                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           July, 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
                        BRAILLE MONITOR
       PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                            CONTENTS
                           JULY, 1989

AIRLINE BATTLE MOVES TOWARD SHOWDOWN
  by Kenneth Jernigan

AIRLINES, THE SAFETY HOAX, AND THE FAA: A REPORT FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIRCRAFT CABIN SAFETY

KENNETH JERNIGAN TESTIFIES ON 
AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT

PRESIDENT MAURER APPEARS ON  THE TODAY SHOW 

A LETTER TO BRANIFF AIRLINES

A SLIP OF THE TONGUE
  by Barbara Pierce

ORAL MILLER AND THE ACB DEMONSTRATE THEIR USUAL IMMATURITY 
AND BAD TEMPER AND SELL THE BLIND OUT AGAIN
by Kenneth Jernigan

DARKENED HANGARS

WHEN OMNIVOROUS READING ISN'T ENOUGH

OF AIRLINES, KOWTOWING, AND BRAILLE BROCHUREs

SENATOR HARKIN TESTIFIES IN FAVOR OF 
THE AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT

COMMITTEE ON JOINT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORT MEETS
by Kenneth Jernigan

MICHIGAN SAYS UP WITH STANDARDS AND QUALITY SERVICES 
AND DOWN WITH NAC
  by Kenneth Jernigan

NORMA KRAJCZAR OUT IN NEW JERSEY

CONNIE McCRAW DIES
  by Kenneth Jernigan

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1989

              AIRLINE BATTLE MOVES TOWARD SHOWDOWN
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

For more than a dozen years (sometimes it almost seems like
forever) the blind of this country have been trying to get equal
treatment with others when flying on commercial airplanes. As 
Monitor  readers know, the battle has been lengthy and furious.
We have been accused of being militant, radical, stubborn,
stupid, nit-picky, and inconsiderate and these are only the
kinder and more printable things that have been said. Yet, we
have stood by our principles and refused to knuckle under.
The controversy is now moving into a decisive phase. On March 13
of this year the Federal Aviation Administration printed proposed
rules which would bar the blind from sitting in exit rows on
planes, and on March 14 hearings were held before the
Subcommittee on Aviation of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation to consider S. 341 (The Air Travel
Rights for Blind Individuals Act), introduced by Senator Ernest
F. Hollings of South Carolina. Senator Hollings is Chairman of
the full Committee. Representatives of the National Federation of
the Blind testified in support of S. 341, and the federal
Department of Transportation and the airline industry testified
against it. The hearing attracted a great deal of media coverage,
including an appearance by President Maurer on NBC's  Today Show
.
On May 16, 1989, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation approved S. 341 as introduced and ordered the bill
to be reported
to the full Senate. The bill was approved by the Committee on a
voice vote of the senators present. Including Senator Hollings,
there were seven Republicans and five Democrats in the room. Only
two senators
(Slade Gorton, Republican of Washington State, and Conrad Burns,
Republican of Montana) appeared to vote no. Both Senator Gorton
and Senator Burns also made brief speeches to explain why they
were going to vote against
S. 341. Their reasons amounted to an unquestioning acceptance of
the safety arguments made by FAA and airline industry officials. 
Senator James Exon, Democrat of Nebraska, spoke strongly in favor
of S. 341, as did Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii.
Senator Exon said that he had not received satisfactory answers
from the FAA in response to his questions about their safety
claims. Privately
it is said that the Air Transport Association contacted several
senators in an attempt to find one who would offer an amendment
to convert
the bill's purpose into a call for an FAA study. Not one of the
senators offered such an amendment. At the time of this writing
(late May) the bill is awaiting action by the entire Senate.
Including Senator Hollings, S. 341 currently has thirty-two
cosponsors, and the chances seem good that it will pass the
Senate. This is so despite the strong lobbying of Department of
Transportation officials and the money and power of the airline
industry.
In the House of Representatives the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act has been introduced as H.R. 563. As was the case
in the last session of Congress, the principal sponsor is
Congressman James Traficant of Ohio. One hundred fifty-nine other
members of the House have so
far joined with him as cosponsors. The Chairman of the House
subcommittee to which H.R. 563 has been reported is not a
cosponsor and has not yet scheduled hearings, but as the number
of supporters grows, it would seem likely that he (Congressman
James Oberstar, MN) will.
In response to the Committee approval of S. 341 the  New York
Times  carried an unfavorable editorial on Saturday, May 20. An
appropriate answer is being prepared, which we will try to get
the  Times  to carry on its Op Ed page. The battle is now fully
joined, and it remains to be seen whether the Congress, the
media, and the general public have advanced far enough in their
thinking to understand the issues and be willing to accord
first-class citizenship to the blind.  Regardless of the outcome,
we continue to make steady progress. Even two years ago we were
not able to move the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act
through a committee and onto the floor of either House.  This
year prospects are bright, and we may be able to see the bill
enacted into law. In any case we will continue our march to
freedom, and we will not be turned back.

   AIRLINES, THE SAFETY HOAX, AND THE FAA:  A REPORT FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 
ON AIRCRAFT CABIN SAFETY
 In the fall of 1986 Congress passed and the President signed
into law the Air Carrier Access Act, a piece of legislation
intended to protect disabled people from discrimination at the
hands of the nation's airlines. Members of the National
Federation of the Blind were cautiously jubilant over this
victory. Leaders in both the House and Senate had assured us and
one another that this law was designed to protect blind
passengers from harassment over seat location, stowage of canes,
disposition of dog guides, etc. The Department of Transportation
(DOT) was charged with devising the implementation of this law,
and they had only ninety days in which to do it. We were
skeptical, and our skepticism proved to be well-founded. 
 At the mid-point of 1989, the DOT implementation is still no
more than a proposed document. But (and it is a very large  but 
indeed) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has now weighed
in with its own contribution to the discussion. Until the summer
of 1988 it had maintained that where blind passengers sat in an
aircraft cabin was not a safety issue. Its data, gathered in 1973
and apparently not revised since, had determined this position.
But on March 13,
1989, the FAA published in the  Federal Register  a
fifty-nine-page document of rule-making. For months FAA
representatives had been warning interested parties that they
would soon take an official stand, and it was clear what they
would say. Suddenly the FAA had discovered that safety was at
issue, and the blind (along with members of other identifiable
groups) were unsafe at any speed and in any circumstance. 
      The arguments the FAA cobbled together and the National
Federation of the Blind's responses to them are discussed
elsewhere in this issue.  In November of 1988, James Gashel,
Director of Governmental Affairs of the National Federation of
the Blind, attended an international conference on air cabin
safety. He assumed that this was the place where one could hear
straight talk about air safety and observe the industry and the
regulators' true commitment to safety. His assumption proved to
be dismayingly correct. Here is Mr. Gashel's report: 

The Federal Aviation Administration is the branch of the United
States Department of Transportation which operates the nationwide
air traffic control system. It is also supposed to develop and
publish standards for air carriers to follow in providing safe
service to the public.  For example, FAA regulations prescribe
the content of the preflight safety briefings the flight
attendants must give passengers prior to takeoff. The Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, spells out the FAA's
responsibilities.
Air carrier representatives have always tried to hoodwink blind
people into believing that seating restrictions have always been
required by the FAA. This has happened whenever there have been
confrontations over exit-row seat assignments. Blind people
seated near the exits
have been routinely told that there was an FAA regulation which
required them to move. They were also told that failure to do so
would be a violation of federal law. Until June of 1989, when the
FAA's proposed rule took effect, these statements were not true.
They were only made to intimidate blind people into moving. The
facts are that each air carrier has had its own procedures, which
may (or may not) have included seating restrictions. These rules
(which may be in a carrier's procedures) were not a matter of
federal law. They were not enforced by the FAA but merely filed
with it.
The FAA did not require air carriers to establish procedures that
restricted blind passengers from being seated near emergency
exits.
Some (a majority) of carriers placed such restrictions in their
procedures.  Others did not. Until very recently, the FAA did not
have a regulation which forced it to impose restrictions. The
carriers (especially the major ones which have always restricted
seating for the blind) pressured the FAA to impose a uniform
federal ban on seating blind people near emergency exits. After
all, a federal rule would remove responsibility from the
carriers, who could then legitimately point fingers at the FAA.
They could tell the blind that  the FAA made us do it,  and it
would be the truth.
In light of the controversy over this matter, which has been
heating up over the past several years, it seemed like a good
idea to attend an international flight safety conference, held in
early November, 1988, near Washington, D.C. The conference was
sponsored by the FAA and organized by the Flight Safety
Foundation what better place to learn about safety issues in air
travel? Participants included
all major commercial airlines, aircraft manufacturers, pilot and
flight attendant unions, staff from the National Transportation
Safety Board, FAA representatives, and assorted consultants
interested in aircraft cabin safety. Twenty-one countries,
including the United States, were represented. Among the 243
participants were personnel officially representing thirty-eight
airlines.
Quite apart from the issue of seating blind people near emergency
exits, there are several questions which come to mind when one
attends an aircraft cabin safety conference. The general question
is,  How safe are airplanes anyway?  If blind people are to be
denied seats near emergency exits, does this restriction
constitute a higher standard of safety than is normally applied?
Is any effort being made to correct known safety hazards? Which
ones (if any) are being tolerated and why? Are airlines willing
to take steps which would make air travel safer for all
passengers? If not, why? These are only a few of the issues that
crossed my mind as the cabin safety conference opened.

One question was quickly answered in the first few minutes of the
conference. Thomas E. McSweeny, the FAA's Deputy Director,
summarized his agency's activities undertaken in response to
recommendations of a similar conference held four years ago. He
discussed the FAA's development of regulations on handicapped
seating but admitted that these rules were not being promulgated
in response to a conference recommendation, for the very good
reason that none had been made.  The cabin safety experts had
apparently seen no reason to do so.  Attending a flight safety
conference is not a reassuring experience.  Although I had
suspected that this might be the case, the reality
was even more frightening than I had anticipated. I already knew
about some of the hazards, such as babies being seated on laps.
Some youngsters and other passengers have been seriously injured
for lack of child restraints during steep dives, turbulence, or
cabin-decompression.  Requiring child restraints, such as those
used in automobiles, would be feasible and certainly safer for
all passengers, especially the children. An FAA spokeswoman told
me, however, that child restraints are not required because of 
economics.  If they were, parents would undoubtedly be charged
for a seat, whereas now children who sit on laps fly free. Child
restraints would also mean additional costs to the airlines, she
said.
I was shocked to learn about another danger involving the
transport of hazardous materials on board passenger-carrying
aircraft. Federal regulations require the shippers of such cargo
to identify these materials and to obey other packaging and
shipping specifications. Experts at the conference said, however,
that shippers frequently mislabel the materials in ways that mask
the hazard. In one example given, chemicals used for making
acid-washed jeans were identified by the shipper as laundry
equipment. Mislabeling can lead to improper packaging and the
failure to stow the materials safely on board the aircraft.
In the example given, the chemicals, which were flammable, were
placed in a Class D cargo compartment for a flight to Nashville,
Tennessee.  When the aircraft was about to land, the passengers
and cabin crew began to smell smoke the hazardous materials had
burst into flame.  The Class D cargo compartment does not contain
fire sensors, and even if it did, there are no extinguishers
nearby. The crew, therefore, has no way of knowing the exact
location of the fire or the means
to put it out. Such a catastrophe could occur on virtually any
aircraft flying today.
The working portion of the conference consisted of several small
group sessions. I chose to attend the one on passenger
information. We discussed the practice of orally briefing all
passengers using the public address system before each flight. I
said that including the row numbers of the emergency exits in the
oral announcements would be a good idea.  Most people are
conscious of their own row locations by virtue of the boarding
process. Mentioning the row numbers of the exits would be an
additional guide for all passengers in locating the escape route
nearest their seats. This was the only proposal voted upon in the
entire meeting, and astonishingly, it lost, getting only seven
votes.  Opponents offered various excuses. For example, some
aircraft cabins are numbered in reverse order, and sometimes rows
(13 for instance) are omitted. After airline personnel claimed
that the cabin crews might, in confusion, announce incorrect row
numbers for the exits, most of the flight attendant
representatives voted in favor of the proposal.
Considering the matter purely from a safety standpoint, it would
be
hard to argue that announcing the exit row numbers would be more
dangerous than the present practice of not doing so. A
spokeswoman from the National Transportation Safety Board (who
also seemed to favor announcing the locations of exits) mentioned
that her agency had thought for some time that flight attendants
should point to them. She said that the National Transportation
Safety Board has been trying for several years to convince the
FAA to establish a regulation requiring flight attendants to
point out the exits. The FAA has not made such a regulation.  One
might ask why?
At the conference, the answer was apparent. Several references
were made to the fact that airlines are worried about the image
of commercial flying. They do not want to emphasize possible
hazards for fear the public will abandon air travel. This anxiety
was apparent over and over again as airline representatives
argued against every proposal that would give passengers more
information about safety.
Someone mentioned that on several occasions passengers have
initiated emergency evacuations in response to non-emergency
conditions. This
has happened most often when the auxiliary power unit  torches. 
Torching of the power units occurs when excess fuel catches fire,
and a small explosion takes place. The experience can be very
frightening to an uninformed passenger. It has resulted in more
than one unnecessary emergency evacuation, causing injuries and
delaying flights.
I proposed that this, and other problems of emergency
evacuations, be dealt with by means of a special preflight
briefing which should be given to each occupant of a seat near an
emergency exit. These passengers are the ones who must understand
and obey the flight attendants' commands in time of emergency.
Hasty action (as in the case of a torching incident) might cause
more injuries than waiting for instructions.

These special briefings were not a popular idea. Airline
personnel maintained that their flights are very tightly
scheduled, and there
isn't sufficient time to give a special briefing to the exit row
occupants.  So much for safety. A consultant whose company makes
briefing cards for the airlines suggested that passengers might
want to move if they were informed of their responsibilities. I
responded that this was exactly the point. A passenger should
know what to do if there were an emergency. If he or she candidly
expresses unwillingness to assume or perform the duties (or if
the passenger realizes that he or she is unable to do so), a
change should be made. It would be unsafe and irresponsible not
to brief the passengers and to leave the uninformed, unwilling,
or unable passenger seated near the exit door. Nonetheless, this
proposal was not even seriously considered.
The group's discussion moved on to briefing cards. There was
considerable debate about whether or not the cards are adequate.
I proposed that they be designed to give only the safety
directions that apply to the aircraft on which they are carried.
The FAA regulations require that the cards explain procedures for
the type and model of aircraft, but not for the specific plane.
Having aircraft-specific briefing cards did not seem like a good
idea to anyone else. As matters stand, with the cards only
reflecting the type and model of aircraft, a passenger who must
open an emergency exit door may have several instructions from
which to choose. In a crisis it is quite unrealistic to expect
that he or she can make the correct decision quickly. To avoid
confusion, it would be better to have aircraft-specific cards,
but the airlines do not want them.
The group meeting on passenger information was not very
productive,
to say the least. Reacting to my proposals, Mr. Ron Welding,
representing the Air Transport Association of America, finally
said that matters involving the handicapped were being dealt with
by a special group
of experts working with the Department of Transportation. He
apparently did not regard me as one of those experts. Mr. Welding
proposed that I take my suggestions to those who knew about the
handicapped because these matters were not the subject before the
passenger information
group at this conference. I responded in part by saying that the
proposals I had been making were not matters involving the
handicapped at all.  They would make air travel safer for
everyone. The special briefing for emergency row occupants, for
example, had nothing whatsoever to do with the handicapped. I
addressed several other comments to Mr.  Welding, who was not
heard from again.
Here is the bottom line. Airlines are resistant to any new safety
suggestions which might emphasize the possible hazards of flying.
They also resist new measures which would increase safety. Their
resistance is strongest when safer procedures have economic
implications, but even those that do not are resisted if they
require a change. Ask any pilot or flight attendant if this is
true. It is not that the airlines care nothing about safety; of
course they do. But airlines also care about other things, such
as making money. Many studies show that air travel in this
country has become increasingly unsafe due
to the growing competition for paying customers. This is what
airlines care about most and is the reason why they persist, for
example, in selling liquor to exit row passengers who will need
to have sound judgment in case of an emergency. It is also why
the airlines do not want to give emergency row occupants special
briefings, for fear that they will waste valuable time, or that
they may convince some passengers to move.
Doubtless many people in the commercial aviation industry think
it would be safer not to have blind people seated near emergency
exits.  They hold to this view without a single piece of proof,
and yet knowingly accept risks that have serious safety
implications. Why do passenger-carrying aircraft transport
hazardous materials? Because shippers want this service, and
airlines want the money. The planes carrying passengers are
flying anyway, so why not fill the empty space with anything that
the customer is willing to pay for? Why not install fire
detectors and extinguishers? Because of the expense. It is not
that the airlines want to be unsafe; it is just that they want to
make money.
This is the lesson one learns by attending an international
conference on aircraft cabin safety. It is not a reassuring
experience. In fact, it is downright frightening. Here is what
the airlines are saying to us: It is perfectly appropriate to
discriminate against the blind by restricting their seating (and
performing other demeaning acts)
as long as safety is the excuse. But when it comes to increased
protection against hazardous materials, special briefings for
passengers seated near exits, aircraft-specific briefing cards,
oral announcements of the location of emergency exits, or even
pointing to the exits, the airlines want none of it. After
uncovering that kind of logic, can anyone doubt that we face
discrimination by the airlines of a most
cruel and vicious type? Only through the efforts of the National
Federation of the Blind is this unequal treatment being
challenged. They tell
us that there is no discrimination, that the blind are not a
minority.  That is what they tell us, but in flying on the
airlines we have learned to our cost that it is not the truth.
                 KENNETH JERNIGAN TESTIFIES ON 
AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT
 The following statement was presented by Kenneth Jernigan before
the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on March 14, 1989. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director of the
National Federation of the Blind; and my address is 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; telephone, (301) 659-9314.
This hearing concerns the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals
Act (S. 341), introduced by Senator Hollings and others last
month. We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you and Senator McCain
are original co-sponsors of the bill.
The Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act is necessary
legislation.  The blind, who have come here this morning from
throughout the United States, can tell you from personal
experience that this is so.  Today the situation is such that no
blind person in this country can board a plane without fear of
harassment, public humiliation, and possibly arrest and bodily
injury. I have been riding on airplanes
for more than thirty-five years, and I can say from firsthand
knowledge that it was not always like this. Prior to the 1970's
blind people almost never experienced problems in air travel. We
bought our tickets, went to the airport, boarded the plane,
traveled to our destination, got off, and went about our business
just like everybody else. If one of us wanted help in boarding a
plane or making a connection, the assistance was requested and
given without a thought.
Then, things began to change. Ironically the problem was caused
by the 1973 amendments to the federal Rehabilitation Act and the
growing emphasis on affirmative action and prohibition of
discrimination against the handicapped. One would have thought
these things would have been positive steps, but they were not at
least, not for the blind.  Airline personnel and federal
regulators didn't become knowledgeable overnight or lose their
prejudices just because somebody told them to engage in
affirmative action and nondiscrimination. Mostly with respect to
air travel the blind didn't need any affirmative action.  We were
doing just fine as it was. But the airlines and the federal
regulators wouldn't have it that way.
They began by lumping all of what they perceived to be the
handicapped together wheelchair users, the blind, the deaf, the
quadriplegic, the cerebral palsied, and everybody else including,
very often, small children. Next they catalogued what they
believed to be the problems, needs, and characteristics of these
groups and then assumed that each item on the list applied to
every member of every group they had included. The resulting
mythical composite was a monstrosity, totally helpless, totally
in need of custody, and totally nonexistent except in the minds
of airline officials and federal regulators.  When we objected
and insisted on our right to the same freedom of travel that
other Americans enjoy, the airline officials and federal
regulators reacted with anger and resentment. Since nobody wants
to admit to prejudice and ignorance, they said their treatment of
us was based on safety. After all, who can fight safety!
In 1986 Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of handicap in air travel, and even
that law has now been twisted into the exact opposite of what
Congress intended. Today
we are faced with a proposed regulation by the Federal Aviation
Administration in response to the 1986 law, and it is not by
accident that the regulation was published just prior to this
hearing. Of course, the regulation is made in the name of safety,
but it is not a question of safety
at all but of human rights and the freedom to travel. More
specifically the regulation prohibits blind persons from sitting
in exit rows on airplanes, but much more than exit row seating is
involved. If the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act is
adopted, a signal will be sent to the airlines and the Federal
Aviation Administration. If the legislation is not passed and the
FAA rule is allowed to stand, a signal will also be sent that the
blind are fair game for any kind of treatment the airlines and
the FAA wish to give us, as long as it is done in the name of
safety.
If the abuse we are taking from the airlines had anything to do
with safety, we wouldn't object, but it doesn't. The truth is
that we are being made victims of a misdirected and misapplied
federal policy that has irrationally gone wild. Let me give you
examples and show you what I mean.
In early February of this year the blind were in Washington to
talk to Congress about (among other things) the unreasonable
treatment
we are receiving from the airlines. Going home from that meeting
Verla Kirsch, a blind woman from Iowa, was assaulted and publicly
humiliated by Midway Airlines flight personnel. Even though Mrs.
Kirsch's white cane was on the floor in the approved FAA manner,
the flight attendant (over her protest) took it from her,
returning it after takeoff. On the descent into Chicago two
Midway flight attendants sneaked up on
Mrs. Kirsch, hunkered down, grabbed and lifted her legs, (yes, I
literally mean that) and in her words,  yanked the cane from
under my feet, bending the cane and nearly breaking it. 
On the trip from Chicago to Des Moines (still on Midway) Mrs.
Kirsch found that the word had gone ahead of her, but this time
she was prepared and refused to be caught off guard. After
publicly harassing her, flight personnel found in their own
manual that Mrs. Kirsch was in the right and that blind persons
(according to Midway's own policies) may keep their canes at
their seats. But the damage was done. Imagine the spectacle, the
embarrassment, and the public humiliation! This (and not just
exit row seating) is what is really at stake with the proposed
FAA rule, this hearing, and the passage of the Air Travel Rights
for Blind Individuals Act.
Is it safe for blind persons to sit in exit rows? Are there, in
fact, times when it would be a plus? Here is the sworn statement
of a pilot:   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 in which it was put to the test. In
the early 1980's Lawrence Marcelino, a member of the board of
directors
of the National Federation of the Blind, 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 Marcelino 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 emergency, and as I
have just told you, I know of at least one instance (the one
involving Marcelino)
in which blindness was a positive asset. Yet, the FAA and the
airlines keep prattling to us about safety.
What evidence do they have?  I have carefully studied the FAA's
proposed rule, and they rely heavily on tests made in 1973 by the
Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI). The FAA's own words discredit
the CAMI tests.
In their report CAMI said that blind passengers caused a slight
slowing of the evacuation of an airplane. However, for the
critical portion of the tests they did not use real blind persons
but sighted persons who pretended to be blind. These sighted
pretenders would have no experience in the techniques used by the
blind, nor would they have the background to know how to function
with skill and speed under blindfold. The real blind persons were
not allowed to open the emergency exits or to go down the
evacuation slides. It was a matter of safety, done for their own
protection. They were allowed to walk from their seats to the
emergency exits.
Moreover, the selection of the people who were to be tested is
interesting.  The sighted (the so-called nonhandicapped) were FAA
employees or people recruited through the University of
Oklahoma's Office of Research Administration. The blind (not the
simulated but the real) were recruited from the Oklahoma League
for the Blind, which operates a sheltered workshop. FAA employees
are likely to be familiar with aircraft and probably are frequent
flyers. In short, the sighted who participated in the test were
selected for maximum success.
Federal statistics tell us that a large percentage of sheltered
workshop employees are multiply handicapped. In addition, their
low wages and limited opportunities make it unlikely that they
are regular air travelers.  In short, the blind participants
(even when they were real and not simulated) were selected for
poor performance. I am not suggesting that all of this was
consciously done. Nevertheless, it  was  done. It is not very
difficult to see what the results would have been if blind
frequent air travelers had been tested against sighted sheltered
workshop employees or, for that matter, against the FAA personnel
who were actually used.
But we do not have to speculate about the competence of blind
persons to perform in emergency evacuations of airplanes. On
April 3, 1985, members of the National Federation of the Blind
took part in the evacuation of an airplane at the Baltimore
airport. The airplane was real, and the blind persons were real.
They were not simulated, and they did not simply walk from their
seats to the exits but went all of the way opening the emergency
exit, deploying the evacuation slide, and jumping out. I know,
for I was there. I jumped out of that airplane twice.
The test made by the National Federation of the Blind was much
more realistic than the one performed by CAMI. We wanted
approximately equal numbers of blind and sighted persons so that
we could see whether there was any difference in their speed and
efficiency. Our first problem was to find competent sighted
participants. One person had back problems; another had a bad
heart; another had foot problems; and so it went. But in the real
world of everyday flying every one of these people would have
qualified for exit row seating, without a question or a thought.
We videoed that test evacuation, and I have the tape here with me
today to submit as part of the record. If you run it once through
at normal speed, you will see passengers seated in a plane, then
moving to the exit, and going down the slide. Mostly you will not
be able to tell the difference between the sighted and the blind.
They move with equal ease.
When you run the tape slowly (stopping at critical points to
study
it), what it tells you is damning to the FAA's case. The airline
personnel said we should move quickly in a double line, but a
flight attendant was standing at the exit partially blocking it.
I know, for I had to go around her. In a real emergency I would
not have been slowed as I was in the test. I would have simply
picked her up, placed her gently but firmly on the slide, and
followed her.
Standing beside the flight attendant, you will see a male airline
employee. He slows the flow of traffic by peeking around the
flight attendant to look down the slide to see whether the blind
are making it. The flight attendant also takes time out to peek,
further blocking the exit.
You will observe that one of the passengers has a dog guide. He
was moving quickly to go down the evacuation slide but was slowed
by the male flight attendant, who insisted on trying to tell him
how to do it. The female flight attendant kept reaching her arm
back into the flow of traffic, presumably trying to help but in
reality impeding the evacuation. In one instance it can be seen
that she locks elbows with a female evacuee and then grabs at
her, causing the passenger to lose balance. Nevertheless, the
descent was made safely. As I have already said, in the real
world the airline personnel would probably not have had the
opportunity to slow the evacuation. In any case the tape speaks
for itself.
Last week I had occasion to fly from Denver to Washington, and
what happened to me is illustrative of the problem we are facing.
Although on many other trips I have been harassed and threatened,
nothing like that happened on this one. Everybody was friendly
and good-tempered, and I am sure the flight attendants were not
even aware that their actions were noteworthy. But you be the
judge. Put yourself in my place.
I was traveling with my sighted wife. Shortly after we took our
seats, a flight attendant came and very pleasantly and politely
said that
she must give me a special briefing. She asked me to feel of the
oxygen mask and then said that she would like me to fasten and
unfasten my seat belt for her. Sighted persons are neither
required to look at nor listen to briefings, and certainly they
are not asked publicly to demonstrate that they are capable of
fastening and unfastening a seat belt. Nevertheless, I complied
with good temper and without protest.
But, you may say, what's the big deal? Such treatment doesn't
really mean that you are being treated like a child, or thought
of as one.  Perhaps but a few minutes later a second flight
attendant (again,
a most pleasant individual) came to my seat and said to my wife: 
Has he had his special briefing yet? 
I smiled and replied:  Yes, he has had his briefing.  The flight
attendant gave a small embarrassed laugh, and the rest of the
flight proceeded without incident but what I have just told you
has far more significance than superficial appearance would
indicate. It translates into a general public feeling that the
blind are incompetent and unable to compete. Put to one side the
damage
it does to the self-image of the blind who are still in doubt of
their own worth or, for that matter, what it would do to any of
us, whether blind or sighted especially, if the occurrence is not
isolated but part of an everyday pattern.
This simple incident which seems so innocent and unimportant is
the very essence of our problem. It translates into unemployment,
lack of acceptance, low self-esteem, and second-class
citizenship. Is it all right (even praiseworthy) for other
Americans to insist on their rights but not all right for the
blind to do it? Are human dignity and freedom meant for everybody
else in this country but not for the blind? Is the American dream
exclusively the property of the sighted or is it meant for the
blind, too? I believe it is meant for all of us, and I think
Congress and the public think so, too. I believe that as you
learn the facts, you will not permit the airlines and the FAA to
continue what they are doing to the blind.
Yes, we are talking about safety, but not the kind contemplated
by the FAA in its discriminatory rule. That is why we are asking
for your help. That is why we are asking you to pass (and pass
quickly) the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act.
PRESIDENT MAURER APPEARS ON  THE TODAY SHOW   On March 13, 1989,
the Federal Aviation Administration published a rule in the 
Federal Register  prohibiting blind persons from sitting in exit
rows on airplanes. On March 14, 1989, hearings were held before a
Senate committee concerning legislation to prevent this
discrimination. Earlier on March 14 Marc Maurer (President of the
National Federation of the Blind) appeared on NBC's popular
morning program,  The Today Show.  Here is the transcript of that
appearance: 

