.
 I am familiar with a number of blind people, and I am generally
familiar with the capacities of the blind. In an emergency
situation
there are circumstances in which it would be helpful to have an
able-bodied blind person seated in an emergency exit row with a
sighted person.  In those cases in which there is smoke in the
cabin, an able-bodied blind person, being used to handling
situations without sight, would be able to assist with more
facility in the evacuation. An able-bodied blind person would not
hinder an emergency evacuation. 
That is what a pilot says, and he is not just talking theory. I
am aware of at least one case where it was put to the test.
Everybody in this organization knows who the late Lawrence
(Muzzy) Marcelino
was. In the early 1980's he was flying home from Baltimore to
California, and when the plane got ready to land in San
Francisco, there was a problem. The landing gear wouldn't come
down. The plane landed on foam, and the lights went out. An
emergency evacuation occurred. It was night, and there was near
panic. It was Muzzy who got to the exit and helped the sighted
passengers find it.
So far as I have been able to determine, there is not a case on
record in which a blind person has been involved in the blocking
of an exit or the slowing of traffic in an airline emergency, and
as I have just told you, I know of at least one instance (the one
involving Muzzy)
in which blindness was a positive asset. Yet, the airlines keep
prattling to us about safety while, at the same time, knowingly
doing things which diminish safety. I refer to the serving of
liquor to passengers in exit rows and the practice of permitting
excess carry-on luggage to be stowed with passengers at their
seats. For that matter, serving liquor at all on a plane in
flight probably reduces the safety margins, and so does smoking.
I am not saying that these things should be eliminated but only
that the treatment of the blind should be seen in perspective.

When I was participating in the regulatory negotiation process
last summer to persuade the Department of Transportation to to
come up with rules to prevent discrimination against the blind in
air travel, I personally heard officials of the Flight Standards
Administration of the Federal Aviation Administration repeatedly
say that they felt there was no safety question involved in blind
persons' sitting in exit rows on planes. They said that if they
had felt there was a safety question, they would long since have
made appropriate regulations.  The Flight Standards
Administration is that branch of FAA which is responsible for
determining questions of safety in air travel. Only
when FAA attorneys began to apply pressure did the nature of the
comments by Flight Standards officials change. Rather than oppose
the airlines, the FAA apparently finds it easier to duck behind
the safety issue.
The problem with the arguments being advanced by the FAA and the
airlines is that those arguments are based on the false premise
that sighted persons (excluding the elderly, the frail, the
pregnant, and children)
are uniformly capable and alert. The blind person (with whatever
limitations and strengths he or she may possess) is compared with
the ideal sighted person a person who in most cases does not
exist. Last fall when Senator Dole promised to help deal with the
airline problem, he said that it would not occur to anybody to
suggest that he should not be allowed to sit in an exit row. Yet
(because of his physical handicap), he would not, he said, be
able to open the exit.
Several years ago when we were taking both sighted and blind
people to the Baltimore airport to make a test evacuation of a
World Airways plane, we had to eliminate from consideration many
of the sighted that we might have chosen. One had back problems;
another had foot problems; and still another had difficulties
with heart and blood pressure. In the real world of everyday
commercial air travel none
of these people would have been excluded from the exit row. Why,
then, should the blind be held to a different standard from the
sighted?
The truth is that if you consider the scarcity of accidents in
proportion to the number of miles which are flown and the
relatively small number of blind people who are likely to be on a
given flight at a given time, the potential risk would almost be
zero even if all of the claims by the airlines about the
unsafeness of the blind were true.  The serving of liquor to
passengers, the permitting of smoking, the carry-on luggage, the
undetected emotional and physical problems of the average
passenger, and a hundred other things are much more real
as problems than the minimal risk potentially posed by the blind
plus the fact, as I have already said, that in certain
circumstances the
blind would have an advantage in helping themselves and others.
Nevertheless, the airlines persist in their phony game of  It is
all a matter of safety,  and the FAA bows to the pressure and
seeks to take the easy way out.
In truth and in fact we are not dealing with a safety issue at
all but a matter of civil rights, and we simply will not be
bullied and intimidated into submission. We will speak to the
public and the Congress until we get results. And make no mistake
about it we will be heard, and we will be heeded.
Two incidents this spring graphically illustrate the
unreasonableness of the treatment which we are receiving from the
airlines. On a Midway Airlines flight from Baltimore to Des
Moines Peggy Pinder (the Second Vice President of the National
Federation of the Blind and the President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Iowa) was arrested for refusing to
move to a seat near an emergency exit; and only a few
days later Jim Gashel (our Director of Governmental Affairs) was
arrested and removed from a United Airlines flight for almost the
exact opposite reason. He was sitting in his assigned seat (one
he had not requested) in an exit row and refused to move. In
Peggy's case the facts are thoroughly documented and particularly
vicious and ugly, not to mention ironic.
She was going home to Iowa from Washington after a day of
testifying
before the Republican National Committee on ways of increasing
participation of blind persons in the mainstream of American life
and of eliminating discrimination against the blind. When she
arrived at the airport, she was ordered to pre-board the plane.
She declined but was told that she would either pre-board or not
be permitted to travel. She submitted and did as she was ordered.
The plane had open seating, so she went to the back and took a
seat in the smoking section. She said she did not need a special
briefing, but when she was publicly and abusively ordered to take
one, she did it. Then, when she refused to change her seat (which
was not in an exit row), she was arrested and bodily carried from
the plane in a particularly offensive manner.  In her own words:
 The officer lifted me from my seat and physically moved me into
the aisle. At this point I stood up and waited for the officer's
next action. The officer positioned himself behind me and lifted
me from the floor. He accomplished this by reaching his arms
around me from behind and placing his hands on my breasts. From
this position he lifted me from the floor and carried me off the
plane, at one point saying, `Jesus Christ.'
 While asserting my legal rights on board the airplane, I
maintained a posture of calmness. I found the personal
confrontation emotionally upsetting. I was also upset by being
physically carried from the plane and having my breasts grasped.
I did nothing to provoke this physical abuse and violation of my
person; yet, the officer took control over my body. 
The fact that Peggy Pinder was arrested for not moving to another
seat is confirmed by statements made by Midway officials to the 
New York Times . The  Times  article, dated April 3, 1988, says
in part:
 A Midway Airlines spokeswoman, Sandra Allen, said it is the
airline's policy to seat all handicapped people in the first row
of the plane
near where they can be easily evacuated. According to both the
spokeswoman and Miss Pinder, after she refused to switch seats
the airport police were called to remove her from the plane. 
Not only the  New York Times  but also radio, television, and
other newspapers throughout the land discussed the matter.
Overwhelmingly the editorial comment was favorable to our cause.
Apparently Midway thought it had better change its story. Maybe
where Peggy was sitting had nothing to do with it. Maybe she had
violated a federal regulation in some other way. Maybe she had
refused to listen to a briefing about safety features of the
airplane. Never mind that sighted passengers are not required to
look at the demonstrations which flight attendants give and that
Peggy can hear what the flight attendants say during those
demonstrations as well as anybody else.
Under date of April 15, 1988, David Armstrong (Midway's Secretary
and Vice President for Legal Affairs) wrote a letter to Matthew
Scocozza, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International
Affairs of the federal Department of Transportation. He began by
very chummily scratching
out  Dear Mr. Scocozza  and replacing it with  Dear Mat.  The
story Mr. Armstrong told was one of virtue, long-suffering
patience, and saintly behavior by Midway personnel. Peggy Pinder
was not ordered to pre-board but politely asked to do so. She
unreasonably declined and then was permitted to board with the
regular passengers. In Mr.  Armstrong's words:  Ms. Pinder
boarded the aircraft with the first passengers on the regular
boarding queue. 
Mr. Armstrong went on to portray Miss Pinder as unreasonable,
petulant, and immature. In his words:  Ms. Pinder   indicated
that she did not wish to be briefed because she `had flown
several times.'  Mr. Armstrong went on to say that flight
attendants continued (at least four more times) to try to get
Miss Pinder to consent to be briefed but that she persisted in
her refusal thus violating the federal law, endangering every
passenger on the plane, and compelling the pilot to call the
police.
This matter of a  briefing  is made to sound like a divine
mystery instead of the routine speech and demonstration which it
is.  Passengers rarely pay attention to it. They do not stop
their conversations
or put aside their magazines, newspapers, books, earphones, or
calculators especially after their first few flights; and nobody
tries to force them or put
them under arrest for their inattention.
But let us put this to one side and deal with the more basic
question of the contradictory statements. Who is telling the
truth Mr.  Armstrong, or Miss Pinder?  If Midway's statements to
the press at the time of the occurrence are not sufficient,
perhaps the police report will suffice. In his official statement
the arresting officer said:  I along with Officer M. Young
responded to the dispute.
We approached the suspect with flight attendant Freitag. Flight
attendant Freitag again asked the suspect to listen to the
handicap briefing.  The suspect at this time listened to the
briefing. The flight attendant then asked the suspect to move to
the appropriate seat which is in accordance with Midway policy.
The suspect refused. Officer Young and myself asked the suspect
to move to the other seat. The suspect refused. Officer Young
then assisted the suspect off the plane per order of the captain.

Peggy Pinder was, if you can believe it, arrested on charges of 
criminal trespass ; but as is typical in these cases, the charges
were
dropped. Why? Out of kindness? Don't you believe it! Midway was
wrong and they know they were wrong. Sooner or later there had to
be a court case to put a stop to this kind of vicious abuse, and
this seems about as good a one as any. We hereby serve notice on
Midway Airlines that they should ready their defenses and prepare
to justify their behavior before a jury. They have tried to
forestall the problem by filing a lengthy petition asking the
federal Department of Transportation to rule that what they did
was in accordance with Department rules
and that (take note, Attorney General Hartigan) the states are
preempted in the matter by the federal government.
As to the Department of Transportation, it has now indicated that
it will (at long last) make the rules which the Air Carrier
Access Act of 1986 required it to issue over a year ago. The
proposed rules are a classic example of federal double talk and
deceit. They say very piously and forthrightly that air carriers
may not discriminate against any blind person in seating
arrangements except in instances where the Federal Aviation
Administration requires it for safety, but they will establish a
list of required functions. With a straight face the chief
counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration recently told me
that no blind person could be excluded from an exit row seat but
that if a person could not see, he or she might be excluded from
such a seat. It is all a matter of function, he said, not
blindness.  And these are the people who are writing the rules
and protecting the public.
As we consider what to do about our problems with the airlines, I
want to remind you of some of the things which have been said
about liberty and freedom.  They that give up essential liberty, 
said Benjamin Franklin,  to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
 Freedom,  said Max Stirner,  cannot be granted. It must be
taken. 
We hear, and we understand. We know what we must do, and we have
counted the cost. Is freedom meant only for the sighted, or is it
meant for us, too? Is it all right (even praiseworthy) for
sighted Americans to resist coercion and fight for their rights
but not all right for the blind? Can blind people hope to be free
Americans? We gave our answer to that question almost fifty years
ago. We formed the National Federation of the Blind and it is
still here, stronger and more active today than ever before in
its history.
The battle lines are now drawn on the issue of freedom in air
travel for the blind, and we could not withdraw from the fight
even if we would. We will either win or lose. We did not seek
this fight, but we have no intention of running from it and we
certainly have no intention of being beaten into the ground. We
have taken our case
to the Congress, and we will also take it to the public and the
courts and we intend to prevail. We want no strife or
confrontation, but we will
do what we have to do. We are simply no longer willing to be
second-class citizens.
MIDWAY AIRLINES CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT THE BACK DOOR by Marc Maurer
The nineteenth of August, 1988, was the day on which Midway
Airlines violated federal regulations and the principles of the
United States Constitution by submitting information to the
Department of Transportation in the Peggy Pinder case without
serving her or her designated representative with a copy.  In the
United States the law requires that a standard of fair and
substantive justice must be observed.  If an individual
is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property by a government
agency, notice of that action and an opportunity for a fair
hearing must be properly given.  This standard is fundamental in
American jurisprudence and essential to judicial decision making
in the courts or before administrative bodies.  The due process
clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments make this clear.
If you plan to take an action in court or before an
administrative hearing officer, you must notify those on the
other side that you intend to do so.  If you do not, you are
engaged in what the lawyers call  ex parte  communication.  Those
who are not lawyers refer
to this practice by other names.  It is sometimes called 
back-dooring the judge.   The rule requiring proper notice
prevents private deals.  If one group is permitted to meet
secretly with the hearing officer and keep everybody else out,
what kinds of understandings
might be reached?  What checks and balances are there to prevent
favoritism or worse?  Due process requires that parties to a
dispute be allowed
to face the opposition, examine the evidence, ask essential
questions, and present a contrary point of view.
On March 31, 1988, Peggy Pinder, Second Vice President of the
National Federation of the Blind, was arrested.  The
circumstances surrounding her arrest were set forth in the
May-June, 1988, issue of the  Braille Monitor .  Peggy Pinder had
taken a seat on a Midway Airlines plane.  She was in the smoking
section, near the back of the cabin.  Midway demanded that she
move closer to an exit.  Miss Pinder insisted on her right to sit
where she pleased, and Midway called the cops.
First Midway Airlines wrote to the Department of Transportation
to justify its illegal behavior.  The letter to Matthew V.
Scocozza, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International
Affairs, argued that Midway was not at fault.  The Vice President
for Legal Affairs for Midway stated that personnel on the Midway
plane were trying to give Peggy Pinder a pre-flight briefing,
that she would not listen to it, and that this was the reason for
the arrest.  Of course, affidavits from eyewitnesses and the
police report describing the incident show that Midway was lying. 
Midway's self-serving letter adopts a tone
of injured righteousness.  But the police report sets it all
straight.  Here is what Midway said to the Department of
Transportation:
____________________
                                         Chicago, Illinois  60683
                                                   April 15, 1988

Mr. Matthew V. Scocozza
Assistant Secretary for Policy
and International Affairs
United States Department of
Transportation
Washington, D.C.  20590

Dear Mr. Scocozza:
On March 31, 1988, Midway Airlines caused a blind person, Ms.
Peggy Pinder, to be removed from its Flight 179 prior to
departure from Washington National Airport.  It is necessary to
write you on this incident because we understand it was discussed
at your April 1 meeting with Ms. Pinder and other representatives
of the National Federation of the Blind.  [Perhaps it is only
fair to interrupt Midway's letter to say that this comment by
Midway Airlines reveals the true purpose for writing this letter. 
On April 1, 1988, President Maurer, Peggy Pinder, and James
Gashel met with Secretary of Transportation James Burnley and
discussed the reprehensible actions of many airlines including
Midway.  The reports of this meeting and the description of
Midway's bullying behavior toward Peggy Pinder which appeared in
newspapers around the country seemed to have their effect.  This
letter suggests that Midway thought it had better write to its
best friend at the Department of Transportation as soon as
possible before the rights of blind air travelers became a
priority.  As is also clear from all the documents available,
Midway was not unwilling to lie about what happened.  Keep in
mind that this letter was written just two weeks after the
incident occurred long enough for a proper investigation
to be done and yet not so long that the memories of those who
participated would have faded.  It is also long enough to devise
a pompous, self-serving explanation.  Midway's letter goes on to
say.] The incident also received widespread media attention which
presented a grossly inaccurate version of the facts.
For present purposes, I want you to know why Midway Airlines had
Ms.  Pinder removed from Flight 179, and more generally, what
policies and procedures Midway applies to the transportation of
blind persons.  [I interrupt the letter to say that as has been
pointed out earlier Midway needed to say something to the
Department of Transportation because the National Federation of
the Blind was reaching the attention of the Secretary of
Transportation and the news media.  However, Midway's letter
cannot be expected to admit this.  As you read what follows
consider not only the distortion of the facts but also the
purposes Midway is trying to achieve.  The letter continues:] Our
investigation shows that Ms. Pinder's removal from Flight 179 was
the only course available to the Midway personnel on the scene. 
Ms. Pinder repeatedly refused to be briefed on safety/emergency
evacuation procedures as
required by Section 121.571 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (
FARs ), and without such briefing it was not lawful for Flight
179 to depart from National Airport. [To interrupt once more,
Midway's letter does not report that there is no such explanation
in the police record and that the witnesses on the scene tell a
different tale.  Indeed, if Midway had wanted to give Peggy
Pinder a special briefing, how could she have avoided it?  The
flight attendant would have come to her seat and told her about
the safety features of the aircraft.  Peggy Pinder had no control
over the flight attendant and she could not have refused to have
the briefing given. She may well have refused to listen to one,
but so could everyone else on the plane.  Federal regulations may
require a briefing be offered. They cannot insist that it be
heeded.  On the face of it Midway's letter looks like an excuse. 
Here is more of their lame explanation.]
The Facts: 1. On the date in question (March 31, 1988), Flight
179 was operated by a Douglas DC9-31 aircraft which has a
capacity of
115 passengers in a single class, five- abreast seating
configuration.  Flight 179 operated on a Washington-Chicago
(Midway Airport)-Des Moines routing and its departure from
Washington National was scheduled for 6:30
p.m.  Flight 179 had a crew complement of five, consisting of a
pilot-in-command (Captain), a first officer and three flight
attendants.
2. Ms. Pinder held a confirmed reservation for a one-way trip
from Washington to Des Moines via Flight 179 on March 31.  The
reservation was made by an Iowa-based travel agent on March 29.
3. On the date in question, Flight 179 was operating
approximately
20 minutes late due to the late arrival of the aircraft from
Chicago.  Also, at check-in time the Company's computers were
inoperative so that the flight was boarded on an  open seating 
basis; i.e.  passengers did not have assigned seats.  Prior to
boarding, the gate agent advised the flight crew to expect three
handicapped passengers, Ms. Pinder and two deaf persons, and 30
unaccompanied children.  At departure time, a total of 101
passengers had checked in for the flight.

