                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                         November, 1989

                    Kenneth Jernigan, Editor


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


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 
                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT 
 


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

                             * * * *



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

                             * * * *
 


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

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

                             * * * *

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

ISSN 0006-8829

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

                            CONTENTS
                         NOVEMBER, 1989

CONVENTION 1990: TEXAS GOLD

SCHOLARSHIPS FOR 1990

MAKING GOOD USE OF AN MBA
  by Eileen Rivera

BRAILLE LITERACY: ISSUES FOR CONSUMERS AND PROVIDERS
by Susan Jay Spungin, Ed.D.

THE DILEMMA OF THE SHELTERED SHOP WORKER
by Kenneth Jernigan

TEACHING MATHEMATICS: ONE CAREER FOR THE BLIND
by Abraham Nemeth, Ph.D.

THE BLIND APPLICANT REJECTED: WHY NOT DIPLOMACY FOR THE BLIND?   
by Rami Rabby

BLIND PERSONS IN THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE: A VIEW FROM CONGRESS  
by Congressman Gerry Sikorski

LOUISIANA CENTER FOR THE BLIND STUDENTS 
ATTEND CLASS IN THE SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
by Barbara Pierce

THE VOICE OF THE FOURTH GENERATION: 
BLIND KIDS EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS

THE BLIND IN ELECTIVE OFFICE: 
MY EXPERIENCE AS A BOULDER COUNTY COMMISSIONER
by Homer Page

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS AND THE BLIND

SOCIAL SECURITY: 
PLANS FOR WORK INCENTIVES AND REHABILITATION
by James Gashel

WHAT LIES AHEAD IN LEGISLATION FOR THE BLIND: 
A REPUBLICAN LEADER'S PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 
WORK INCENTIVES, AND REHABILITATION
by Congressman Hank Brown

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME: 
THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
by Rhoda Davis

REFLECTIONS ON THE PERKINS BRAILLER

BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS CONTEST

DISTINGUISHED EDUCATOR OF BLIND CHILDREN AWARD FOR 1990
by Sharon Maneki

THE BLIND EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR 1990
by Patricia Munson

RECIPES
  by Barbara Pierce

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1989
                                 
CONVENTION 1990: TEXAS GOLD
The time has come to plan for the 1990 convention of the National
Federation of the Blind. Chicago in 1988 was the largest meeting
we
have ever had, and Denver in 1989 was certainly among the most
successful.  Glenn Crosby, President of next summer's host
affiliate, has been making Texas-sized promises about the 1990
convention.  Here is what he has to say on the subject:

As you may already have noticed, Texans are a particularly proud
group of people, and the members of the National Federation of
the Blind of Texas are especially proud to have the honor of
hosting the Golden Anniversary convention of the organized blind
movement. We know that on occasion Texans have been accused of
being boastful, but we don't think it would be bragging to say
that we are planning the best convention ever. As this issue of
the  Monitor  arrives at your door, we are arranging spectacular
tours, collecting fabulous door prizes, and laying plans to show
you so many kinds of hospitality that you are bound to be
pleased.
The Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt Regency is the site of our 1990
convention, and a fine facility it is. Located on the premises of
the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the Hyatt boasts
more than 1,300 guest rooms and a grand ballroom that should
contain ample space for the record number of convention attendees
we are sure will be present.  As Federationists know, we
registered over 2,400 people in Chicago in 1988. At the Golden
Anniversary convention next year we will beat that number going
away. Twenty-five hundred registered or bust.
The hotel's twin towers are separated by a quarter-mile-long
corridor through which one may walk. However, if walking presents
a problem for you, don't worry. Electric carts are available for
anyone who needs or wants to take a ride. This is a regular
service offered to any hotel guest. There are four outstanding
restaurants inside the hotel: an Italian trattoria, which
specializes in Northern Italian cuisine and has singing waiters
and waitresses; a barbecue restaurant, which serves only the
finest steaks and brisket; an American restaurant, which serves a
variety of seafood and steaks; and a Fifties diner, which offers
homestyle dishes and even allows you to have your fill of
hamburgers and shakes. For lighter dining the bar in the East
Tower also has sandwiches and snacks available during much of the
day.  As you can see, the 1990 convention promises to be the
biggest and best we have ever had, and if you make your plans to
share this special celebration with us, it will be even better.
So come on down and join
us, and together we'll make the 1990 convention (like the Alamo)
something to remember.