 Bryant Gumbel:  One in 500,000 Americans are blind, a fact that
leaves them heavily dependent on others for transportation. In
their efforts to be treated like anybody else, blind people now
have a bone of contention, they say, to pick with the airlines
and have turned to the federal government for action. For years
airlines have tried
to restrict just where blind people can sit on planes. [Roll 
videotape of Russell Anderson attempting to buy a ticket at
Washington National Airport after he had been removed from a U.S.
Air flight on which he had been assigned an exit row seat.]
 Ticket Agent:  Do not assign blind or deaf passengers or anyone
who would obviously encounter a difficulty operating or exiting
through an emergency exit window.... This is our policy....
 Mr. Gumbel (voice-over):  This is what happened a few years ago
when a blind attorney asked for a seat in an emergency exit row.  
Ticket agent:  I'm sorry, that seat's already taken. I can give
you another seat.
 Russell Anderson:  12-B.
 Ticket agent:  That...that seat's already taken.   Mr. Anderson: 
I'd be happy to sit in 12-D.   Ticket agent:  That seat's taken
too.
 Mr. Anderson : Then I'd be happy to sit in 12-E.   Ticket agent: 
That seat's already taken.
 Mr. Gumbel:   Airlines have cited safety concerns to keep the
blind out of exit row seats. But some claim that's
discrimination.
Today the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation will hold hearings on
legislation that will prohibit airlines from enacting such
policy. One key witness scheduled to testify in Washington is
Marc Maurer, the President of
the National Federation of the Blind, who's in our newsroom this
morning.  Mr. Maurer, good morning.
 Marc Maurer:  Good morning.
 Mr. Gumbel:  You've no doubt taken this problem to the airlines.
What's been their response?
 Mr. Maurer:  Their response has been primarily to ignore the
blind and, sometimes, to bring up the kind of talk which says, 
This is all a safety matter,  when, in fact, it isn't a safety
matter.  As a matter of fact, the National Federation of the
Blind about four
years ago did an evacuation of a DC-10. That DC-10 was at the
Baltimore-Washington International Airport.  We have videotapes
of that, and if you examine the videotape of that evacuation, you
won't know (unless you have advance information) which of the
people getting out of that plane is blind and which of those
people is sighted. You just can't tell.   Mr. Gumbel:  But do you
question the motives of the airlines in this case? I mean, do you
doubt they believe they're doing this for what they see as the
common good?
 Mr. Maurer:  The airlines say that if they became blind they
wouldn't know what to do, and I believe that. If a sighted person
becomes blind today if you take a blindfold and put it on right
now you won't know very much about being blind. The Federal
Aviation Administration has said it's all a matter of safety, and
the way they came to that conclusion was this: They took a bunch
of sighted people, and they made them into simulated blind
people. They said that they couldn't have blind people jump out
of an airplane because it was
too dangerous. So they got a bunch of sighted people, and they
blindfolded them, and they said,  now these people are blind, and
consequently, we'll make a test.  Well it doesn't make any sense
to take a sighted person and blindfold him and expect him to be
able to behave as a blind person does.  They don't have any
experience or any training.  If you become blindfolded right now,
I can beat you at most anything
you try, because I know how. So you take blind people who have
experience and compare them to the sighted people. As I say, in
this evacuation we did four years ago, unless you know, you can't
tell the difference.   Mr. Gumbel:  But, Mr. Maurer, sighted
people have a stake in this. I mean, can you not empathize a
little bit for their, perhaps, feeling a degree of discomfort in
the knowledge that a blind person might be sitting in an exit
row?
 Mr. Maurer:  Only if they don't know what's involved. There was
a blind person on a plane that landed in San Francisco not too
long ago, and that plane didn't have landing gear that would go
down, so they had to cover the whole area with foam so that the
plane could land on it. The blind person was there, the lights
went out, it was night, and that blind person helped a bunch of
people find the exit.  Therefore if you have a blind person on a
plane, and if it's either dark and the lights are out or there's
smoke in the cabin so that you can't see, a blind person helps.
 Mr. Gumbel:  When we're talking, Mr. Maurer, about only a
handful of seats, why is this exit row such a big deal?
 Mr. Maurer:  It's a matter of discrimination because if you
say that this group is capable and can be in this area, and this
group
is not capable and can't be in this area, then it's a matter of
discrimination.  You know, years ago there were lots of
restaurants, and black people could be in these restaurants, but
they couldn't be in those restaurants, and everybody said,  Well,
why do you really care? Sure, you can't eat in this restaurant,
but you can go down the street and get some food. You're not
going to starve.  So why do black people care?
It's the same argument. You say,  you are second class, and
therefore we can tell you what you must do,  and it's not true.
The evidence doesn't show it. The FAA says it's a matter of
safety. Do they have one incident, in all of the history of
aviation, in which a blind person has contributed to an injury?
They don't, not a one. They came out with a study last Friday
which said that it was all a matter of safety.  Well, that study
goes back to 1973. How many incidents have there been since 1973?
That's over 15 years. How many incidents have there been where a
blind person has contributed to one single injury?  Not one.
Well, how many have there been before 1973? Not one. So where is
the safety question, I'd like to know?
 Mr. Gumbel:  So, do you think you have the public support on
this, or do you even care about that?
 Mr. Maurer:  Oh, I do care about it greatly. I think if the
public understands, then the public will be with us. The public
is worried about it, of course; everybody's worried about airline
safety.  Do I care about safety? You bet I do. Do the blind of
America care?  Of course we do we want to be as safe as everybody
else. But we think that what the FAA and the airlines are trying
to do together is diminishing the safety on planes.
 Mr. Gumbel:  Marc Maurer, I thank you very much, sir, and wish
you well today.
 Mr. Maurer:  Thank you, sir.
                  A LETTER TO BRANIFF AIRLINES
From the Editor:  Under date of February 14, 1989, I received
a letter from Timothy Hendel of Miami, Florida, which said in
part:

Dear Dr. Jernigan,
I did not expect to be sending an airline story to the  Monitor . 
In fact, I am one of those who has sometimes felt that there are
already too many airline stories.  Still, the enclosed letter may
be of interest and you may publish it if you wish.  It does show
how we are sometimes viewed as incompetents.

 I read the letter, and I did wish to publish it. I think you
will see why. Here it is: 

                                                   Miami, Florida
                                                February 12, 1989

Customer Relations
Braniff Airlines
Dallas, Texas

To Whom It May Concern:
On Saturday, January 28, 1989, I was a passenger on Braniff
flight 757 from Miami to Orlando.  That same evening, I traveled
on flight 753 from Orlando back to Miami.  There are several
airlines which fly this route, but I asked my travel agent to
book me on Braniff because I had never flown on your airline
before, and I enjoy trying new airlines.  As you will see, I had
one experience which I did not care for.
I am blind.  When I arrived at the ticket counter in Miami, I was
asked if I wished any assistance.  I stated that I would like
someone
to walk with me to the boarding gate.  This was done with no
problem.  In Orlando, I asked someone to help me get a taxi.  No
problem.  On my
return flight, a similar arrangement was made.  The flight was
comfortable, and up to this point, all Braniff personnel very
courteous.
As sometimes occurs, I fell into conversation with the passenger
sitting next to me.  During our conversation, the flight
attendant passed
by and mentioned that if I would wait until other passengers had
gotten off in Miami, she would see that someone helped me get a
cab.
My fellow traveler said,  Oh, I'm going to the baggage area. 
I'll help you get a cab. 
 Fine, thanks,  I replied.  As we left the aircraft and told the
flight attendant that I would not need her help, she said
sternly,  That's not allowed! 
Surprised, I turned to her and said,  What's not allowed?   You
can't walk off with another passenger.  We're responsible for you
until you get into a cab. 
Without making a fuss, I continued walking with my new friend. 
The flight attendant followed us, and I just thought,  Well, if
she wants to follow us all the way out to the street that's fine
with me.   I wasn't going to say anything.
When we arrived inside the terminal, I was sternly ordered to sit
down and wait for an airline employee.  At this point, I truly
felt incensed.  I said to the flight attendant, courteously but
firmly,  I am free to go where I like, and I'm going to keep
walking with my friend. 
Let me first point out that I appreciate the friendly service
which I did receive on Braniff up to this point.  I appreciate
the help
I was given; I appreciate the refreshments which I and the other
passengers were served. The help I was given is a service, just
as the refreshments served constitute a service, and the rest
rooms aboard the aircraft are a service for passengers.  I would
not have been scolded by a flight attendant for not drinking a
cup of coffee, even if I had ordered it and then changed my mind. 
I would not have been ordered to use the rest rooms, just because
the airlines had provided them.  Why, then, was I ordered to
accept the airline's help when circumstances made it no longer
necessary?  There is only one explanation.  Evidently the flight
attendant, or whoever made the policy, thinks that, if I am
blind, then I am not mentally competent to wisely choose whom I
will walk onto and off of an aircraft with.
I have a master's degree and have held a professional job for
many years.  Yet I was spoken to as though I were a minor child
or a mental incompetent who can't be left in the hands of
strangers.
I hope you will think carefully before answering this letter.  I
hope you will clearly state whether a mistake was made or whether
the flight attendant was conforming to some policy and, if the
latter, then what that policy is.
I am a member of a national consumer organization called the
National Federation of the Blind.  I shall ask our national
headquarters to send you some information on some guidelines
which we have developed for best serving blind passengers on
airplanes.  I think you will learn the following things:  First,
the amount of assistance needed and desired by each blind
individual is different.  This will depend on his/her personal
preference and travel experience.  In this, I am sure that we are
just like your sighted passengers.  Also, for the most part, the
amount of assistance needed by a blind person is less than might
be thought.  As a rule, an arm to hold when walking through an
unfamiliar area is all we want.  We have no trouble with stairs,
inclines, and escalators, unless we also have some problem with
our legs or feet, unrelated to our blindness.  Furthermore, we
have no trouble choosing our friends.
Above all, we wish to be respected as intelligent people, even
when being assisted.  I shall await your reply.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                   Timothy Hendel
                      A SLIP OF THE TONGUE
                        by Barbara Pierce
 This article is reprinted from the spring, 1989, issue of the 
Buckeye Bulletin,  the newsletter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Ohio. 

We in the National Federation of the Blind are fond of reminding
ourselves and everyone else that it is respectable to be blind.
This statement has a certain shock value since no one would
actually argue the position that blindness is not respectable,
and in fact, many members of the sighted public make impassioned
speeches about their deep reverence and admiration for blind
people whom from time to time they have met.  Hard experience has
taught us who are blind that what follows such
an opening is inevitably inaccurate, platitudinous, and
inappropriate comments like these:  I once knew a blind man who
could tell the denominations of currency with his fingers.  
Blind people are so cheerful, perceptive, and intelligent. Why I
just don't know how you people do it!...   My blind neighbor is
so patient and kind, and she does such a wonderful job raising
her children. They're actually learning to take care of her. 
Such descriptions and interpretations of the actions of
competent, well-adjusted blind people do them and all of us an
injustice. Somehow it is easier for people to attribute
superhuman abilities to blind men and women who are merely
behaving normally than to consider the possibility that such folk
might have devised efficient alternative techniques to handle the
ordinary tasks of daily life. Blind business people must be
employing extraordinary techniques to identify money since they
do so correctly. Blind colleagues who enjoy life, get along well
with others, and understand what is going on around them as
clearly as everyone else are obviously superhuman. A blind parent
with well-behaved youngsters is amazing, and the children
obviously must be shouldering adult responsibility or else how
could the family function?
It should not be a surprise (but it frequently is) that a society
which can draw damaging conclusions about blind people, when it
is positively inclined, also holds desperately to a whole host of
prejudices about blindness that pop up from the unconscious,
bolstered by life-long conviction. Such notions must be
eradicated from the hearts and minds of all people, including
ourselves, if the blind are ever to live productive lives, free
from the necessity to fight for every right
and every opportunity. I am referring to basic assumptions about
blindness:  Blind people live in a world of darkness; they are
not as quick to understand as other people; blindness puts an end
to real enjoyment of any but the simplest pleasures; if you can't
see an object, you can't really understand it; etc. How many of
us undermine ourselves and our own capacity for living life fully
by listening to the negative comments of others and also to that
perverse little voice inside ourselves that says,  You're missing
the things that make life meaningful.  Despite the fun you have,
couldn't you have had more if you could see? You can't be
expected to be responsible or socially adept, draw appropriate
conclusions, or make and carry out independent decisions because
you are blind. 
These are the attitudes and prejudices that hold us down and keep
us out. When they occur inside our own minds, they prevent us
from growing and becoming all that we could be. It is essential
that as blind people we fight these attitudes wherever we find
them. This
is the work of the National Federation of the Blind. We give one
another the support and encouragement to battle such notions in
ourselves, and together we stand united to fight them in society
at large.
In fact, in one way or another, all of our differences with
airline, Department of Transportation, and Federal Aviation
Administration officials have been occasioned precisely because
the policies under dispute have been manifestations of these
ancient misconceptions about blind people.
On March 8, 1989, I was watching the program,  The CBS Morning
News,  as I dressed. Samuel Skinner, Secretary of the Department
of Transportation (DOT), was being interviewed concerning the
Department's position on the employees' strike against Eastern
Airlines. That was also the day when the FAA released its
fifty-nine-page proposed rule
on seating of disabled airline passengers. This is the edifying
document that explains that blind people, for example, may sit in
exit-row seats only if they can see. At any rate, Mr. Skinner no
doubt had blind people on his mind, knowing as he must have, that
the National Federation of the Blind would not be pleased with
the FAA's proposal.  Even though he was not talking about the
question of blind or otherwise disabled air passengers, a highly
illuminating phrase popped out of his mouth. The precise details
of his statement and my reaction to it are contained in the
following correspondence. I wrote my letter carefully. Being
fundamentally an optimist, part of me hoped that
if I could make this man consider my argument with an open mind,
some fresh air just might blow across the whole ridiculous set of
prejudices rampant today in the governmental bureaucracy.
I succeeded to a degree. Based on the physical evidence of his
response, Secretary  Skinner actually did read my letter. He
seems to have drafted his answer himself. There are no
secretary's initials at the foot of the page. But any hope that
the Secretary of Transportation might be open to common sense was
clearly foolish. He neither remembered accurately what he had
said during the broadcast nor bothered to consider the
implications of his statement and the substratum of prejudice out
of which it rose. Having denied the possibility that his words
demonstrated his own presumption of incompetence on the part of
blind people, it followed inevitably that he would never go so
far as to
think about the broader issues raised in my letter. Here is the
exchange:


                                                    Oberlin, Ohio
                                                    March 8, 1989

Mr. Samuel Skinner
Secretary of Transportation
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Skinner:
You appeared today on the program,  CBS This Morning, 
immediately following the 7:00 a.m. news. I wish to take profound
exception to
a comment you made during your remarks. You will say that it was
inadvertent and that you meant no opprobrium by it. But in common
decency I ask you to read this letter and think about what I am
going to say.
You were discussing the Eastern Airlines crisis, and you made
reference to the story CBS had run about it in the news segment.
Their story included footage of the simultaneous rallies held
around the country by members of Eastern's unions. I gather from
the voice-over that the participants were wearing their uniforms,
illustrating the degree of employee unity. The soundtrack also
clearly indicated the fervor
of the crowd. In response to an interviewer question you said, 
you would have to be blind  not to understand that these
employees are united.
I am prepared to grant that you did not intend to insult the
intelligence of blind viewers, but that does not end the matter.
In fact, from
my perspective and that of the National Federation of the Blind,
this is precisely where the matter begins. As you know, the
Department
of Transportation has been involved for many years now in the
struggle between blind air passengers and air carriers over the
question of whether blindness is an appropriate test of
competence in emergencies.  DOT is charged with writing the
regulations for implementing the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986.
It seems pretty clear to me that DOT will side with the airlines,
saying that blind people are, because of their blindness,
incapable of rational, adult behavior in emergencies.
Your statement this morning reveals, not tactlessness or
insensitivity (as the person who drafts your response to me will
be tempted to opine), but rather your deeply held conviction that
if one cannot see a thing, one is necessarily oblivious of its
existence. This opinion is widely held by sighted members of the
public, and it is the basis of systemic discrimination against
the blind founded not upon hatred but upon ignorance. Such
prejudice is every bit as destructive to the recipient as any
other kind. Pity and condescension slam doors every bit as firmly
as do distrust and insecurity.
Airline officials are demeaning blind passengers and denying them
their civil rights because of their misconceptions about
blindness and their unwillingness to consider open-mindedly the
question of whether blind people (solely because of their
blindness) deserve to be singled out for harassment and
ill-treatment. The Department of Transportation is an accessory
to this crime, and statements like yours this morning demonstrate
why this has happened.
I ask you to reflect on what I have said. Blindness does not
necessarily preclude awareness of the world, and blind people are
not a priori incapable of making clear decisions and acting
quickly upon them in emergencies. If you were of a mind to do so,
you could put a halt to the nonsense which is being perpetrated
by the airlines against the blind. I hope you will do so.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                   Barbara Pierce
                                     Director of Public Education
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
                                                 Washington, D.C.
                                                   April 10, 1989