4. The boarding process began routinely with a gate announcement
indicating that persons with small children or those otherwise in
need of assistance could  pre- board  the aircraft.  At that
point, the two deaf passengers and the unaccompanied children
boarded.
Prior to boarding the other passengers, the gate agent advised
Flight Attendant No. 1 that Ms. Pinder did not wish to be
preboarded.  The flight attendant reminded the gate agent that
preboarding was needed so that the individual safety/emergency
evacuation briefing could be accomplished prior to take-off as
required by FAR Section 121.571 (a)(3).  Ms. Pinder boarded the
aircraft with the first passengers on the regular boarding queue. 
[Midway's letter does not say so, but Peggy Pinder was forced to
board ahead of everyone else.  It was only for her safety they
said, but back to the letter.]
On boarding the aircraft Ms. Pinder told Flight Attendant No. 1
(stationed at the doorway of the aircraft) that there was no  law 
requiring that she be preboarded and that the Midway personnel
had embarrassed and humiliated her.  Flight Attendant No. 1
responded that it was
not her intent to embarrass, but a flight safety briefing was
necessary.  Ms.  Pinder's reply indicated that she did not wish
to be briefed because she `had flown several times.'
5. Ms. Pinder proceeded toward the rear of the aircraft and was
met
by Flight Attendant No. 2 who was stationed at the window exit
row.  Flight Attendant No. 2 attempted to point out to Ms. Pinder
the guide knobs located on the overhead racks.  These devices
enable passengers to determine the location of the window exits
in emergency situations.  Ms.  Pinder again refused to be briefed
and repeated statements to Flight Attendant No. 2 to the effect
that she was being `singled out', `embarrassed' and `humiliated.' 
Ms. Pinder proceeded to the rear of the aircraft where she seated
herself in Seat 23F.  Flight Attendant No. 2 followed and
attempted to provide the required briefing.  Ms. Pinder persisted
in her refusal to cooperate.
6. At that point, the aircraft was loaded and ready to depart. 
In light of Ms. Pinder's refusal to be briefed, Flight Attendant
No.  1 asked the Captain to speak with Ms. Pinder.  The Captain
did so noting that the regulations required individual briefings
not only for Ms. Pinder's safety in an emergency, but for the
safety of other passengers.  He advised that she would have to
cooperate or leave the aircraft.  The Captain returned to the
flight deck and Flight Attendant No. 2 again attempted to provide
the briefing.  Ms. Pinder continued to refuse, asserting that no
law required that she be briefed.  The Flight Attendant then
produced a copy of the Company Inflight Manual and read the
applicable sections which, inter alia, referred to
the FAR Section 121.571 briefing.  After further discussion (and
delay), Flight Attendant No. 2 consulted with the Captain on the
interphone after which Airport Security was called.
7. Airport Security boarded the aircraft, consulted with the
Captain and Ms. Pinder, and Airport Security asked Ms. Pinder to
cooperate.  She continued to refuse.  She was asked to leave the
aircraft following which the two security officers were compelled
to remove her physically as she declined to leave voluntarily.
8. Flight 179 departed from National Airport at 7:17 p.m. or
approximately 47 minutes behind schedule.  The delay attributable
to the Pinder incident amounted to approximately 30 minutes. This
additional delay resulted in 11 passengers missing their
connecting flights at Midway Airport. [Notice how Midway's letter
takes the opportunity to blame its own lateness on Peggy Pinder.
If Midway is late very often, there are sanctions which can be
imposed.  Peggy Pinder is a convenient
scapegoat.  But this is not the last of the innuendoes and the
sanctimony.  Here is more of what they had to say.]
Discussion. 1. Contrary to the various media reports of this
incident, Ms. Pinder was not removed because of her seat
location.  She selected seat 23F toward the rear of the aircraft,
and at no time prior to her removal was she asked to relocate. 
While Ms. Pinder's activities suggest the need for sanctions
under FAR Section 91.8, it does not seem that this would serve
any useful purpose at this point.  Suffice it to say that Ms.
Pinder was removed from Flight 179 because of her repeated
refusal to accept the individual briefing mandated by FAR
Section 121.571.  The Midway flight crew had absolutely no other
alternative in the circumstances.
2. Midway Airlines is well aware of its obligations to the blind
passengers it serves, and we have developed procedures designed
to accommodate the blind with a minimum of embarrassment and
inconvenience.  In the absence of unusual circumstances, all
Midway does is to encourage preboarding in order that the
individual briefing can be accomplished efficiently and with a
minimum of inconvenience.  Midway's policy on the seating of the
handicapped (including blind passengers) is flexible and
restrictions are kept to a minimum consistent with the safety of
the blind and the other passengers on board.  In pertinent part,
the Inflight Manual provides as follows:

 For the purpose of an expeditious evacuation, any disabled
person  should sit as close as possible  to a floor level exit. 
However, disabled persons may not be seated: 
 (a) In an emergency exit row. 
 (b)  When possible , not in the same row as another disabled
person (this will assist during evacuation). (Emphasis added) 

Thus, the only categorical rule on the seating of blind
passengers
is the prohibition against their being seated in the over-wing
emergency exit rows.
3. Three final comments appear to be in order.  First, in
developing the policies and procedures applicable to the
accommodation of blind passengers, Midway not only considered the
established practices of other airlines, it looked into the FAA's
Advisory Circular No. 120-32 entitled  Air Transportation of
Handicapped Persons.   Our manuals and training programs are
intended to conform to the general guidelines of paragraphs 4 and
5 of the Advisory Circular which deal with attitudes and
assistance.  Furthermore, we believe Midway's seating rules
conform to the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Advisory Circular
which states, inter alia, that `[ambulatory handicapped
passengers should be seated in areas in which evacuation would
normally occur through a floor-level, non-overwing exit.'
(Emphasis added).
Second, Midway's rules on the transportation of blind passengers
attempt to strike a reasonable balance.  We recognize the need to
minimize the potential for inconvenience and embarrassment on the
part of the blind persons.  At the same time, however, we must
meet our obligation
to all passengers to make safety a matter of the  highest
priority .  Of.  49 U.S.C. 1302 (a)(1).
Third, assuming arguendo that our policies and procedures are
deficient in some respect, Midway is always receptive to
constructive criticism presented in a coherent, civilized manner. 
Also, administrative procedures are readily available by which
those disagreeing with our policies can seek relief.  Midway
Airlines is perfectly prepared to participate and, as need be,
defend its policies and procedures in such proceedings.

What cannot be tolerated is the sort of conduct engaged in by Ms. 
Pinder which in essence demands that Midway's field personnel
ignore the mandate of the FARs and Company manuals on an ad hoc
basis.  Even if Ms. Pinder's views may have merit, we must reject
the proposition that she may unilaterally override established
regulations which, after extensive deliberation, have been
written for her safety and the safety of the 100 other passengers
on Flight 179.
The foregoing sets forth the results of our investigation of the
Flight 179 incident, Midway Airlines' applicable policies and
procedures,
and how they were employed.  If any further explanation of these
events is necessary, please let me know.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                               David B. Armstrong
                                    Vice President, Legal Affairs
                                                    and Secretary
                                                  Midway Airlines
____________________
That is what Midway Airlines' letter to the Department of
Transportation
said.  The conduct (they say) of Miss Pinder  cannot be
tolerated.   What was this heinous, unreasonable, opprobrious
conduct?  Did Miss Pinder recklessly endanger the lives of one
hundred people, as Midway Airlines alleged?
The police (who were on the spot and observed what took place)
reported that something completely different occurred.  Inasmuch
as Midway Airlines requested that the police take Miss Pinder
into custody,
the police must have been aware of the grounds for the arrest. 
Apparently when the facts show that the airline is wrong, Midway
is not above trying to change them.  Here, in pertinent part, (as
already quoted in the preceding article in this issue) is what
the police report said. Compare the language of this document to
the statements which were made by Midway in its letter to the
Department of Transportation.

 I, along with Officer M. Young, responded to the dispute.  We
approached the suspect with Flight Attendant Freitag.  Flight
Attendant Freitag again asked the suspect to listen to the
handicapped briefing.  The suspect at this time listened to the
briefing.  The Flight Attendant then asked the suspect to move to
the appropriate seat which is in accordance with Midway policy. 
The suspect refused.  Officer Young and myself asked the suspect
to move to the other seat.  The suspect refused.  Officer Young
then assisted the suspect off the plane per
order of the Captain.  The suspect was then taken to the police
station.  The suspect was issued a citation # 8002575 for
criminal trespass.  The suspect was then released.  - (Signed
Officer C. D. Prince) Peggy Pinder was arrested at the request of
Midway Airlines because she declined Midway's demand that she
move closer to an emergency
exit.  The police are clear about the matter; the evidence is
irrefutable.

On June 21, 1988, Midway filed a petition with the Department of
Transportation.  The airline asked that transportation officials
declare the airline's
actions regarding the Pinder matter to be authorized by federal
airline policy.  As part of the complaint process Midway served
seventeen other airlines with copies of its petition. 
Apparently, Midway was trying to drum up support for its
discrimination against the blind.

Jim Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs of the National
Federation of the Blind, filed a response to the petition on
behalf of Peggy Pinder, dated July 29, 1988.  This response was
served on the complaining party, Midway Airlines, as required by
federal regulations of the Department of Transportation. 
However, Midway's next move was to submit material to the
Department of Transportation without serving a copy on Peggy
Pinder or her representative.  This is not only a violation of
federal regulations, but it is basically unfair.  The
Constitution makes it clear that in a proceeding where the rights
of an individual are affected, that person must be involved at
every stage.  This thoroughly established principle was ignored
by Midway Airlines.  It tried to buddy up to the Department of
Transportation and cut Peggy Pinder out.  This is one more
example of the kind of fairness and decency we have come to
expect from certain airline officials.

Of course, Peggy Pinder (through her representative, James
Gashel) has asked that the material submitted secretly by Midway
Airlines
be stricken from the record.  Whether it is eliminated or not,
Midway's actions typify the struggle blind people have with
airlines and the Department of Transportation.  Rational decision
making has no apparent role.  Blind people are consigned by
Midway (and often by officers
of the Department of Transportation) to a status and a category
different from all others.  Ordinarily, when a governmental
agency creates a classification of human beings, there must be
some rational basis for doing so, and this rational basis
requires evidence.  There are no reasonable grounds for
classifying Peggy Pinder differently from others.  Midway wants
it done anyway, and it is willing to resort to secrecy and
downright lying in order to accomplish its purpose.

If we would let them, the airlines would treat blind people as
second-class all the way.  But we are organized and we know what
to do.  Blindness does not mean inferiority, and we will not let
any amount of airline hysteria make us feel or act as if we are
inferior.  Cheap, underhanded tricks indicate a certain measure
of desperation.  If we were not as close as we are to showing
that the airlines have no case, Midway would not be acting as
guiltily as it is.  They know that they are likely to lose, and
we intend to help them.
                     SINGING FREEDOM'S SONG
                        by Barbara Pierce
Anyone who takes part in Federation gatherings of any size must
be struck with the vigor and power of our songs and the
importance of their part in our march toward freedom and first
class status. Like the labor organizing and civil rights
movements before us, we have evolved a body of music that tells
our story, rallies our spirits, argues our case, and satirizes
those who oppose us. Though sometimes one person writes a song
and (more rarely) the music, authorship is usually by ad hoc
committee, picket line, or car-load. The point of view and voice
are always the same, ours. The tone ranges from wry amusement to
angry determination. Far from making these songs repetitious,
this consistency lends strength and conviction to our music. The
listener knows where we stand and where we intend to go.
Those who marched in Atlanta outside the NAC board meeting in
1981 can never forget the electricity that surged through the
line as the half chant, half song took shape:

 NAC and the Council are one of a kind:   Both organized up
against the blind. 

Every picket line since has been enhanced by that singing chant
and its variants.
The Federation's capacity for instantaneous inventiveness showed
itself repeatedly in the NAC demonstration in Minneapolis in
1980. The police told us that we could not picket, so we
constituted ourselves as the Standards and Accreditation choir
and stood singing for hours. That was the fall when J.R. Ewing on 
Dallas  had been mysteriously shot and when Jesse Rostin,
Director of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, had just as
mysteriously been fired. Almost from nowhere a song surfaced,
sung to the tune of  Frere Jacques :

 Who got J. R.?  Who got J. R.? 
 Where did he go?  We want to know. 
 We've come a long, long way,
 and we want to know today 
 Who got J. R.?  Who got J. R.? 

Such songs as this are so topical and come so clearly out of the
exigencies of the moment that we abandon them as soon as the need
passes, but there are others that are so clever and that capture
the truth and conviction of our experience so powerfully that we
keep singing them even after the battle is pretty well won.  The
United Airlines Song is a good example.  It is sung to the tune
of  The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze. 

 United Airlines and the old FAA 
Say blind folks can't carry
 their white canes today .
 They say they're a hazard and get in the way,   But we say our
white canes will stay.  @LEFT =
 We fly through the air with the greatest of ease.   Our white
canes won't shatter in emergencies,   So take your hands off of
my cane if you please.   United, we are NFB. 

The way that our words play off the lyrics of the original, the
way the song states in a very few words our point of view in that
battle with the airlines, and the unswerving conviction of who we
are: all these mark this song as classic NFB music.
One can think of any number of other examples that serve the same
purpose. From  So Long to NAC and the Council  here is the third
verse:

 We go to the workshop to slave every day.   We don't want their
handouts;
 We just want our pay, 
 An honest day's wages for an
 honest day's work, 
 So here's what we say to those agency jerks! 

The chorus to  The Library Song,  our variation on  Tramp, Tramp,
Tramp, the boys are marching,  is even recognized in library
circles as capturing the attitudes of the more backward
library-service providers:

 Wait, wait, wait, your book's not in yet.   We'll try to have it
next year without fail.   We are not your corner store. 
 We cannot do any more. 
 After all, we know just one percent
 read Braille. 

 With a Little Bit of NAC,  sung to the tune of  With
a Little Bit of Luck,  is a song not well known in the movement,
but there is lots in it to enjoy.  Perhaps the verse that
illustrates best the way in which NFB songs use irony and dry wit
to make their point is the following:

 They say the agencies have got the
 finest people. 
 Their staff diplomas clutter up the walls. 
 They say the agencies have got the
 finest people, 
 But, with a little bit of NAC,
 with a little bit of NAC, 
 They will be no help to you at all! 

Part of the reason our songs are such a powerful force for
cohesiveness is that they belong to us alone.  They express our
point of view (not
the feelings and experiences of the workshop directors, the
rehabilitation administrators, or the public at large, but ours),
and they call attention to the things in the system that damage
and demean the blind.  They are also easy to learn and sing.
Recently I ran across an album of songs which is written and
recorded by Jeff Moyer, an administrator at the Cleveland Society
for the Blind, that sets out to give voice to the disability
rights movement.  Its title is  Do You see me as Equal? , and it
is produced by the Music from the Heart publishing company. Moyer
is himself blind
or rather (as he makes clear between songs) partially sighted. 
Several of the songs, perhaps the ones that work best, are
written about and attempt to express the feelings of retarded
people.  His own brother lived in an institution for some years,
and Moyer has strong empathy for that group of people.  One song
is performed by the TouchTalker and is written as if by a person
without speech.  The melody is not very memorable; but the
technology is mildly interesting.  If it had actually been
written by a person who depends on the TouchTalker, the song
would be acceptable (as Dr. Johnson says)  Not because it is done
well, but because it is done at all.   As it is, I find  My Voice
Has Wings  condescending and presumptuous.
But the most startlingly disappointing songs are the ones about
blindness.  With a lame (one is almost tempted to say dog-eared)
effort at humor Moyer proposes that guide dogs and attack dogs be
crossbred to provide Attack Dogs for the Blind. The song is
called  Guiding Teeth,  and its point of view is that of the
people who run this novel training operation.  The tune is from
the Marine Corps Hymn. The second verse goes:

 Well we'll get you where you want to go,   And no doubt, without
a care. 
 And we'll help you when you want a friend,   Ever Vigil,
snarling there. 
 O, the heavy chain and the curling lip   Mark the champion of
its line. 
 And we're here, we're now,
 we're Guiding Teeth, 
 Attack Dogs for the Blind! 

Since he uses the word elsewhere on the recording, I presume that
Moyer simply doesn't know that the adjective form of vigilance is
vigilant, not vigil.  This song is intended to be funny.  In
introducing it, Moyer proposes that guide ducks would provide a
service to the partially sighted since, by heading into puddles,
they would enable the user to step around them. But it is
embarrassingly pathetic, not funny. I am appalled at the image of
blind people that is projected.  Annoyed by overly helpful
strangers? The song tells you what to do.  Have enemies?  At
last, as Moyer puts it, you have a remedy a dog to  drop your
every foe.   Here, in all its devastating falsehood is the image
of the helpless blind person.  My sense of humor is not
titillated but outraged.
In some ways the saddest song on this album (sad because of the
quality of its self-revelation) is  The Stalker,  the final verse
of which plaintively snivels:

 Now I'm weaker and I'm weary, 
 I fear the race is lost. 
 For I know my foe is measuring my stride, 
 And in these final moments 
 With the panic's growing hold, 
 I know there is no place to run, 
 No place to hide. 
 So the hunter and the hunted do their
 timeless, ancient dance, 
 And the prey cannot avoid the last embrace, 
 And as the distance closes 
 And exhaustion slows my flight, 
 The Stalker pulls beside 
 To steal my sight. 

These are the sentiments of a man who genuinely believes that
blindness is a kind of dying.  Moyer says that this song speaks
to the way he feels in his down moments, but a weak-kneed apology
does not really mitigate the overall falsity and only adds to the
impression of whining excuse. However poor the music and poetry
the real shoddiness is in the philosophy. It reinforces all the
old myths, all the unhealthy stereotypes about blindness that
keep us down and out, objects of pity to everyone including
ourselves.
I was particularly interested in the one song in this collection
dealing with sheltered workshops since the Federation has several
favorites on this juicy theme.  It is  Work, Work is Our Goal, 
and
it is the best song of the group.  Moyer undercuts it on the
recording, however, by explaining that it is not directed at
vocational rehabilitation people or work evaluators.  Presumably
he has in mind sheltered shop personnel who exploit workers and
consider that no job is too demeaning for a disabled person.  He
objects to pressuring workshop employees.  As he puts it in his
unpoetic and obscure manner:

 And if any may mope, 
 Would rather just loaf, 
 Let them do so off the public rolls. 