As you can see from what Glenn Crosby says, the NFB of Texas is
planning an exciting array of tours and hospitality, and the
program agenda will be vintage Federation. Make your reservations
early. Also remember that we need door prizes from state
affiliates, local chapters, and individuals. Please remember that
prizes should be relatively small in bulk and large in value.
Cash, of course, is always acceptable.  In any case we try to
have no prize of less than $25 value. Drawings
will occur steadily throughout the meetings, and the prizes will
aggregate many thousands of dollars. In Denver in 1989 the grand
prize, which was drawn at the banquet, was $1,000 in cash. We are
not certain what Texas will give for the grand prize in 1990, but
you can be certain that it will be worthy of the affiliate and
the occasion. If you have door prizes, bring them with you to the
convention or send them to:  Doris Henderson, 505 Heyser Drive,
Dallas, Texas 75224; home telephone (214) 942-2612.
The displays of new technology, the meetings of special interest
groups and divisions, the hospitality and renewal of friendships,
the solid program items, and the general excitement of being
where the action is and where the decisions are being made all
join together to call the blind of the nation to the Dallas-Fort
Worth Hyatt Regency hotel in the summer of 1990. Come and be part
of it.
In recent years we have sometimes taken hotel reservations
through the National Office, but for the 1990 convention you
should write directly to: Hyatt Regency DFW, Post Office Box
619014, International Parkway, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, Texas
75261; or call (214) 453-1234, or toll-free (800) 233- 1234. The
hotel will want a deposit or a credit card number. Our hotel
rates continue to be the envy of all who know about them. For the
1990 convention they are: singles, $27; doubles, $30; triples,
$33; and quads, $37. In addition to the room rates there will be
a tax, which at the time we made the contract was twelve percent
(12%). There will be no charge for children in the room with
parents.
Since the Hyatt Regency DFW is on the grounds of the Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport, transportation between the terminals and the hotel
is free.  At the time we made the contract hotel parking was also
free, and we have not heard of any change.
To help you in making your convention plans, remember that the
Parents of Blind Children Division and other groups usually
conduct seminars of general interest on the first Saturday of the
convention (this year June 30) and that Sunday and Monday, July 1
and 2, will be filled with division and committee meetings,
including the public meeting
of the National Federation of the Blind Board of Directors, held
Monday morning. The general convention sessions extend from
Tuesday, July 3, through Friday, July 6; and if things go as they
usually do, there will probably be a Job Opportunities for the
Blind seminar on Saturday, July 7. As you can see, Texas in '90
will be the best we have ever had. Come and enjoy the Texas Gold.
                                 