Ms. Barbara Pierce
Oberlin, OH

Dear Ms. Pierce:
Thank you for your letter of March 8. I want you to know that my
use of the term  blind  in reference to Frank Lorenzo and his
relationship to Eastern workers was not meant as a slight toward
the blind or any other group or individual. While I am
sympathetic to your sensitivity, the word  blind  has a much
broader meaning
in common usage than  sightless.  It was this broader meaning a
lack of understanding or appreciation of facts that I intended. 
Let me assure you that there was no intent on my part to
disparage or demean the sightless in our population.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Samuel K. Skinner
                    ORAL MILLER AND THE ACB 
DEMONSTRATE THEIR USUAL IMMATURITY AND BAD TEMPER  AND SELL THE
BLIND OUT AGAIN
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
Ordinarily we do not give much space in these pages to the
American Council of the Blind since its behavior is usually
subsidiary to that of the agencies, tiresomely negative, and
relatively insignificant
in the affairs of the blind. However, during the past few months
certain activities of this group (and, particularly, of Oral
Miller, its Washington representative)  should be reported for
the record.
As detailed elsewhere in this issue of the  Monitor , the
Subcommittee on Aviation of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation held a hearing on S. 341 (the Air
Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act) on March 14 of this
year. This hearing was the result of intense activity on the part
of the National Federation of the Blind, and Federationists
testified as the principal proponents of the bill.
Also present in the audience was Oral Miller, the Washington
representative of the American Council of the Blind. Since the
ACB has been claiming for at least a year that it wants to
participate in the process of reducing tensions in the blindness
field, a process which received major impetus at Montreal in the
summer of 1988 (see November, 1988,  Braille Monitor ), and since
the passage of the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act is
one of the major efforts of the Federation and not of the
American Council of the Blind, one might have wondered about the
advisability and appropriateness of Mr. Miller's presence at the
hearing at all.
However, he went far beyond simply being there. He allowed
himself to be used by the media and the airline industry in their
attempt to show that the blind are divided on the question of
whether blind people should be prohibited from sitting in exit
rows on airplanes.  Of course, the media did not know (and, for
that matter, perhaps they did not care) that the ACB speaks for
relatively few blind people.  Certainly this would make no
difference to the FAA and airline officials.  The appearance
would serve their purpose as well as the reality.
In the March 15, 1989,  USA Today  Mr. Miller is quoted as
opposing the NFB position and supporting the FAA as follows: 
There are legitimate safety-related questions. It's not a civil
rights issue.  Not only is this statement by Mr. Miller a
deliberate attempt to create hostility and to damage the
Federation's  efforts to protect the rights of blind air
travelers, but it is also directly contradictory of the testimony
of Dr. Otis Stephens, the President of the American Council of
the Blind.
On September 3, 1987, when Dr. Stephens appeared before the
Committee which was negotiating to try to establish airline
regulations, he said that there was widespread discrimination
against the blind in air travel. Here in part is the verbatim
transcript of his testimony:

My experience with commercial airlines over the years has run the
gamut from positive to negative, from courteous, friendly,
respectable conduct by many employees to demeaning, humiliating
treatment by some others. While recognizing the excellent service
often provided, I have no doubt that the range and frequency of
unacceptable behavior by some airline employees toward blind air
travelers constitute a serious problem throughout the United
States.
Clearly as we have witnessed over the past couple of days,
similar concern is shared by wheelchair users and the deaf-blind,
and the comments that I'm going to make here are not intended to
minimize
in any way the difficulties that others also face.  However, I'm
talking from direct experience and from knowledge of the
experience of many others about the problems that blind persons
frequently encounter with the airline industry.
One of the most basic problems, of course, is the total lack of
consistency in stating and applying policies regarding blind
passengers.  These inconsistencies exist not only from one
airline to another but just
as often within a single airline, frequently from one flight to
another on the same trip. Systematic training and, better yet,
perhaps more basic education of airline personnel regarding the
capabilities of blind persons is badly needed.  Like other
passengers, blind persons have the right to exercise options, to
ask for assistance if they
need it, but to decline it without the resistance or refusal of
airline personnel, however well-intentioned that resistance or
refusal may be.  Specific examples can easily be provided, but I
will cite just a few here. The typical preboarding announcement
at the gate invites those who need a little extra time or
assistance to board the aircraft
ahead of other passengers.  That's the routine statement that I
recall.  That announcement, it seems to me, is sufficient by
itself.  It should
not be followed up, as it often is, by insistence that a blind
passenger board first.  That insistence is demeaning,
patronizing, and unjustified.  It rests on stereotypes about the
supposed limitations of blind persons,
not on facts  and it tends to reinforce and perpetuate myths. 
Precisely the same mind-set is reflected in the occasional
insistence by a flight attendant that the blind passenger remain
seated until all other persons have deplaned after arrival at the
gate.
I always choose to interpret such a statement as a mere
suggestion and ignore it, usually but not always without
opposition.  But even
as a suggestion, it is gratuitous.  My time is obviously no less
valuable because I am a blind person, and that elementary fact
ought to be recognized by the airline with which I'm doing
business.
It should not be presumed that as a passenger traveling with a
guide dog, which I sometimes do, I must sit in a bulkhead row. 
On many airplanes, of course, the dog and dog user have more
space in a nonbulkhead row, where the dog can lie underneath the
seat in front of the passenger.  But on the other hand, the
bulkhead may be satisfactory as well.  The point is that this
kind of designation about where to sit with one's
dog on a plane reflects no rational decision based on comfort,
convenience, safety, or anything else that I can determine, and
what may begin as a request can degenerate into an arbitrary
order.
With respect to many special restrictions imposed on blind air
travelers, safety justifications are emphasized by the airlines. 
But safety justifications, as many persons have suggested in
these hearings, should be based on more than conjecture or
supposition.  In the absence of evidence establishing a clear
relationship between blindness and certain limitations, such as
inability to manipulate emergency exit doors on a commercial
airplane, the restrictions ought not to be imposed on blind
passengers.
The standard established by the federal Act is one of
nondiscrimination.  The American Council of the Blind supports as
a matter of policy uniform standards of public accommodation and
nondiscrimination in the travel industry.  We also strongly
support and participate in efforts to educate industry personnel
regarding the treatment of blind and visually impaired travelers.
Any restrictive policy applied to blind airline passengers that
is not based on empirically established safety considerations but
simply reflects conjecture or stereotyped thinking about
blindness is, in my opinion, discriminatory.
It is vitally important for airline personnel who do not already
do so, and many fortunately do, (and it is equally important for
those who do not) to listen to blind passengers, to allow us
(like other passengers) to take the initiative to exercise
freedom of choice in requesting or declining assistance.  We in
the American Council of the Blind are quite willing to assist in
what really amounts to a process of basic education and of
raising the level of sensitivity to basic concerns of human
dignity.
Even if regulations insuring nondiscrimination can be agreed on,
the problem of uniform implementation remains.  This is a tough
practical problem, not only because of the general difficulty in
uniformly instructing personnel regarding policy but, I think,
more fundamentally because
of the potential abuse of discretion in applying policies on a
day-to-day, situation-by-situation basis.
The objective of establishing and maintaining a policy of
nondiscrimination serving blind airline passengers is important,
and the American Council of the Blind welcomes the opportunity to
participate in a process designed to achieve that objective.  I
will be happy to respond to any qucestions.

At this point a number of people asked Dr. Stephens questions.
The give and take went like this:

MRS. MAZZ (one of the members of the panel): Do you believe that
there should be any requirement for blind persons to
self-disclose?
DR. STEPHENS: I think there should not be a requirement of
disclosure.  MR. GASHEL (another member of the panel): Dr.
Stephens, I think you alluded to the lack of data that anybody
really has about this exit row seating business. Now, I'm
assuming that you don't want to be unsafe when you go onto an
airplane.
DR. STEPHENS: That's a correct assumption.
MR. GASHEL: Okay, and yet you conclude that it's all right for
you
to sit in an exit row. Is that correct?
DR. STEPHENS: That's correct.
MR. GASHEL: You're not basing that on some, just irrrational
whim.
Is that correct?
DR. STEPHENS: No. Certainly not.
MR. GASHEL: Don't you arrive at that on the basis of some kind of
experience or data or experiential information?
DR. STEPHENS: I think that individually those of us who assume
our ability to sit safely anywhere on an airplane do draw that
kind of conclusion.  However, it seems to me that the question
needs to be
addressed to the airline industry that would wish to impose a
restriction.  In other words the norm, it seems to me, is freedom
of choice here. If the industry wishes for safety reasons (and
I'm not questioning the sincerity of the statement of those
reasons), to impose a restriction based on a safety
justification, then it seems to me to follow logically that that
justification must be based on some empirical evidence which
overcomes my presumption that I'm fully capable of sitting in
that exit row.

After this dialogue between Dr. Stephens and Mr. Gashel, Dr.
Stephens responded to a question from Oral Miller, who was also a
member of
the panel. In this exchange one comment by Dr. Stephens is
particularly relevant. He said:
 We're not talking about areas of nondiscrimination but problems
of discrimination, and I think they do exist and as you suggest,
they exist across the board. 
The final panel member to question Dr. Stephens was Matthew
Finucane of the Association of Flight Attendants. He asked Dr.
Stephens whether he believed a blind person would have more
difficulty than a sighted person in performing in an exit row on
an airplane. The exchange then went like this:

DR. STEPHENS: My feeling would be that the factor of blindness
would not be significant in the performance of individuals.
MR. FINUCANE: That it would not make a difference?
DR. STEPHENS: That it would not make a significant difference. 
MR. FINUCANE: It would make some difference, but not 
DR. STEPHENS: No, I'm using the word significant now as we're
talking about statistical analysis here.
MR. FINUCANE: Statistical. I understand.
DR. STEPHENS: And I just don't believe that there would be a
measurable, significant difference.  That's a feeling, and that
also is not based on anything beyond my own experience; but my
own experience over some twenty years of flying is, you know, a
factor.

This testimony by Dr. Otis Stephens, President of the American
Council of the Blind, is not only in sharp contrast with what his
employee, Oral Miller, said to  USA Today  as quoted in their
March 15, 1989, article, but it is also at variance with what
Miller said in the March-April, 1989, issue of the ACB's
magazine, the  Braille Forum .  In an article entitled  Who is
Really Making the Friendly Skies Unfriendly,  Miller outdoes even
his ordinary excesses, bitterness, and bad temper. When he says
as an attack that the National Federation of the Blind alleges 
that most blind people who travel agree that there is significant
discrimination by the airlines,  he implies that this is not the
truth. Apparently Dr. Stephens, the president and official
spokesman of the ACB, does not agree with him, but let Mr.
Miller's article speak for itself. Here it is:

Over the past two years, the question of whether the airlines
should be allowed to prevent blind people (as well as people in
several other categories) from being seated next to over-wing
emergency window exits has been, in the opinion of most blind
travelers, over-publicized and exaggerated in the extreme, when
compared with other issues faced by blind and visually impaired
people.  The proposed regulations issued in 1988 under the Air
Carriers Access Act of 1986 stated that air carriers could not
restrict the seating of disabled passengers unless in compliance
with a safety regulation issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), whose legal mandate includes the
promulgation of safety regulations.  The comment period on the
Air Carriers Access Act regulations ended in late December 1988. 
On March 13, 1989, the long-awaited proposed FAA regulations were
published.
The proposed regulations, a recorded copy of which may be
obtained from the ACB National Office, spell out a number of
tasks which must be performed by passengers sitting in seats next
to over-wing emergency exits.  Many of those tasks clearly
require vision.  It should be pointed out, however, that many of
those tasks also require other capabilities which would probably
exclude from those seats people who are elderly, very young,
pregnant, very obese, or impaired by alcohol or drugs.
On March 14 one day after publication of the above proposed FAA
regulations the Senate conducted public hearings on Senate Bill
341, which says in substance that airlines may not mandate or
prohibit the seating of passengers based on visual acuity or the
use of a white cane or dog guide.  Although this article will not
attempt to summarize all of the testimony given, it should be
pointed out that the only consumers who were asked to testify
supported the bill strongly and, in the process, repeated many of
the  horror stories  that have been published by the National
Federation of the Blind over the last couple of years.  Some of
the astonishing assertions made by the Executive Director and
another member of the National Federation of the Blind were that
many of the blind people who took part in tests conducted by the
FAA in the late 1970's in Oklahoma were basically selected for
poor performance;  that approximately one-third of the blind
people who travel by air do so in fear of harassment and abuse by
airline personnel; that travel agents find it almost impossible
to make reservations for blind people because of current airline
policies; that the proposed FAA regulation is similar to the
former policy of airlines to the effect that they would not seat
black people next
to over-wing exits because they considered them to be slow and
lazy;  and that most blind people who travel agree that there is
significant discrimination against them by the airlines.
Spokespersons for the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Association of Flight Attendants, and the Air Transport
Association pointed out that the most critical time in the
evacuation of an airplane following a survivable emergency is the
time that elapses before the evacuation flow begins;  that in
order to avoid the danger of a flash fire, it is necessary for
passengers to evacuate at the rate of more than one per second; 
that the responsibilities of the person seated next to
the emergency exit include much more than merely opening the
exit;  that the policies of American air carriers regarding
exit-row seating are very inconsistent, hence the need for
standard regulations;  that it would be possible to evacuate an
airplane even faster if there were no seats next to over-wing
emergency exits;  that there have been cases where opening an
exit actually accelerated a fire inside the cabin;  and that they
could not cite cases where blind people have impeded cabin
evacuation.
The purpose of this article is to bring to light some of the
surprising positions taken and arguments used in connection with
this issue.

That is what Oral Miller says, and as much as the substance of
his remarks, the tone speaks of his wish to try to pick a fight
and create dissension. This is underlined by his comments in
another part of
the March-April, 1989,  Braille Forum . Writing under the caption 
What Goes Around Comes Around,  he not only makes an unprovoked
attack on the National Federation of the Blind but also (and
really more to the point) blatantly misrepresents the truth. But
judge for yourself. Here is what he says:
 What goes around comes around!   That expression might be used
to describe the efforts now going on at Blind Industries and
Services of Maryland to re-establish a rehabilitation program. 
The rehabilitation program was terminated there a few years ago
after
the new director at that time discovered it was essentially a
membership recruitment and political training program for a
national organization of blind people.  As part of the plans to
re-establish the program, the current management conducted a
public forum to obtain input as
to how the new program should be conducted.  And what came back
around?  During the evening-long public forum, approximately half
of the time was dedicated to the well-rehearsed statements of
people from that same national organization urging that the new
program should concentrate primarily on teaching attitudes rather
than skills.  Perhaps the folly of returning to the school of
thought that says,  Be proud that you are a blind person and you
can do whatever you need to do,  was underscored by an excited,
unscheduled final speaker who forced the panel to listen to her
when she said that she needed to be taught some specific skills
so she could return to work to support herself and her family.

That is what Mr. Miller says, and it does not take much analysis
to see the bitterness or the shoddy logic. Any training program
which
is trying to help newly blinded adults come to terms with their
blindness must, if it is to be successful,  concentrate primarily
on teaching attitudes,  but this does not mean that skills should
be neglected.  In fact, correct attitudes cannot be taught in the
absence of teaching skills. However, it is equally true that
skills cannot meaningfully be taught in the absence of correct
attitudes. This is not new; it is not profound; it is not
complex; and it should not be difficult even for Mr. Miller to
understand.
But perhaps he does understand, meaning that the purpose of his
article was something else the hostility and attempt to create
dissension and negativism which characterize far too much of his
public behavior.  Fred Dewberry, the man who destroyed the
training program at Blind Industries and Services of Maryland and
who is, I am glad to say,
no longer with the agency, is hardly an authority on anything
dealing with blindness. Before becoming director of Blind
Industries and Services of Maryland Mr. Dewberry had absolutely
no experience with blindness
at all, his only claim to expertise being his many years as a
politician.  No one with any judgment takes seriously anything
which he said about the agency's training program.
But why all of this recent attacking by Mr. Miller? It is true
that most ACB meetings (including their national conventions) are
lacking in positive content and are characterized by a great deal
of hate talk about the National Federation of the Blind, but this
is somewhat understandable. When I was a boy in Tennessee, a
visitor from one of the northern states said:  You Southerners
are always talking about the Civil War. We in the North forgot
about it long ago.  To which one of the locals replied:  You
could afford to forget about it. You won. 
As I say, I can understand why the ACB spends a great deal of
time reliving the past and hating the NFB. From what I have
observed, I
can also understand why (in contrast with more successful blind
persons, those who believe in the capabilities of the blind and
look to the future) Mr. Miller tends to be bitter and unhappy.
Even so, he is usually only moderately rude and ill-tempered.
Could there be something new which has triggered his recent
upsurge of spleen.
We could begin with what occurred in Montreal last summer (see
November, 1988,  Braille Monitor ) when the National Federation
of the Blind invited the major organizations in the blindness
field of Canada and the United States to meet for discussions at
the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. This invitation
was greeted with unanimous enthusiasm, and it seemed as if we
might be moving toward more unity than the field of work with the
blind in this country has ever known.  But this would inevitably
mean (as it did) a central role for the National Federation of
the Blind. Mr. Miller was obviously not pleased.  Maybe he felt
in a dilemma: Either let the National Federation of the Blind (an
organization which he envies and, therefore, resents) have credit
for calling and hosting the meeting, or try to sabotage the
meeting and come off as a sorehead. This latter course of action
is obviously what the ACB board (whether led by Mr. Miller or
somebody else) decided to take. They unsuccessfully attempted
(see elsewhere
in this issue) to sabotage the meeting of the Committee on Joint
Organizational Effort, which met at the National Center for the
Blind in Baltimore
in March of this year and which was overwhelmingly acclaimed as
constructive.  The ACB was the only organization to boycott the
meeting and instead of impressing, the boycott fizzled.
But there may be another (a more personal reason) why Mr. Miller
feels hostile and at odds with the world. When Dr. Otis Stephens
(the ACB delegate to the World Blind Union) was unable to go to
Spain last
fall to attend the meeting of the 2nd General Assembly of that
organization, he sent Oral Miller in his place. Being familiar
with Mr. Miller's personality and behavior, I for one was not
happy with the choice, and Mr. Miller lived up to expectations. 
By and large, he did not associate with the rest of us in the
delegation, and reports kept coming to me of his criticisms and
attacks on the NFB as an organization and me personally. In the
circumstances and in that forum such behavior was, of course,
totally inappropriate and counterproductive. It goes without
saying that I did not respond in kind.
After we returned from Madrid, the WBU delegates from this region
met in New York City for the fall meeting. Although Dr. Stephens
was present as ACB's delegate, and although each U. S.
organization is limited to a single spokesman, Mr. Miller was
present and participated vociferously so much so that some of the
delegates came to me privately to say that they thought his
behavior was unacceptable and that ACB should have only one
spokesman present.
After the meeting I talked with Dr. Stephens, and he said he
would
take steps to remedy the matter. I felt sure, however, that the
conversation would be reported to Mr. Miller and that this would
increase his rancor.  The situation was further aggravated by an
event which occurred when appointments were being made to WBU
committees. As regional president, I was asked to name people to
serve on WBU standing committees. My decisions were made in
consultation with other organizations in the regional delegation.
Although one of those that I named (Paul Edwards) is an ACB
member, Dr. Stephens asked me also to name Oral Miller to a
committee, the one on Recreation and Leisure Activities. At first
(in the interest of promoting harmony) I thought I would do this,
but then I called Dr. Stephens to tell him that I felt the
appointment would be unwise and that I could not do it. I said I
thought the appointment should go to the Caribbean countries and
that, even more to the point Mr. Miller would use the committee
as a forum for attack, negativism, and disharmony. Dr. Stephens
said that he felt my decision would increase any hostility which
Mr. Miller might feel and so it apparently did.
As  Monitor  readers know, a measurable amount of progress has
been made in recent years in moving toward unity in the blindness
field in this country. The personal bitterness of one individual
or a single small group should not be allowed to disrupt this
positive trend. The American Council of the Blind must decide
whether it is willing to put past bitternesses and defeats behind
it and work with the rest of us in constructive ways or whether
it wishes to invite increasing isolation.
                                 