The point of view is that of the workshop manager, and the tune
belongs to  Home, Home on the Range.   The final verse is the
cleverest, but to understand it the closure with successful
employment. Here is how it goes:

 Oh, give me a stage 
 Of the post-industrial age 
 Where fast food holds employment for all. 
 Where McJobs is the rage 
 And 26's engage 
 New careers at McMinimum wage. 

 Work, work is our goal 
 For everyone we've ever seen, 
 And when someday we stop 
 At that Heavenly shop, 
 We'll subcontract to keep the robes clean. 

The lyrics here capture a painful truth for sheltered shop
employees, and they are mildly clever.  But the song is undercut
by the necessity of limiting its focus to those scandals which
are common to all disabled workers.  The Federation songs about
the workshop experience speak directly to our lives as
competitive workers who are still exploited and taken advantage
of.  In  So Long to NAC and the Council  the second verse says:

 There are prisons and dungeons of all  different kinds ,
 But none can be worse than the shops  for the blind. 
 They'll work you for nothin', and they'll  tell you why, 
 If we give you more money, you'll lose SSI. 

I don't know any member of the NFB who would seriously argue that
our body of songs is great music; they weren't intended to be. 
They
are witty, powerful, and absolutely true to our philosophy.  In
addition, all the best of them are easy to learn and even easier
to sing. They
tell our experience with slavery, and they give voice to our
determination to be free.
Moyer's album  Do You See Me as an Equal?  is finally
disappointing because it does not do well any of the things it
sets out to do. Melodies are forgettable, and his rhymes
astonishingly poor.  The lyrics are hard to sing because he often
tries to get too many stressed syllables into a line. But worst
of all, the philosophy rings false to the core, and the sentiment
squishes like an over-ripe apple.  These songs will not do for us
and, for that matter, not (so far as I'm concerned) for anybody
else.
We in the Federation are used to making our own music; it is
strong
and resilient like our movement.  Our march to freedom will be
accompanied by song as every such march has always been. And the
music will be our own.
                    A DECISION IN MINNESOTA: 
THE NFB WINS AGAIN FOR BLIND VENDORS
Dennis Groshel operates a vending facility at a Veterans
Administration medical center located in St. Cloud, Minnesota. 
That fact alone would not appear to be news for the  Monitor . 
There are over 3,800 blind vendors in the United States.  So why
is Dennis Groshel somehow special  why is his situation
newsworthy?
involving the future of Dennis Groshel's business. The immediate
effect was to double his income. However, that is not the reason
for this article. The Groshel decision strengthens the priority
rights of other blind vendors on federal property. Of at least
equal importance, the arbitrators struck down a
forty-two-year-old policy of the Veterans Administration.  The
policy was to exclude blind vendor sites at Veterans
Administration homes and hospitals nationwide.
Arbitrations that can have such a sweeping effect on the entire
blind vendor program are rare.  However, with careful and
competent leadership by the blind themselves, such decisions can
happen. We who are blind have learned that we must count on
ourselves for strong leadership and direction.  The outcome in
this case is one more illustration.  It illustrates again the
strength, commitment, and competent leadership of the National
Federation of the Blind.  We understand the law and how best to
apply it.  We know when to act and how to act in ways
that do not jeopardize the rights we have already fought to
secure.  Blind vendors in ever increasing numbers have found this
to be true.  The case of Dennis Groshel is one more reason.  Here
are the details.  According to sworn testimony of Veterans
Administration officials, Dennis Groshel is the only blind vendor
now operating any type of business at a Veterans Administration
medical center. There are blind vendors in office buildings
occupied partially or exclusively by the Veterans Administration,
but Groshel is the only blind vendor in a VA hospital.  His
business consists of vending machines.
There are 172 VA homes and hospitals throughout the United
States, the medical center at St. Cloud, Minnesota, being one.
Most of these facilities include cafeterias, snack and sundry
shops, barber and
beauty shops, gift shops, vending machines, and similar
conveniences.  These services are arranged for or provided by the
Veterans Canteen Service, which is an arm of the Veterans
Administration.  The Veterans Canteen Service provides many
services directly through its own employees but vending machine
services, such as those at issue in this case, are provided
through outside contractors, not through employees of the
canteens.
The VA hospital at Fort Lion, Colorado, is the single exception
to the practice of contracting for vending machine services.  At
that location the vending machines are serviced by canteen staff. 
Otherwise, at all other sites the machines are cleaned, filled,
and maintained by commercial vendors, all of whom (except for
Dennis Groshel) are sighted.  The Veterans Administration likes
to use commercial vendors for vending machine services at VA
hospitals because the machines
are installed at no cost to the Veterans Canteen Service.  Using
commercial vendors also provides revenue to the Veterans Canteen
Service.  Under contracts with the canteens, the vending machine
operators pay commissions on their gross sales.  The amount of
the commission to be paid by each commercial vendor is fixed and
agreed upon in the contract.  The vending contracts are awarded
competitively by the Veterans Administration in order to bring
the highest fee and (supposedly) the best service possible.
In terms of this discussion, Dennis Groshel has been a commercial
vendor.  The contract for the vending machines he operates began
in 1977.  The contract was between the Minnesota State Division
of Services for the Blind (now known as the Minnesota Department
of Jobs and Training) and the Veterans Administration.  The
contract was renewed in 1982.  Under each contract the blind
vendor (not originally Dennis Groshel) was required to pay the
Veterans Canteen Service a commission on gross sales from the
vending machines.  The rate in recent years has been
approximately 17 percent, or about $13,400 in 1987.
Dennis Groshel has been a member of the National Federation of
the Blind for several years.  He attends meetings of the
Federation and reads Federation literature.  He makes it his
business to know his rights. Since he is a licensed blind vendor
under the Randolph-Sheppard program, he has certain rights as a
result of holding a license to operate a Randolph-Sheppard
vending facility.  In Federation meetings and through our
literature we have carefully explained these rights and in many
instances have been responsible for securing them in the first
place. Therefore, it is not surprising that Groshel began to
ask why he should be required to make vending machine commission
payments to the Veterans Canteen Service.
By the time the vending machine contract came up for renewal
again
in 1987, officials of the Minnesota state licensing agency (The
Department of Jobs and Training) were also asking why. The more
they thought
about it, the more they came to the same conclusion that we had
reached.  There should be no commission charged by the Veterans
Canteen Service for the vending machine operation at St. Cloud.
The Randolph-Sheppard Act gives blind vendors a priority to
operate vending facilities (or vending machines) on federal
property.  This does not mean that the blind vendors are required
to pay a commission to any federal agency in order to obtain the
priority.  A commercial vendor that agrees to pay a commission
does not earn a priority over a blind vendor who does not pay a
commission.  Such a practice would allow commercial vendors to
circumvent the priority given by law to the blind.  There is no
authority in the Randolph- Sheppard Act for
a federal agency to charge a blind vendor a commission.  State
licensing agencies can require blind vendors to pay a portion of
their net proceeds to be used for maintaining and managing the
vending program in the state.  A commission charged by a federal
agency on gross sales of a vendor, however, is a different matter
and not authorized by law.

Once they realized these facts about the Randolph-Sheppard Act,
Minnesota officials decided that commission payments to the
Veterans Canteen Service and a commercial vending contract with
the Veterans Administration were no longer in order.  Not
unexpectedly, it took some urging by
Groshel and the Federation to help state officials reach this
conclusion.  But the Minnesota officials were not averse to
persuasion, and they signed
on for the battle.  Instead of agreeing to the terms of another
commercial vending contract, the Minnesota agency insisted that
it should not be required to compete against commercial vendors
in order to allow Dennis Groshel to continue to operate the
vending machines.  For its part the Veterans Administration
responded by offering Minnesota the opportunity to submit a
normal competitive bid (complete with commission) for another
commercial contract.  At this point the battle was joined.  In
circumstances such as these, the state agency for the blind faces
a challenge.  Most of the agencies have convinced themselves and
the vendors that the best policy is  to go along and get along.  
At times such as these the agency talk turns to  salesmanship 
and a  cooperative, team spirit with the federal partners.  
There was some of this in the Minnesota case, but not much.  At
one point it appeared that Minnesota might settle for a deal that
would keep the vending facility in operation but still require
Groshel to pay the commission. Talk of such a settlement ceased
when the Minnesota officials understood that Dennis and the
Federation would consider
such an offer to be a sellout, not a settlement.  These were the
alternatives for the Minnesota agency: (1) Challenge the Veterans
Administration's attempt to extract a commission from a blind
vendor on federal property; or (2) Face a grievance from the
blind vendor and the National Federation of the Blind.  The
choice was made, and the battle with the Veterans Administration
was on.
The stakes were high, and the Veterans Administration was serious
in its campaign to require a commercial vending contract for the
St.  Cloud medical center.  The contract under which Dennis
Groshel had
been operating was scheduled to expire on the last day of July,
1987.   At that point Groshel and his vending machines would have
to go. But a federal district judge issued an order blocking the
VA's attempt to take this action.
The federal injunction which kept Dennis in business at the
medical center simply maintained the status quo.  It did not free
Groshel from paying seventeen percent of the gross income of his
business to the Veterans Canteen Service.  The court left the
issue of the vending commission payments and the entire
long-range future of the vending facility itself to a federal
arbitration panel, which was being assembled in accordance with
the Randolph-Sheppard Act.  The panel in this instance included
one member appointed by Minnesota,
one appointed by the Veterans Administration, and a chairman,
appointed by the other two.  Minnesota chose James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of
the Blind.  The arbitration began in February of 1988 and
concluded (at least, for this round) in early September.
The outcome affects Dennis Groshel and the Minnesota vending
facilities program immediately, but it promises to have an even
more significant long-range impact on the Randolph- Sheppard
program of the entire
nation.  Arbitrations, however, do not set binding legal
precedents.  Another panel could decide a similar case
differently and would not have to explain why it did not follow
the direction given in this case.  Even so, the Minnesota
decision is bound to be important, because it is the first
decision of its type, overturning the long-standing policy of an
entire federal agency concerning its relationship with blind
vendors.
The decision of the arbitrators was unanimous.  The panel found
that VA hospitals are not exempt from the Randolph- Sheppard Act. 
This means that the Veterans Administration cannot require the
Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training to submit a competitive
bid for continuing to have vending machine service provided by
Dennis Groshel at the
St. Cloud site.  The arbitration order directs the Veterans
Administration and the Veterans Canteen Service to maintain the
vending machine service as a blind vendor operation and to
negotiate with the Minnesota agency to establish the terms of a
permanent agreement.
Concerning commission payments, the arbitrators found that the
Commission rate (seventeen percent of gross sales), which Groshel
had been required
to pay, was inequitable.  The decision went on to note that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act does not contain authority for a federal
agency to charge commissions on sales from blind vendors.  The
panel concluded that it was not in a position to establish any
specific commission rate and ordered that no commission be due or
payable, at least for the immediate future.  Beyond making the
determinations just described, the arbitrators did not mandate
the specific terms of the continuing arrangement that
must exist between the Minnesota state agency and the Veterans
Administration.  Under the order, these parties are given six
months during which they are
expected to negotiate a permanent agreement.  Any remaining
issues that cannot be resolved at that time can be submitted to
the same arbitration panel for another decision.  During these
negotiations the Veterans Administration is expected to maintain
its position that vending commissions must be paid at VA
hospitals.  The Minnesota agency will no doubt continue to hold
out for a commission-free agreement.  The stand-off which is
almost certain to develop will likely go back to arbitration. 
There is no doubt that we will hear much more about
this case in the future.  Meanwhile, Dennis Groshel continues to
operate his vending machines under the commission-free terms of
the arbitration award.
Even though this dispute between Minnesota and the Veterans
Administration unquestionably has tremendous importance for
Dennis Groshel, it may at first glance not appear to have a great
deal of relevance to the concerns of other blind vendors
throughout the country but it does. It is precedent-making, and
there is every likelihood that it will have far-reaching
implications concerning contracts at similar VA hospitals all
over the nation. If the case had been decided against Minnesota,
not only Groshel but also the entire vending program would have
suffered a significant loss.
Therefore, the National Federation of the Blind joined forces
with Minnesota to prevent the loss. The success we have so far
achieved speaks for itself. Whenever and wherever the rights of
blind vendors are threatened, we will take action. Dennis Groshel
is a prime example and a case in point.
                  THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT
                        by Barbara Pierce
This issue of  The Braille Monitor  is the second one on which I
have worked as Associate Editor.  I am far from having mastered
either editing in general or the highly complex combination of
information and experience that go into the job of putting out
this particular magazine.  Several things, however, have struck
me as a newcomer to
the day-to- day work of our National Office.  I thought that 
Monitor  readers might be interested in them.
The money we invest each month in staff salaries could not, I
believe, be better spent.  I have never seen dedication to a
cause by paid employees like that of our staff.  They are at
their desks by 8 a.m.  every day; many of them are there before,
sometimes long before that hour.  At 6 p.m. there are still
people around, dealing with the day's problems.  They work
evenings, sometimes late into the night, and they cheerfully come
in on weekends if that is called for.  In short, they combine the
expertise of professionals with the dedication and commitment
usually found only in volunteers.
The depth and breadth of the need crying out to the Federation
for redress defy description.  The mail comes in almost by the
truckload, and the phones at the switchboard ring incessantly. 
Many of the people who call are in desperate trouble: vending
crises, Social Security snafus, despairing parents, civil rights
violations, bureaucratic idiocy, and the list never ends.  Trying
to meet such need is very much like bailing out a leaky canoe
with a teaspoon; the faster you work, the more there is to be
done.
 So what?  you may say.   We've heard it all before.  Many of us
have even seen the Center in action.   But when one visits an
office for a short time, one always wonders how much of the
seeming activity is honest business and how much is flurry caused
by inefficiency or disorganization.  I can assure you that, in
this case, the best people we can get are going flat out at the
National Center to support our work across the country.  Watching
them in action has redoubled my resolve to do as much as I can in
Ohio to carry my part of the load.
Each of you needs to do this as well, and the beginning of a new
year is a good time to make the resolve to do so.
Our need for funds is acute.  Those of us who cannot increase our
personal contributions to the NFB (and almost all of us could
raise our donations if we really wanted to) can recruit Associate
members at large (Associates) for the Federation.  Since the
beginning of this year only a little over 300 of us have done so. 
Some people don't have checking accounts, so they cannot
participate directly in the Pre-Authorized Check (PAC) Plan.  But
chapters can take those cash contributions and use them to join
the PAC Plan as a service to local members.  The DIG (Deferred
Insurance Giving) Program is
an ideal way for an individual or a group to fund the movement
significantly.  To date 320 individuals or groups of us have
bought DIG policies and given them to the Federation.  Virtually
every chapter in the country and certainly all of the state
affiliates can afford to take this obvious step toward
guaranteeing the health of our movement into the Twenty-first
Century, but how many of us have done so?  Whether or not you
have, and setting aside the question of whether you can afford
to, I'll bet you know someone who would consider purchasing a DIG
policy for the NFB as a gesture of respect for you.
The long and the short of it is that each one of us must decide
how important the Federation really is.  I can assure you that
the NFB has never in its history done more to help blind people
than it is doing at this moment.  And we have never needed the
support of each
one of us more than we do today.  If we as chapters and state
affiliates choose to avoid making more substantial financial
commitments, and if you and I do not bother to find the
wherewithal to increase our own gifts, we must admit that we are
really saying that the Federation and its work just aren't the
priority in our lives that we like to say they are.  But because
we do bother, each of us can and will make the difference.
               LET'S HEAR IT FOR BENIGN NEGLECT: 
THE CHEADLES FIGHT THE SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHT 
TO HAVE THEIR SON LEARN BRAILLE
                       by Barbara Cheadle
 As  Monitor  readers know, Barbara and John Cheadle have been
active and committed Federationists for a number of years.  In
Idaho, Missouri, and now Maryland they have worked and laughed
and cried with us as we struggle toward freedom and equality.
Mrs. Cheadle is the President of the Parents' Division of the
National Federation of the Blind, and Mr. Cheadle has been for
several years a member of the staff of the National Office. 
 Their son, Charles (known to everyone as Chaz) is an active,
bright, ten-year-old.  He is also blind in one eye and severely
limited visually in the other.  Chaz needs Braille now and will
need it much more in the years to come.  He is lucky that his
parents recognize this fact and are prepared to fight for his
right to learn Braille and to use it.  He is unlucky in finding
himself in the clutches of so-called  professionals  in special
education who have declared (among other things) that Braille and
print are incompatible. 
 As you read the following article, keep in mind that there are
probably no more knowledgeable parents in the country today,
working to protect their blind child's educational rights. Mrs.
Cheadle has served as a parent advocate in Individualized
Educational Program (IEP) meetings all across the country.  Both
of the Cheadles have learned from hundreds of blind friends just
what can be accomplished with proper training and reasonable
opportunity.  They have a painful understanding of the absolute
necessity for blind people to master Braille as early as
possible.  They believe unswervingly that, if they can give their
son the tools he needs, he can achieve whatever he has the native
ability to accomplish.  And they are determined
not to allow benighted school officials to destroy Chaz's future. 
Here is the Cheadles' story as it has unfolded to date.  Read it
and ask yourself what you would do if it were your child whose
future lay in the balance. 

In our local school district all fourth, fifth, and sixth graders
are required to take music. They may sing in the chorus, play an
instrument in the band or orchestra, or take general music.  But
one thing is certain a child will have music. So far as we know,
it doesn't matter if the student is tone-deaf and has absolutely
no musical talent.  Music is required, and that is that. This
same school district, which includes some of the best schools in
the state of Maryland, will not teach our blind, partially-
sighted son how to read and write Braille.