SCHOLARSHIPS FOR 1990
In recent years the National Federation of the Blind has devoted
substantial effort and resources to its scholarship program. This
has been done in the belief that if the blind are to achieve
first-class status in society, they must have the opportunity to
compete with others on terms of equality. This is another way of
saying that the blind must be able to attend institutions of
higher learning. To that end we continue to strengthen our
scholarship program.
In 1990 twenty-six outstanding blind students will receive
scholarships from the Federation, totaling $71,000 in cash plus
payment of their expenses to attend the National Federation of
the Blind convention
in Dallas during early July. Twelve blind scholars will receive
awards of $2,000; ten will receive awards of $2,500; three will
receive awards of $4,000; and one (the student judged to be the
most outstanding blind scholar in the nation) will receive a
$10,000 scholarship award.
The Federation's commitment to excellence and achievement is
long-standing.  We have made this commitment real through our
many Federation programs and projects. No Federation activity
spotlights excellence and achievement more than our scholarship
program, through which we honor and encourage America's
distinguished blind students.
The Scholarship Committee for 1990 (their terms expire December
31, 1990) consists of the following twenty-nine people: Peggy
Pinder,
Iowa, Chairman; Adrienne Asch, New York; Steve Benson, Illinois;
Jacquilyn Billey, Connecticut; Charles Brown, Virginia; Sharon
Buchan, Alaska; Norma Crosby, Texas; Joanne Fernandes, Louisiana;
Priscilla Ferris, Massachusetts; Sharon Gold, California; Michael
Gosse, Connecticut; John Halverson, Missouri; Allen Harris,
Michigan; David Hyde, Oregon; Tami Dodd Jones, Michigan;
Christopher Kuczynski, Pennsylvania; Scott LaBarre, Minnesota;
Mellissa LaGroue, Alabama; Melody Lindsey, Florida; Sharon
Maneki, Maryland; Homer Page, Colorado; Barbara Pierce, Ohio; Ben
Prows, Washington; Eileen Rivera, Maryland; Fred Schroeder, New
Mexico; Heidi Sherman, Minnesota; Zachary Shore, Pennsylvania;
Ramona Walhof, Idaho; and Gary Wunder, Missouri.
The Scholarship Application Form (copy reproduced at the end of
this article) consists of a single legal-sized page with printing
on both sides. We are making an initial printing of 50,000 of
these forms.  They will be sent to every college and university
in the country, every agency doing work with the blind, every
congressional office, every NFB state president, and every member
of the Scholarship Committee.  They will also be sent to anyone
requesting them. These are worthwhile scholarships, which will be
of real assistance to blind students.
The news about our scholarship program should be disseminated as
widely as possible. To receive forms or to obtain further
information, contact:  Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National
Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue,
Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112; phone (515) 236-3366. Forms can
also be had by writing to: Scholarships, National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Here
is the Scholarship Form.
____________________
                National Federation Of The Blind
                    1990 Scholarship Program