DARKENED HANGARS
                                                   Grinnell, Iowa
                                                   March 21, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
In discussing the Senate hearing on the airline issue with
Barbara Pierce, I discovered that she was unaware of the annual
tests by the FAA for company emergency evacuation procedures. As
you will see more fully described in the attached deposition of
Mr. Mark Warinner, then serving as vice president for flight
operations for Frontier, each company is annually required to
demonstrate to the FAA the efficacy of its evacuation procedures.
In a darkened hangar FAA personnel sneak up from outside, block
half the doors, and then give a signal. The evacuation must be
achieved in ninety seconds. As you can tell from the deposition
testimony, the evacuees are by and large drawn from airline
personnel. In other words, they must show their evacuation
procedures to be workable under our conditions without light.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Peggy Pinder

                    Excerpts from Testimony 
of Mark Warinner
                        October 19, 1985

Q. In the course of your work with Frontier Airlines about a year
ago did you have occasion to begin to think again regarding exit
row seating of blind persons?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you describe the circumstances and what caused you to
think again about exit row seating?
A. Yes. I was attending a seminar that was conducted by the
International Rehabilitation Institute in Denver, and a blind
person came up to me and indicated,  I understand that you folks
have a Braille pamphlet which you provide to blind passengers if
they desire which indicates the emergency exits and that sort of
thing, location of restrooms on the aircraft,  and brought to my
mind and asked me the question,  Do you think that in a dark,
smoke-filled airplane that sighted persons get around any better
than blind persons? 
And so it just clicked in my mind to start thinking about that,
particularly because our evaluation demonstrations are conducted
in a darkened hangar with half of the emergency exits blocked.
Q. Now, could you describe in a little more detail what you mean
by your emergency demonstrations? What is that, and how are they
conducted by Frontier?
A. On an annual basis the FAA requires us, and more than annually
if they feel there's a problem, to demonstrate our evacuation
procedures where you fill an airplane at random with a variety of
passengers.  The aircraft is in a dark hangar, and you are
required to conduct
an emergency evacuation in the same manner as if you had an
emergency and half of the emergency exits, both over wing and the
door exits, are blocked; and you never know in advance what those
exits are until the demonstration actually occurs, and you're
required to evacuate the airplane within ninety seconds.
Q. Now, you have testified that the hangar in which the aircraft
is sitting at the time of these demonstrations is dark; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is the aircraft itself also darkened?
A. Yes, it is.
              WHEN OMNIVOROUS READING ISN'T ENOUGH
 From the Associate Editor:  The following correspondence is
self-explanatory. Mrs. Winer wrote to Peggy Pinder, care of the 
Braille Monitor  several months ago. We passed on the letter with
the request that Miss Pinder let us see her response. The
exchange of ideas seemed to us interesting and valuable. Here it
is: 

                                           Wayland, Massachusetts
                                                February 16, 1989

The Editors
The Braille Monitor
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland

An Open Letter to Peggy Pinder Concerning the Wisdom of Reading
Every Last Word on the Cereal Box

Dear Peggy:

You probably don't know me, but I remember watching you when you
were an undergraduate at Yale University. (You were, I believe,
in my son Jonathan's class of 1976.) I was in the early stages of
losing my sight and was very impressed with your ability to
navigate the busy Yale campus with your long white cane. I was at
that time, however, too shy to introduce myself. Since then, I
have followed your brilliant career with great interest. Although
at times I don't agree with you, I cheer you in your endeavors.
Until the time when I was a bit younger than you are now, I was
fully sighted. I loved to read. I read everything in print that I
could get my hands on. If there was nothing else to read, I would
literally read every last word on the cereal box at breakfast. I
was a fast reader. If, on a long airplane flight, I had finished
reading the books and magazines I had brought with me, I would
read the brochures and booklets stuck into the back of the seat
in front of me. Needless to say, I was and am quite familiar with
the printed safety regulations provided by the various airlines
for passengers.
Recently, when flying to Florida on Eastern Airlines, I was
presented with a Braille booklet concerning safety instructions
similar, no doubt, to the one you rejected on one of your
flights. As I took it from the stewardess, I thought of you and
smiled to myself. Five years ago, with some struggling, I was
still able to read print by means of low vision aids. Now,
whenever the occasion presents itself, I am eager to put my
newly-acquired Braille skills to the test. When the stewardess
handed me the Braille booklet, I put down my Braille edition of
the  New York Times Large Type Weekly  and went to work on the
airline safety regulations.
Peggy, although much of the material in the Braille booklet was
similar to what sighted people would find in the print version of
the safety regulations, you may be interested to know that there
was some information that was specifically appropriate for blind
passengers. I, for one,
had not known these safety rules before, and perhaps  Braille
Monitor  readers might want to know about them as well.
(I have not quoted the specific information for blind passengers
directly, but I have placed that information into bold print.) If
there is an emergency evacuation everyone must remove his/her
shoes.  Blind people must not use their white canes at this time
(nor may anyone carry personal belongings with them.) When
reaching the emergency
exit, passengers are to grasp the safety rail and slide down the
emergency chute in a standing position. However, blind passengers
with guide dogs, when arriving at the emergency exit, are to
place their guide dogs in their laps and slide down the chute in
a sitting position.  I believe these safety regulations have been
developed to protect
all passengers as much as possible in a true emergency situation. 
Although I don't remember reading the reasons for the above
rules,
I assume that guide dog claws, as well as pointed shoe heels and
canes, could injure passengers in emergency situations where
rapid evacuation of everyone is required.
Peggy, I feel there was relevant information in that Braille
booklet that I would not have known about if I wasn't a
compulsive reader of every word on the cereal box. I hope, Peggy,
that you know this letter is written in good faith, and with
slight tongue-in-cheek.  Although our methods may differ, I
admire your spunk and appreciate your heroic efforts on behalf of
all blind people.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                       Mimi Winer
____________________
                                                   Grinnell, Iowa
                                                      May 4, 1989

Dear Mrs. Winer:
I have your thoughtful letter about reading and airlines, and I
have taken some time in answering it to allow for reflection upon
the points you raise.  Before I proceed, let me thank you for the
warm sentiments you express and also for giving me the occasion
to pause and reflect upon an issue that is very important to me.
You see, I am also an avid reader.  Like you, as a child, I also
read everything I could put my hands on.  Like you, I also began
this lifetime of devotion to reading by using the print medium. 
Like you, I switched to Braille and continued my voracious
reading habit.  However, unlike you, I always plan far enough
ahead so that I never run out of reading material on trips,
commonly carrying along three or four books for a two-day trip. 
(Of course, I am teasing, but our inability to pick up the
printed material around us for casual reading has taught me to be
well-stocked when leaving home.)  And like you, I have read many
airline safety cards, both in print and in Braille.
Our reading habits seem closely matched.  I can't help but think
our views about the airlines are much closer than you seem to
think.  Please let me explain.
I have flown as a blind person now for nearly twenty years.  At
first, in the early '70s, blind travelers were pretty much left
alone on the airplanes.  Then the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was
passed by Congress, and everything changed.  There was a
nationwide push for accessibility and for sensitivity toward the
handicapped.  Much of
this was beneficial.  However, its effect on the blind was not. 
Airlines adopted procedures defining all handicapped persons as
belonging to one large class and began training their personnel
accordingly.  The effect (though not the intent) of this training
in the midst of everything else being learned by the new
employees is to remember that the handicapped, a big mishmash of
helpless people,  must all be treated alike and differently from
other passengers.  In airports, blind people are greeted at the
jetway door with wheelchairs and ordered to ride in
them despite the fact that we can walk as well as other
passengers.  The tickets of blind passengers are taken and passed
from airline employee to airline employee as though the blind
person is a child not responsible for his or her own property.  
Airline personnel insist on  taking  the blind passenger from
gate to gate within the airport even when the passenger declines
such assistance.  When an airline employee does perform this
service, paperwork is created at the  receiving end  and
countersigned at the  delivery end  as though the blind passenger
is a consignment of goods.  One airline tells blind passengers to
pin a label on a jacket lapel to identify the passenger as though
the blind person were baggage to be shifted about pursuant to
instructions on a tag.  Please understand that none of this is
done by airlines with the intent of insulting or demeaning a
blind person.  Far from it.  The airlines do these things because
they believe they are helpful.  However, as with so many
reactions to blindness, the helpfulness is founded on an
underestimation of the capabilities of blind persons.  Please
also understand that I am not suggesting that the blind never
need help.  We need help just as other passengers do for
directions to the gate, to find one of the scarce pillows on
board, to locate the increasingly hidden smoking areas in
airports.  Other passengers are left to themselves unless they
ask for help; the blind should be accorded the same treatment and
should be provided information or assistance just like other
passengers when it is requested.
What does all this have to do with reading a safety brochure?  It
sets the context.  I have read those brochures over and over for
years.  On boarding a plane, I know what specific information I
need and get it quickly and without fuss long before the Braille
safety brochure
is offered to me.  You are right about the Braille brochures
containing different information from the printed cards. 
Commonly, the Braille brochures have less information than the
printed ones. I know of many versions of the Braille brochure
which omit any reference to the method of operating exit doors
and one which omits any reference to the axe and fire
extinguisher on board though all this information is clearly
conveyed on the printed cards.  Quite often, the Braille edition
contains some remark such as a suggestion that, in the event of
an emergency evacuation, the blind passenger should remain seated
until a crew member comes to help the passenger.  This
information is not only different from that given to the sighted;
it is downright dangerous.  Any blind person who accepts such
advice in the event of a survivable accident will probably lose
the chance for reaching the ground, a chance dependent upon
immediate and rapid departure from the stricken aircraft.
You mention some specific information in the Braille brochure
about canes and dogs.  The reason this advice is given is that
the chutes are made of tough, yet yielding material similar to
the canvas used
in sails and rafts which is then inflated to achieve the correct
texture and tension.  Sharp objects like spiked heels can
puncture the chute
material.  All passengers actually finish the slide in a seated
position.  Jumping out in a standing position results in the
passenger's being caught,
so to speak, partway down the steeply inclined slide in a sitting
position.  But different airlines make different suggestions for
this exit maneuver.  Some suggest a standing start; others a
sitting one.  Some airlines point out that shoes should be left
behind; some merely depict bare feet on evacuees; some do not
mention the matter.  Friends of mine who have participated in
evacuation drills state that they chose to use their canes until
reaching the door whereupon they held the canes over their heads
or flung them out in order to have them available later.  In
other words, in an evacuation, you take only what is necessary,
but canes are necessary and can be removed safely if the
passenger
has the right information.  However, airlines view canes as
practically useless and therefore instruct that they be left
behind instead of providing sound information on how to remove
them safely.  If I ever evacuate, my cane will accompany me.
The point of all this is that much more information can be
gathered by talking to persons knowledgeable about aircraft
evacuations than can be gathered from Braille safety cards.  Any
prudent flier, whether blind or sighted, will educate himself or
herself on basic evacuation procedures in whatever manner seems
best.  To me, the safety cards contain only the barest hints, and
I desire far more information than is usually available there. 
This is particularly true of most Braille brochures which tend to
omit information about equipment operation and information
contained in pictures in the print cards while giving what I
consider to be bad advice to the blind.
Let me explain by relating an incident on a recent flight.  I
will digress for a moment here to note that the Federal Aviation
Administration is considering adopting a regulation barring from
exit rows all persons
who fail to meet a long series of characteristics which includes
sight.  The list also includes the ability to reach one's arms
and legs to their full limits of extension, the ability to touch
one's toes, the ability to lift up to eighty pounds of weight,
and numerous other abilities which can only be determined by
putting passengers seated in those rows through a series of
calisthenics and weight-lifting exercises in the aisle of the
plane before permitting them to sit down.  This set of required
abilities, according to FAA, will be ascertained by airline
personnel, flight by flight.  It is obvious that most airline
personnel in most instances will glance at exit row passengers as
they sit in their seats, making their determinations on only the
most obvious of characteristics like blindness, while missing the
truly dangerous conditions related to heart and nervous system
disorders.  Of course, I believe that blindness is not a
characteristic which can be shown by evidence to be related to
inability to act safely in the event of an emergency.  I believe
with equal firmness that the airlines think it is and that their
belief is based on the underestimation
of the abilities of the blind.  In testimony before the United
States Senate on this subject the official FAA spokesman said
that he was sure some blind people could be seated safely in exit
rows; he just
did not know how to determine which blind people were the safe
ones.  Of course, if you remove the word blind from his comment,
it remains true.  The FAA also does not know how to determine
which people are the safe ones as amply demonstrated by its
failure to include heart, nervous system, stress, and other
invisible but debilitating disorders in its list of
characteristics prohibited in exit rows.   At any rate, back to
my incident.
I boarded a DC-10 a few weeks ago, carrying one light bag and my
purse.  The flight attendant at the door told me she would  take 
me to my seat.  I explained that I would be happy to find my seat
like other passengers and that I did not need assistance.  My
seat happened to be back just a few rows, and she sort of
followed me down the aisle, chatting.  When I started into my
seat row, she asked if there was anything she could do.  I said
that she could put my bag in the overhead (on the theory that I
am always glad to have others share in the work).  She replied
that she was not lifting anything that day since she had sprained
her back and suggested that I put the bag underneath the seat.  I
put it overhead myself, meditating about my unease at flying in a
plane with a disabled flight attendant who was supposed to be
able to move quickly and strongly to maximize my safety and who
could not that day meet the passenger requirements for sitting in
exit rows.  The flight attendant, having a light load and nothing
much else to do, sort of hung around my seat watching me stow my
purse and get out my book.  She asked if there was anything else
she could do.  I remembered that I had a question about
wide-bodied jets and took the safety card out of the seat pocket. 
I told the flight attendant that I had a question about the
overwing exit and extended the card to
her.  She was standing in the aisle facing the rear of the plane. 
Without taking the card, she turned slightly in order directly to
face the exit behind my seat to which I was pointing and replied
that she did not need the card since she could see the exit from
where she stood.  I said that I knew that wide-bodied overwing
exits were floor-level, double doors from which you stepped out
onto the wing.  I had recently been told, however, that the plane
was so high that two chutes were necessary to get to the ground. 
I wanted to know just where the chutes were.  Without looking at
the card, she confirmed that the doors were floor-level, double
doors, and she then stated that you stepped off onto the wing and
went to the rear of the wing where you slid down a slide.  (Of
course, this is the evacuation route for narrow-bodied jets.) 
She said there was only one slide at the back of the wing on
wide-bodied jets as well.
I tapped the card and asked if it wasn't true that there were
actually two slides.  She replied that she could see and she was
looking right at the doors and that there was only one slide.  I
tapped the card again, and she looked down, then looked up, then
bent over the card and began tracing on it with her finger,
looking up, looking down,
and tracing several times.  She then said:   There are two
chutes.  And you go off the front edge of the wing.   We then had
the rest of the discussion I had sought about exact placement of
the slides with her tracing on the card some more with her finger
and answering in a sort of wondering tone.  It was plain that
this was the first time she had ever noticed the two chutes or
the front edge location of the chutes.  I worried even more about
my safety with this flight attendant on my aircraft.
She came back twice more with more information about wide- bodied
jets, each time noting that she had not known the information
herself and thanking me for  showing her the card. 
You see, Mrs. Winer, I do read a lot.  I also gather information
in ways other than reading.  On that same trip, I was flying on a
free ticket, earned with numerous miles flown as a paying
passenger.  And I am still learning.  I don't restrict myself to
the Braille brochures any more because they are so often
incomplete and inadequate, failing
to convey the information in pictures and the information about
operation of safety equipment.  I am sure that the DC-10 Braille
brochure would
not have told me about the two chutes, their positioning, or the
additional information I got from the flight attendant.  I am
sure about this because I have read all those cards and did not
know about the two chutes until a friend told me.  And I
certainly do not rely on airline personnel to know in every
situation the answers to questions.  I seek and probe and work to
get additional, accurate data.  Most of all, I do not care to
rely on the evaluation airline personnel have made of blind
persons.  I keep my own ticket.  I walk to gates by myself.  I
board and deplane with the other passengers (not before and after
as the personnel and the brochures admonish one to do).  I have
paid the same dollars for my tickets as have other passengers and
expect to be treated the same.  This is usually an unfulfilled
expectation, but I hold to it anyway.  In the matter of reading,
I
try to get the same information as that available to sighted
passengers, not merely that thought useful for the blind.
I have tried to answer the points you raise in your letter as
completely as I can.  Since I am a regular flier and safety in
the air matters a very great deal to me, I will be glad to
continue the discussion if you wish.  As I say, you have given me
the occasion to re-examine my thoughts on the subject, and I am
grateful for the opportunity.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                                     Peggy Pinder
                    OF AIRLINES, KOWTOWING, 
AND BRAILLE BROCHURES
 From the Editor:  In the preceding article Mimi Winer takes
Peggy Pinder to task for refusing to read a Braille airline
brochure which was brought to her by a flight attendant on an
airplane, and
Peggy Pinder responds. However, that exchange of correspondence
(informative though it is) does not tell the whole story. It was
not simply that
the flight attendant merely suggested that Miss Pinder read the
brochure.  In fact, the reading of the brochure was a relatively
small part of the whole bizarre incident. 
 We printed the details in the August-September, 1985,  Braille
Monitor,  and the implications of the occurrence are as urgent
and timely today as they were then so much so that we are
reprinting the original article. Those who did not read it in
1985 will find it stark and disturbing. Those who did will find
it worth pondering again, four years later and in today's climate
of the FAA's proposed rule- making. Here it is as it appeared in
the  Braille Monitor  in the fall of 1985: 