The school district will spend thousands of dollars to teach
children to sing and play musical instruments but will not spend
a penny to insure literacy for a nearly-blind child. Please don't
misunderstand us. We are not opposed to music, and we have no
desire to change the school's policy regarding it. But while the
other children sing and
play their instruments, the door to literacy for a lifetime
Braille has been slammed shut for our son, Chaz. It sounds
incredible, and we
didn't really believe that it would happen to us, but it has. 
Chaz, who is now ten years old, is totally blind in one eye (due
to glaucoma) and has severely limited vision in the other eye due
to cataracts and nystagmus. We have been told by several
ophthalmologists that his vision will never get better (surgery
won't help) but that it is likely to get worse as his eye muscles
weaken with time. Chaz will probably experience a noticeable and
significant difference in his vision before he graduates from
high school. He will not be able to read as long as he can now
(he begins to get tired after about
thirty minutes of reading), and he will suffer more eye fatigue.
Magnification aids, one told us, will not be helpful to him until
his eye muscles begin to weaken. When this happens, magnifiers
will only substitute for what he can now do by bringing the
material close to his eye.

However, when we mentioned Braille as an alternative or
supplement to print, one of our doctors assured us Chaz could 
get by.  Well,  getting by  is not what we had in mind for any of
our children! We see no reason why we should not have the same
expectations of Chaz as we do for the others. Furthermore, Chaz
is a bright child.  Teachers and parents of other children get
upset and worried when their bright students or children just
manage to  get by.  They call conferences and plan strategies to
get the child to live up to his or her potential. Surely our
blind son deserves the same concern.
With the encouragement and support of blind friends in the
National Federation of the Blind, we decided Chaz should learn
Braille as well as print in school. We had some false starts, but
we finally got one good, solid year of instruction in the third
grade through the Baltimore City school system.
But there was still a long way to go. He had learned most of the
Braille contractions and rules, but he hadn't done much tactile
reading. He needed more instruction and more practice, and he
needed to start using Braille regularly in the classroom.
Then, in the fall of 1987, we moved to Baltimore County. We were
in
a different home, a different neighborhood, and a very different
school district. Our first meeting with school officials and
teachers in the new school took place on September 17, 1987. It
passed without incident. We all agreed to continue the
Individualized Education Program (IEP) drawn up in his old school
in Baltimore City until it was up for review in November. In that
IEP Chaz was getting four hours a week of Braille instruction,
large print texts and tests, and other materials as needed as
well as consultation services from the itinerant teacher of the
blind to the classroom teacher about alternative techniques and
adapted materials that he would need. Waiting until November,
we were told, would give Mary Buchheister, the teacher for the
visually impaired in our new school, time to get to know Chaz and
do her own evaluation.
We got our first insight into Mrs. Buchheister's attitudes about
blindness at that meeting when she said that she didn't like to
use sleep shades.  She thought it was wrong to take away a
child's sight.  We disagreed and pointed out that his IEP
stipulated that he would use sleep shades during his Braille
lesson so he would learn to trust his sense of touch. The only
thing that bothered him about the sleep shades was that they
itched. But we decided not to make an issue of it then.  We
thought that we could work it out when she started teaching Chaz. 
A few weeks later I got a call from Mrs. Buchheister. She wanted
to talk about Braille. She said something to the effect that Chaz
had terrible Braille reading technique and he was slow. But most
of all she couldn't understand why we wanted to teach him Braille
anyway.  After all, Braille was so slow and tedious. Those are
not her exact words, but that was the sense of them. So I talked
about all the reasons why Chaz needed Braille and why I disagreed
with her statement. She didn't seem to understand or believe what
I said. I was beginning to worry. Still, I tried to look at the
positive side. She said she was a stickler for technique, and
Chaz certainly needed work on that.  Maybe she would come around.
Later I asked Mrs. Buchheister if she was willing to be his
certifying authority for the National  Braille Readers Are
Leaders  contest.  She half-heartedly agreed and shortly
thereafter sent home a Grade 1 Braille book for Chaz to read.
Since Chaz had already learned most of the Grade 2 Braille
contractions, enough anyway to read children's books, I was not
impressed. Neither was Chaz. After a few tries, he declared that
he preferred to read the Grade 2 books I had gotten for him.
Grade 1, he said, was too slow.
We never resolved the sleepshade issue either. She really
believed that it was bad, even traumatic, to take away his
vision.  Even though his IEP stipulated that sleep shades would
be used, she absolutely refused to use them.
In the meantime, John and I were getting an education in just
what schools expect of bright kids these days. We had a sighted
son in the gifted fifth-grade class, and Chaz had been placed in
the gifted fourth-grade class. Every time I looked at my
fifth-grade son's homework, I thought to myself,  How is Chaz
going to do this next year?  His need for Braille became more and
more obvious to us. And we recognized he needed it immediately.
Then we got our notice for the November IEP meeting. The list of
officials who were coming to the meeting included Ms. Harden, an
area supervisor from the county office of Special Education. As
soon as we read that name, we knew that the professionals were up
to something. They wouldn't send someone of Ms. Harden's
importance if this were going to be a routine meeting.
But the school didn't kick about our request for more Braille
instruction.  They didn't scream when we said we wanted him to
start using Braille
in the classroom. They just handed us the evaluation which Mrs.
Buchheister, the teacher for the visually impaired, had done. She
said he didn't need Braille. So Chaz would not get Braille end of
discussion.  Actually, we had a lot of discussion, but to no
avail. We knew now why Ms. Hardin, the supervisor, was present at
our IEP meeting. It was clear that whatever we said, whatever
documents we presented, they had made up their minds that they
were not going to teach Braille
to Chaz. In fact, when we pointed to Doris Willoughby's
evaluation which was part of his file it turned out that several
of the team members hadn't even read it.
The whole tenor of the meeting was,  We are the professionals,
and we know what is best for your child. 
The evaluation Mrs. Buchheister did, by the way, was not well
done.  For example, she recommended hand-held magnifying aids
without ever having him use one.  At one point she said his print
reading speed
was  adequate.  Then later, when she recommended against Braille,
she reported that he  reads with excellent speed and
comprehension.  She said that he could see her smile at a
distance of four feet and retrieve a pencil he had thrown across
the room. We never could decide what that had to do with whether
he should or should not be learning Braille. Besides, it was
clear that she hadn't considered the possibility that Chaz could
have been using alternative techniques in place of, or in
addition to, his vision for these tasks.
John and I talked and talked about all the reasons Chaz needed
Braille.  We pointed out that two other school districts had
agreed with us,
and had included Braille instruction in his IEP.  No dice. They
wouldn't budge. At one point we were told that they did not have
to do anything about teaching him Braille unless he started to
fail academically, and only then if we could prove that his
vision was responsible for
it and that Braille was the only thing that would help him make
passing grades.
But the real clincher came when the itinerant teacher asked us
and it was obvious that she was upset  Why do you limit him by
calling him blind?  We were stunned. Here we were trying to get
a skill (Braille) for our son that would expand his options and
opportunities, and she was accusing us of limiting him!
We said something to the effect that we didn't think there was
anything shameful about blindness or being blind. Of course, we
knew it was a limitation, but no more so than a hundred other
characteristics.  That was the way we saw it. But she didn't.
Blind was bad. Braille was bad. And we were bad because we
weren't ashamed or afraid to use the word  blind  with our son
who has partial vision. We would not sign an IEP at that meeting.
We told them that we only wanted materials (large print books,
etc.) while we thought the impasse over.

When we left that meeting, we had to make a decision. We decided
that what Chaz really needed was good, positive Braille
instruction. Even if we forced the issue then and won, he
couldn't get that from this teacher. We decided to let things
stand as they were at school for a while and arrange to pay for
private Braille lessons. We would try again later. It was still
hard to believe that they would not eventually see reason.
One thing we did after our November meeting with the school was
to arrange for another independent evaluation. Maybe, we thought,
with more documentation and the evidence of Chaz's success with
Braille in private lessons, we could bring the school around to
our view.  Fred Schroeder, former director of the special
education programs
for the blind in the Albuquerque, New Mexico school system and
currently Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind,
did this one.  The results were the same. Chaz should learn
Braille.
Since we had not signed an IEP in November, we had another
meeting in December to approve an IEP officially. This time,
however, Dr.  Betsy Zaborowsky came with us as our advocate. The
county beefed up their representation, too. Dr. Gloria Ergnoth,
Director of Special Education for the district, was there this
time along with the usual team members (school principal,
classroom teacher, teacher for the visually impaired, and the
school counselor).
We had decided that we would not ask for Braille instruction, but
we would ask that Chaz be allowed to use Braille in the classroom
for some class work. This would mean that the county would
provide some Braille materials and possibly some Braille
transcribing service.

When we went to the meeting, we took Fred Schroeder's evaluation
with us, handed copies to everyone, and waited while they read
it. After the teacher for the visually impaired (Mrs.
Buchheister) read it, she said she wanted to discuss some of the
points with us, but Dr.  Ergnoth cut her off. It was clear that
the county had taken a position against Braille for Chaz, and any
evaluation we presented simply was not going to be considered.
Dr. Ergnoth was delighted, then, when we told her that we had
arranged for Chaz to receive private Braille lessons. She thought
that was great. She praised us and compared us to parents who go
out and get private music or foreign language lessons for their
children (nice but unnecessary was the message). We told her we
didn't think this was at all analogous, and we still believed
that the school district should be responsible for teaching him
Braille.
She didn't like that idea, but the meeting went reasonably well
until we said that we wanted to write into the IEP that Chaz
would have the option of using Braille in the classroom. We had
already agreed that Chaz could choose to use large print
materials and magnifiers as he needed them. It seemed only
reasonable that he should also have the option of choosing
Braille.
And that's when the meeting fell apart. We were told in no
uncertain terms that we could have nothing about Braille in the
IEP; they would not even concede that Chaz could choose Braille
materials to read, or that he could choose to do an assignment in
Braille. The message was loud and clear no Braille whatsoever!
John was so angry at that point that he walked out of the
meeting.  Even Dr. Zaborowsky, who had been so calm throughout
the meeting, was absolutely floored. At the end of the meeting,
she asked Mrs.  Buchheister why she was so opposed to Chaz's
learning Braille. The reply was,  Because print and Braille are
incompatible.   Now that was a new argument to all of us! I
suppose, if it hadn't been our son's education and future we were
talking about, we would have laughed; that's how silly it was. We
did sign an IEP (without Braille) that day. But we told them that
we did not consider this the last word on the subject. We would
be back.
In the meantime, Chaz started private lessons with Mrs. Marie
Cobb, a member of our local NFB chapter. She was not a certified
teacher, but she was enthusiastic and committed. She liked Chaz,
he liked her, and she really believed in the importance of
Braille. She had been a partially sighted child who had learned
Braille when she was in the fifth grade, and she was still a
print and Braille reader. She was a great role model for our son.
In about four months Chaz learned to read Grade 2 Braille with
his fingers well enough to read stories aloud to the family. Some
time around March he was evaluated by a certified Braille
teacher, who said he was reading at a second grade level pretty
good progress for a boy who could barely identify the alphabet
with his fingers when he started. He also read over 400 Braille
pages from December 1, 1987, to March 1, 1988, for the NFB
Braille Reading contest. We were on the way. But he had to have
more. He especially needed to be able to use Braille in the
classroom for classwork.
Chaz was beginning to give oral reports in class, and print notes
would not help. On one report students who used print notes got
extra points. Chaz typed out his notes, memorized them, pretended
to use them when he gave the report, then turned in the notes for
credit.  We didn't know he was going to do this, and we didn't
condone it, but without Braille, what else could he have done?
We called another IEP meeting in March, and James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of
the Blind, went with us to try to get Braille.  Even the right to
use it in the classroom with support services would have been
helpful. We began with the concept that in addition to the visual
techniques (large print and magnifiers) Chaz needed non-visual
techniques, materials, and services. They agreed. Yes, he needed
key board skills (typing and computer), readers, and taped books.
But once again, when we came to Braille no way! He could have
everything else, but no Braille.  We then filed for a due process
hearing at the county level.  It took place on June 2, 1988, and
in preparation we arranged for yet another evaluation of Chaz's
visual needs and skills.  This time we paid Jane Kronheim, a
specialist who is certified in Massachusetts and Ohio.  She came
to Baltimore to do the evaluation.  Her conclusions supported our
plea for Braille.  We also prepared a video tape showing Chaz
reading over an extended period.  The tape showed with painful
clarity what happens to him as his eyes tire.  After a half hour
he complains that the print is jumping, and his speed and
accuracy fall noticeably.  He becomes restless, and his attention
wanders.  Armed with these new pieces of evidence and bolstered
by Jim Gashel's presence, we faced the crowd of officials from
the school system drawn up against us at the county hearing.
The County Board of Education appointed the hearing officer, who
was supposed to be impartial.  The school system designated not
one, but two, advocates to face Jim Gashel.  These attorneys,
Marjorie Raffel and Ronald Kaplan, tried to gang up on Mr.
Gashel, but he objected to being double teamed, and the hearing
officer did agree that only
one at a time could question a witness.  Everyone on both sides
stipulated that the IEP which had continued to be in force all
year was inadequate.  Chaz clearly needed typing and computer
skills, recorded materials, and penmanship.
Braille continued to be the stumbling block.  Mrs. Buchheister
testified that, based on test results in Chaz's file, she would
not recommend Braille.  It did not matter that many of the tests
in question had been administered while we still lived in
Baltimore, and, based on those test results, the city schools had
recommended Braille.  The evaluations of Chaz that had been done
by Doris Willoughby, one of the most distinguished teachers of
visually impaired children in the country; Fred Schroeder, an
expert in blindness and programs for visually impaired
youngsters; and Dr. Betsy Zaborowsky, a licensed clinical
psychologist, were rejected out of hand because we had not paid
for them.  Kronheim's evaluation could not be dismissed, but it
was one against the experts ranged on the other side.  Not
surprisingly, Maynard Simmons, an educator at the Maryland School
for the Blind, testified that it is damaging to a child to be
taught Braille simultaneously with print.  He suggested strongly
that we bordered on being abusive parents.  He as much as told
the hearing officer that video taping Chaz's print reading was
cruel.
In mid-June the hearing officer rendered his decision.  In an
astonishingly poorly reasoned opinion he found in favor of the
school system.  Among other oddities he discounted the
ophthalmologists' finding that Chaz's sight will not improve and
will probably worsen.  He said that anyone
at that hearing might someday go blind, but that fact was not
justification for teaching all of these adults Braille.  With
this piece of logic as a sample of his thinking, his decision
came as no surprise. Chaz could not have Braille, He could not be
taught Braille; he could not use Braille. He could not have
anything to do with Braille. Braille was out.
In the final moments before Jim Gashel and we left for the
National Federation of the Blind convention in Chicago, we
completed the State Board of Education's paperwork in order to
file an appeal of the county's decision.  That hearing was
scheduled for August 25, 1988, and we were allowed to choose from
a list of names of appropriate people the three members of the
panel who would hear our case.  The state named Dr. Burton H.
Lohnes, Director of the Forebush School, a part of the Shepard
Pratt Hospital, to chair the panel.  The transcript of the June
hearing would be part of the evidence.
At the August hearing we also had Fred Schroeder and Doris
Willoughby
as experts prepared to testify.  The school system had no new
witnesses.  Early in the proceedings Jim Gashel called attention
to the fact that the County hearing officer had misreported one
piece of information from the June hearing.  In response to a
question from Jim Gashel, I had testified that the schools had
never offered us the option of an impartial assessment of Chaz. 
The hearing officer's opinion stated that we had refused such an
offer. (The transcript of the June hearing is clear, and so was
the testimony it recorded.  The schools never so much as
mentioned the possibility of an impartial assessment.)  Ron
Kaplan, the head of the County's advocacy team, broke in to say
that the schools had offered me this option, but, if I had not
understood the offer, they were prepared to make it again.
At this point the character of the hearing changed.  It became a
negotiating session to work out the terms by which an impartial
party could be identified to do an evaluation.  Cay Holbrook, a
County expert, and Fred Schroeder went into another room to try
to agree on names of people to do the evaluation.  Fred suggested
several names, and they agreed on two.  The expert they were able
to reach was Dr. Sally Mangold, a professor at San Francisco
State University. On September 2 Dr.  Lohnes, Fred Schroeder, Cay
Holbrook, and John and I talked by conference call with Dr.
Mangold and determined that she probably could conduct an
independent assessment.
Before we had left the hearing, Ron Kaplan insisted that (in
order to insure Dr. Mangold's impartiality), everyone pledge not
to contact Dr. Mangold. Everyone agreed. We further agreed that,
after her report was in hand, all of us at the local level would
try again to agree on the IEP.  Only if we could not would we
return to the suspended state-level hearing.
On September 20, 1988, John got a call from the State Board of
Education instructing him to have Chaz report for his test on the
following Friday.  It was obvious from the conversation that the
County schools had been in touch with Dr. Mangold despite their
agreement to the contrary, so Jim Gashel called her and learned
that Ron Kaplan (the very Ron Kaplan who had insisted on
everyone's keeping away from the independent expert) had been in
contact with her.  In fact, his was the only name associated with
the case that she recognized.  Dr. Lohnes called Mr. Gashel
almost immediately to say that Kaplan was  bouncing off the walls 
because Mr. Gashel had talked with Mangold. Mr.  Gashel explained
the whole story and told Lohnes that he was writing a letter to
all parties explaining what had happened and raising our doubts
about Dr. Mangold's independence since she had clearly been in
prolonged contact with the county advocate. Dr. Mangold was in
fact about to board a plane to come to Baltimore, so we decided
to go ahead with the test despite our reservations.
Putting aside the matter of the county's contact with Dr.
Mangold,
we were still troubled about her ability to give an unbiased
evaluation.
But she is clearly a professional in the classical sense of the
term which means that she is not willing to compromise her
principles, yield
to pressure, or say what somebody wants her to say. She made the
evaluation, and here are her recommendations:
_______________________
                       DEFINITION OF TERMS
_______________________

Primary Learning Medium

The primary learning medium is the medium most frequently used
during classroom instruction. It should allow access to the
greatest variety of educational materials. A primary learning
medium can be utilized in a wide variety of settings inside and
outside of the classroom.  It should permit both reading and
writing.