Each year at its national convention in July the National
Federation of the Blind gives to legally blind persons pursuing
or planning to pursue a full-time post-secondary course of study
a broad array of scholarships.  The following scholarships will
be given at the National Convention in 1990:
1. Ezra Davis Memorial Scholarship; $10,000; endowed by Ezra
Davis
and given by the American Brotherhood for the Blind, a nonprofit
organization which works to assist blind persons.  Applicants
must be studying (or planning to study) at the post-secondary
level.  No restriction as to gender, graduate or undergraduate
level, or field of study.
2. National Federation of the Blind Merit Scholarships; nineteen
to
be given; three for $4,000; seven for $2,500; and nine for
$2,000.  Applicants must be studying (or planning to study) at
the post-secondary level.  No restriction as to gender, graduate
or undergraduate level, or field of study.
3. Howard Brown Rickard Scholarship; $2,500.  Applicants must be
studying (or planning to study) law, medicine, engineering,
architecture, or the natural sciences.  No restriction as to
gender or graduate or undergraduate level.
4. Hermione Grant Calhoun Scholarship; $2,000.  Dr. Isabelle
Grant endowed this scholarship in memory of her daughter. 
Limited to female students.  May be studying (or planning to
study) at either graduate or undergraduate level.
5. Frank Walton Horn Memorial Scholarship; $2,500; given by Mr.
and Mrs. Charles E. Barnum, the mother and stepfather of
Catherine Horn Randall.  No restriction as to gender, graduate or
undergraduate level, or field of study, but preference will be
given to those studying architecture or engineering.
6. Francis Urbanek Memorial Scholarship; $2,000; given by Joe
Urbanek in memory of his brother Francis, who died in January,
1986, at age eighteen; limited to blind high school graduates
entering their freshman year of college.
7. Ellen Setterfield Memorial Scholarship; $2,000; given in
memory
of Ellen Setterfield by Roy Landstrom, who says:  During the
course of her life, she gave of herself to defending the dignity
and self-respect of those around her.  Restricted to students at
the graduate level in the social sciences.
8. Melva T. Owen Memorial Scholarship; $2,500; given in memory of
Melva T. Owen, who was widely known and loved among the blind. 
She and her husband Charles Owen became acquainted with
increasing numbers of blind people through their work in the 
Voicepondence  Club.  Charles Owen says:  There shall be no
limitation as to field of study, except that it shall be directed
towards attaining financial independence and shall exclude
religion and those seeking only to further general or cultural
education. 
Criteria: All scholarships are awarded on the basis of academic
excellence, service to the community, and financial need. 
Membership: The National Federation of the Blind is an
organization dedicated to creating opportunity for all blind
persons.  Recipients
of Federation scholarships need not be members of the National
Federation of the Blind.
Deadline: Applications for National Federation of the Blind
scholarships must be received by March 31 of the year in which
the scholarship is to be awarded.
Making Application: To apply for National Federation of the Blind
scholarships, complete and return the application on the reverse
side of this sheet.  Multiple applications are unnecessary.  Each
applicant
will be considered for all scholarships for which he or she
qualifies.  Please provide all the applicable information
requested and attach to the application all the additional
documents requested on the application.  Send the application to:
Miss Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National Federation
of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue, Suite 200,
Grinnell, Iowa 50112; (515) 236-3366.
Re-Application: We have often awarded scholarships to persons
applying for the second or third time.  Even if previously
submitted, current applications must be submitted to be
considered for current scholarships.  Those who have previously
applied are encouraged to apply again.
Winners: The Scholarship Committee reviews all applications and
selects the scholarship winners.  These winners, the same number
as there are scholarships to award, will be notified of their
selection by June 1 and will be brought to the National
Federation of the Blind convention in July at Federation expense. 
This is in addition to
the scholarship grant.  The winners are America's finest blind
students.  The National Federation of the Blind Convention is the
largest gathering of blind persons (more than 2,000) to occur
anywhere in the nation each year.  You will be able to meet other
blind students and exchange information and ideas.  You will also
be able to meet and talk with blind people who are successfully
functioning in your chosen profession or occupation.  Federal
officials, members of Congress, and the makers and distributors
of new technology attend Federation conventions.  Above all, a
broad cross section of the most active segment of the blind
population of the United States will be present to discuss common
problems and plan for concerted action.  It is an interesting and
exciting week.
Awards: The day before the convention banquet the Scholarship
Committee will meet to determine which winners will receive which
scholarships.  The scholarship awards will be made during the
banquet.

                National Federation Of The Blind
                  Scholarship Application Form

Read reverse side of form for instructions and explanation.  Form
may be photocopied but only if reverse side is also included.
To apply for a scholarship, complete this application form and
mail completed application and attachments to: Miss Peggy Pinder,
Chairman, National Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee,
814 - 4th Avenue, Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112.  Form must be
received by March 31, 1990.


Name (please include any maiden or other names by which you have
been known):
Date of birth:
School address:
School phone number:
Home address:
Home phone number:
Institution being attended in spring
 semester, 1990, with class standing (fresh
man, senior, etc.):
Cumulative grade point at this
institution:
Institution to be attended in fall of 1990, with class standing.
Send by separate
 letter if admitted to school after
 submitting completed application:
List all post-secondary institutions attended  with highest class
standing attained and  cumulative grade point average:
High school attended and cumulative
 grade point:
Vocational goal:
State your major:
Awards and honors (attach list if necessary): Community service
(attach list if necessary):