The story is told that when George III was on the throne in the
1700's and England ventured forth to the far frontiers, an
English officer found his way to the Imperial Court of China.  He
asked for an audience with the emperor and was told that he could
have it if he would kowtow.  He asked what it meant and was told
that he must approach the emperor walking.  Then, at a certain
distance he must get down on his knees.  Still closer he must get
on his belly and crawl.  For the last few feet
he must put out his tongue and lick the dirt.  That was to 
kowtow.   After some reflection, he said that he would do it if a
Chinese officer
of comparable rank would kowtow to a picture of George, III,
which he conveniently happened to have with him.  I do not know
whether the kowtowing ever occurred.
When Jeffrey Shane, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs of the federal Department of
Transportation, spoke at the convention of the National
Federation of the Blind in Louisville this summer, he counseled
patience and understanding.  The Federal Aviation Administration,
he said, should not make a rule prohibiting discrimination
against the blind.  The matter should be left for the airlines
and the blind to negotiate.  You can't make people do things, Mr.
Shane told us.  The blind will have to convince the airlines. 
The problem, we kept telling Mr. Shane, is the very existence of
any special rules or regulations affecting the blind.  What we
want is to be allowed to pay our money and travel in peace like
anybody else.  If we are singled out for special treatment, every
airline employee who feels the urge will try to custodialize and
bully us.
When Peggy Pinder (blind Federationist and lawyer, who lives in
Iowa) left the convention to fly home she could not, in her
wildest imaginings, have dreamed that she would encounter the
kind of irrational abuse
and harassment which she received from an Ozark Airlines flight
attendant.  She was badgered, lied to, and threatened with a fine
and for what?  Because she would not read (or pretend to read) a
Braille copy of a brochure which the flight attendant brought
her, or alternatively answer a quiz.  AND ALL IN THE NAME OF
SAFETY.  Yes, there is such a thing as selective insanity.
Miss Pinder wrote a letter to Mr. Shane, giving the details of
what happened.  Her letter was dated July 23, 1985.  Mr. Shane
called her on the evening of August 21, 1985.  He began by
apologizing for waiting a month to do it, saying that the letter
had been lost in the mazes of his office and had just been
brought to his attention.  Mr. Shane's proposed remedies for the
treatment Miss Pinder received demonstrate that he learned little
at our convention, and perhaps is incapable of learning.
He said that this was doubtless an isolated instance and that it
had simply been Miss Pinder's misfortune to encounter somebody
with a  screw loose.   Miss Pinder patiently explained to him (as
we had repeatedly done at the convention) that the very issue we
are raising is the fact that this sort of conduct is  not  an
isolated issue.  (The correspondence reprinted elsewhere in this
issue of the  Monitor  gives ample evidence of the truth of our
contention.)  Mr.  Shane seemed bewildered by it all and kept
saying that he didn't know why blind people had to keep repeating
their personal horror stories.
When he got past this first issue, Mr. Shane had a few other
suggestions.  He thought that if we could gather evidence that
foreign airlines have no special rules or requirements concerning
the blind, airlines in this country (who are, according to Mr.
Shane, much impressed by the safety records of the foreign
companies) might relent.  He indicated that he might try to
gather such information but made it clear that it was very low on
his list of priorities.
Finally, Mr. Shane told Miss Pinder that she could have prevented
the entire incident by simply doing what the flight attendant
demanded.  Yes, she could have, but there comes a time when
humanity itself is diminished by demeaning submission.  We do not
live in Imperial China.  Perhaps one of us might be willing to
kowtow if Mr. Shane would reciprocate
in the presence of a suitable portrait.  Here is Peggy Pinder's
letter:  ____________________
                                                 Sioux City, Iowa
                                                    July 23, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey N. Shane
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy and International Affairs
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Shane:
As every blind traveler these days must, I entered the Louisville
Airport on my way home from the convention hoping for peace and
prepared for disruption.  The treatment I received was not the
worst experienced by homebound convention-goers.  Two of our
members were arrested in Louisville after sitting in seats
assigned to them by the airline, which turned out to be exit row
seats.  That is, of course, another tale.
Let me tell you about my homeward journey.  I traveled Ozark
Airlines, the only major air carrier which has continuously
served Sioux City, Iowa, during my residence here and one with
which I am consequently very familiar.  Ozark's entire fleet is
composed of DC-9 planes of two sizes, the shorter and the longer
ones.  The planes have a front exit, two overwing exits on each
side, and the  tailcone exit only used under the supervision of a
uniformed crew member  as the safety briefing says.  I
customarily sit in the smoking section and on the port side next
to the fuselage, if possible.  On Ozark planes, the port side has
only two seats and the smoking section is between the rearward
port overwing exit and the tailcone exit.  Ozark has installed
steel buttons on the sides of the overhead storage bin units at
the point where exit rows occur for the easy location of exit
rows by crew members in the event of an emergency involving loss
of lights.  The crews call these Braille knobs.  I always listen
to the safety briefings as the plane taxis to the runway to learn
if anything has changed.
Some time ago, Ozark transcribed into Braille the printed safety
cards placed in the seat pockets for sighted passengers.  I read
one once, and it contained information I already possessed about
safety on Ozark planes.
I followed my usual custom as I boarded Ozark flight 718
scheduled
to leave Louisville at 8:03 p.m. on Sunday, July 7, 1985.  I was
assigned seat 20-A and boarded without incident.  The usual
safety briefing was given.  The plane took off for St. Louis. 
The  fasten seat belts  sign was turned off.  Then the
interesting portion of my trip began.
A flight attendant, later identified as Kay Damaso, came to my
seat and stated she had a safety booklet that I was to read.  I
replied that I was a regular flier with Ozark and familiar with
the material in the booklet.  Kay replied that I was to take the
booklet and read it anyway.  I replied that Kay had done her job
by bringing the booklet to me and that she was not responsible
for making me read the booklet.  I was well aware that this was
not a requirement of Kay's job, but simply a service offered by
Ozark.  However, Kay began her contact with me
in a very vigorous manner, so I thought I would reassure her by
stating that I realized she felt she was doing her job.  I said I
didn't care to read the booklet and thanked her for offering it. 
I turned back
to reading the book I had brought with me, and Kay insisted on
continuing the conversation.  Kay told me that if I knew about
the exit rows, then I was to tell her what rows were the exit
rows on that plane.  I replied that I was familiar with the plane
and Kay again told me that
I would have to tell her where the exit rows were or read the
booklet.  Throughout the rest of the flight this choice, booklet
or quiz, was repeatedly
presented to me.
Kay stated that there was an FAA man on board and that,
consequently,
she was compelled to insist that I read the booklet or pass the
test.  Feeling that Kay herself felt her job was on the line with
this matter, I took the booklet from her, placed it in the seat
pocket in front of me, and told Kay that she had now done her
job, that no one could
deny I had taken the booklet, and that that should end the
matter.  Kay replied by stating that I would be subject to a
heavy fine if I did not read the booklet or pass the test.  I
said that that was fine, that we would take the matter up when we
got to St. Louis, and Kay replied by stating that I would not be
allowed to make my connecting flight with Ozark out of St. Louis
if I did not read the booklet or pass the quiz.
This remark genuinely focused my attention.  Before this time I
had merely been refusing a service a flight attendant mistakenly
thought
she was required to give me.  When she mentioned the  heavy fine, 
I ignored the comment as clearly designed to frighten and
intimidate me and as based on nothing.  If any FAA requirement
had been violated with respect to me, the airline and not I would
be subject to penalties (though I knew FAA regulations were not
involved here).  But Kay had just threatened to ground me in St.
Louis when I knew that there was no plane other than the one I
intended to take leaving that night
for  Sioux City.  When Kay stated that I would not be allowed to 
make your connection on Ozark out of St. Louis,  I was so
startled that I simply replied,  What?   Kay repeated her
statement and I decided that the matter had gotten serious.  I
turned to the man seated next to me in seat 20-B and apologized
to him, knowing what was bound to follow, stating that the flight
attendant didn't know what she was talking about, and then turned
back to her.  The rest of my conversations with Kay on the plane
merge together
in my mind.  In a fifty-five minute flight, we had four or five
conversations on this topic, and I can't separate one from
another.  I told Kay that I wanted her name and address written
down for me.  She complied, handing me one of the two pieces of
paper I have enclosed.  Kay informed me that I would be taken in
hand as soon as the plane reached the ground.  She variously
stated that I would be escorted through the airport to an
unspecified location by the FAA man she said was on board and, at
another time, by airport security.  She did not use the term but
clearly implied that I would be taken into custody for
my failure to read the booklet while she watched.  During each
separate conversation, Kay mentioned the  heavy fine  I would
have to pay for not reading the booklet.  During the final
conversation she said,  I don't know why you're doing this to me. 
I'm just trying to save you from a heavy fine. 
Also, during every conversation Kay mentioned the  FAA man  she
stated was  in the cockpit.   As Kay became more insistent, she
mentioned this personage more and more and finally purported to
be carrying messages from him to me concerning the requirement to
read the booklet and the fine.  Kay also brought me, at my
insistence, the name, work address and phone number, and official
title of the FAA man written down on a second piece of paper,
which I also have enclosed.  This second piece of paper, which
appears to have been
written by the same hand as the first, recites:  Mr. Paul L.
Johnston, FAA St. Louis, Dist., Aircraft Safety Inspector,
Regional Div., A/C 314-423-9257. 
At the conclusion of the flight I got off with the other
passengers, stepping onto the jetway in my regular turn.  At this
point I was instructed by Kay to step to the right side of the
jetway where an  Ozark vice president  was waiting to talk to me. 
I stepped to the side, and there was no one there but the flight
attendant that I could hear.  I told Kay that I was going on into
the terminal since I couldn't hear a thing standing there on the
jetway and also since I felt as though I were being taken
conspicuously into custody by
the flight attendant as the rest of the passengers walked by and
looked.  I had already told Kay on the plane that I was most
desirous of speaking
with her supervisor and I now repeated this, then started up the
jetway.  Kay told me emphatically to stay where I was.  I just
kept walking.  Kay then told someone behind her in a loud voice
that she would follow me, then ran up the jetway after me.  This,
of course, strengthened
the impression I had of being in custody.  When I arrived in the
terminal I stepped to the side and began to wait.  Kay had told
me that the FAA man on board wanted to talk to me, and I very
much wanted to talk to him.  No FAA man appeared and no Ozark
vice president either.  I finally told Kay that I wanted to speak
to these gentlemen and she
replied that the FAA man had left because he had  a close
connection  and that the Ozark vice president had left because he
had  an emergency  to take care of.  Kay stated that an Ozark
manager was on her way.  I said that was fine, that I simply
wanted to talk
to an Ozark ground official.  Kay then stated that she didn't
understand why I wouldn't read the safety booklet or answer the
quiz questions, that it would have been okay if I had simply
pretended to read the booklet, but that I had to do at least
that.  Kay stated that I didn't understand the situation, that
the fine on any airline which didn't require this was very heavy. 
By this statement, Kay revealed that she had known all along she
was lying to me in the plane and known all along that, if there
was a violation of regulations of this type involved, the airline
and not the passenger would be the one punished.  I asked Kay
when was the last time she had required a sighted passenger to
read the printed card or to answer test questions about safety. 
Kay replied that  that was different. 
An Ozark manager, Cathy Mahler, then appeared and asked what the
problem was.  Before either Kay or I said much of anything,
Mahler stated that she had often seen me flying on Ozark through
St. Louis and also stated that she was aware that most blind
passengers preferred to be left alone and preferred not to
receive any special treatment of any kind.  I don't know, but I
wonder if Mahler thought at this point that the flight attendant
and I were having a disagreement about whether I would be 
allowed  to walk through the airport by myself.  At any rate Kay
then stated firmly that the trouble was that I would not read the
safety booklet or answer questions showing familiarity
with safety.  This concluded her presentation during which I was
silent.  I then stated that Kay had offered the booklet to me,
that I had declined it, that the flight attendant had then
repeatedly told me that I would be subject to a heavy fine if I
didn't read the booklet or answer the questions, and that the
flight attendant told me I wouldn't be allowed on my connecting
Ozark flight if I didn't read the booklet.  When I began to
mention the threats of a heavy fine, Kay began to break
in, stating that she had not said that and that I was lying.  I
ignored her, but she made the same statements about my
description of her threats concerning my next flight.  I asked
Mahler if I would be allowed to take my connecting flight. 
Mahler didn't answer my question the first couple of times since
she was getting considerable interference in her thinking from
Kay's protestations but, on the third time, she replied to my
question that yes, of course, I could take my next Ozark flight
without any problem.
We were at a gate part way down the C concourse at Lambert.  The
C and D concourses meet just before the security checkpoint so
that one is not required to re-enter security before passing from
C to
D.  I walked up C to the intersection and was part way down D
concourse when I heard a man jogging behind me saying,  Ma'am,
ma'am.   I was the only person around that area of the concourse
and he was coming right up behind me, so I finally turned around
and, as I did so, I noticed that he was carrying a two-way radio. 
He stated he was from Ozark and I almost lost it because I felt I
was being pursued by Ozark Airlines.  However, I said nothing and
he went on to relate that he was a ground crew member from the
flight I had just left and that he had heard the entire exchange
between Kay and me in the terminal and had also heard Mahler when
she arrived.  This ground crew member stated that he wanted me to
know that he had been stationed just outside the jetway in the
terminal at the conclusion of my flight and that there was no FAA
man on the plane.  He had been so incensed at the flight
attendant's statements overheard by him that there was such an
official on board that he had followed me as soon as his duties
were completed to tell me that.  I replied that I hadn't for a
minute believed that there was such an official on board, but
that the flight attendant had given me a piece of paper with the
man's name and title, which I showed to him.  His confidence in
his opinion was shaken by seeing a name and title, but he
continued to insist that there had been no FAA man that he was
aware of on the flight.
The rest of my trip went along without incident.
After I got home I called the number listed as the purported FAA
man's work number, 314-423-9257, during regular business hours. 
I reached an eleven-year-old boy who stated that I was talking to
a private house, that no one named Paul Johnston lived there,
then inquired if I was calling about Bingo.  Next, I called
information and called the number listed in the St. Louis
directory for the St. Louis FAA office.  The person who answered
the phone confirmed that I had reached the FAA St. Louis office
and stated that no one named Paul Johnston worked there.  She
also stated that there are no job categories as  aircraft safety
inspectors,  that all safety inspectors are classed as  aviation
inspectors  with a specifying word added to indicate which of
three types of inspector the particular person is.  She also
stated that Kansas City and not St. Louis is classed as a
regional office, so I next called Kansas City, where I reached
the FAA regional office.  I received the same answer there.  No
Paul Johnston worked there; there is no job title  aircraft
safety inspector. 
Mr. Shane, I did not get arrested and strip-searched in St. Louis
as two Federationists did in Louisville.  In that sense, I
suppose
I have nothing to complain about.  But I was singled out,
threatened, humiliated, ordered not to leave the jetway as though
I were in custody, and treated as a second-class citizen.  This
was all done because of my blindness, the conclusions one flight
attendant drew because
of my blindness, and her statement that the FAA required her to
behave as she did.
I can't explain why this particular flight attendant chose to go
so far to try to intimidate and frighten me.  Perhaps, as we
discussed in Louisville, it was her position as a flight
attendant that drove her to patronize all the passengers and to
conclude, in my case, that
her role as protector extended far beyond her duty to other
passengers.  She told me that the blind were different from the
sighted for her purposes.  Perhaps she honestly believed that she
was required to make me read the booklet and when she found
resistance believed she had no alternative but to make up the 
heavy fine  and the FAA man to scare me into submission.  Perhaps
Ozark has simply missed on this one, mistakenly hiring a person
who will overuse her authority whenever she can out of some need
to be better than someone else.  For whatever reason, Kay used
the FAA and her statement that she was required to do what she
did to justify herself to me and to the passengers near me. 
Until the FAA gets itself out of the business of separating blind
passengers and requiring different treatment for us, this type of
treatment will occur.  United said of the two arrested passengers
in Louisville that they plotted to be seated in exit row seats so
that they could make a heroic stand and get arrested.  This is
nonsense.  The passenger doesn't assign the seat; the airline
employee does with the screen visible only to him or her.
But we the blind are not entering airports looking for trouble or
waiting to create confrontations or hoping to engage in heroics. 
We enter airports like everyone else, with a place to go, having
made the choice to fly there.  Some people love to travel.  Some
find it
a chore.  Some are frightened by flying.  But if you are a blind
person in America today, any of this pales before what may happen
to you, quiet and peaceful and compliant though you may be, when
you step into the air travel system.  Please, Mr. Shane, try to
find a way to eliminate from our lives this constant threat of
hard words and hard deeds by others that the blind face whenever
we fly.  You don't know when it will strike.  But when it does,
it is always unpleasant, usually publicly humiliating, and
sometimes costly and violent.
                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                                     Peggy Pinder
 SENATOR HARKIN TESTIFIES IN FAVOR OF  THE AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR
BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT
 As reported elsewhere in this issue, a hearing on the Air Travel
Rights for Blind Individuals Act was held March 14, 1989, before
the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation. One of those testifying in favor of
the bill was Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. This is particularly
important since Senator Harkin is the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Handicapped and recognized throughout the
Senate for his interest in rights of the disabled. Here is what
Senator Harkin had to say: 

Testimony of Senator Tom Harkin
                         March 14, 1989

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to share
my views on the Air Travel Rights of Blind Individuals Act.  Over
the past four years dozens of blind persons have been arrested at
the instigation of airlines with no basis.  These arrests do not
result in convictions; in fact, most blind persons are released
without charge or are exonerated by the prosecutor without trial. 
The power of the police is used to enforce the airline's will,
and the subject is then dropped.  Fifteen attorneys general of
the several states have issued letters explaining to law
enforcement officers and airport authorities in their states that
no basis for such arrests exists.  I am proud to say that Iowa's
progressive Attorney General Tom Miller was among the first to
move to protect his state's citizens.  I'd like to include a copy
of a letter written by Attorney General Miller which summarizes
the federal and state laws as they pertain to the rights of blind
air travelers.
But the arrests, wrong as they are, do not encompass the entire
problem for blind air travelers.  The arrests, while predicated
on various factual situations, rest on the underlying assumption
that blind travelers are unsafe and must be treated differently
from the way the rest of the passenger load is treated.  This
differential treatment spills over to many areas of blind
passenger experience not culminating in outright arrest.
One of my constituents, Peggy Pinder, was arrested at National
Airport last Easter time for occupying her seat on an aircraft
nowhere near an exit row.  She was arrested for declining to move
to a seat near an exit, an instruction given because she is
blind.  Two weeks later, another blind person was arrested for
occupying his seat near an exit on an aircraft and declining to
move to a seat away from an exit, an instruction given because he
is blind.  The disparate treatment
of these two blind people points up that there is no consistency
within the industry and no rationale for industry treatment of
blind passengers.  The basic problem is that airlines, like other
persons who discriminate against the blind, begin by assuming
that blind people as a class are categorically different from
sighted people as a class. Using this assumption, different
airlines and different crews treat blind people differently,
patronizing them and pushing them around because they insist on
treating the blind passengers unlike sighted passengers. 
Industry spokesmen in justifying this difference usually resort
to
an analogy between the blind and young children, which is
particularly offensive to me and to the blind adult Americans who
pay taxes and work and vote.
In 1981 a federal regulation was adopted permitting and governing
the carriage of white canes by blind passengers at their seats. 
However, last month five of my constituents who were returning to
Des Moines after a visit to our nation's capital were involved in
a dispute over where each blind person could store his or her
cane.  My constituents told me that the airline personnel
insisted that the canes were carry-on baggage which had to be
confiscated from the blind passenger.  I have asked the Federal
Aviation Administration to look into this matter.
Today a blind air traveler approaches an airport with only one
certainty:  He or she does not know what will happen.  The trip
may go smoothly;
it may be filled with indignities; it may end in arrest.  This
occurs because the federal government has refused to order
airlines to treat the blind like other passengers, even though
the blind have pleaded
for this simple requirement for years.  Left to themselves, the
airlines have developed a series of inconsistent, contradictory,
and crew-by-crew rules for the blind.  They have no basis in fact
or law.
There is simply no evidence that blind passengers pose any safety
risk different from sighted passengers.  There is a vast body of
evidence in the arrests and harassment of my constituents and
others that
the airlines believe blind passengers are different and insist on
treating them as such.
Three years ago, when it became clear that the FAA did not wish
to settle the problem, Congress passed the Air Carrier Access
Act, a prohibition on discrimination in air travel based on
disability.  From the treatment received by my constituents since
the passage of the Air Carrier Access Act it is obvious that
neither the airlines nor the FAA has taken the Air Carrier Access
Act seriously.  In fact,
the FAA has been talking for the past year of regulations
implementing
the Act which will be in direct contravention of its letter and
spirit.  These proposed FAA regulations have now reached their
final stage of internal preparation and will probably be proposed
and published by the time this hearing is held.  On their
surface, the proposed FAA regulations will pretend to adhere to
our prohibition on discrimination.  But only on the surface.  For
the entire history of air travel, there has been no seating
restriction based on blindness.  There has never been an incident
involving a blind passenger jeopardizing safety.  There is no
evidence that blind passengers pose a safety risk.  Yet, the
FAA-proposed regulation will say that sight is a necessary
function for seating in some parts of the aircraft and will
require the airlines
to follow each rule.  I might add here that the airlines are not
unwilling, they have wanted this restriction all along, and the
FAA is merely doing their bidding.
But the proposed FAA rules will not restrict seating on the basis
of a whole constellation of factors which can be shown to affect
safety such as sobriety, absence of heart condition, strength
under stress, and numerous other conditions invisible to the
naked eye.  They will restrict the blind and a few other easily
visible classes in a blatant attempt to provide a  safety 
justification for prejudice.

I support the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act, S.
341.  It is the only way to solve this problem.  Blind persons
have sought to teach airlines about their capabilities for years.
Blind persons through the National Federation of the Blind have
sought to teach
the Federal Aviation Administration about their capabilities for
years.  Neither effort has borne fruit and not for lack of trying
by the blind.  It is time for Congress to act. The blind have no
other protector for their rights. We must protect them. I urge
you to report favorably
the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act for prompt
passage.  Let us put this issue of discrimination behind us and
move on to creating opportunities for the blind.
    COMMITTEE ON JOINT ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORT MEETS by Kenneth
Jernigan
On March 20-22, 1989, an unprecedented event occurred. The major
organizations of and for the blind of Canada and the United
States came together
to discuss issues of common concern. The meeting was held at the
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore and was universally
acclaimed as constructive and worthwhile. Those in attendance
were: American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), Association for
Education and Rehabilitation
of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), Blinded Veterans
Association (BVA), Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB), Canadian
National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), National Federation of
the Blind (NFB), and the National Library Service for the Blind
and Physically Handicapped (NLS).
As reported in the November, 1988, Braille Monitor, the
groundwork for this historic meeting was laid in Montreal July
13, 1988, at a panel discussion at the meeting of AER. The topic
was  Blind People Shaping the Blindness System,  and those
participating were: Geraldine Braak, Canadian Council of the
Blind; Oral Miller, American Council
of the Blind; Susan Spungin, American Foundation for the Blind;
Kenneth Jernigan, National Federation of the Blind; and Euclid
Herie, Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The panel was
moderated by Gary Magarrell of the Canadian National Institute
for the Blind, who said in his introduction that the purpose was
to  have opportunities to be exposed to the thoughts of some of
the key consumer leaders in Canada and the United States and
because of a feeling that it is important that there be a
continuing dialogue between those who represent consumer groups
and those who are within the professions and the agencies.  The
panel obviously created considerable interest since the room was
full, with many standing and some in the hall who could not get
in.  The topics were far-ranging, and the discussion was lively.
But for our present purposes the critical exchange occurred
toward the end of the meeting. It will be observed that Oral
Miller was ill at ease and trying to dilute the clarity of the
commitments which were being made. Nevertheless, when he was
pressed to deliver on what he had perhaps impetuously promised,
he did commit. Here is how it went:

Carroll Jackson of the Greater Detroit Society for the Blind, who
was sitting in the audience, said:

Following up with Dr. Jernigan's comments that this panel may be
a start, I'd like to know what each of you as representatives of
these consumer organizations are willing to do as the next step
to continue this dialogue and make a common statement or position
paper, as it were, concerning the needs and wants of blind
persons.   Oral Miller:  I'll say name your meeting place.
 Susan Spungin:  The American Foundation for the Blind would be
very happy to serve as the coordinator of that meeting.   Kenneth
Jernigan:  I think it's interesting to pose a question.  There
was a suggestion made by Mr. Miller as a follow-up to the
question from the audience about what we intend to do to try to
continue the start we have made here today. Mr. Miller said, 
Name your meeting place. 
Dr. Spungin immediately said:  The American Foundation for the
Blind will be glad to coordinate. 
I doubt that any of you thought her comment was inappropriate.
Would you have felt equally comfortable (and would everybody in
this audience have participated as enthusiastically) if the
National Federation of the Blind had said,  We will coordinate ?
If not, then we aren't ready for this kind of talk. And if you
would, then think about whether that's appropriate.
I think that a position paper is not what we need. I think what
we need are deeds and action.
 Susan Spungin:  Dr. Jernigan, by that comment (which I think is
a very important one) can this panel make the assumption that you
would be willing to coordinate such a meeting towards the end of
coming to grips with those things that are agreed upon?
 Kenneth Jernigan:  To show you that I can give a short answer,
yes.
 Susan Spungin:  Thank you. Great!
 Oral Miller:  Just an additional comment. I agree with whoever
said it earlier. Whatever is accomplished is not going to be
accomplished overnight. I've heard of so many conferences where
they spend the first three days arguing about whether they're
going to use a round table or an oblong table or a square table.
Obviously there would have to be some sort of decision ahead of
time as to a mechanism for even deciding what the issues are. And
another thing to consider:  We're not talking about a monolithic
system. There is no such thing as  the  agency or  the  provider
view on a given subject.  Mr. Jackson's agency may look one way
on a subject, and someone else another. So, if we're talking
about a continuing dialogue of a general nature and as specific
as necessary, fine. Don't expect results overnight, because (as
indicated earlier) we've got a number of long-standing either
issues or concerns or factors to be considered; and they are not
going to go away overnight.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Mr. Miller, what we will do (in follow up to
Dr. Spungin's question and your comment) is that before the time
of next year's convention of this organization, the National
Federation of the Blind will issue to the organizations
represented on this panel an invitation to come to the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore.  We will coordinate that
meeting. We will provide funding to help it happen, and we will
pledge ourselves to deal only with those subjects on the agenda
on which we may find possible agreement, and to avoid subjects on
which we already have taken such positions that we know
we cannot agree. We will not discuss a subject unless there is
unanimous agreement to do so. In order to get it off of
generalities, that's what we are prepared to do. Would the ACB be
willing to participate in such a meeting?
 Oral Miller:  We have always been willing to participate in
constructive processes; and if that appears to be constructive,
we certainly will.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Well, does that appear to be constructive as
I laid it out?
 Oral Miller:  Yeah, I'm not sure that enough parties are
included.  That's my only concern.
 Kenneth Jernigan:  Well, okay. But let's start with these five.  
Oral Miller:  Sure. No problem at all.

As has been said, Mr. Miller was obviously uncomfortable with the
definite prospect of a meeting to consider united action
especially if that meeting was to be called, coordinated,
chaired, and hosted
by the National Federation of the Blind. He probably felt in a
dilemma.  Nevertheless, he made the commitment, for himself and
his organization.