Secondary Learning Medium

A secondary learning medium is occasionally appropriate for a
student.  It is learned in order to allow a student to perform
specific tasks not easily performed in the primarylearning
medium. It may alleviate fatigue experienced when using the
primary learning medium for extended periods of time.

Reading Charles should:

1. use print as his primary learning medium, especially in
subjects such as spelling and basal reading;
2. use Braille as a secondary learning medium (a minimum of three
forty-minute periods of Braille instruction per week;
3. complete daily assignments for Braille reading and writing;
4. be given the alternative of using tape recorded texts as a
secondary learning medium when the classroom or homework
assignments require extensive periods of reading in subjects such
as social studies and science (tape recorded material should not
be used for subjects such as basal reading, spelling, and
grammar);
5. be reintroduced to the potential use of optical aids for near
and distant reading (stand magnifiers for near-point viewing and
telescopic lenses for distance viewing). Distance viewing might
include reading the chalkboard, street signs, and numbers on
buses.

Writing Charles should:

1. Receive instruction in typing during a minimum of three
thirty-minute periods each week. A silent, portable, battery
operated typewriter should be used for writing long assignments,
and taking notes in class.  The portable typewriter should be an
LED display and a variable print size output (i.e. Canon).
2. Use a unique style of writing composed of some manuscript and
some cursive letters. The style should be so developed as to
allow him to write clearly and require him to lift the pen point
from the page as little as possible.
3. Continue to receive instruction in penmanship until he can
consistently write short amounts of information and read them
back easily.
4. Receive computer keyboarding instruction as an extension of
his typing lesson. As soon as possible he should be operating a
computer equipped with a voice synthesizer.
5. Should be introduced to talking software and its appropriate
academic applications.
6. Receive instruction in the use of the Braille slate and stylus
after he can demonstrate third-grade competency on the Braille
writer.

Orientation and Mobility

It is recommended that a complete evaluation by a certified
orientation and mobility instructor be conducted in order to
determine the current needs Charles may have in this area.

Activities of Daily Living

The academic skills learned in the classroom should be useful
outside of the classroom. Such academic skills should be useful
in making grocery lists, recording telephone numbers obtained
from information, reading bus schedules, and reading recipes.
Since Charles' focusing distance is very close to the work
surface, his tactile abilities should be developed to help in
performing certain jobs such as adjusting gas flames,
manipulating range settings situated behind burners, cutting with
a knife, pouring hot liquids, etc. If Charles is trained to use
his tactile sense in performing certain tasks, he may function
more safely and/or effectively.
____________________
That is what Dr. Mangold found, and for anyone who can read, the
message is clear. Chaz needs Braille. With this independent
assessment in
hand, we awaited the IEP meeting, which was set for November 15,
1988.  Unknown to us, both of the county advocates were to be
present as well as
the usual array of professionals which we have come to expect as
standard stage props.  Prior to any IEP session, the school
system is required to send the parents a notice of meeting, which
is to include a complete list of those who are to attend. 
Marjorie Raffel's name appeared on this list. Ron Kaplan's did
not.  Mr. Gashel was to go with us, and for this we were very
grateful.  We kept telling ourselves that the battle had been won
and that Braille would be offered now that the independent expert
had agreed with us, but 
We should have known from past performance that the county would
not willingly see reason. When we walked into the room we
discovered that Ron Kaplan was not only present but planning to
take an active part in the negotiations.  As a result, the
atmosphere was very tense even before we began talking.  Mr.
Kaplan opened the meeting by stating, in a cold and hostile
voice, that they did not like the evaluation, but they would work
with it.  Mr. Gashel then managed to get consensus on beginning
our negotiations by working with the IEP framework we had devised
last year, based on the IEP's developed in the Baltimore City
schools and upon the evaluations we have had since. At first
we made slow and grudging progress even though the  professionals 
were highly annoyed about using our IEP outline.  But the tone
was bad.  Mrs. Buchheister made a number of snide and defensive
remarks to Mr. Gashel throughout the meeting.
Miss Davis, Chaz's classroom teacher this year, has been
wonderful with him.  She has taken extra time and has provided
him with the kind of flexible, sensitive guidance that is
unfortunately all too rare today.  She would be an ideal teacher
to work with Chaz as he integrates Braille and keyboard skills
into his learning. But when we began talking about the daily
Braille assignments that Dr. Mangold had recommended, she was
clearly uneasy.  I tried to reassure her that you don't have to
be an expert to assist a child who is working in Braille.  The
print text enables the teacher or parent to help sound out words
and follow instructions.  But it was no good.  It seemed clear to
me that Mrs. Buchheister had succeeded in convincing
Miss Davis that we and Dr. Mangold had conspired to increase her
workload.  By this time we had reached an impasse.  We insisted
that Chaz use Braille every day. The county refused. They
demanded that Mrs. Buchheister decide when and how and if he
would use it.  We were not prepared to let the experts sabotage
the Braille instruction which Chaz needs and Dr. Mangold had
recommended.  The county had no intention of abiding by either
the letter or the spirit of the assessment, so the meeting fell
apart.
We have now notified the State Board of Education that we are
unable to agree on an IEP for Chaz. In January of 1989 (this is
being written in early December of 1988) the hearing that was
recessed August 25 will begin again where it left off.  That
panel, chaired by Dr. Lohnes, will then write an IEP that will be
binding on both sides.  We hope
for the best.  The panel pinned great hopes on the independent
evaluation.  Now that it is so clear and so supportive of what we
wish to have happen for our son, perhaps one small boy will have
a chance to acquire the tools he needs in order to make his full
contribution to the world.  It is hard to know what the impact of
all this struggle has been on Chaz.  He is still an outgoing,
active boy, who is clearly bright.  But his grades have fallen
this year as we knew they would.  He needs the tools that are
being withheld.  We know what he needs, and we have fought as
hard as we can to win the right for him to receive that
instruction.  And still our son suffers.
I wonder sometimes about all the youngsters who, like Chaz, are
being denied this necessary training and whose parents do not
know what is going wrong and all in the name of professionalism,
a pseudo professionalism which cloaks ignorance, shelters the
inadequacy and laziness of the teacher who has not learned
Braille, and promotes nothing but ego. The experts assure
lawmakers that a Braille bill is not necessary in Maryland
because every child who needs Braille
will get it. I have experienced to the marrow of my bones the
destructive effects of that lie.  Children who need Braille in
Maryland and in every other state are not getting it and will not
get it, I am afraid, unless their parents and the members of the
National Federation of the Blind fight for their right to
literacy and a decent education.  Is this so much to ask for our
children? Is it unreasonable to believe that one trusting,
intelligent ten- year-old blind child should be allowed to have
the tools and training that will give him the opportunity to
compete in the world, live a normal life, and earn his own way? 
I don't think so, and I don't think the members of the public
(once they are informed and understand) will think so either.LITERACY, BRAILLE, AND A FORMULA FOR ACTION
On Sunday, September 4, 1988, an ad seeking to promote literacy
appeared in the  Rapid City Journal in Rapid City, South Dakota.
Of course, no one can quarrel with the concept of helping people
learn to read, but the ad took a novel approach. It began by
showing a picture of an open book containing pages of Braille,
with the caption:  To see what it is like to be an illiterate,
try reading this.  Under the picture was the following text: 
Some people have eyes but can't really see the words. Illiterate
people have never read nursery rhymes or been able to write a
letter. They can't even look up a name in the phone book or find
a word in the dictionary. These simple tasks cannot be carried
out, and these people live in a world that seems confusing and
difficult. They may as well be blind. Don't be blind to the facts
of illiteracy. Call your local learning center for information on
how you can help. - The Literacy Council of the Black Hills
394-4043/348-6709. 
Such an ad fifty years ago would have evoked very little negative
response, either from the blind or the sighted. Twenty years ago
it would have been greeted with mixed reviews. Most of the
sighted and a great many of the blind would probably have thought
it clever but not offensive. Many of the blind would have been
unhappy with it and would have said so, but it is questionable as
to how much effort they would have made to do something about it.
Today the situation is different. The National Federation of the
Blind has been in existence for forty-eight years and has
schooled a second and even a third generation in the nuances and
implications of harmful publicity about the blind. Likewise, the
cumulative effect of the Federation's half century of work is
bearing fruit in improved public attitudes, heightened
sensitivity, and overall receptivity. The climate of the late
1980's is not the climate of the late 1930's.
Even so, things do not happen by themselves. Karen Mayry is the
energetic and perceptive President of the National Federation of
the Blind of South Dakota. She has built a powerful state
organization, and she keeps it strong by constant vigilance and
decisive action. When she read the ad in the  Rapid City Journal
, she quite naturally assumed that it emanated from the Literacy
Council of the Black Hills, so she contacted them to set them
straight. This was not difficult since she is a member of the
organization, as well as other civic groups in the area, and
knows her way around.
She found, however, that the Literacy Council of the Black Hills
was not responsible for the publication of the ad or, at least,
only
in a general way. They had given carte blanche authority to the 
Rapid City Journal  to help them in their campaign to promote
literacy, and someone at the newspaper had selected and printed
the ad without their prior knowledge or approval.
Karen next contacted the  Journal . She learned that a reporter
named Donna Marie Strong was in charge of the literacy campaign
and was responsible for the copy. Ms. Strong said that she had
taken the ad from a book which was sold to newspapers throughout
the country and which was published in 1986.
The editor of the book (Linda Scanlan) was a professor at Norfolk
State University in Virginia, and the objectionable copy was the
winning entry by one of her students in an ad-writing contest.
All of this tracking and tracing took time and effort, and
somewhere along the way Karen (with a shrug of annoyance) might
have dropped the matter.  But she didn't. She persisted not with
anger or name-calling but with measured determination.
Hills, bringing the offending ad to their attention and pointing
out the harm which such misapplied, well-intentioned gimmicks do
to the blind. She also got Professor Scanlan's address and wrote
her.  All of us would do well to profit by Karen's example and do
likewise.  This is why the National Federation of the Blind is
truly changing what it means to be blind. Here is Karen's letter
to Professor Scanlan:  ____________________
                                         Rapid City, South Dakota
                                                 October 20, 1988
@HALFLINE =
Ms. Linda Scanlan, Professor
Norfork State University
Norfolk, Virginia
@HALFLINE =
Dear Ms. Scanlan:
Recently the enclosed ad was published in the  Rapid City Journal
, Rapid City, South Dakota. This ad disturbs me greatly.
Braille is vital to those of us who are blind. Through its use,
we ARE literate. This  winning  advertisement implies that those
of us who use Braille are not literate. What an unfortunate
implication.  It is obvious that Ms. Laura Gay did not know
successful, competent blind people, who rely on Braille. Braille
is used for employment purposes, correspondence, messages,
organization and filing, and reading (pleasure, textbooks,
technical information used in business, and
the many, many uses for which reading is necessary in our daily
lives).  Thus, by stating that  if you are illiterate, that is
what reading would look like to you,  and showing a picture of
Braille, the ad is giving a negative picture of blindness and the
use of Braille.  We, the blind, are working diligently to change
the image of blindness.  The National Federation of the Blind is
a forty-eight- year-old consumer advocacy organization working
toward equality for all blind people.
The ultimate goal of the National Federation of the Blind is the
complete integration of the blind into society on a basis of
equality. This
objective involves the removal of legal, economic, and social
discriminations; the education of the public to new concepts
concerning blindness; and the achievement by each and every blind
person of the right to exercise to the full his individual
talents and capacities. It means
the right of the blind to work with their sighted fellows in the
professions, common callings, skilled trades, and regular
occupations.
Please consider the damage that has been done through circulation
of this  winning  advertisement. Braille is often viewed as an
inferior method of reading. It is not. Blind persons often read
well above 350 words per minute and can compete with their
sighted peers on an equal basis. Currently the National
Federation of the
Blind sponsors a contest for blind students through the National
Association to Promote the Use of Braille in order to encourage
young people to become proficient and proud of their ability to
read Braille. Through
this contest and other efforts, we are establishing Braille as a
proficient and respectable medium. Help us in our endeavors by
eliminating comparisons to other methods of reading in future
advertisements.
@HALFLINE =
                                                       Cordially,
                                           Karen Mayry, President
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                                                  of South Dakota
____________________
This is what Karen Mayry wrote to Professor Scanlan. And what was
the result? Was her letter ignored? Did it elicit an angry
response?  Not at all. The effort to improve the climate of
public opinion (even if long and difficult) is dramatically
effective. Although one might quibble about details of the
response which Mrs. Mayry received from Professor Scanlan
(passages which smack of condescension and a might too much of
attempted self-justification), that is exactly what it would be,
quibbling. Professor Scanlan's letter is important not only for
its content but also for what it says about her future behavior
and interaction with others. Yes, the National Federation of the
Blind is changing what it means to be blind. Here is Professor
Scanlan's response:
____________________
                                                Norfolk, Virginia
                                                November 20, 1988
@HALFLINE =
Dear Mrs. Mayry:
This is in response to your letter of October 20 about a recent
ad in the  Rapid City Journal placed by the Literacy Council of
the Black Hills. Neither I nor Laura Gay, the student who
designed the ad, meant to imply that reading Braille equates with
illiteracy.  Ms. Gay graduated a year ago, but I am sure she
would join me in a sincere apology to any visually impaired
person who may have been offended by the ad.
I commend you for caring enough about your work to write to me.
Ms.  Gay's ad was part of a national student competition
sponsored by the International Newspaper Advertising and
Marketing Executives Foundation and the American Academy of
Advertising. It was to help a very worthwhile cause combating
illiteracy and to provide national exposure for student work.
Student work was judged on several local levels by newspaper and
advertising agency executives. Ms. Gay's work placed first in the
district that included Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia. It was then displayed at the INAME national conference
and was selected to circulate to member newspapers around the
country. These newspapers and local groups fighting illiteracy
could select any of the student work to use in their campaigns.
Obviously, Ms. Gay's work was judged worthy of use by your local
organization (the Literacy Council of the Black Hills) and
newspaper.
This background is not given to absolve either Ms. Gay or myself
of the insensitivity shown in this matter, but to show you how
important the work you are doing is. Many well meaning people
around the country who are in positions to influence the American
public through advertising in the mass media viewed this ad as
effective. None, I'm sure, would have selected it had they
understood the implied discrimination.
I hope you have written the Literacy Council of the Black Hills
and
the  Rapid City Journal . I am sending copies of our
correspondence to INAME and AAA. None of us helps a good cause if
we hurt another in the process.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Linda H. Scanlan
                                              Assistant Professor
                                         Norfolk State University

cc: Susan Schobel, INAME Foundation
Professor Ernie Larkin,
Oklahoma University
               BLINDFOLDED DOES NOT EQUAL BLIND: 
VISION SPECIALIST BLINDFOLDS CLASS
                     by Ronda J. Del Boccio
 Ronda Del Boccio is a graduate student in counseling at Illinois
State University. She is a new Federationist and recipient of a
National Federation of the Blind of Illinois Convention
Scholarship. This article appeared in the September-October,
1988,  Month's News,  the publication of the NFB of Illinois. 

Vision specialist Dr. Evelyn Rex, who teaches a class called
Special Adaptations for the Visually Impaired at Illinois State
University, gave students clinical experience credit for
something the Federation strongly opposes. She had them wear
blindfolds while listening to presentations, then asked them what
it was like to be blind.
At the 1988 NFB of Illinois convention a resolution was passed
stating that such activity when used for purposes of  sensitivity
training  is deplorable. I had no intention of letting this go on
without saying something, so I told the students that being
blindfolded is not the same as being blind, and thus they should
not consider this experience an accurate picture of what it's
like to be blind. Some of the students reported feeling
disoriented or isolated. I said that naturally they would feel
that way because they were told to participate in the activity
without the benefit of training in the skills of blindness.
Later the same evening the vision specialist said that blind
people are often talkative because they cannot stand silence. I
objected, saying that my mouth and my eyes work independently of
each other.  I know plenty of fully sighted people who feel
compelled to fill any silence. The point is that blanket
statements about blind people only reinforce damaging attitudes
that rob us of our dignity.
Dr. Rex had no comment, but went to to another topic, which was
Braille.  She said that Braille is an important skill but is
difficult to learn and often slower to read than print. Once
again I objected. I said that plenty of adults learn how to read
and write Braille efficiently.  I asked her and the class if they
were expert, speedy readers from the first day they learned,
emphasizing that any new skill is slow in the beginning, but with
continued practice it becomes natural.  I also told them that I
feel  low vision  (education likes
to make that distinction) people should learn Braille as well as
print, because it is often more efficient and gives greater
flexibility.  I mentioned how much easier it is to have Braille
labels on pantry
goods and files. And taking Braille notes, especially for use in
speeches, makes the presentation much easier.
I also pointed out that so often children are not given the
option
to learn Braille as well as print and must suffer the eyestrain,
headaches, and discomfort of using a plethora of adaptive devices
to accomplish in an hour what reading Braille could achieve in
perhaps half the time. I also asked them if they thought it would
be convenient to carry a closed circuit television to the store
to read a shopping list.
Again, the instructor did not comment, but a couple of students
asked questions after class.
How sad it is that people who are supposed to be specialists in
the field know so little about blindness! As Federationists, we
absolutely have to educate people. Think how many students have
taken this and other classes from vision specialists. Think about
how many new teachers of the blind and disabled will perpetuate
outmoded and destructive beliefs and attitudes. The cycle must
stop if attitudes are ever going to change. Who will break the
cycle if we, the blind, do not?STATE TRAINING CENTERS 
AND THE ORGANIZED BLIND MOVEMENT
 The following presentation was made on Thursday afternoon, July
7, 1988, at the convention of the National Federation of the
Blind in Chicago. Dr. Jernigan, who chaired the panel, began by
saying: 