Attach the following documents to completed application:
1. Send us a letter: What schools have you attended? What school
do
you plan to attend during the coming year?  What honors have you
achieved?  What have you done to deal with situations involving
your blindness?  What are you like as a person?  What are your
goals and aspirations?  How will the scholarship help you?
2. Send two letters of recommendation.
3. Provide current transcript from institution now attending and
transcripts from all other post-secondary institutions attended. 
If you have not yet attended such an institution or have not
completed one year of study, send high school transcript.
4. Send a letter from a state officer of the National Federation
of the Blind evidencing the fact that you have discussed your
scholarship application with that officer. We prefer that you
discuss your application with the Federation state president, but
a letter from any Federation state officer will suffice.
President's address provided upon request.MAKING GOOD USE OF AN MBA
                        by Eileen Rivera
 Those who have attended recent conventions of the National
Federation of the Blind know that one of the highlights of the
program each year has been the panel composed of members of the
organization who talk about their jobs. The remarks of two of
this year's participants are reprinted in this issue of the 
Braille Monitor.  President Maurer introduced the final panelist
by saying: 

    The last person on the panel this morning is a lady whom we
in
the Federation have come to know well. Eileen Rivera received a
scholarship from this organization a few years ago, and she used
it to complete her education. Since that time she has become the
Director of the Vision Research and Rehabilitation Center at the
Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She is
helping to spread the
word about the capacity of blind people into areas where it has
previously not been well known. Here to talk with us about her
work is Eileen Rivera.