In a meeting at the American Foundation for the Blind building in
New York on January 5, 1989, Otis Stephens, President of the
American Council of the Blind; William Gallagher, Executive
Director of the American Foundation for the Blind; and I met to
discuss a variety of issues. At that time we agreed on the ground
rules for (as it was by this time being called) the upcoming
meeting on Joint Organizational Effort. There was absolutely no
disagreement as to how we would proceed.  In the spirit of this
apparent harmony I lost no time in sending the following
communication to the appropriate organizations:

                           Memorandum

To: American Council of the Blind
American Foundation for the Blind
Association for Education and
Rehabilitation of the Blind
and Visually Impaired
Blinded Veterans Association
Canadian Council of the Blind
Canadian National Institute for the Blind
National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped

From: Kenneth Jernigan, 
Executive Director
National Federation of the Blind

Date: January 9, 1989

Re: Meeting of Ad Hoc Committee on Joint Organizational Effort

Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with our earlier conversations I am writing this
memorandum to the organizations listed above concerning the
meeting of the Ad
Hoc Committee on Joint Organizational Effort which the National
Federation of the Blind is convening this spring.  The meeting
will be held at the National Center for the Blind at 1800 Johnson
Street in Baltimore from Monday afternoon, March 20, 1989, until
noon on Wednesday, March 22.
As agreed earlier, not more than three representatives from each
of the seven organizations (ACB, AER, AFB, BVA, CCB, CNIB, and
the NFB) will be present at the sessions which, as also agreed,
will be closed.  In addition to the participants from these seven
organizations, Mr. Frank Kurt Cylke (Director of the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped) is
invited to be present as
an observer.  To promote candor and freedom of discussion, there
will be no taping of any of the meetings.  If the participants
wish, I will provide a recording secretary to take notes and
prepare minutes, but this will be decided at the opening meeting.
I will chair the sessions and prepare the agenda.  I invite any
of you who wish to do so to send me suggested topics for
discussion.  As the first item of business on March 20, I will
present without comment a proposed agenda.  In accordance with
the understanding that we will not discuss issues which we feel
we cannot resolve, any organization may, without giving a reason,
remove any item from the agenda.  Likewise, any participant may
propose adding any item which will, with unanimous consent,
become part of the agenda.  To facilitate preparation of the
agenda I should receive your suggestions and comments no later
than February 28.
The first session of the meeting will begin at 2:00, Monday
afternoon, March 20, and will adjourn at 5:00 or shortly
thereafter.  I will host a dinner Monday evening, to which all
who attend the meeting are invited.  There will also be a dinner
the following evening, to which all attendees are invited.  You
will be on your own for breakfasts, and we will discuss luncheon
plans during the first session on Monday afternoon.
The Tuesday morning session will begin at 9:00 and will continue
until noon.  The afternoon session will (depending upon the
wishes of the participants) begin either at 1:30 or 2:00 and will
adjourn at 5:00 or shortly thereafter.  The Wednesday morning
session will begin at 9:00 and will continue until noon or
adjournment, whichever comes first.
As you may know, the National Center for the Blind has bedrooms,
and we will be happy to provide overnight accommodations without
cost
for any of those attending the meeting.  Alternatively there are
several fine hotels in the Harbor area, which is only a few
blocks north of the National Center for the Blind.  Probably the
three closest are the Hyatt, the Sheraton, and the Stouffer.  I
am sure there will be no problem in getting reservations at any
of them.
I ask that each of you let me know as soon as possible who your
representatives will be, whether they will want lodging at the
National Center, what items (if any) you wish to propose for the
agenda, and anything else which you wish to suggest concerning
the meeting.  As we agreed last summer in Montreal and later in
New York, the purpose of this meeting will be to explore areas of
common concern and possible cooperation.  It would, indeed, be
cause for rejoicing if the organizations attending the meeting
could reach agreement (even if only on limited objectives
and programs) and could implement that agreement with concerted
action.  Perhaps it can be done.  The need is great, and the
possibility exists.  We should put forth our best effort to make
it happen.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
In this atmosphere of attempting to promote harmony, imagine my
surprise when I received the following communication from Otis
Stephens, President of the American Council of the Blind:
                           Memorandum

To: Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director National Federation of
the Blind

From: Otis Stephens, President
American Council of the Blind

Subject: Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Joint Organizational
Effort

Date: January 30, 1989

The Board of Directors of the American Council of the Blind has
reviewed your memorandum of January 9 regarding the meeting of
organizational representatives to be held in Baltimore March
20-22, 1989. We are fully prepared to participate and will send
three representatives to this meeting, subject to the following
stipulations:
(1) That each participating organization retain the option of
keeping its own independent written or taped record of the
proceedings.
(2) That a steering committee consisting of one representative
from each participating organization prepare and circulate a
proposed agenda at least ten days prior to the meeting, and that
each organization have an opportunity to add or delete items
before adoption of the agenda at the opening session on March 20;
and
(3) That the participants elect four persons representing
different organizations, each of whom shall chair one of the
scheduled meetings.  We believe that these procedures will
advance the objectives of full, fair, and responsible
participation by all organizations contributing to this joint
effort.
Please provide me with your written response by February 21. 
____________________
When I received this memorandum from Dr. Stephens, I wondered
whether
a power struggle was going on inside the ACB or whether the
organization was simply taking this rather transparent means of
trying to back
out of its agreement. Dr. Stephens did not seem like the type of
person who would simply openly and blatantly violate his word
and, of course, I knew of the ill will and hostility of Oral
Miller and of his dominance in the direction and affairs of the
ACB; but regardless of explanations, the behavior seemed less
than responsible. It raised the question again (a question which
is not new) as to whether the American Council of the Blind is
stable enough to function meaningfully in the blindness field.
Regardless of these considerations, I sent the following letter
to Dr. Stephens:

                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                 February 7, 1989

Dear Dr. Stephens:
I have your memorandum of January 30, 1989, and I was surprised
by its contents.  As you know, the idea for the meeting of the Ad
Hoc Committee on Joint Organizational Effort originated during a
panel discussion in Montreal last summer.  ACB was part of that
panel and was fully apprised of what was intended.
Later you and I discussed the format of the meeting by telephone,
and we also talked about it at the North America/Caribbean
regional meeting of the WBU.  On January 5 of this year you, Bill
Gallagher, and I talked about the matter again in great detail. 
From the very beginning it was made clear that this meeting was
being called by
the National Federation of the Blind and that I would chair the
sessions.  I have discussed the format and other details of the
meeting with all of the organizations involved and have had from
them expressions of agreement with what is contemplated.  In
fact, I believe that quite a number of people in the leadership
of the various groups feel that such a meeting is long overdue
and that it would be nothing short of irresponsible for us not to
proceed.  It is no secret that the blindness system is in
trouble, and anything which offers a reasonable hope for united
action (even if only on a limited basis) is surely worth
pursuing.
If we were to permit taping of the sessions of the Ad Hoc
Committee
on Joint Organizational Effort, it would invite maneuvering and
organizational sparring.  Several of the groups have emphatically
said that they
do not want this.  As I said in my January 9, 1989, memorandum:  
To promote candor and freedom of discussion, there will be no
taping of any of the meetings.  If the participants wish, I will
provide a recording secretary to take notes and prepare minutes,
but this
will be decided at the opening meeting.   Unless there is
objection, participants who wish to take written notes should be
permitted to do so, and I cannot imagine anyone's objecting.  The
purpose of this meeting is not to see whether we can get one-up
on each other but to try to achieve cooperation.
As to the agenda, it seems to me that it would not be productive
to circulate it prior to the meeting.  Again, this would tend to
lead to dissension and maneuvering.  It would also take away
flexibility and cause hardening of positions.  If you will refer
to my memorandum of January 9, 1989, I think you will agree that
the method of dealing with the agenda is completely fair and
open.  I will receive suggestions from the various organizations
and prepare a proposed agenda, which will be read without comment
at the beginning of the first session.  At that time any of the
participants may remove any item from the agenda without giving a
reason.  Likewise, any participant may propose adding an item. 
If no one objects, the item will be added.  If you will review
the tape of the Montreal meeting, you will see that this is
exactly what I said would be done.  It has been the plan since
the first time the idea of the meeting was discussed.
In the circumstances we will proceed as outlined in my memorandum
of January 9, 1989.  I hope the American Council of the Blind
will reconsider its position and join with the rest of us in this
attempt to achieve unity and constructive action.  The door will
remain open, and ACB's representatives will be welcome.  Surely
none of us will
want to take the responsibility of doing anything which might
jeopardize the hoped-for success of this worthwhile effort.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
I sent copies of this letter to the other organizations which
were
planning to participate in the meeting of the Committee on Joint
Organizational Effort, and William Gallagher and Euclid Herie
wrote letters expressing their understanding of what had been
agreed and what should be done:

                                               New York, New York
                                                February 14, 1989

Dear Ken:
I have just read your letter to Otis Stephens responding to some
issues raised by members of his Board. I think the importance of
this meeting necessitates attendance by representatives of the
American Council
of the Blind. I would hope that their Board of Directors would
reconsider its decision and plan to be represented at this
meeting which could be a real landmark in the field of blindness.
When the panel discussion held in Montreal drew such positive
reactions from the audience, Susan Spungin recommended that the
discussion be continued, adding that AFB would be glad to
coordinate the next meeting.  As a member of the panel, you
suggested the NFB would be pleased to coordinate and host this
meeting. The panel agreed, and the audience reacted most
favorably to the scheduling of another meeting.
At a meeting of the North America Region of the World Blind Union
held at AFB on October 28, the delegates decided on the
following:
1. To accept your cordial invitation to host the meeting at NFB's
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore;
2. That this meeting would be chaired by you, the delegate from
the hosting organization;
3. That besides the panel participants, the group would also
include some of the other North America regional delegates;
4. That each delegate would invite two additional members from
his/her organization;
5. That the delegates would submit to you agenda items to be
discussed;
6. That the agenda would be presented to the participants at the
start
of the first session of the meeting at which time if anyone had
objections to any item, it would be deleted;
7. That to ensure a free and open discussion, tape recordings
would not be permitted but, if agreed to by the entire group, a
secretary would be available to take minutes which would be
shared with all of the participants;
8. That the most convenient time to hold the meeting would be
mid-March; consequently the delegates agreed to convene at 2:00
p.m. on Monday, March 20, and conclude the meeting at 12:00 noon
on Wednesday, March 22, 1989; and
9. That the next meeting would be held at another location at the
invitation of some other delegate wishing to host the group. It
was assumed that it would be the hosting delegate's
responsibility to chair the meeting.
The planning for the meeting was done, not by any individual, but
by the consensus of the group, and I would hope that all of us
could come to the meeting with an open mind. There are many
important issues in our field in need of support of all of us.
Although we have differed in the past when we have allowed
personalities, egos, and power plays to get in the way of our
developing harmonious relationships, I believe it is time we sat
down together to take a serious look at the issues in the field
of blindness and together develop strategy to save services for
the blind and visually impaired population in our region. We can
only do this through the combined efforts of all of the
organizations of and for the blind.
I might add that in spite of all our differences over the past
many years, we still managed to work together in a spirit of
cooperation on international issues as delegates to the world
organization. I
hope that this same spirit of cooperation will enable us to work
together to resolve some of the major issues facing the blindness
system today.  The AFB representatives (Dr. Geraldine Scholl, Dr.
Susan Spungin, and I) look to this meeting as being not only a
stepping stone to improved relations among all of us but to the
accomplishments possible through our combined efforts.

Sincerely,
                                        William F. Gallagher, MSW
                                               Executive Director
                                American Foundation for the Blind
____________________

                                                 Toronto, Ontario
                                                           CANADA

                                                February 21, 1989

Dear Ken:
With reference to the March 20th-22nd meetings to be held at the
National Center of the NFB in Baltimore, I want to support your
position with reference to the ACB position.
In my telephone conversation with both yourself and Bill
Gallagher,
I felt that your letter expressed, in very positive terms, the
position that should be taken in these circumstances. I, too,
genuinely hope that the ACB will reconsider their position given
that they would
be welcomed and helpful participants. However, it is up to the
integrity and judgment of each individual organization to
determine its course of action based on whatever internal
policies and priorities it may have.  The integrity of the
process as outlined in your initial letter of invitation is a
model approach to world class diplomacy and entente.  I can,
therefore, see no basis on amending either the formula or the
proposed meeting format.
Thank you for keeping me informed on this development, and we
look forward to seeing you in Baltimore in a few weeks.

                                                     Yours truly,
                               Euclid J. Herie, Managing Director
                        Canadian National Institute for the Blind
____________________
Despite these letters and the previous commitments of the
American Council of the Blind, Dr. Stephens wrote me as follows:

                                             Knoxville, Tennessee
                                                    March 6, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the American
Council of the Blind cannot participate in the meeting scheduled
to be held in Baltimore March 20-22, 1989.
Our Board of Directors carefully considered the stipulations
outlined in my memorandum of January 30.  These procedures are
designed to encourage full and fair participation by each
organization attending a meeting devoted to important issues of
concern to blind persons.  We continue to believe that these
procedures would ensure the balance and coequality essential to a
constructive exchange of views. Since the format of the Baltimore
meeting, as outlined in your memorandum of January 9 and restated
in your letter of February 7, is in our judgment inconsistent
with this objective, it will be impossible for us to take part in
the Baltimore meeting.
ACB has a long and continuing record of cooperative action with
other organizations of and for the blind. Accordingly, we remain
open to the possibility of participation in future discussions
aimed at the advancement of joint effort in this field.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                      Otis H. Stephens, President
                                    American Council of the Blind
____________________
If the recent behavior of ACB representatives is any indicator,
their decision not to attend the meeting may have been a positive
contribution.  Be that as it may, with these preliminaries behind
us we moved forward to prepare for the meeting. The different
organizations sent proposed items for the agenda and named their
representatives. I prepared the following draft agenda, which was
presented and read at the opening session on Monday afternoon,
March 20, 1989:

                      Ad Hoc Committee on 
Joint Organizational Effort
                  National Center for the Blind
                       Baltimore, Maryland
                        March 20-22, 1989

Participating Organizations:
* American Foundation for the Blind
* Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind
and Visually Impaired
* Blinded Veterans Association
* Canadian Council of the Blind
* Canadian National Institute for the Blind
* National Federation of the Blind
* National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped

                             AGENDA

1. Procedural matters and announcements.  
2. Read, consider, and finalize agenda.
3. Opportunity for each organization to make opening statement.
4.  Braille:
a. How are its use and emphasis affected by recorded material,
computers, reading machines, educational philosophy?
b. Should there be concerted action to increase the use and
availability of Braille? If so, what joint efforts can be
undertaken? Legislation requiring that blind children have the
option of being taught Braille if they and their families so
elect.
5. Recruitment and training of professionals in the blindness
field:
a. How can blind persons be attracted to the field?
b. Should paraprofessionals (O and M, rehab) be used?
c. What role should consumer groups play in recruiting and
training professionals?
d. What role should agencies play in training their own
personnel?
e. What role should universities play in training and
recruitment?  
6. American Printing House for the Blind:
Should agencies other than APH be authorized to provide materials
and books to institutions under the current federal appropriation
for APH?


7. Core Services:
What are they, and what should they be in the blindness system?
(CNIB has studied the issue and can share ideas for group
discussion.) 

8. Technology:
a. How can we work together to increase availability? Possible
joint projects in research, production, distribution.
b. What role should agencies and/or consumer groups play in
developing, producing, and marketing technology, aids and
appliances, and materials?
c. What information should be exchanged, and how can we work
together to inform the blind community? Possible North America
database.  

9. Image:
a. Portrayal of blindness by the media, by agencies, by consumer
groups.
b. Are there joint efforts which we can undertake to improve the
image?
c. How can we maximize dissemination of positive information?  

10. Access to information issues:
CNIB has created a new document and can share.


11. Role of consumers:
a. Who is the consumer?
b. What role should consumers play in development of services?
c. What role should consumers play in advocacy?
d. What role should agencies play in advocacy?
e. What responsibilities do agencies have toward individual blind
people, toward organized blind people?
f. What responsibilities do individual blind people, organized
blind people have to agencies?


12. Collection of data:
a. What data should agencies collect?
b. How can accuracy and completeness of collection be improved?
(Census data 1990.)


13. Definition of blindness: Implications with respect to:
a. Cost and scope of services.
b. Attitudes of blind and visually impaired.
c. Attitudes of public.


14. Pan Disability:
a. What should we be doing about the pan disability movement? How
can we utilize it for our purposes? How and  under what
circumstances should we take joint action to oppose its
development?
b. How should we deal with the categorical versus generic
approach to services?


15. Vending:
a. Experience in U.S.: Randolph-Sheppard Act.
b. Experience in Canada.


16. Library Services:
a. Who should be served?
b. Are there threats to the postal concessions?
c. How should we deal with multi-lingual issues?
d. What role should individual, organized consumers play?  

17. Education:
a. What should be included in itinerant and community based
education?
b. Access to information in appropriate medium.  

18. Free Trade Agreement:
What implications does the Free Trade Agreement between Canada
and the U. S. have for the blind of the two countries, for the
agencies, for joint activities?


19. Areas of cooperation:
a. International projects.
b. Research, including encouraging the research community to
consider our field's needs.
c. Services to aging blind.
d. Employment.
e. Services to deaf-blind and other multihandicapped.
f. Minority language.
g. Copyright issues.


20. Miscellaneous:
a. Should fees be charged for services? Discuss ramifications.
b. What are the implications of the term  least restrictive
environment ?
c. What work disincentives are now built into the system, and
what can be done about them?
d. 1991 White House Conference on Aging.


21. Opportunity for closing statements.
____________________
Even a cursory perusal of this agenda makes it clear that not
everything listed could be discussed. This was understood from
the outset. The intention was to try to list as many items as
possible suggested by the different organizations and create a
framework for general give
and take. All of us seemed to feel that at this initial meeting 
(regardless of whether another meeting might be held) the process
was more important than the specific topics. And so it proved to
be.
As one of the first items of business, it was voted that Mr.
Cylke
of NLS would participate as a full member of the committee, not
merely as an observer. Thus, everyone present participated on
terms of equality.  The following people were present as members
of the Committee: American Foundation for the Blind William F.
Gallagher, Geraldine Scholl, Susan Jay Spungin; Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Toni Heinze, Julia Richardson, William Weiner; Blinded Veterans
Association Ronald L. Miller, Tom Miller, David L. Schnair;
Canadian Council of the Blind Bruce
R. Clark; Canadian National Institute for the Blind Euclid J. 
Herie, Gary Magarrell, Guy M. Woodland; National Federation of
the Blind Kenneth Jernigan, Mary Ellen Jernigan, Marc Maurer;
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
Frank Kurt Cylke.
After the reading of the agenda at the opening session on Monday
afternoon, March 20, a number of items were objected to and
dropped. According to prior agreement, no one questioned the
reason for eliminating an item. It was agreed that Susan Spungin,
Gary Magarrell, and Frank Kurt Cylke would be responsible for
preparing draft statements of agreed-upon items. It was also
agreed that any such draft would represent only their
understanding and interpretation and would not be considered
final until or unless agreed upon by the others present. It was
further agreed that anyone present was free to report on what
occurred at
the meeting. Although there were some disputed points, lively
discussion, and moments of tension, the overall tone was
increasingly cordial and constructive so that by the time the
meeting ended there seemed to be unanimous consensus that
significant progress had been made and a milestone reached.
Dinner was served to the group in the dining room at the National
Center for the Blind on Monday evening, as was lunch on Tuesday.
Hosted by the National Federation of the Blind, the group went to
a Chinese restaurant for dinner Tuesday evening. There was a tour
of the facilities at the National Center for the Blind, and there
was much individual exchange of ideas and conversation. Above
all, there appeared to be new understandings and broadened
perspectives.
As a follow up to the meeting, the following memorandum was sent:

                                               New York, New York
                                                   April 26, 1989

To: Participating Organizations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Joint
Organizational 
Effort

From: Susan Jay Spungin, Gary Magarrell, Frank Kurt Cylke

What follows are five statements discussed by the seven
organizations of the Joint Organizational Effort:
1. Due to a variety of extenuating factors  not  inherent in
blindness, there is increasing evidence and concern as to the
growing number of illiterate blind people. Therefore, we agree
that the teaching of the Braille system needs careful attention
as does the availability of materials in Braille allowing for
equal access to information.
2. To insure the availability of useful and necessary high and
low technology items that assist blind persons to be independent,
it becomes increasingly necessary to pool our respective talents
and resources in the area of technology in order to:
a. take advantage of collective buying power;
b. keep prices down through quantity buying;
c. encourage manufacturers to continue production of low-volume
items;
d. encourage research development and marketing of new products
of value to blind persons; and
e. explore the need for an information database system.
Therefore, it is recommended that a committee on technology be
appointed in order to insure joint action and collaboration of
the participating organizations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Joint
Organizational Effort.  The initial committee membership will be:
American Foundation for the Blind, American Council of the Blind
(to be invited), Association for Education and Rehabilitation of
the Blind and Visually Impaired, Blinded Veterans Association,
Canadian National Institute for the Blind, National Federation of
the Blind, National Council of State Agencies (to be invited),
and National Council of Private Agencies (to be invited).
The committee will consist of individuals who are people with
potential buying power or influence in the purchasing of
products. The committee's role and function will be to identify
items needed, negotiate price and number of items needed for
organizations in the field of blindness, and negotiate and place
orders with appropriate vendors. Members may participate in one
or more of these roles.
Issues relating to information sharing via database systems will
be presented to the officers' meeting of the World Blind Union to
be held in Toronto in March, 1989.
3. In order to effectively meet the needs of blind and visually
impaired children in a variety of educational settings, teachers
must be trained and graduated from a recognized university
personnel preparation program which focuses on specialized
knowledge and skills needed to teach this population of children.
In addition to specialized course work specific to the unique
needs
of blind and visually impaired children, teachers should have
knowledge in teaching math and literary Braille codes and be
certified by the National Library Service for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
4. All other things being equal, the adult blind population is
better served in specialized agencies serving the blind
individual than in generic agencies.
5. Any participating organization of the Joint Organizational
Committee considering a major legislative effort will consult
with other concerned groups and organizations for their support
and/or advice prior to
final action whenever possible. This action is an example of a
commitment to communicate with each other in support of programs
assuring quality services for blind and visually handicapped
persons in North America.  ____________________
It should be emphasized that the language of the foregoing
document is not the precise wording which was discussed during
the meetings of the full committee and that some of the nuances
might not be in accord with the memories of some who were
present, but the overall substance seems generally accurate. In
any case the meeting is now history, and it remains to be seen
what the long-range results will be. Will another such meeting be
held? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It will depend upon the climate of
opinion and the sincerity of the organizations in their
expressions of the wish to cooperate. It will also depend upon
perceived need. For the moment it can only be repeated that the
Baltimore meeting of the Committee on Joint Organizational Effort
was an unmixed success and a great step forward.
      MICHIGAN SAYS UP WITH STANDARDS AND QUALITY SERVICES 
AND DOWN WITH NAC
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
On Friday, April 14, 1989, a crucial event occurred in the lives
of the blind of this country. It was on that day that the Board
of the Michigan Commission for the Blind voted that it would no
longer purchase services from any organization or agency
accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). As might have
been expected, the American Foundation for the Blind, the
American Council of the Blind, and the handful of other remaining
NAC supporters reacted with fear and fury.
 They undertook to stampede the Governor of Michigan into trying
to force the Board of the Michigan Commission for the Blind to
reverse its decision, and they also sought to get Michigan's
attorney general to rule that the Commission's action was
illegal. But at the time of this writing (May 5, 1989) their
pressure and scare tactics have been unsuccessful. The decision
still stands.
The overwhelming number of agencies serving the blind throughout
the country have never sought or accepted NAC accreditation, and
many
of those who originally did accept it have now rejected it and
publicly dissociated themselves from NAC. As the campaign by NAC
supporters developed in mid- and late April to try to get
Michigan's governor and attorney general to force the Michigan
Commission for the Blind to reverse itself, a countermove got
under way. Organizations and agencies from throughout the country
(groups which favor standards and quality services to the blind
and, therefore, want nothing to do with NAC) began to contact the
governor and attorney general of Michigan.
As has so often been the case, NAC (instead of being the focus of
harmony and progress) is the center of controversy in this
slugfest.  This latest battle promises to put a chill on the move
toward cooperation and unity which has recently been evident in
the blindness field.  Whatever the final outcome, NAC is the
loser, and the blind are the gainers. It is hard to see how NAC
can much longer continue to exist with the massive defections
which it has suffered during the past year and with this latest
blow to its flawed image.
There was a time when the Michigan School for the Blind was
accredited by NAC but no more. The School rejected that
accreditation several years ago. The Greater Detroit Society for
the Blind and an agency in Flint and one in Grand Rapids are NAC
accredited and stand to lose considerable business by the
Commission's action, but many of the
blind of the state will not regard that as a loss. Out-of-state
agencies such as the Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind also
stand to lose money, and so it is not surprising that that
Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind wrote to the governor of
Michigan  not for money, of course, but because of
professionalism and professional concern.  Then, there is the
Michigan Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired, the
state affiliate of the American Council of the Blind.
As might have been expected, that organization wrote a letter of
protest to the governor.  It would appear, however, that most of
the letters to Michigan officials have gone the other way,
commending the Michigan Commission for its positive and
constructive action.
At its state convention in Flint last fall the National
Federation of the Blind of Michigan adopted the following
resolution:             Resolution 88-02

Whereas, the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) has, from the moment of
its founding, sought to justify the inadequate services provided
by the very agencies which created it; and
Whereas, NAC has accredited agencies which harm and exploit blind
people for their own profit by operating lucrative businesses
through so-called sheltered workshops, which pay blind people
subminimum wages; and
Whereas, blind people in the state of Michigan have
overwhelmingly expressed their hostility and distrust of NAC, NAC
accredited agencies, and those who support and cooperate with
them; and
Whereas, the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) board has
often expressed its commitment to act on the basis of the actual
experience of blind people and in the interest of the blind
citizens of Michigan.  Now, therefore:
Be It Resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan in convention assembled this twenty-third day of
October, 1988, in the city of Flint, that we call upon the MCB
board to instruct its director and staff to take all necessary
action to insure that the agency will neither enter into nor
renew any contracts for services with agencies which seek or
maintain NAC accreditation; and
Be It Further Resolved that we urge the Michigan Commission for
the Blind board to instruct its director and staff to make no
referrals to, or endorsement of, such agencies.