This is an item which is of great concern to us. The National
Federation of the Blind is not an agency, governmental or
private. It is, as you know, an organization of the blind
themselves. Although we have many activities, our prime purpose
must never be blurred. That purpose is to serve as a vehicle for
collective action. It is to serve, not as a governmental agency,
but as a watchdog to see that those agencies do what they are
supposed to do and also, it is a means by which we as blind
persons can come together to discuss our problems, and then find
a way to do something about those problems.
A number of years ago, as you know, we discussed whether or not,
in view of the ineffective training being done by many of the
governmental agencies, we should set up some pilot programs of
our own to perform this training, so that blind persons might
have an opportunity and so that we could also point to those
model programs. We have a number of them now in operation in the
country, and I want to talk to you a little about them and then
introduce the panel members. We want
to talk about State Centers and the Organized Blind Movement
Possibilities, Problems, and Challenges.
This is a panel discussion, and we will deal with the different
centers around the country which now have the kind of philosophy
we are talking about. You can tell from the results how well this
philosophy works.  You have heard before from the Louisiana
Center. This center has now operated long enough to have a track
record of success. The capable director of that center is also
the President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Louisiana. She is Joanne Fernandes.
 Joanne Fernandes:  The Louisiana Center for the Blind gives to
each of its students at their graduation party a plaque, and on
the bottom of that plaque it says,  Together We Are Changing What
it Means to be Blind.  All of our students know that that 
together  means every one of you. It means what has been done
since 1940. It
means the beliefs, the goals, and the dreams of each of you. They
know that when they are in the Center, that it's not just the
staff, and it's not just the other students or the former student
or the Louisiana affiliate. They know that it is the entire
National Federation of the Blind. They know that what they
accomplish is in your hopes, your beliefs, and your dreams. When
they leave the Louisiana Center for the Blind, they know that
there is a whole structure in the form of the National Federation
of the Blind. And most importantly, they know that they must give
back to that structure. They must give back to the National
Federation of the Blind and pass on the dreams and
the beliefs and the opportunities that they have received at the
Louisiana Center for the Blind.
The Louisiana Center for the Blind was started on October 1,
1985.  In just two and a half years we have served eighty- four
students.  We now own our own classroom building and our own
apartment complex, which the students live in. We have students
now coming to us not only from Louisiana but from seven other
states. So what do we do at the Louisiana Center for the Blind?
We teach cane travel, typing, Braille, home economics the usual
courses that are taught in rehabilitation centers. But beyond all
that, we teach the genuine beliefs and hopes and high
expectations and confidence to our students. We teach them that
they truly can change what it means to be blind.
One of the traditions that we have at the Louisiana Center for
the Blind is our bell of freedom. We have a big old school bell
(a hand-rung school bell) that sits up in our Braille room.
Throughout our short history, whenever a student calls us with
some success or some good news, when something very important
happens that affects all of us as blind people, we ring the bell
of freedom. In the past few months we have rung the bell for
George, who called up and said,  I got my first check today from
the naval base.  We rang the bell when Maria said,  I'm
twenty-two years old, but this is the first time I went out and
bought a dress for myself. 
We rang the bell when John, our young lawyer, came running in. He
had graduated from the program:  I haven't called my parents yet. 
I haven't told my girlfriend yet. I am telling you first. I just
got a job as a lawyer. 
We rang the bell after two trips down to the state legislature to
work on the Braille law. We rang the bell when we found that the
Braille law indeed got passed. We rang the bell for Lillian, who
received her GED, and for the many other students who received
their GEDs.  We rang the bell when Nancy and John, two of our
former students, got married. We rang the bell when Lina and
Jimmy had their first baby. We rang the bell for our first play
on opening night. We rang our bell when the first crop came in
from our garden, when we had our first produce as blind people
from our very own garden. We rang the bell when all of our
nervous and scared students got back from Mardi gras, an event
that they had been dreading for weeks. They got through the
crowds. They got through the mobs and proved to themselves inside
that they could be successful, capable students.
We rang the bell when Maria was able to cross Bonner Street, a
street which she was scared to death to cross with a cane. We
rang the bell when our college students call in and say,  Hey, I
passed a course, and I got a 3.0 average this semester. 
We rang the bell when Patty passed her Bar Exam. She is now
working as a public defender in Shreveport. We rang the bell when
Barry began managing three restaurants in Shreveport, when A. J.
got his vending stand, when Joie got his factory job working for
Boeing Aircraft,
when Connie got a job as a nurse, and when Yvonda successfully
finished business school.
We rang our bell when our students successfully prepared and
served a meal for forty. We are about ready to ring it again. One
of our students is ready to go back to being an elementary school
teacher
and another back to being a scientist at Los Alamos Labs in New
Mexico.  We have another student, who is about ready to graduate
and go into child care.
grandchild, and I need to tell you this story. Johnnie Burns, one
of our former students, got herself a job teaching blind kids. We
now have one of her students, Kim, in our program successfully
learning and advancing, too. She is our first  grandchild.  We
ring the bell when our students call up and say,  Hey, I was
elected president of our local chapter, or vice president,  or  I
just joined my local chapter.  We rang the bell when Zach and
Sheena said,  We got Pennsylvania and New Jersey to send us to
you. We want good rehabilitation training.  We rang the bell when
Chris lit her first fire on a camping trip.
These are all times when we rang our bell of freedom, but the
real truth is what happens to our students. I would like very
quickly to introduce you to five of these students, who are lined
up at the mike.  Zach Shore comes to us from Pennsylvania. You
may remember his name.  He was a scholarship winner last year. We
are real proud of Zach, and I want you to hear from him.
 Zach Shore:  My first day at the center I went into cooking
class, and I asked Carol, my instructor,  What should I make
today?  She said,  You are going to bake Andrea's birthday cake
today.  I thought she was insane. I'd never done that before, but
she said,  You can do it.  It really turned out to be pretty
good.  When I got to my cane travel class on my second day, my
instructor, Paul, said,  Zach, I'm sending you out on a route
today.  He had me on the street on the second day, and a wave of
panic came over me. This teacher is obviously a raving lunatic. I
didn't think
I could do it, but I did. I came back safely, and my travel is
getting better. The staff is very good. They really care about
us. They really push us to do what we don't think we can do, and
we find that we really can.
 Joanne Fernandes:  The next student I would like to introduce is
Tom Ley. Tom is from Louisiana and was also a scholarship winner
last year.
 Tom Ley:  Hello. I'm currently a senior at Louisiana Tech,
majoring in mathematics and physics education. As Joanne said, I
was honored last year to win a scholarship here. One might ask
why someone who was seemingly successful would need to go through
rehabilitation.
I guess that the answer to that is that it depends on what your
definition of success is. Sure, I had been successful in school,
and probably if I had gone on, I would have gotten a job but I
came to realize that I hadn't been successful as a blind person.
What I mean by that is that life is so much more than just
succeeding in school and getting a job. You really don't succeed
at life and have a full life until you grasp all the
opportunities that come your way. I had limited myself, simply
because I didn't have confidence in myself as a blind person to
go out and grasp those opportunities if it involved going into an
unfamiliar situation or doing unfamiliar things. I didn't have
that confidence. So I enrolled at the Center for three months
this summer, and after just being there for only a month and a
half, I can just feel the limiting bonds I had placed upon myself
melting away and my horizons expanding about me. That's a gift I
can never repay except by working as hard as I can for the
Federation and its goals that it has.
 Joanne Fernandes:   Two years ago we gave a presentation, and
you heard at that time from Gerald Jeandron.  He is back again.
In fact, we have a whole flock of our past students with us
today. Here's Gerald two years later.
 Gerald Jeandron:  I thought two years ago that I would be all
through with this, but those of you who know Joanne Fernandes
know to expect the unexpected.  When I was here two years ago, I
was a
whole different person.  I was shy, reserved, and just not
confident.  Going through the center for the six or seven months
I was there made me
a whole person, and sometimes I think that the staff and the
students want me to go back to the old one because I was shy and
reserved.  But right now, I am attending LSU, and I have a 3.8
grade point average.  I decided to go back to the center half
time to learn about computers because I was scared of them. 
Normally when I have been scared of something, I go back to
whatever made me not scared, and the Center was the one place
that made me feel comfortable.  I recommend it to anybody who is
just scared of being blind and isn't confident in himself and
wasn't a whole person  like me two years ago.  I would like to
thank all of you for supporting me at the Center, and I would
like to thank the NFB for forming it.
 Joanne Fernandes:  Roland Allen is also one of our former
students, and so, Roland, I want to introduce you.  He is from
New Orleans.   Roland Allen:  I completed my training at the
center around
this time last year.  When I left, I felt that I gained several
important things.  But the most important thing that I got from
the Center was the fact that I have accepted my blindness.  When
I first came, I considered myself anything but blind.  When I
first went to the center, I had planned on going to college, and
I was real scared to go, but I knew that I wouldn't make it with
the skills I had.  After I left the Center, I felt confident that
I could get in there and do what I wanted to.
 Joanne Fernandes:  Our last speaker is Cheryl Domingue from
Louisiana.
 Cheryl Domingue:  Hi. I, too, like Zach, when I first arrived
at the Center, thought that not only the cooking instructor was
insane, but that they all were insane having me do the things
they wanted
me to do.  The thing I thought was more horrifying than anything
else
was having a blind travel instructor.  I thought that was really
crazy.  But after a few days of being there, and after seeing
what all of the
other students who had been there for some time had done with
themselves, and after I saw how well my blind instructors were
doing, I figured if they could all do it, so could I. I didn't
have any confidence
in myself at all when I came to the Center, but now have all the
confidence in the world in myself.  I am now a college student. 
I completed
my first semester at the Nickel State University with a 3.0
average.  Without the support of my family and all the friends I
have made in the NFB, and especially my two children (Sheila and
Shawn) who are here with me, I could not have made it.
 Joanne Fernandes:  Together we are all ringing the bell of
freedom and together we are changing what it means to be blind.
Thank you.   Dr. Jernigan:  Once, long ago in Iowa, Joanne was my
student  and Joanne, you have gone on to do what, in my dreams, I
would
have hoped that you could and would do. We have said in this
organization, that first you have to say a thing so that you can
believe it, and then you have to believe in it before it can come
true.  That's part of what a proper training program for the
blind is about.  And one thing more, the program you have heard
about in Louisiana and the others you will hear about, have at
least this difference from the governmental agencies.  If Joanne
were the director of one of those programs, she would be part of
a governmental agency, insulated by civil service; and if she
didn't do a good job and you didn't like
it there wouldn't be anything you could do about it except write
memos back and forth.  As it is, she is president of a democratic
organization of the blind.  If she doesn't do what the blind of
the state like, they will unelect her, and that's the way it
ought to be. I said in one state once when we got a commission
for the blind (Michigan):
I said  From this day forward this is a separate agency. It can't
hide in the bureaucracy, and from this day forward every blind
person will get better service from this agency.  Why?  Because
they know, (the counselors) that when they are out there dealing
with this or that individual blind person, next year the governor
(it may be a different governor) may appoint that blind person to
be on the commission board to be the counselor's boss.  They will
have that in mind, even at the subconscious level. 
Let me now introduce to you the director of the second of these
centers.  This is BLIND, Incorporated.  Joyce Scanlan will tell
you about it. Joyce Scanlan is the director of BLIND,
Incorporated.  She is, as you know,
also the president of the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota.  The NFB of Minnesota has long and well represented
the interests of the blind of that state, and now the Federation
in the state is doing training.  But keep in mind that the prime
purpose of the NFB of Louisiana or the NFB of Minnesota is not to
run a training program.  That's important, but the prime purpose
is to serve as a vehicle by which
the blind of these states themselves can speak with their own
voice.  Seen in that context, the centers in Louisiana,
Minnesota, and the other places you will hear about, are
tremendous boosts to the self help of blind people.  We are not
going to rest in this federation until each and every blind
person in the United States has a chance to work to his or her
full potential and to earn his or her own way rather than live at
somebody else's whim and on public assistance.  Here is Joyce
Scanlan.
 Joyce Scanlan:  Thank you, Dr. Jernigan.  These are very
exciting times for blind people across the country, and certainly
in Minnesota.  Blind people for a long time in Minnesota have
wanted an orientation program which would show its belief in
blind people, and that is why BLIND Incorporated came about. 
BLIND is an acronym for Blindness, Learning in New Dimensions. 
We have added a new dimension to our programs in the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota.  We are now able to provide
orientation to blindness through training of the kind that Joanne
Frenandes has just described as going on in Louisiana.  Let me
tell you a little bit of how we determined the name of our
program.  The name  BLIND  was selected before we decided what
words the acronym would mean.  The reason for that was that in
our state, and I'm sure it's true all over the country, the
primary orientation program for the blind (the Minneapolis
Society for the Blind) with which everyone here is very familiar,
seemed to pride
itself on avoiding the word  blind and anything to do with
blindness.  They do low vision aids, and they talk about vision
handicaps and visual impairment and low vision, and all kinds of
things like that, but
they don't want to deal with blindness. They don't want to teach
Braille.  They don't want to teach cane travel, they really want
to skirt the whole issue.  We decided that we want to have
blindness right up front, so we called our program BLIND.  Then
we decided that it would mean Blindness, Learning in New
Dimensions, because we who are blind may not see visually, but we
certainly have all kinds of other ways of learning.  We get
information through other senses.  We also felt that our program
had a new dimension in that we would deal openly and
straightforwardly with the matter of attitudes towards blindness
and understanding what blindness means and, therefore, a new
dimension.  This decision for Blindness: Learning in New
Dimension was made by three
people, Judy Sanders, Peggy Chong, and me, as we were riding on
an
airplane to New York at the very end of 1986 to attend a NAC
demonstration.  I think that's a very appropriate situation for
the making of such a momentous decision.
Now, the struggle for us in Minnesota to establish a new program
of this kind was a long, long and arduous ordeal.  Blind people
have always wanted good services.  We have tried many different
ways to obtain service, as you all know by our attempts to reform
the existing programs at the Minneapolis Society for the Blind. 
We had a kind of success in that area, which was not exactly what
we set out to do. But, at least, it got us to where we were able
to do what we have done now and that is to establish a program
which we ourselves are able to control and operate.  We hung in
there over the years when it seemed that we were failing, and we
finally have come to where we have the program that we have
always wanted.
We also hung in until the time when we would have a new director
of
our state agency for the blind.  This is a real first for us in
Minnesota.  We have in the audience at this convention the
director of our state agency for the blind, Mr. Rick Hokanson. I
imagine we have had other directors with us when the convention
took place in Minnesota, but this director traveled from
Minnesota to Chicago for this convention; and we are pleased to
have him with us.  We believe that this director goes along with
us in wanting good programs for the blind of our state.  BLIND,
Incorporated was incorporated in 1986 on the very last day so
1987 was a very busy year for us.  We had to seek funding for our
program from private as well as public sources, resulting in an
establishment grant from State Services for the Blind, which
covers about sixty-seven percent of our budget, with the
remaining portion covered by private sources.  We had to find
locations for our program.  We didn't have an apartment building
for our students.  We didn't have a center. We had to get those
locations.  We had to hire a staff.
On January 4, 1988 (the most exciting time for all of us) we
opened
our doors with staff training, on the very coldest day of the
year.  Just one week later, January 11, we opened our doors for
two very hardy, tough, and tenacious students.  It took us six
weeks to have five students, and we still have five students
(although they are not the same five), but all of our students
are at this convention. All of our staff are at this convention
as well.
Our early beginnings as a center were in a two-bedroom apartment. 
We moved from there to a one bedroom apartment. There was a time
when we had a home management class, a typing class, a Braille
class, and
a travel lesson all going on in one room.  We were crowded, and
sometimes we were a little on top of each other. But we had a
dream, and we had a lot of hope.
Ours is an experiential program in which students learn through
real live, normal, experiences.  Beginning in January, we started
by attending events surrounding the Martin Luther King holiday. 
We had shopping excursions to buy boots and gloves for the
winter.  We had dinners out.  We had a trip, rather an effort, to
go to St. Cloud one night for a spaghetti dinner, but I can tell
you that the students didn't quite make it.  The van ended up
tipped over in the ditch, and the students ended up having dinner
at Fudruckers.  I said to one of the students,  Was that one of
the more exciting or harrowing events you have ever had? 
And she said,  Oh, no.  We had a snowball fight. We've attended
movies. We have gone strawberry picking. We've had a picnic.
We've had many activities, I'm sure, of which I will never be
told.
We teach the usual classes.  The students go from the apartments
down to the Center on the bus.  Our students start right out with
the bus
on the very first day.  We learn by doing, as we are at this
convention.  Learning to deal with crowds, learning to deal with
blind people, a couple
of thousand strong, learning to be in new surroundings without
being upset, staying in a hotel, eating out, meeting new people,
reading all kinds of agendas and other materials in Braille all
those are very important learning experiences.
In our early days as a center we had very little furniture. We
just had folding chairs with nothing at all hung on the walls.
Today we are living in the lap of luxury.  We have three pictures
of symbolic importance on our walls.  There is a picture of a
blind runner in
a marathon; there is a picture of a blind person reading Braille
books to children; and there is a picture of three blind people
climbing some rugged looking rocks.
The problem is not to convince ourselves. We believe in what we
are doing, and we're going to be successful. The problem for us
is to convince the counselors of State Services for the Blind
that orientation programs are very important to every blind
person in our state.
I want to finish by saying just one more thing.  I'm sure that
many
of you have a question as to how we could reconcile the service
provider
and the advocacy role that we play, and that would be a long
discussion.  Since I don't have time to undertake that, I just
want to say that (consider the alternatives for us) this is the
way it has to be done. Therefore, I feel that we are doing the
right thing and that we can do it very successfully as long as we
keep our perspective and our priorities in the organized blind
movement as they have been our caring for each other, and our
love for one another.  Thank you.
 Dr. Jernigan:  The way we reconcile that role, Joyce, is simple. 
If you do not please the blind of your state, by and large (not
one individual person on one individual day but most of the blind
most of the time), the blind of the state will have a new
president.  Now, of course,
that wouldn't have anything to do with whether you would be the
director of the center immediately, but it probably would over a
very short time.  So I think we can reconcile the roles without
difficulty.  If our organization stands for anything, it stands
for the concept that it is respectable to be blind and also that
we don't want to be taken care of, but that we want to take care
of ourselves.  It stands for the fact that we want to be
realistic about what we can do, but we don't want someone else
with their prejudice telling us what realism is. You will find,
in the July  Monitor  that the lead article has to do with a
court case in which a guy sued the Federal Department of
Education for not accommodating him reasonably.  He argued in the
court proceedings that it was not reasonable to expect
a blind person to do research unless each and every item was in
Braille.  He argued that it was not reasonable unless he could
have bought for
him close to $100,000 worth of equipment. Never mind that blind
people all over this country are doing research all of the time
and don't
have their material in Braille. Government's answer was
interesting.  They said that they had certainly accommodated him
reasonably.  They had allowed him to get by (well, they didn't
say get by). They had accommodated him by permitting him to do
only half the number of letters (now, listen to this) that they
expected of their normal employees twelve letters a week.  They
only expected six of him.  I keep wondering what will happen to
the next blind guy who goes in to apply for a job there.  That's
not reasonable accommodation, and it's not what we are hunting. 
What we are hunting is a chance to compete on equal terms, and we
can cut it on equal terms with others. If we can't, we're not
asking for the job, but we are also not asking for someone to
determine for us that we can't have a shot at it.
Here is the next of our centers, the Colorado Center for the
Blind.  Diane McGeorge is the director of that center, and the
President of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado.
Diane, tell us about the Colorado Center for the Blind.
 Diane McGeorge:  Thank you, Dr. Jernigan.  In 1985 the NFB of
Colorado took a bill to the legislature.  That bill would have
established the Colorado Center for the Blind had we got the
funding.  However, the bill didn't pass.  We gave then to Joanne
Fernandes all of the materials that we had accumulated to prepare
the bill.  She took it to the governor of Louisiana, and she got
it passed and we were delighted. We were proud that the NFB had a
center up and running
in the country, but now it's our time in the sun  and we're
really proud.  We didn't go away and sulk, and we didn't go away
and cry
and feel bad. What we did was to go away and put together some
proposals
and put together a little money from here and from private fund
raisers particularly, a man named Mayer Blinder from the Blinder
Robinson Company.  We got
a little bit of money from this grant and from that grant and we
got the money to start.  We opened on January 4 of this year, so
we have been up and running for six months.
We have all of our students here today, and I'm going to give you
a chance to meet each one of them.  I've asked them to be brief. 
We have our staff here, and I want to introduce them to you. 
Duncan Larsen is our cane travel teacher; Tom Anderson is our
communications teacher; Sheryl Law is our daily living skills and
computer teacher; Angie Wood is our clerical help; and we've got
the greatest staff you can have anywhere.
give you a little background on them. But I'm going to let them
tell you about our program.  Let me just quickly say to you that
during the first week (on the first day we opened, on Monday,
January 4)
it was fifteen below zero, and it stayed that way for about five
weeks.  We had two feet of snow on the ground, but the students
came on a bus.  They did grocery shopping on the first day. They
prepared their lists in Braille, made their own grocery lists. 
We all went to the store on the bus.  The other things we did
during the first week were to expand on independent travel, and
at the end of the first week our students (by themselves)
prepared, planned, and served a sit-down dinner for thirty-five
people.
Somebody said  What are you going to do for an encore?  For an
encore we painted one of the rooms in our center.  We couldn't
afford to have it done by a professional, so we did it ourselves. 
We thought it was a great opportunity for our students to learn
that you can paint as a blind person.  Does that mean that we
want them to go out and become painters?  I don't care, I just
want them to go out and get jobs and they will. But painting was
an excellent lesson in learning what you really can do as a blind
person.  We use sleep shades in all of our training. All center
activities (all of them) are done with sleep shades.
You hear about blind and visually impaired.  There are very few
totally blind people.  We don't use the sleep shades so that the
students can pretend and find out what it is like to be blind.
It's to deal with blindness and how you really feel about
yourself.  For an encore, besides painting, we went to the March
on Washington all of us.  We have visited a lot of schools and
churches and have spoken.  We helped build a float and marched in
a parade, but I guess you might say that the tops of all of that
is when we started a technical rock climbing class. And I
wouldn't be surprised if you hear about that from the students. 
All of the students and the staff participated in this, and we
are talking about real live rock climbing, where you use the
ropes and the harnesses.  We had a full course of instruction,
and when I climbed my first one hundred foot rock, I was proud
and I think all of our students were too. It's an interesting
feeling when you are learning to repel off of the rock and you
are about one hundred feet in the air, and your instructor says, 
Now, all you do is step backward and lean back. 
We have a great program.  We challenge our students.  Some of our
students have called it  boot camp for the blind,  and I think
that is fairly appropriate.  I think one of the most important
incidents (and I'm going to tell you quickly because I want you
to hear from the students) is this: The students had been in the
program for about two- and-a-half weeks, and they were going home
from the Center on the bus. The bus driver said,  All you blind
people will have
to sit down.  The bus was crowded, and they were standing.   All
of you blind people will have to sit down because the bus won't
move until you do.  Our students did not sit down.
What I would like to do now is to introduce to you our students
and let them talk to you.  I have told them each that they have
about
one minute or a minute and a half.  Our first student is Leeanne
Harrell.   Leeanne Harrell:  Good afternoon.  I joined the Center
on January third.  I have some residual vision and I was not
ready for the sleep shades at all.  One thing I can say is that
the Center has helped me to deal with my blindness a lot.  I now
use the sleep shades, and I travel everywhere.  I was in the
parade in Kansas City in May, and the first thing I did was to go
buy a skirt under sleep shades. I
know now how to travel as a blind person and be confident in
myself.  I am planning to go to school this fall.  I don't really
know what I am going to major in yet, but I'm going to take some
of the academic classes during the first year.  I'm thinking
about physical therapy.  I want to introduce our next student. He
is David Petri.
 David Petri:  I'm David Petri, a student at the Colorado Center
for the Blind.  The experience I have had with the Center has
helped me to believe in myself as a blind person.  That's one
thing I didn't have when I came to the Center.  I couldn't even
travel by myself to go to the grocery store or things like that.
On the first day I was out traveling to the grocery store,
pulling my own cart and things like that.  It's gone up from
there.  I just want to give you a chance to meet everyone else.
Thank you.
 Jim Barbour:   I came to the Center also on January 4. Before I
came I was an accomplished rock climber, so I wasn't really sure
what to expect when the Center started its rock climbing course. 
I thought that because I was doing it under sleep shades, I
probably wouldn't be able to continue where I had left off.  I
would have to start all over again.  The fact was that after
starting the course, I realized that climbing blind wasn't much
different from climbing sighted.  Rock climbing is one of the
things that has really begun to build the core for the real
belief that it is respectable to be blind and that we can compete
in our society as blind people.  Thank you very much.
 Lelia Clay:  My name is Lelia Clay, and I am from the Colorado
Center for the Blind.  I started on June 18, and so I'm a new
student and didn't get to participate in the rock climbing or
anything like that.  I've been at the Center about two weeks, and
I have learned
how to catch a bus by myself, not by myself, but how to catch a
bus and I went grocery shopping and pulled a cart. And now I'm
here at convention, going through the hotel.  It's confusing but
I'm going by myself most of the time. I think that the scariest
experience I ever had was getting here.  I went on the escalator
from the train, and I was carrying my suitcase, my purse, tote
bag, and a cane in my hand and I turned around and I said, 
Duncan, I want you to know that I am scared. 