Good morning. Isn't this a wonderful convention!  Well, let me
tell you about dinnertime at the Rivera home. We would gather
around the table, and I would ask my dad questions about life.
And we'd talk about careers. Dad was partial to medicine, law,
and engineering.  We were just beginning to learn English at the
time. So at age seven I asked him this question:   What does
`administration' mean?  He paused, and then he said, 
Administration is not really much of anything, and you should
just forget the word.  And that shows you children don't always
listen to their parents.
Each of my college summers I worked in a different setting a
bank,
a district attorney's office, a gift shop, a hospital, then in a
community health center. These jobs gave me excellent exposure to
the way organizations work and, in some cases, how they shouldn't
work. I was particularly intrigued by health care organizations.
Upon graduating from Harvard
I entered the Masters of Business Administration program at the
Wharton School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I found my niche in
health care management.
My interest in management stems from my childhood. As the oldest
of seven children, I got very good at solving others' problems,
at giving orders, and at getting others to do what I wanted them
to, while making them think it was their own idea. Isn't that
what management is all about? That's the secret. Managing money
was also one of my favorite pastimes. I spent hours counting and
budgeting my allowance twenty-five cents per week.
About my job for the past year, at age 26, I've been the
administrative director for the Vision Research Center at Johns
Hopkins University.  How did I end up here? Well, let me explain
how I found a job that did not exist. In March of '88 my husband
Jeff was assigned to Johns Hopkins for his medical residency. I
was sad to leave my friends in Philadelphia, but I knew that in
Baltimore I already had a number of NFB friends. My job-hunting
strategy was to network like crazy.  I wrote lots of letters. I
wrote to every single one of the health care alumni from Wharton.
I also wrote to Harvard alumni. I sent them my resume. I met with
them, and they gave me the scoop on the health care market in
Baltimore. Meanwhile, back in Philadelphia, a friend mentioned to
me that at Johns Hopkins they were starting a low vision program.
Well, nothing could interest me less.  I wanted to work in
primary health care management not in a hospital, not in
ophthalmology, and not in blindness. But Steve Lipstein, the Vice
President for Planning at Johns Hopkins, called me. He had
received my resume from three different people. He figured I must
be pretty good, so persistence
pays off when you send out lots of letters. At the interview Mr.
Lipstein asked me where I wanted to work. Then he suggested three
different jobs in the Department of Medicine. My blindness didn't
seem to worry him much. He seemed convinced by my employment
record, by my summer jobs, that I had what it took to do the job.
In passing I asked Mr. Lipstein about the low vision program at
Wilmer.  We discussed then my dissatisfaction with existing
services. Then
I described to him the ideal program one that focuses on options,
independence, and good attitudes; one that responds to the
consumers.
I thought I had made it clear to him that I wasn't interested in
working for Wilmer in low vision. But he forwarded my resume
anyway.
So days before the 1988 convention, a Dr. Robert Massoff,
Director
of the center, called me for an interview. I had serious
reservations,
but he was enthusiastic, and I wanted to meet him. He sparked my
curiosity.  At the interview Dr. Massoff described four
components of the Vision Research Center. One lab is researching
glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa,
and age-related macular degeneration. Another lab studies vision
performance:  reading, mobility, and face recognition. My ears
really perked up
when he mentioned technology transfer. Its activities include
development of new low vision products, a collaboration with NASA
scientists, and the development of businesses supported by
venture capital. This was real  business.  At the time, the
clinical low vision service had yet to be established. It was to
include optometrists, social workers, and rehabilitation
teachers. The research program was growing fast, and Dr. Massoff
needed a manager to facilitate the process.  Was this for me?
After all, I didn't want a career in low vision.  But I
recognized a rare opportunity to come in at the ground level and
help develop a program that works. Last year at convention it
dawned on me: Wilmer would build a program with or without me.
The only way to encourage them to build a first-rate program was
to become one of its architects. Well, now that I wanted the job,
I had to create it. There was no existing position.
My first assignment (before my first paycheck) was to write my
own job description. I took my resume and wrote from there. It
was very challenging, and nobody else qualified for my job.
So what specifically do I do? First of all, I hold the purse
strings for the Center six million dollars a year. It's a tough
job, but someone has to do it. I negotiate contracts; I hire and
train the staff; I write grant proposals; I prepare financial
analyses; I manage
the two research labs; and I work on business plans. I prepare
presentations for investors and donors, and I work with the Dean
to facilitate technology transfer. And I started the clinic of
low vision program from scratch.  I developed management systems
for our clinic, directed the construction of a brand new
facility, and hired a clinical coordinator. And by the way, as
part of the training for my clinical coordinator, I had her read
NFB literature and attend local chapter meetings.
One of my most important assignments is to develop legislation
that will improve reimbursement for low vision services and
devices. Now what better training could I have than to work with
the NFB for the Washington seminar? Through the NFB and with the
help of Jim Gashel, I learned the nuts and bolts of legislative
action.
Each day brings a new challenge at Wilmer, and I'm constantly
learning new ways to be more effective and to make things happen.
One of the hazards in working in a research setting is being
classified by the researchers. Once they called me a 
high-functioning low-vision person.  I felt sick. I cringed, and
I wanted to tell them:  I'm not a high-functioning low-vision
person. I'm just an average Harvard and Wharton School graduate. 
I said:  I'm not an anomaly or a quirk in the system. I'm a
product of good training and good attitudes someone who has
shared with my fellow people and one who has grown through the
fine example of the NFB. 
So how do I go about teaching these very learned professors about
blindness? I hired the best blind caterer in the state when we
opened our clinic: Mrs. Cobb. I invite competent blind people to
participate in our research studies. I introduce the faculty to
successful blind professionals totally blind people doing things
deemed impossible for low-vision patients. I arrange tours of the
National Center for the Blind. To those researching reading, I
bring them articles about Braille. I share anecdotes about our
boot camps for the blind in Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Minnesota. If the faculty has a question about technology, I
refer them to our experts like Curtis Chong, and I casually leave
highlighted copies of the  Braille Monitor  on their lunchroom
table. I discuss cane travel with them. Sometime we would like to
do research on mobility. We will go down to the Inner Harbor and
compare the effectiveness of the long white cane with orientation
and mobility lights huge flashlights which are prescribed for
people with night blindness. And what do you think we're going to
find when we do that study?
Impressed by the NFB members that he met, one of our scientists
asked me if the NFB was a bunch of type-A congenitally blind
people. That
was a good one! I assured him that we were actually just a
cross-section of society. But if he thought we had our act
together just a little better than the rest, it was because we
were a part of the most effective and responsive group of blind
consumers in the world.
At times our social worker calls me about patients who want to
learn Braille and cane travel. Understanding the weakness of
vocational rehabilitation in Maryland, she asks me how the NFB
can help our patients.  She understands the importance of our
blindness network.
So how specifically do I do my job? I use readers. An adaptive
computer has been an important tool. I use Lotus 1- 2-3 to
prepare budgets.  I do a lot of writing on my word processor, and
I use a long white cane. And now, finally, I am having the
opportunity to learn Braille.  Since May, I have learned to read
and write Grade 1 Braille using a slate and stylus.
Upon beginning my job at Wilmer, I discussed Braille with the
faculty.  They used to think that only totally blind people
should learn Braille, that it was too bulky and too difficult,
that visual scanning had to be faster. I diplomatically presented
them with the facts. And just to show you that things do change,
in May when I announced that I was learning Braille, my boss
responded enthusiastically that this was a great idea.
On a more personal note, I want to thank my friends in the NFB
for encouraging me as I studied at school and as I sought this
job that did not exist. I want to thank you for teaching me about
the importance of alternative techniques, about Braille, about
cane travel, and about good attitudes. I've learned that a good
low vision program the best low vision program will integrate
these items into its agenda.  Only a program that has these
components can actually help the blind to become all that they
can. And as I go about developing the best low vision program in
the nation at Wilmer, I know that all of you stand behind me,
ready to advise and encourage me on those difficult days. And
together we are changing the future for blind people who come to
the Wilmer Eye Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, and for blind
people throughout the nation. Thank you.
                       BRAILLE LITERACY: 
ISSUES FOR CONSUMERS AND PROVIDERS
                   by Susan Jay Spungin, Ed.D.
 On Saturday afternoon, July 8, 1989, Dr. Susan Spungin spoke to
the convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Denver. 
In introducing her Dr. Jernigan said: 