Writing in late April, Allen Harris (who is President of the
National Federation of the Blind of Michigan and Vice Chairman of
the Michigan Commission for the Blind) said:

 On Friday, April 14, 1989, the five-member board of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind voted three to one to adopt a policy
prohibiting the purchase of services from NAC accredited
agencies. At the Commission meeting Joe Sontag and Steve Handschu
argued the NFB's position, and representatives from a NAC
accredited agency and the ACB provided opposition. After a
thorough discussion, a motion was made that `the Michigan
Commission for the Blind will enter into no new contract
or renew existing contracts or make referrals to NAC accredited
agencies.' The Commission for the Blind continues to seek
improved standards and high quality services for blind citizens
in Michigan. The `No NAC Policy' is the latest effort to achieve
this goal and will remind agencies that they have a
responsibility to provide better service.  The `No NAC Policy' is
applicable within the state of Michigan but will also prohibit
referrals for training to NAC accredited agencies outside of the
state. 

The letters to the governor of Michigan tell the story very well,
so here (both pro and con) are representative samples:

                                         Columbia, South Carolina
                                                   April 25, 1989

The Honorable James Blanchard
Governor, State of Michigan
Lansing, Michigan

Dear Governor Blanchard:
It is my understanding that the Governing Board of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind has taken action which would prevent the
agency from doing business with agencies for the blind accredited
by the National Accreditation Council (NAC) for Agencies Serving
the Blind.
I have been actively involved in work with the blind in South
Carolina both as a volunteer and as a public official. In our
state we have determined collectively and separately that private
and public agencies serving the blind in South Carolina would not
be enhanced as a result of accreditation by the National
Accreditation Council. As a matter of fact, we have long felt
that NAC has accredited many private and public agencies whose
services on behalf of the blind are marginal at best.
I have served on the Board of Commissioners of the South Carolina
School for the Deaf and Blind for eight years. Most of that time
I have served as vice chairman of the Board, and I can tell you
without reservation that this agency has never given any serious
consideration to NAC accreditation. It is our knowledge that many
private and state agencies for the blind previously accredited by
NAC have since withdrawn from the National Accreditation Council.
In summary, we applaud the action taken by the Board of the
Commission for the Blind and believe this will serve the best
interest of not only the State of Michigan but the many thousands
of blind citizens of your fine state.

                                                       Cordially,
                                       Donald C. Capps, President
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                                                of South Carolina
____________________
                                            Little Rock, Arkansas
                                                   April 21, 1989

Ms. Delia Vorhauer, Chairman
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Lansing, Michigan



RE: Utilization of Agencies Accredited by the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Impaired

Dear Ms. Vorhauer:
I have just recently learned of the Michigan Commission for the
Blind's decision to exclude agencies accredited by NAC from the
list of eligible providers of services to blind and visually
impaired persons from
the state of Michigan. The Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind
Rehabilitation Center has been providing quality vocational
evaluation and vocational training services in a number of areas
to blind and visually impaired persons from the state of Michigan
for 30 years. During fiscal year 1987-88 we provided services to
11 blind and visually impaired persons from your state. This has
been advantageous to the Michigan Commission for the Blind and
its consumers because they received quality services at a rate of
approximately 65% of the actual cost of providing those services.
The Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind has been accredited by the
National Accreditation Council of Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Impaired for 20 years. Our Board of Directors has
endorsed the concept of NAC accreditation because it: (1)
provides an assurance of quality services to consumers and to our
public, (2) provides assurances of responsible management to
consumers and to our public, (3) assures
that the AEB practices public accountability with full financial
disclosure.  I am sure that you will agree that these are vital
and essential components of any organization, public or private,
that provides services to handicapped individuals. We would like
very much for those blind and visually impaired persons in the
state of Michigan to continue to have the opportunity to
participate in our programs of vocational evaluation and training
if they desire. I would, therefore, urge you and the other
members of the Michigan Commission for the Blind to reconsider
your recent decision to exclude NAC accredited agencies from your
list of service providers.
Thank you for your consideration.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Jim Cordell
                                               Executive Director
                               Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind
____________________
                                                 Denver, Colorado
                                                   April 25, 1989

Dear Governor Blanchard:
It has been brought to my attention that the board of the
Michigan Commission for the Blind has voted to change their
policy regarding purchase of services from agencies which are
accredited by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). As the Director
of the Colorado Center for the Blind, I should like to commend
the board for their prudent decision and lend my support.
It is very clear that the Commission for the Blind has the best
interest
of their clients at heart. Many agencies which have sought NAC
accreditation have used that accreditation as a shield and then
have not provided quality services. Since I direct an agency
which is pledged to provide quality rehabilitation, I support
high standards. I have investigated a number of accrediting
bodies and have not found the NAC accreditation
to be worthwhile. I work closely with the Colorado Division of
Rehabilitation, and none of the agencies or schools serving the
blind in our state has felt it to their advantage to become
accredited by NAC.
Governor Blanchard, blind citizens of Michigan are fortunate to
receive services from an agency which is truly interested and
concerned enough to take an important stand on an issue of this
nature. In the field of work with the blind, accreditation by NAC
is so very controversial and carries such negative connotations
that the board action can only be viewed as the wisest course.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                         Diane McGeorge, Director
                                    Colorado Center for the Blind

cc: Anthony Francavilla, Associate Director Colorado Division of
Rehabilitation
____________________
                                             Millington, Michigan
                                                   April 22, 1989

The Honorable James Blanchard
Governor, State of Michigan
Lansing, Michigan

Dear Governor Blanchard:
As President of the Michigan Association of the Blind and
Visually Impaired persons, I am writing to share with you our
concerns regarding a motion passed by the Michigan Commission for
the Blind on Friday, April 14, 1989. The motion, generated by a
resolution passed by the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan would prohibit the Michigan Commission for the Blind
from entering into, or continuing, any contract for services to
clients with any agency accredited by the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Service the Blind and Visually Impaired
(NAC) the only accrediting body for such agencies.  Our concern
about this motion is based on the following:
1. Since there is only one private agency for the blind in
Michigan that is accredited by NAC, clients would be very limited
in their choices of where they could get good services.
2. A number of accredited agencies offer career-oriented
programs, such as the Social Security and IRS Information
Specialists Training,
at Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, and the Medical and Legal
transcription programs, at the Vision Center, in Flint, both NAC
accredited. Programs such as these enable clients to become
tax-paying, productive citizens.
3. Some services, such as the Low-Vision Clinic at the Vision
Enrichment Center in Grand Rapids, have follow-up as an important
component of the service. Therefore, it needs to be provided near
to the client's home.
4. While no accrediting body is perfect, we do feel that it is
important for any organization providing services to individuals
whether
it be an agency for the blind, a hospital, or a drug abuse center
that there be a mechanism in place for regular outside evaluation
to highlight what is good, to pinpoint weaknesses, to make
constructive recommendations.
We are asking that the above motion be immediately rescinded, and
that, if it is felt by some Commission Members that there are
truly shortcomings in the structure and functioning of the
National Accreditation Council, that these be documented in
writing, and specifically that these be brought to the attention
of the Executive Directors of NAC, the NAC Board of Directors
half of whom are blind persons. Your help in expediting this
action will be greatly appreciated. We want Michigan to stand
with other States in the nation in providing quality services to
the blind and visually impaired persons.

                                                Yours very truly,
                                     Mrs. Betty Jacobs, President
          Michigan Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired

cc: Members of the Michigan Commission for the Blind
____________________
                                                    Salem, Oregon
                                                   April 25, 1989

Dear Governor Blanchard:
I have become aware of the decision of the Michigan Commission
for the Blind not to purchase from agencies accredited by the
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Handicapped (NAC). The Oregon Commission for the Blind
has never had, nor has it sought, accreditation by NAC since we
have found it to be of no value in improving services for blind
Oregonians. Though the Commission has no formal policy or
practice in its purchasing, we do not as a rule purchase from NAC
accredited agencies.
I currently serve as a consumer representative on the Oregon
Commission for the Blind, representing the National Federation of
the Blind of Oregon. I do not foresee any circumstances where the
practice will change.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                Dave Hyde, Member
                                  Oregon Commission for the Blind
                                               Board of Directors

                                                        President
                       National Federation of the Blind of Oregon
____________________
                                               Albany, California
                                                   April 24, 1989

Dear Governor Blanchard:
I am writing to commend the recent action of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind Board concerning the purchase of
services from private agencies. Specifically, I wish to express
whole-hearted support of the Board's position not to purchase
services from agencies accredited by the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped
(NAC).
Since its inception in the late 1960's, NAC has been a highly
controversial accrediting body. Historically its standards have
been weak and the accreditation process highly political. After
years of consumer pressure, NAC has made efforts to window dress
its accreditation procedures.  Nevertheless, it has fallen short
of its claim to represent the standard for quality services.
As an organization of blind people, we are deeply committed to
the belief that, given proper training and opportunity, blind
persons can become tax-paying, contributing members of society.
By bitter contrast, NAC has systematically accredited the poorest
service agencies in the nation, serving as a buffer, insulating
these agencies from
the legitimate grievances of the clients they purport to serve.
Sheltered workshops paying subminimum wages represented NAC's
early flagship agencies. Attempts by blind workers to unionize to
improve wages and working conditions were met with long and
costly court battles by NAC accredited workshops. These workshops
spent money contributed by the public for the benefit of the
blind to oppose attempts by the blind to obtain fair working
conditions.
I sincerely hope that the Michigan Commission for the Blind will
hold fast to its conviction not to do business with unresponsive
agencies that mislead the public by hiding behind the NAC seal of
approval.  I urge you not to succumb to the pressure by those who
would seek to perpetuate the status quo by keeping the blind in
economic and social oppression.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                                  Patricia Munson
                                             First Vice President
                          National Association of Blind Educators
____________________
                                                Chicago, Illinois
                                                   April 19, 1989

Dear Governor Blanchard:
I have recently learned that the Michigan Commission for the
Blind, meeting on April 14, 1989, recommended that the Commission
stop purchasing services from agencies accredited by the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC) an organization recognized as the specialized
accrediting body for schools and post secondary vocational
training programs for the blind and visually impaired by the U.
S. Department of Education.
This recommendation, if not rejected, will constitute a tragic
mistake because it restricts the Michigan Commission for the
Blind from working in partnership with the very agencies that
have provided cost effective quality programs to blind persons
for decades. Furthermore, this recommendation will deny needed
vocational training to blind Michiganders by proven service
providers; will contribute to the continued unemployment problem
in economically distressed communities in your state; will
probably result in expending more scarce dollars to reinstitute
closed programs in more expensive training facilities; and injure
the reputation of the Michigan Commission for the Blind and your
record of advocacy for handicapped persons.
We at the American Foundation for the Blind have been a strong
voice for nearly sixty-eight years, promoting quality services
for blind and visually handicapped citizens. For the past
twenty-five years we, and other leaders in the blindness field,
have contributed years of professional time and major financial
support determining the need for service standards, defining and
revising those standards, and financially supporting the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped.
Through our programs, and with the contributions of thousands of
citizens in your state, we helped community leaders in Flint and
Detroit to establish the community- based agencies that serve
blind persons in those cities. These are some of the very
agencies that stand to bear the brunt of this recommendation.
They will be singled out and punished for having the foresight to
seek out voluntary, third-party review of their services
according to nationally approved standards. They will be denied
the opportunity to provide further services unless they give up
their NAC accreditation.
We, like you, care about the quality of services available in
Michigan and urge you to use all the authority of your office to
reject the recommendation to stop purchasing services from NAC
accredited agencies.  The issue (which on the surface may appear
to be a simple one) is, in point of fact, a very complex one. I
would be happy to discuss this with you in further detail at your
convenience. I can be reached at (312) 269-0095.
Thank you for your time and interest in providing quality
services to blind and visually impaired persons.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                        Robert Esposito, Director
                                          Midwest Regional Center
                                American Foundation for the Blind

cc: Frank Kelly, Attorney General
Christin Derdarian,
Attorney General's Staff
Betty Howe, Director,
Department of Labor
Philip Peterson, Director,
Commission for the Blind
Delia Vorhauer, Chairman,
Commission for the Blind
Larry Young, Member,
Commission for the Blind
Al Harris, Member,
Commission for the Blind
Paul Ponchilla, Member,
Commission for the Blind
Suzanne Dees, Member,
Commission for the Blind
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                   April 26, 1989

Dear Governor Blanchard:
I am writing to commend the Michigan Commission for the Blind for
a wise and progressive decision.  I understand that the Board of
Directors of the Commission for the Blind has adopted a policy
that the Michigan Commission will not purchase services from any
agency for the blind which contributes to dissension and
disharmony in programs for the blind by becoming accredited by
the private New York corporation, self-proclaimed as an
accreditation body, known as the National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). 
Since its inception, NAC has been widely recognized as a force
for division and discord in programs for the blind.  Its primary
interest has been political in nature.  It has sought to take
decision-making power about matters affecting the blind away from
the citizens of the various states and centralize control in the
private New York corporation.  The determination of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind to refuse to be a part of this
disenfranchisement is both praiseworthy and in the best interest
of the blind of the state of Michigan.
NAC was established in the mid-1960's by the American Foundation
for the Blind.  It has been controversial and politically
oriented from the day it was formed.  Most state and private
agencies doing work with the blind never agreed to accept NAC
accreditation.  At its high
point not as many as twenty-five percent of the agencies sought
accreditation from it.  Those that did tended to be the ones
offering the poorest services.
They used NAC accreditation as a shield to cover questionable
practices and lack of performance.  It is my understanding that
the Michigan School for the Blind was at one time accredited by
NAC but withdrew from that accreditation.  The same is true of
most reputable agencies throughout the nation.
In the circumstances the action of the Michigan Commission for
the Blind is not only understandable but wise.  Reputable groups
in our field simply do not associate themselves with NAC.  Any
group that seeks NAC accreditation is suspect and unlikely to
provide quality services or to abide by acceptable standards.
The American Foundation for the Blind has always provided more
than fifty percent of NAC's funding, but even the Foundation
(although it still outwardly endorses NAC) is now engaged in
serious internal debate concerning the advisability of NAC's
continuance.  As far back as two years ago the Foundation
officially informed NAC that it must institute reforms or risk
losing Foundation support.  There have been attempts to hush the
matter up, but this is fact.
Because NAC is (as I have already said) not truly a
standard-setting
body but a political organization, it is the focus of continuing
controversy instead of constructive action and harmony.  A
perfect example of
this is what has occurred in Michigan.  It required considerable
courage for the board of the Michigan Commission to take a public
stand against purchasing services from NAC-accredited agencies
because there was
a virtual certainty that such an action would bring attempts at
out-of-state political pressure against the Commission.  This, of
course, is exactly what happened.
In the circumstances I have felt that it is essential to speak
out.  Michigan should be able to make its own decisions without
direction from beyond the borders of the state.  The proper work
of the Michigan Commission for the blind is the improvement of
the condition of the blind of the state.  Outside politics can be
left to the outsiders.
It seems to me that it is improper for individuals and agencies
from other states to attempt to force the Michigan Commission for
the Blind to alter its decision.  If accreditation is to have any
value at all, it must be done in an atmosphere of professionalism
and merit, not politics and pressure.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                       Kenneth Jernigan, Director
                                    National Center for the Blind
____________________
 These letters are typical of the avalanche of correspondence
which inundated the governor and attorney general of Michigan,
hardly the sort of thing that gives reassurance that the
accrediting agency is professional and reputable. As was said
earlier, this article was begun on May 5, 1989. It is now May 22,
and a great deal has happened in the intervening time.
On May 6 the Michigan Association of the Blind and Visually
Impaired, the state affiliate of the American Council of the
Blind, held a meeting to protest the No NAC Policy of the
Michigan Commission for the Blind.  The governor's office, the
labor commissioner, and the attorney general's office were asked
to be present, but they did not show. However, others were there,
and the fact of their presence indicates the concern and
desperation which is being felt in the NAC camp. And who were
these others? Grant Mack and Oral Miller of the American Council
of the Blind; officials from both the Greater Detroit Society for
the Blind and the Flint agency which is accredited by NAC; Dennis
Hartenstine, NAC's Executive Director; a spokesman from Arkansas
Enterprises for the Blind; and a number of lesser lights. Allen
Harris, President of the NFB of Michigan and Vice Chairman of the
Michigan Commission for the Blind, was also there. The media had
been asked to attend, but very few came.
Grant Mack chaired the meeting, and a review of the recorded
proceedings indicates that it was mostly a gripe session,
characterized by negativism, complaints, and a wistful hope that
the action of the Michigan Commission would go away. The comments
of Oral Miller, the Washington representative of the American
Council of the Blind, were particularly bitter and
unhappy. He gave an interesting rationale for some of NAC's
shortcomings saying, for instance, that it was unjust to
criticize NAC for accrediting
workshops that pay blind people less than the minimum wage. He
said that the wages paid to blind workers could not be considered
when NAC evaluates an agency, because the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act permits subminimum wages to be paid.  The answer to
this sort of shallow logic is, of course, painfully apparent. If
all an agency needs to do in order to receive NAC accreditation
is to refrain from violating the law, what is the point of
accreditation? Yes, it is legal (under certain conditions which
are, incidentally, often violated) for a sheltered workshop to
pay its blind workers subminimum wages. But it is not a good
practice not ethical, not moral; and the better shops do not do
it. The fact that NAC does not take into account the wages and
working conditions of blind employees in the sheltered shops is
only one more evidence of its ineffectiveness and lack of
relevance. Moreover, Mr. Miller is an attorney and should know
this.
Mr. Miller went on to say that Gordon Steinhauer (NAC's
treasurer, who is blind and works at a local Lansing hospital)
was present at the meeting. The recordings would seem to indicate
that Steinhauer is well-intentioned but misinformed. At one point
in the discussion Mr. Harris pointed to the Florida School for
the Blind and Deaf as an example of NAC's poor performance. Grant
Mack responded by saying that the National Federation of the
Blind expects perfection and that this is not reasonable.
Referring to the deaths which have been occurring at the Florida
School, Mr. Mack said something to this effect:  Mistakes are
made everywhere. Gordon, does anybody ever die at your hospital? 

Mr. Harris's response seems particularly apt: We expect people to
die in hospitals, but we don't expect our children to die at
school except perhaps in extremely isolated cases. Certainly we
don't expect it to happen on a continuing basis and because of
mistakes.
As is customary with NAC and its supporters, attempts were made
to confuse the issue and use scare tactics. It was said that one
of the harmful effects of the decision by the Michigan Commission
would be that blind persons in Michigan could not receive Perkins
Braillers because Perkins is NAC accredited. This, of course, is
pure nonsense.  A Perkins Brailler is a tangible piece of
apparatus, not a contract for services or training.
With respect to scare tactics, one of the participants said that
the NFB had been intimidating people and that it was now time for
those represented at the meeting to stand up and do some
intimidating of their own. Those are strong words. They contrast
sharply with NAC's claims of professionalism. On the other hand,
they are very much in keeping with what we have come to expect
from the group that was assembled, NAC and its supporters.
When Dennis Hartenstine, NAC's Executive Director, took the
floor, he mostly talked in generalities. However, in one area he
was very emphatic. He said that NAC was doing all right
financially and that the American Foundation for the Blind had
just voted to continue to support NAC financially. Mr.
Hartenstine's information is in sharp contrast with ours. We have
been informed by an official at the American Foundation for the
Blind that two years ago the Foundation was giving $250,000 per
year to NAC, that it reduced that amount to $235,000 last year,
and $215,000 this year. We are further informed that at
a meeting this spring the Board of Trustees of the American
Foundation for the Blind voted that it would not give more than
$100,000 for the next fiscal year and that this is a maximum. We
are told that
the final decision will rest with the Foundation's executive
committee and that how much of the $100,000 (if any) NAC will
receive will depend upon its demonstrated ability to get new
members. This is somewhat at variance with what Hartenstine said,
but then, NAC will be NAC.

As might have been expected, the May 6 meeting ended
inconclusively.  It was followed by a meeting of the board of the
Michigan Commission for the Blind on Friday, May 12, at which
representatives of Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, the
Greater Detroit Society for the Blind, and others were present.
The meeting was characterized by a great deal of pulling and
hauling and confusion, but when the smoke cleared, the No NAC
Policy of the Commission remained intact. Unless it is reversed
at a later meeting, it will go into effect in ninety days from
the date of the May 12 meeting.
The ways of some of the  professionals  in the field of work with
the blind are strange, indeed. Shortly after the May 12 meeting
of the Michigan Commission, we began to hear reports from around
the country that some of the agencies were trumpeting the news
that the Michigan Commission had reversed itself and repealed its
No NAC Policy.  Allen Harris reports that Carroll Jackson, head
of the Greater Detroit Society for the Blind, made such
statements at a meeting in Michigan and that he said to Mr.
Jackson:  Why would you say such a thing when you know it isn't
true? You were present at the May 12 meeting.  Mr. Jackson had
only the lame excuse that he had thought that this
was what happened. However, he refused to correct his false
statements.