She said,  Lila, I know you are, but you can do it.  By Golly, I
did it.
 Shelly Berger:  I'm transplanted all the way from Maryland. 
When Mary Ellen Reihing suggested that I go to Colorado, I jumped
at the chance, but it was mainly to please everybody I had known
at the NFB and make them proud of me.  I did not know what I was
getting into.  Since I have been at the Colorado Center for the
Blind, I have learned that I can still train horses as a totally
blind person. I can still be an effective traveler (sometimes
more effective than people with two eyes), and I've also come to
realize that I am still a whole person, that I haven't lost
anything. I am really glad that we have the opportunity that the
NFB helps to provide.  Thanks.   Ronnie Burgess:  I've been blind
for a year and two months,
and I didn't do anything for six months but sit around and get
toted and I enjoyed that, but then I thought I better get up and
do something.  I went to the Center and got with Diane and
Duncan, and I had to do things on my own. That has been a big
change in my life.  It took me a while to deal with my blindness,
but I'm dealing with it now; and it's all right.  The guys at the
Center are great!  They are fine people.  I am taking karate, and
I couldn't do that if it were not for Duncan and the rest of the
staff, but it was really up to me to do the rest, and I can now
be really proud of myself.
 Kim Cole:  I started at the Colorado Center for the Blind on
January 4.  Anyway, before I came to the Center I had been in the
NFB for two or three years, and I thought I already had a good
attitude about blindness, that I pretty much had the skills.  I
had the cane travel and the Braille and all those things, but
what I really didn't have was the attitude and the feeling and
the knowledge deep down
inside me that I could actually succeed and do what I wanted to
do.  That is really what the Colorado Center for the Blind has
given to me.  A couple or three weeks after I started at the
Center, an experience happened to me that I believe is sort of
symbolic of what has happened and what is occurring in the lives
of all the students.  I was late for the bus, I mean I was
running late as I too often am, and I was really cautious before
that in walking with my cane under the sleep shades.  I have a
little bit of residual vision.  And so, I decided that if I was
going to make that bus, if I was going to be on time to the
Center, I was going to have to run to that bus stop.  I ran to
that bus stop.  I learned how to run at last.
 Diane McGeorge:  Those are our students.  They speak for our
program.  To walk with pride, to live with dignity, to
participate in the community, and to know that through the
collective action of the NFB, you can give to others that is the
only way to live your life, and I am thinking we are teaching all
of that and living all of that at the Colorado Center.  Thank you
very much.
 Dr. Jernigan:  Now I want to move directly to the New Mexico
Commission for the Blind.  Fred Schroeder is the director of the
New Mexico Commission for the Blind, and he is also, of course,
on our national board.  He has experienced discrimination because
he was blind.  Even though he had all the credentials required
and could have been certified, a group presumed to say that he
wasn't qualified to teach travel because he was blind.  Fred
Schroeder knows what it is to be blind; he knows what it is to
face discrimination; but he also knows how to train and teach.
Here is Fred Schroeder, the director of the New Mexico Commission
for the Blind.
 Fred Schroeder:  Thank you very much Dr. Jernigan.  One of the
principles that we have been taught in this organization is that,
given proper training and opportunity, we as blind people can
compete on terms of equality with the sighted.  We have known
this for many years. Back in the early 1970's Pauline Gomez, a
leader of the National Federation of the Blind of New Mexico,
knew that the blind of our state needed training.  Blind people
didn't have access to orientation and mobility training or
Braille or any of the other skills that we need to be
competitive, and she and others went to the legislature and had a
bill passed that created our orientation center.  But that center
was placed under the rehabilitation agency, and although the
structure then existed, the attitude wasn't right.  The attitude
that we needed (the attitude that promoted belief in ourselves,
the attitude that encouraged us as blind people to go on and do
more with our lives) wasn't there.  The agency was established.
The center was built. It opened its doors, but blind people
weren't getting the kind of training that let them go out and
become productive citizens.  In 1986, the New Mexico Commission
for the Blind was established.  We are now a separate agency with
a three member board.  The board is appointed by the governor.
Therefore, if the board doesn't do its job, if it hires a
director that isn't working in the best interest of the blind,
the board can be replaced. It can be got at easily.  We can go to
the governor and say,  The board isn't doing its job and the
agency isn't doing what it should to make us productive.  I am
proud
to tell you that in the audience today is the chairman of our
board.  He is a blind person himself, Mr. Arthur Schreiber. He is
the vice president and general manager of the largest radio
station in New Mexico, and with his support (and the support of
the legislature and governor and blind people throughout the
state) we are building an agency that will do right by the blind
and assist us in getting the training we need to be productive.
When we took over the agency two years ago, a number of things
were said about us.  Let me first tell you one.  The students
were told that I had been hired, and that I was a radical. They
were told that I was going to come in and do bad things to them. 
The first thing that I was going to do was to put blindfolds on
their faces and they wouldn't be able to see. That would be
frightening and dangerous and they would get hurt. That I was
mostly a lunatic and that I was going to do this to them. So the
students, not knowing better, got together and agreed that on
July 1, when I came along and made them blindfold themselves,
they would all walk out and how would I like that?
So, July 1 came and went, and I didn't say anything about sleep
shades.  I came around and talked to people and got to know them.
Finally, people said,  Aren't you going to make us wear sleep
shades? 

I replied,  No, but if you ask me if it is a good idea, I believe
it is, and I will tell you why.  And so it went on like that.  I
talked to people about sleep shades, and in the fall they got
with me again and kept pressing me on it.   Aren't you going to
make us use sleep shades?  And I said,  No, probably not. If I
do, it will do you more harm than good. If you want to know why I
think you should do it, I'll tell you, but I'm not going to make
you do it. If you do it with the wrong attitude, it will harm
you, not help you. 
And so, in January at a state board meeting, the teachers kind of
got me and pressed me even harder as to when I was going to do
this.  Finally they asked why I wasn't going to do this if it was
such a good idea.  So I said,  Look, you guys are the teachers.
Go back, and if you think it's a good idea, your students will
listen to you. They have confidence in you. 
 Yes,  they said,  but we need a policy.   No,  I said,  I'm not
ready to make a policy on it.  Well, the administrator of that
center retired, and we were looking for someone with the right
attitudes, who could lead the center and lead it right, and I
found Dick Davis of Iowa. Dick had been trained by Dr. Jernigan
and he'd grown up in the Federation tradition. He understood what
rehabilitation services should be.  I hired Dick,
and during his first week on the job the staff came to him and
absolutely demanded of him that he institute a policy requiring
sleep shade training.  Dick got all of the students together, and
they talked about it. He finally had the students vote on it.  We
now have a policy that says you wear sleep shades in our
orientation center. But we don't legislate good attitudes and we
don't beat people into having good attitudes. Rather, we lead
them into good attitudes, and that is what we're trying to get
done.
There used to be a policy that said you weren't allowed to carry
canes inside the building.  It strikes me that that is against
our state's white cane law, but that was the policy because
people would trip each other and it would be a problem. So there
was a cane rack.  I believe there is still a cane rack, but it
probably has an inch of dust on it, because people now carry
canes in the Center.
Many other changes have taken place in the twenty-four months.  A
year ago, we were looking for a new travel teacher and we found
Sharon Duffy. Sharon was a blind person who had been teaching
travel at the Guild for the Blind in Chicago, and it seemed to me
that if you could teach cane travel in Chicago, you could
probably teach it in Alamogordo, New Mexico.  And so now, blind
people are getting the kind of cane travel training they should
be getting, and they are getting it under sleep shades. They are
getting the right attitudes promoted.  We've started many new
programs to help build confidence and help
people realize that they can be normal, fully participating
citizens.  We've instituted an industrial arts program.  We have
hired a new person
by the name of Joseph Pattison, and he is undergoing sleep shade
training right now. He is a sighted man.  All new staff at the
New Mexico Commission for the Blind undergo sleep shade training. 
Joseph Pattison is with us this week. By the way, he is wearing
an NFB pin on his lapel.  We will soon have a wood shop program. 
We decided that we want people to get out and participate in the
community and do new things, and so we have a dormitory and our
dormitory serves meals, and we thought that on Friday night
people shouldn't sit around the house.  And so, Friday night, we
don't serve dinner. On Friday night you have a choice.  You can
go out and find something to eat around the area, or you can get
hungry.  We found that mostly people don't want to
be hungry. They go out and have dinner. They are getting out and
finding new restaurants.  Now on Saturdays people don't sit
around and watch television. They get out and walk.  We have a
mall (the Alamogordo Mall), which is three and one-half miles
away from our center, and we have students walking down there not
the least of whom is a gentleman who is seventy-nine years old.
Mr. Chairman, that is what I want to bring to you about our
Center.  We are promoting the right attitudes about blindness,
and with the type of training we are trying to make available, we
believe that blind people can go off and participate in society
on terms of equality.  Thank you.
 Dr. Jernigan:  We can have these four centers on the platform
with pride, and I think it answers the question which some of us
had problems with for a while.  Newly blinded people would
contact me and say,  Where can I go for training?  I couldn't
honestly
send them anywhere that I knew in the country that gave decent
training.  I know that the federal government appropriates over a
billion dollars each year for rehabilitation, but we couldn't
find anywhere to send blind people wanting training.  We can now. 
As you know, I ran a rehabilitation center, or directed it, for
some time, and I can tell you something. It was symbolized by an
annual ritual. We had a fireplace at the Iowa Center, and each
year when it got to be close to winter the students would
repeatedly say,  We have a fireplace, and wood needs to be cut.
Maybe we should go wood cutting.  I would deliberately postpone
the wood cutting until the snow was deep and it was cold and the
deeper the snow the better. We could have got somebody to give us
the wood, and we could also undoubtedly have got a chain saw to
use in cutting it. We didn't. We got two-person crosscut saws and
single-person buck saws, and on the coldest, snowiest day you
could find, we went out and cut wood. Let me tell you something.
Some of the people who came to us (especially, the newly blinded)
felt sorry for themselves and down. Put a person on the end of a
crosscut saw
for a day, and by nighttime that person will not feel sorry for
himself or herself. It doesn't happen. Moreover, the person will
not come back to the Center to worry about blindness. He or she
will come back to sleep.
The National Federation of the Blind means many things. It means
our scholarship program. It means the training centers that we
have helped to develop. It means our Job Opportunities for the
Blind program.  It means the blind who are working in sheltered
shops. It means the blind persons working in vending locations.
It means those who are employed in professions (law, teaching,
and the ministry). It means
the members of this organization who are out trying to do for
themselves, and it also means a number of people who are
unemployed and who have not been able to find opportunities
because of the attitudes of society.  Above all, it means that we
are truly changing what it means to be blind.


PHARMACY PROVIDES BRAILLE LABELS
 American Association of Retired Persons announced November 14,
1988: 

Braille labels are now available for people who are blind or
visually impaired, AARP Pharmacy Service announced today.
The Braille label is a clear piece of material with Braille
printing attached on top of the original prescription label. A
sighted person can read the original prescription label since the
Braille label is transparent.
The Braille label includes: the patient's name; name of the
medicine; directions; date; prescription number; doctor's name.
AARP Pharmacy Braille labels are available from AARP Pharmacy,
which has twelve locations around the country. The AARP Pharmacy
is the largest private, nonprofit mail service pharmacy in the
country. The Pharmacy Service fills prescriptions and offers a
variety of home health and over- the-counter drug product needs
at lower cost. The Service was started in 1959 and now has ten
regional and two walk-in only pharmacies around the country.
Pharmacy locations are:

AARP Pharmacy Service
P. O. Box 2755
Portland, OR 97208-2755
(For residents of: OR, WA, AK, HI, ID, MT, WY, CO, & Northern CA
Zips
94000-06139)

AARP Pharmacy Service
3823 Broadway
P. O. Box 1444
Kansas City, MO  64141
(For residents of: MO, KS, NE, SD, ND, MN, WI, & IA)

AARP Pharmacy Service
450 York Road
P. O. Box C5020
Warminster, PA  18974
(For residents of: PA, DE, & NJ)

AARP Pharmacy Service
3557 Lafayette Road
P. O. Box 7010
Indianapolis, IN  46272
(For residents of: IN, MI, IL, & OH)

AARP Pharmacy Service
5947 Boulder Highway
P. O. Box 98522
Las Vegas, NV  89193-8522
(For residents of: NV, AZ, UT, and Southern CA Zips 90001- 93999)

AARP Pharmacy Service
5050 East Belknap
P. O. Box 14869
Fort Worth, TX  96117
(For residents of: TX, LA, AR, OK, & NM)

AARP Pharmacy Service
701 Main Street
East Hartford, CT  06108
(For residents of: CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, & ME)

AARP Pharmacy Service
6500 - 34th Street North
P. O. Box 14417
St. Petersburg, FL  33733
(For residents of: FL, MS, AL, GA, & SC)

AARP Pharmacy Service
5701 Midlothian Turnpike
P. O. Box 13671
Richmond, VA  23225
(For residents of: VA, WV, MD, DC, KY, TN, & NC)

AARP Pharmacy Service
144 Freemans Bridge Road
P. O. Box 2211
Schenectady, NY  12301-2211
(For residents of: NY)

Available for walk-in customers only:

AARP Pharmacy Service
3198 East Carson Avenue
Lakewood, CA  90712

AARP Pharmacy Service
1909 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20049


REVEREND HOWARD E. MAY, JR. DIES
by Marc Maurer
On November 29, 1988, Reverend Howard E. May, Jr. died at his
home
in West Willington, Connecticut.  It is hard to think of the
Federation without him.  He was president of our Connecticut
affiliate for twelve years, and in the early 1980's he served a
term as a member of the Board of Directors of the National
Federation of the Blind.  When I think of Reverend May, I
remember a jovial, quiet, peaceful man, who was always willing to
help.  Although he was ever a man of peace, Reverend May new how
to defend the principles he espoused.  It is possible to be both
tough and gentle at the same time.  Howard May taught us all to
understand that.
For a number of years Reverend May served as Chairman of our
National Scholarship Committee.  I will always remember one
instance which (at least, for me) captures the essence of the
man. At a national
convention a few years ago Reverend May fell and broke his
shoulder.  Although he had just returned from having the bones
set, he insisted that he
would participate in the banquet and make the scholarship
presentation.  He did it without a murmur and without a complaint
broken shoulder and all.  This is only one incident, but it
exemplifies the spirit that found its home in Howard May.  He was
quiet, courageous, and always willing to give of himself.  He did
not count the cost, and he inspired many.
In 1984, it was written of Howard May that there were few people
who knew him who did not love him.  He was a man of God who
helped bring peace and harmony to those he touched.  The National
Federation of the Blind was a central part of his life and he was
a major part of ours.  Howard May has died, but his spirit will
not be forgotten.  It is this kind of spirit which makes us the
people we are.


LEE JONES DIES
by Fred Schroeder
On Wednesday, November 16, 1988, Lee Jones died of a massive
heart attack while at work. His death was all the more shocking
because it was so sudden and unexpected.
Lee Jones was a quiet man, never seeking or expecting the center
of the stage. Nevertheless, his contributions to the organized
blind movement were varied and significant. He and his wife
Loretta were always a team, making their contributions and doing
what they could to improve the quality of life for the blind
wherever they went.  Born and raised in the state of Iowa, Lee
received instruction at the Iowa Braille and Sightsaving School
and later (during the time of Dr. Kenneth Jernigan's directorate)
at the Iowa Commission for
the Blind. In the sixties and seventies he worked as a computer
programmer in Iowa and finished a degree at Upper Iowa
University. Then, in 1978 he accepted a position in computer
programming at New Mexico State University at Las Cruces. In
1980, while still employed at New Mexico State, he received his
master's degree in public administration.  He had been active in
the Federation in Iowa, and his participation in the movement
continued at an accelerating pace in New Mexico. First having
held a variety of offices at the local and state levels, he was
elected president of the National Federation of the Blind of New
Mexico in the spring of 1980. During his presidency the
organization experienced increased growth and recognition.
In 1983 Lee and Loretta moved to Mesa, Arizona. In 1984-85 Lee
served a term as president of the National Federation of the
Blind of Arizona and again distinguished himself by the quality
of his leadership.

During these years Lee was not only continuing to make
contributions
to the organized blind movement but also advancing himself
professionally.  At the time of his death he was in charge of the
adaptive computer laboratory at Arizona State University at
Tempe. In this position he was responsible for training blind and
disabled students in the use of special computer technology. He
began the program in 1985 with only a few odds and ends, but it
soon outgrew the disabled students office and had to be moved to
a building of its own. In July of 1988 he was promoted, and his
duties were expanded to include coordination of the University's
access learning laboratory.
So Lee Jones is gone. He was a man who understood the meaning of
Federationism and lived it in his daily life. Through his work
many blind students were reached and helped to understand the
true meaning of independence and self- reliance. More important,
they saw in Lee a role model, who not only taught but also lived
his beliefs.
And it was not just in his work that he touched the lives of
blind people. Federationism was part of everything he did.
Although we will miss Lee, we will never forget his contributions
toward making the dream of first-class status a reality for the
blind.


R E C I P E S

 A seminar for four training centers for the blind (Colorado,
Louisiana, Minnesota, and New Mexico) was held at the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore Thursday, December 1, 1988, to
Sunday, December 4, 1988. Twenty teachers and administrators from
these centers took intensive training during that time, working
from early morning until
late into the evening each day. During breaks there was time for
discussion of a variety of matters, including cooking. Here are
recipes submitted by each of the centers. 

COLORADO CENTER FOR THE BLIND

Harvey Wallbanger Cake

1 package yellow cake mix
1 package instant lemon pudding mix
1 6-ounce can frozen orange juice
1/2 cup cooking oil
4 eggs
1/4 cup vodka
1/4 cup galliano

Mix together all ingredients in order given, adding eggs one at a
time beating after each addition. Pour into well greased bundt
pan.  Bake at 350 degrees for thirty to forty minutes. When
cooled, glaze
with combination of orange juice, confectioners sugar, and two
tablespoons galliano.

Buckeys

1 cup butter
1 16-ounce jar peanut butter
1 pound confectioners sugar
2 12-ounce packages chocolate chips

Cream together butter, sugar, and peanut butter. Roll into
one-inch balls and refrigerate one to two hours or until firm.
Melt chocolate chips in microwave or over hot water in double
boiler. Put toothpick in each ball and dip in melted chocolate
chips. Return to fridge.  Store in air tight container up to two
weeks or in freezer up to six months.

LOUISIANA CENTER FOR THE BLIND

Chocolate Mousse

1/4 cup butter
8 ounces (8 squares) semi-sweet chocolate, cut into pieces
4 eggs, separated
1 teaspoon vanilla
1/4 cup sugar
1 cup whipping cream, whipped

In medium saucepan over low heat melt butter and chocolate,
stirring constantly. Remove from heat. In large bowl combine four
egg yolks and vanilla. Using wire whisk, gradually beat in
chocolate mixture to egg yolks, blending well. In small bowl beat
four egg whites until soft peaks form. Gradually add 1/4 cup
sugar, beating until stiff peaks form. Fold egg whites into
chocolate. Fold in whipped cream.  Refrigerate at least one hour.
Serve with additional whipped cream, if desired. Makes 12 (1/2
cup) servings.

Banana All Bran Nut Fruit Bread

1/4 cup margarine
1/2 cup sugar
1 egg
1 cup Kellogg's All Bran
1-1/2 cups mashed bananas
1 teaspoon vanilla
1-1/2 cups flour (reserve 1/2 cup to dust on candied fruit)
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup chopped nuts
1 cup candied fruit (dust with reserved 1/2 cup flour)

Cream margarine, sugar. Add egg, and beat well. Add bran,
bananas, and flavoring. Sift flour, baking powder, soda, and
salt. Add to first mixture and stir until flour disappears; also
stir in nuts and candied fruit dusted with flour. Bake in greased
loaf pan lined with wax paper at 350 degrees for about one hour
and remove from pan. Cool before cutting.

BLIND: LEARNING IN NEW DIMENSIONS (BLIND, Inc.) (MINNESOTA
TRAINING CENTER)

Shrimp & Wild Rice Casserole

2 cups wild rice (uncooked)
6 cups water
6 chicken bouillon cubes

Mix together and bake in covered casserole for 1-1/2 hours at 350
degrees.

In 1 stick (1 cup) butter saut until tender:

1 pound shrimp
2 onions, diced
2 cups sliced fresh mushrooms
salt and pepper to taste

Then, combine cooked rice and sauteed mixture. Blend well and
serve.

Special K Bars

1 cup sugar
1 cup corn syrup
1 cup peanut butter
4 cups Special K cereal
12 ounces chocolate chips
6 ounces butterscotch chips

Method: Bring sugar and corn syrup to boil over medium heat, add
peanut butter and Special K cereal, and mix well. Spread evenly
into a buttered nine- by thirteen-inch pan. Set aside. Melt
together over low to medium heat chocolate chips and butterscotch
chips, then pour evenly over top of cereal mixture. Cut into
bars.

NEW MEXICO TRAINING CENTER
(NEW MEXICO COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND)

Chicken Divan

6 to 8 chicken breasts, boned
4 packages frozen broccoli spears, cooked
3/4 cup mayonnaise
1 teaspoon lemon juice
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1/3 cup melted butter
1/2 cup bread crumbs
1 cup shredded cheddar cheese

Place broccoli in a nine- by thirteen-inch casserole. Top with
boned chicken. Combine soup, mayonnaise, and lemon juice, and
pour over chicken. Combine melted butter, bread crumbs, and
cheese, and spoon over top of chicken. (The casserole may be
prepared to this point, covered, and refrigerated for up to
twenty-four hours, if desired, before baking). Bake uncovered for
thirty to forty minutes at 350 degrees. Serves eight.

Blueberry Dessert

28 graham crackers, crumbled
1/2 cup melted butter
1/3 cup sugar

Mix crumbs, butter, and sugar, then press into bottom of nine- by
thirteen-inch baking pan to make crust.

Combine:
1 8-ounce package cream cheese
2 eggs
1/2 cup sugar

Mix together, spread over graham cracker crust. Bake at 350
degrees for fifteen minutes. Let cool. Spread one can of
blueberry pie filling over baked mixture. Chill. Serves twelve to
fifteen.


**Fallen into Temptation:
Recently Karen Mayry, President of the Diabetics Division of the
National Federation of the Blind, wrote to all members of that
division.  Among other things she said:
 The JDF (Juvenile Diabetes Foundation) is planning to launch a
scare tactic campaign this fall. Included in the ad is footage of
a fellow (who happens to be blind) preparing for a dance. He is
portrayed as a groovy guy, and no one knows that he is blind
until he takes
his dog and his cane upon leaving his apartment. The script
accompanying the ad states that diabetes is a `horrible' disease.
Of course, JDF intends to raise thousands of dollars through this
campaign for research.  Glen Peterson, from the JDF Public
Relations Department, said they were not trying to make a
statement about blindness. Rather, they were pointing out how
horrible diabetes can be. For those of us,  Karen said,  who live
with diabetes and its complications in a positive manner, it is
difficult to believe that we face a horrible plight. Very few
people live their lives without some complication.  Hopefully we
can write hundreds of letters to Mr. Peterson and point out that
this campaign is more harmful than good. The address of the
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is: 432 Hot Avenue South, 16th
Floor, New York, New York 10016. 
Karen's point is well taken and bears repeating.  Each one of us
can and should write to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation to
register our concern, for each of us is diminished by this
fund-raising appeal.  Further, this example serves as a reminder. 
All of us must be vigilant this day and every day.  Wherever we
see such appeals, ad campaigns, or general references to
blindness and the blind, we must act quickly and decisively. It
is not too late to make a New Year's resolution to react
constructively to every such reference we come across in 1989.

**Catalog:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  We now
have on cassette our 1989 catalog of gift items and collectibles.
To order send $1.00 to: L. J. Granger, Route 5 Box 1000, Apt. 7,
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70611. 

**New Chapter:
Hazel Staley, President of the National Federation of the Blind
of North Carolina, writes: The National Federation of the Blind
of Rowan County was organized in Salisbury, North Carolina, on
October 1, 1988.  Chapter officers are: Sharon Weddington,
President; John Spencer, Vice President; Pat Scercy,
Secretary-Treasurer; and Board Members Renita Ritchie and Burton
Vanhoy. This chapter has been in the planning for several months,
and we are delighted finally to get it off the ground. We welcome
this chapter into our state and national organization.  We
believe that it will be a great asset to our movement. This is
our fourteenth chapter.

**Reactivated and Expanded:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  On
January 1, 1989, Warren Sladky reorganized his sales operations
to reach the entire population of the continental United States.
You may become
a member of each of the divisions of the umbrella Wessian
Specialties for a one- time-only fee. The slimmed-down `Braille
Gift Service,'
now cataloged in Braille or on cassette, features: (a) products
suitable for yourself and for giving; (b) excellent copies of
famous brand-name fragrances and scents, potpourris, sachets,
etc., at bargain prices;
(c) choice Brailling, mailing, and shipping supplies; fee, $1.00
(specify format). A new concept `Wessian Rec'Ordering Service,'
cataloged on two cassettes, features: (a) wide range of
recordings not found in
record shops; (b) choice of most domestic label recordings; (c)
recordings on cassettes or compact discs, not LP's; (d) toll-free
ordering;
fee, $2.00. WRS is a special ordering service to help the blind
obtain recordings that would be hard for them to locate locally,
such as classics and the spoken word. Please note that BGS gifts
are not aids and appliances for the blind, and that WRS
recordings are all originals, not cheap duplicates. There are no
print catalogs,
and the catalog cassettes are standard speed, playable on any
cassette player. Order by Braille, print, or on cassette and
specify division(s) from Wessian Specialties, P. O. Box 20015N,
Cleveland, Ohio 44120. 

**Appointed:
Ruby Ryles is First Vice President of the Parents of Blind
Children Division of the National Federation of the Blind. She is
also the mother of a blind child, a member of the National
Federation of the Blind of Washington State, and a certified
teacher. We have just learned that Mrs. Ryles has been appointed
for a two-year term to the Board of Trustees of the Washington
State School for the Blind.

**Braille Cards:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Hand
Brailled, easy to carry three by five cards to aid in memorizing
Braille. Section one contains the alphabet, plus the word each
letter stands for, as well as the dot numbers for each letter.
Section two contains letter word contractions. Section three
contains single cell signs, plus
dot numbers. Section four contains double cell signs, plus dot
numbers.  Section five contains words beginning with dot five.
Section six contains sign letter contractions. Section seven
contains numbers and most commonly used punctuation, plus dot
numbers. Price $10.00. For information write: Charlene Groves,
1899 Washington Valley Road, Martinsville, New Jersey 08836.

**Electric Perkins Brailler:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Dr.
Adelaide
E. Wink, 61 South Lee Street, Beverly Hills, Florida 32665-9130,
wishes to sell an electric Perkins Brailler in almost new
condition for $600.  She requests that payment accompany the
order.

**New Braille Teaching Text:
David Hyde, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Oregon, writes as follows: Ann Strauss, a rehabilitation teacher
with the Oregon Commission for the Blind, has written a new
Braille teaching
text for the adult reader. The series is called  Reading With
Feeling  and is written especially for those who love to read.
Corresponding print and Braille pages enable the student to study
independently
or with sighted assistance. Examples are taken from
thought-provoking literary passages. Practice readings are from
published works and
have been chosen for their interest and entertainment value. The
approach to Grade One Braille is phonetic. Grade Two symbols are
grouped so that students can learn quickly and enjoy the process.
Send check or money order to MSMT, 1186 Yulupa Avenue Suite 349,
Santa Rosa, California 95405; (707) 586-1999. The price per four-
volume set is $30.00.

Collaborators:
We have received the following information: Jan Bailey and Chris
Ann Cuppett, members of the National Federation of the Blind of
Minnesota, inform us that they have collaborated on a slim volume
for senior citizens or other interested beginners called  Grade
One Braille for Beginners .  It is available for a nominal fee in
Braille, print, and on tape from the Communication Center, 2200
University Avenue
West, St. Paul, Minnesota  55114-1840.  Also available from the
Communication Center are: a tape recorded list identifying
libraries for the blind and agencies selling aids and appliances
for the blind, and a tape recorded lecture entitled  Conquering
Grade Two Braille.   For information about these items write to
the Communication Center or call (612) 642-0849.

**Of Rocks and Principles:
So far as we know, Thomas Jefferson said it first; but we got it
from the November, 1988,  Palmetto Blind , the magazine of the
National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina:
 In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste,
swim with the current. 