So where does all of this leave us? The Michigan Commission for
the Blind will be holding another board meeting early in June,
and there will doubtless be renewed efforts by the NAC agencies
to force a reversal of the No NAC Policy. It must also be
remembered that the Michigan attorney general is being pressured
to declare the Commission's action illegal. But it must also be
remembered that the governor and attorney general have received
commendations from throughout the country for the positive and
courageous action which Michigan has taken. It is doubtful that
the Michigan Commission will be forced or maneuvered into
retreating from its principles, but even if this should occur,
NAC has been irreversibly damaged.
Moreover, the NAC supporters should be careful about playing with
fire. One has to wonder if they have considered the implications
of the attorney general game. They have asked that the action of
the Commission for the Blind be ruled illegal, but what if a
request for a ruling should be made in those few states that have
adopted a policy requiring that services must be purchased from
NAC-accredited agencies?  At the May 5 Lansing meeting NAC and
its supporters made much of the notion that freedom of choice
should be allowed. Would they like for this to apply to other
states, or only to Michigan? For that matter, perhaps they will
lose in Michigan and in the other states, too. Watch for requests
to be made that attorneys general  in other states rule that a
requirement that services be purchased only from NAC-accredited
agencies is illegal.
                NORMA KRAJCZAR OUT IN NEW JERSEY
By the time  Monitor  readers get this issue (the present article
is being written in late April) Norma Krajczar, the long-time
head of the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually
Impaired, will be out. It is doubtful that very many tears will
be shed at her departure. Blind herself, she has generally not
been well regarded by the blind of the state. Her termination
(officially described as a  retirement ) is slated for June 30,
1989.
Sources in the state say that Krajczar's age is not the reason
for her leaving, that one must look elsewhere for the causes. To
begin with, Krajczar has always been controversial. She has been
a strong proponent of NAC (the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped), and under
her leadership the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and
Visually Impaired has been NAC accredited. In recent years, as
the NAC house of cards has progressively begun to fall, Krajczar
has stayed with the reactionaries, refusing to act in the best
interest of her agency or the blind of
the state. The New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually
Impaired (unlike more forward-looking agencies) still associates
its name with the discredited NAC.
Despite the fact of her own blindness, Krajczar has had the
reputation of not wanting to hire blind persons. John Dragona, a
blind resident
of New Jersey who has had numerous run-ins with Krajczar and is
admittedly not one of her boosters, lays it out like this:  She
worked,  he says,  to eliminate the Civil Service requirement
that applicants for the position of home instructor at the
Commission for the Blind be blind or visually impaired. She
ignored blind applicants for the positions of social worker,
mobility instructor, education counselor,
eye health nurse, and field staff supervisor; and she wouldn't
provisionally hire blind vocational counselors while working to
lower the standards
so that sighted people who don't even have a B.A. could become
vocational counselors. 
Probably the straw that finally broke the proverbial camel's back
was Krajczar's dealing with the vending program. Again to quote
Dragona:   She spoke out in behalf of allowing vending stands in
New Jersey to be operated by people with disabilities other than
blindness, and she supported legislation that would have levied a
tax on blind vendors to offset the deficits caused by her
agency's mismanagement.  In reality, as we understand it, the
vending situation is a bit more complex than Dragona's comments
imply. Florence Blume, President of the National Federation of
the Blind of New Jersey, says that there has not been a set-aside
from the earnings of blind vendors in New Jersey but that
Krajczar announced her intention of instituting this practice in
1988. The Federation responded by introducing legislation to
prohibit set-asides from the earnings of vendors. In the battle
that ensued the New Jersey Attorney General found that the law
establishing the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired
prohibited set-asides and ruled that the Commission could not
collect them. Thereupon, the Federation did not withdraw its bill
but left it quiescent in the legislature as an incentive to the
Commission to be mindful of the law, which is where the matter
still stands.
But the fallout for Krajczar was apparently fatal. Presumably she
had become so controversial that the politicians had had enough.
So she is now  retiring  and reportedly moving to North Carolina,
where she has bought property and intends to settle down.
The legacy she leaves for the blind of New Jersey is a
discredited agency and a host of problems. It is said that her
deputy director,
J. Boyle, has the inside track to succeed her. Some of the blind
say that they think Boyle may bring a better day but that whether
he does or not, change is welcome.
                       CONNIE  MCCRAW DIES
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
I was sitting in my office on Thursday morning, June 1, 1989,
when I received a call telling me of the death of Connie McCraw.
There were no details, just the announcement the news that she
had died.  As her friends know, Connie had not been well for
quite some time.  Her last years were spent in a retirement home
here in Baltimore.  Toward the end she was in great pain.
At times like this it is easier to remember than to find the
right words. When I came to Baltimore in 1978, John and Connie
McCraw were
a source of strength to me and a focal point for the warmth and
hospitality that I received. John was the leader of the National
Federation of
the Blind of Maryland, and Connie was always at his side
supporting, loving, and caring. Only a short time after my
arrival, John had a sudden heart attack and died. I worked with
Connie in planning the funeral and was one of those who delivered
a eulogy. Connie grieved at John's death, but she put her sorrow
aside to help ease the pain of others. Connie was like that.
As soon as we established the National Center for the Blind,
Connie was on hand to help for many years as a volunteer and for
a while as a staff member. Regardless of the job she was doing
(and there were many), one factor was always constant. She cared.
And everybody knew she cared. It radiated from her in every act.
She was the voice on cassette of the  Braille Spectator , the
newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland.
In fact, she read every issue except the most recent. Toward the
end
she was really not well enough to do the reading, but the joy of
doing it outweighed the pain. Again, Connie was like that. She
was always willing to read or give of her time or do anything
else she could to help others.
Big John's booming voice is still remembered and missed at
National Federation of the Blind conventions, and Connie's gentle
goodness will also be missed. She was ours, and we loved her. We
still love her, and our love will be undying.
Connie McCraw worker, friend, lady, generous helper. We will miss
you.
                          R E C I P E S 
 These recipes are taken from the IDAHO POTATO COOKBOOK, which we
recently received from Betty Sabin. The NFB of Idaho is selling
the IDAHO POTATO COOKBOOK for $5 each in print and $8 in Braille. 
You may order them from: NFB of Idaho, 1301 South Capitol
Boulevard Suite C, Boise, Idaho 83706. The following recipes are
samples of the wonderful things you can do with potatoes. Besides
recipes, this book contains nutrition information and more. 

                       QUICK POTATO FUDGE
Ingredients:
3 squares baking chocolate
1 tablespoon butter
1 teaspoon vanilla
1/3 cup mashed potatoes
1/8 teaspoon salt
1 pound powdered sugar

Method: Melt butter and chocolate over hot water. Add mashed
potatoes, salt, and vanilla. Blend in sugar. Knead until smooth.
Press into eight-inch-square pan or make into roll. Place in wax
paper. Chill and slice. Nuts can be added just before kneading.
Makes 1-1/4 pounds.


                   POTATO BROCCOLI PUREE SOUP
Ingredients:
1 onion, chopped
2 ribs celery, chopped
3 carrots, sliced
2 stalks broccoli, chopped
pepper to taste
1 cup plain lowfat yogurt
1 tablespoon olive oil
4 potatoes, diced
1/4 teaspoon dill
2 quarts water or stock

Method: In soup pot saut  onion and celery in olive oil for four
minutes. Add carrots, potatoes, broccoli, seasonings, and water
or stock. Bring to boil, reduce heat to medium low, and cook
twenty-five to thirty-five minutes or until vegetables are soft.
Pur e in blender. Stir in yogurt and reheat gently. Serve. Makes
eight half-cup servings.  156 calories, 23 grams carbohydrates,
11 grams protein, 3 grams fat, 17 percent calories from fat. 


                       BOB'S POTATO CREPES
Ingredients:
1 8-ounce package cream cheese
(room temperature)
1/2 teaspoon salt
1-1/2 cups grated Swiss cheese
4 cups raw potatoes, grated
3 to 4 tablespoons chopped chives
3 tablespoons flour
2 eggs
1/2 teaspoon coarsely ground pepper
3 to 4 tablespoons heavy cream
1/2 cup mushrooms, chopped and sauteed

Method: Soften cream cheese in mixing bowl. Add flour and beat
until smooth. Add eggs, salt, and pepper. Beat with electric
mixer. Stir
in cheese, potatoes, cream, chives, and mushrooms. Lightly oil
electric skillet, and heat to temperature just below that
recommended for pancakes.  When heated, add small amount of
butter and ladle potato batter into skillet to make crepes three
inches in diameter and 3/8 inches thick.  Brown lightly on one
side about three minutes. Turn and cook three minutes more or
until potatoes are tender. Repeat with remaining batter.  If not
served immediately, place on baking sheet and reheat for four to
five minutes in 400-degree oven. Makes eighteen.

                   POTA TO   KOGEL  (PUDDING)
Ingredients:
5 medium potatoes, peeled and diced
1 small onion, peeled and chopped
1/8 teaspoon pepper
2 eggs
1/2 cup margarine
2 tablespoons matzo
(flour or pancake mix)
Method: Preheat oven to 450 degrees. Blend all ingredients in
blender.  Pour into eight-inch-square greased dish. Bake for one
hour. This batter may be used for pancakes: Use 1/4 cup batter
for each pancake.  Serves four.


                      HUZARENSALA   (DUTCH)
Ingredients:
3 cups ground beef (cooked)
1 apple, chopped
2 tablespoons dill pickles, chopped
salt and pepper
nutmeg, cloves to taste
2 hard cooked eggs, chopped
1 cup beets, chopped
2 cups mashed potatoes
mayonnaise (or oil and vinegar)

Method: Mix all ingredients and chill.


                       HASHBROWN  POTATOES
Ingredients:
2 tablespoons shortening
1 onion, minced
salt and pepper to taste
6 raw potatoes, grated
1 egg, lightly beaten

Method: Melt shortening in skillet. Mix remaining ingredients
together.  Spread evenly in skillet. Saute until golden brown.
Turn and brown other side. Cut into wedges and serve immediately.
Serves four to six.


                       MONITOR MINIATURES 

**Real Insight:
First person in conversation:  What is another name for a mouthy
flower maker? 
Second person in conversation:  I don't want to embarrass him,
so I'd rather not say but I understand, and you're right on
target. 

**Elected:
Bean Hudson writes: The Little Rock Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Arkansas announces the following
officers for 1989:
Rector Turner, President; Melvin Martin, Vice President; Everett
Satterfield, Secretary; Jim Sparks, Treasurer; and Irma Nelson,
Alpha Ennis, and Freddie Wilke, Board Members.

**Virginia Organizes Chapter of NAPUB:
Marshall Jordan writes: At the annual state convention of the
National Federation of the Blind of Virignia in Lynchburg March
31-April 2, 1989, an organizational meeting for a Virginia
affiliate of the National Association to Promote the Use of
Braille (NAPUB) was held. Many persons expressed strong feelings
concerning the need for NAPUB in Virginia; many problem areas
dealing with Braille were identified. The following officers were
elected: President, Debbie Prost; Vice President, Billie Ruth
Schlank; Treasurer, Debbie Gardner; and Secretary, Marshall
Jordan.

**For Sale:
Raquel Gomez has asked us to carry the following announcement:
 I have for sale a VersaBraille I, complete with computer
overlays, master overlays, two head cleaners, sample materials,
tape, data tapes, recharger and power supply, and both the
Braille and print manuals.
I also have an Apple II-C, printer cables, the Cricket Voice
synthesizer, as well as the Word Talk program and ten data discs.
Everything is
in good working condition. The complete interface is available.
Manuals are also available with the computer and voice
synthesizer. I would like to sell everything together as a
package. However, I would be willing to sell them separately.
Contact me to agree on a price. I can be reached during the day,
as well as during the evening, at (612) 781-7474. I have an
answering machine, so please leave a message, and I will return
your call. Or write me at: 2403 Central Avenue N.  E., Apt. 2,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418. 

**Dies:
 From the Editor : I have just learned of the death on March 9,
1989, of Melba Galloway of California. Melba was a long-time and
true Federationist, and the news of her death took me back to the
1950's when I lived in Oakland, California, and was president of
the local NFB affiliate, the Alameda County Club of Adult Blind.
Melba and her husband Charlie were staunch members and close
friends. Both were quiet and unassuming but capable, sincere,
effective, and absolutely unswerving in their devotion to
principle. We stood shoulder to shoulder and fought the good
fight, and I share Charlie's grief at Melba's loss.

**News from the Prairie State Chapter:
Allen and Ruth Anne Schaefer write as follows:  On April 15,
1989, the Prairie State Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind
of Illinois re-elected Allen Schaefer of Mazon President. Mrs.
Elaine Salems of Morris was chosen Vice President. Mrs. Evelyn
Scanavino of Gardner will serve as Secretary, while Mrs. Ruth
Anne Schaefer was re-elected Treasurer. Board Members elected
were Gary Jones and
John Salvatore of Joliet and Earl Salems of Morris. Recently the
75-member chapter divided, and a new Kankakee Heartland Chapter
was organized in the Kankakee County area. The Prairie State
Chapter will now be
a three-county chapter serving Will, Grundy, and Livingston
Counties. 

**Alabama Convention:
Louise Greene writes: The National Federation of the Blind of
Alabama held its annual state convention April 14-15, 1989, in
Huntsville.  Our theme,  Becoming Informed The Key to Success, 
is the focus of the National Federation of the Blind. We had
excellent television coverage, which means that the community is
better informed about what we are doing. Our annual scholarship
was presented at the banquet on April 15. The recipient was
Sharon Armstrong, a student
who will be graduating from the school for the blind. Our
constitutional officers and two board members elected are:
President, Louise B. Greene; First Vice President, Dale Hamm;
Second Vice President, Bob Shaffer; Secretary, Gwendolyn Bass;
Treasurer, Frank Lee; Board Position 1, Barbara Manuel; and Board
Position 2, Charles Hutchinson.

**Dies:
Recently President Maurer received a letter from Charlotte
Bellmyer, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Oklahoma.  One of the leaders of the Federation in Oklahoma, Doug
Elliott, had died unexpectedly.  Here is what Charlotte Bellmyer
had to say:

 I regret to inform you of the recent death of Doug Elliott who
died at the young age of 38 on April 12, 1989.  He was a true and
loyal Federationist.  The illness that resulted in his death came
as a complete shock to the entire Oklahoma affiliate.  Only one
week prior to his death we had taken a van to Oklahoma City for
our state board meeting.
 I have looked toward Doug as a pioneer of the reorganization of
the Oklahoma affiliate in the early 80's.  He was at the first
Tulsa Chapter meeting that I attended.  Doug has been one of the
most loyal Federationists that I have known.  He served on both
the Tulsa Chapter board and the state affiliate board, and he
virtually never missed a meeting.  Whenever there was work to be
done or places to go, Doug was always there.  He attended six
national conventions, that I know of, and has been involved
equally in our Oklahoma state conventions.  We here in Oklahoma
have lost a dear friend and a respected colleague.  Doug will be
missed, especially when we go to Denver. 

**Braille Book Project:
We have received the following from the National Federation of
the
Blind of Denver, Colorado:
Federationists may remember an article which was printed in the 
Braille Monitor  concerning the Braille Book Project. This
project is conducted through the National Federation of the Blind
of Denver facility. We receive contributions of discarded
textbooks from schools and libraries for the blind from all over
the country. These textbooks are then mailed to schools in
countries such as India, Africa, and Malaysia, just to mention a
few. We wish to announce that we will be changing the location of
the Braille Book Project. It would be very helpful
if Federationists could acquaint libraires and schools in their
states with this information. We will be sending letters to
regular contributors, but if Federationists know that their
specific states are making large contributions of discarded
Braille textbooks, we would appreciate your help. Once the
project has been relocated to a permanent address, we will ask
that it be printed in the  Braille Monitor  and will be sending
letters to regular contributors at that time.

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: For Sale
IBM Electric Braille typewriter. Never used. $300 or best offer.
Must sell! For more information contact Olivia Ostergaard, 2740
West Olive Space 104, Fresno, California 93722 or call (209)
486-2126.

**Raising Cane:
Peggy Pinder writes: The late 70's are often referred to by blind
people as the time of the  cane war,  the years when flight
attendants insisted that the white cane was like carry-on baggage
and, like suitcases, had to be stowed under the seat or in the
overhead compartment.  Since the canes do not fit there, flight
attendants
would insist on taking the cane from a blind passenger; blind
passengers would insist on keeping their canes; arrests occurred. 
The  cane war  was terminated when the Federal Aviation
Administration defined canes as items capable of safe carriage by
the seat of a blind passenger in 14 Code of Federal Regulations
121.589(e), information now carried in the Flight Manuals in the
cockpits of every commercial airliner in the country.
During the cane war, many of us regretted that collapsible canes
were so flimsy and useless.  We dreamed of encountering an
aggressive flight attendant, yielding up our cane, then quietly
uncollapsing a new one and placing it where the old one had been. 
After two or three tries at exhausting our cane supply, we
guessed the flight attendants would give up.  In the mid 80's,
telescoping canes became much better, and many blind travelers
started carrying them regularly, especially as they travel easily
as a back-up cane.  By then, most airline crews were aware that
canes could be retained by blind passengers.
But not all crews.  Recently, Mike Cramer of Illinois boarded a
flight and encountered a flight attendant who started in on the
old routine about the cane being carry-on baggage and her need to
confiscate it for take-off and landing.  Cramer needed to get to
his destination.  He didn't need a hassle.  So he gave up the
cane.  As soon as the flight attendant was gone, he got into his
carry-on bag and removed his spare telescoping cane.  He extended
it and placed it in exactly the position from which the flight
attendant had removed his other cane.  He heard a passenger
behind him begin to laugh and say:   Well, I'll be damned.  Beat
the bitch at her own game. 
A few minutes later, the flight attendant returned with the
original cane, an apology for being wrong about taking the cane,
and an offer of a free drink to smooth over the passenger's
irritation.  Cramer replied that he couldn't be bought with a
drink and accepted the return of his cane with the same
equanimity he had shown at its departure.

**Elected:
Recently we received the following note:  On January 14, 1989,
the Jackson Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Mississippi held its annual election for officers for the 1989
calendar year.  The following officers were elected: Sam Gleese,
President; William Richardson, First Vice President; Charles
Evans, Second Vice President; Sarah White, Secretary; Mary Reed,
Treasurer; John Hawkins, Board Member; and Alfred Hudson, Board
Member. 

**Kansys Quartet:
Dr. Charles Hallenbeck, one of the leaders of the National
Federation of the Blind of Kansas, writes as follows:
This announcement from KANSYS, Inc., 1016 Ohio Street, Lawrence,
Kansas 66044: The KANSYS Quartet is a package of four entry-level
database programs of interest to first-time users and old-timers
alike. They  talk well  and  look pretty  on the screen, too.
They are called individually,  Names,   Checks,   Titles,  and 
Ideas.  Each program costs $49. Names, Checks, and Titles are
available now. Ideas is an outline processor and will be
available shortly, probably by the time you read this. Write for
more information, or call Dave at (913) 843-0351 or Chuck or
Cindy at (913) 842- 4016.

**NFBTRANS:
NFBTRANS is a text-to-Braille software program which was
developed at the National Center for the Blind in response to the
expressed need of visually handicapped people. This computer
program is now being used by individuals and institutions serving
blind people across the United States and in foreign countries.
The author (Charles Cook) is constantly interacting with users of
the program, so it is dynamic, changing, and growing in power in
response to their experience and needs: Enhancements are sent out
several times each year.
Many experienced users tell us it is the best product of this
kind.  It is designed to be as easy to use at it can be; most
operators can start producing Grade 2 Braille with half-an-hour
practice. You need an IBM PC class computer using the MS-DOS
operating system, a Brailling device (usually an embosser), and
word processing software such as WordStar, Word Perfect, Sprint,
etc. to use with NFBTRANS.  NFBTRANS is marketed through Roudley
Associates, Inc., a software development firm (Post Office Box
608, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117).  It is priced at $395. To
assist serious potential customers in judging NFBTRANS, a
demonstration 5-1/4 inch floppy disk is available. In addition to
acquainting the user with NFBTRANS, the disk provides
the translation software segment necessary to any such computer
system, thereby displaying the capability of each of the other
parts as well.  For information call 1-(800) 363-7049 toll free.

**Elected:
Susan Povinelli writes: On April 12, 1989, at the meeting of the
Potomac Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Virginia the election of officers took place. The results of the
election were as follows:  President, Seville Allen; First Vice
President, Bill Meeker; Second Vice President, Nancy Yeager;
Corresponding Secretary, Susan Povinelli; Recording Secretary,
Geri Burke; Treasurer, Lawrence Povinelli; and Board Members:
Billie Ruth Schlank, Pattie Droppers, and Maxine Oates.

**Appointed:
Betty Castor, Commissioner of Education in the state of Florida,
has appointed Marilyn Womble, President of the National
Federation of
the Blind of Florida, to a position on a policy review panel
examining the statewide delivery system for children with sensory
impairments.

**Maybe Sick But Not Funny:
We recently found the following item in a brochure published by
the National Handicapped Sports and Recreation Association. In
view of United Airlines' record you be the judge. Here it is:
 United Airlines has become the official airline of the National
Handicapped Sports and Recreation Association (NHSRA). It
provides transportation assistance to enable the organization to
conduct its nationwide sports and recreation activities. 
 United has been a pioneer in the development of procedures and
equipment to facilitate travel by passengers with disabilities
since the 1930's. It is committed to maintain its leadership in
services to those customers by training employees and assuring
accessibility of its facilities on planes. 

**Elected:
Ed and Toni Eames write as follows: We would like to notify you
of the results of the elections held by the Fresno, California,
Chapter of the NFB on April 8, 1989. The following were elected
to office:  President, Jan Kafton; First Vice President, Ed Eames
(pronounced  Ames ); Second Vice President, Patty Dorsey;
Treasurer, Mary Beth Gill; Secretary, Robin Libbee; and two
Members at Large, Toni Eames and Ivy Bennett.

**Wedding Bells:
Dennis Ranker, one of the leaders of the National Federation of
the Blind of West Virginia, and Carolyn Smith of Tennessee were
married at 6:30 in the evening on February 14, 1989, at the
Boulevard Church
of Christ in Charleston, West Virginia. Congratulations to the
newlyweds, and may they have a long and happy life together.