Our next speaker is Dr. Susan Jay Spungin, Associate Executive
Director of Program Services for the American Foundation for the
Blind. Before I give the microphone to Dr. Spungin, I want to say
a few words about the American Foundation for the Blind, our
relations with the Foundation, and why we have asked Dr. Spungin
to come here today and speak to
us. As all of you know, we have had sharp differences with the
Foundation over the years and we still have such differences.
Perhaps the item which has been the subject of the greatest
contention has been and is the National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC).
Recently one of the highest officials at the American Foundation
for the Blind told me that the Foundation was dissatisfied with
NAC and that it had decided sharply to limit and decrease its
support of NAC. Specifically, I was told that the Foundation's
contribution to NAC last year was $235,000, that this year it is
$215,000, and that next year there will be a
very drastic reduction. I was informed by this official that the
Foundation's Board of Trustees had voted that a maximum
contribution of $100,000 would be made to NAC next year and that
how much (if any) of that amount would be given would be
determined by the Foundation's executive committee, based on
NAC's ability to get more agencies to identify with it and on its
getting its act together. Yet, in a June 12, 1989, press release
the Foundation said (and these are its exact words):   The Board
of Trustees of the American Foundation for the Blind has
unanimously approved additional financial support to the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC), reflecting renewed confidence in the
organization's work. 
Now, if you take into account the language of diplomacy, the
information I was earlier given and the sentence I have just read
from the press release are not necessarily in conflict, but this
sort of behavior on the part of the Foundation is the kind of
thing that has caused us to have mistrust and misgivings. With
respect to NAC, I think the Foundation is in an awkward spot, and
I think we must simply accept the fact that the blind of this
country and the agencies that are committed to what we regard as
quality services on the one hand, and the American Foundation for
the Blind and certain others on the other hand are simply going
to be on opposite sides of the NAC issue until we can either kill
NAC or reform it.
There are also other issues on which we differ with the
Foundation.  The question then arises as to why we have asked Dr.
Spungin, a high official of the American Foundation for the
Blind, to come here at all. Why not simply intensify the
conflict, fight it out, and be done with it? The answer, I think,
is clear-cut and compelling. It is in our best interest and in
the best interest of the blind of the nation for us to do
otherwise.
While there are issues about which we and the Foundation will
continue to disagree and about which (let us say it candidly) we
will continue to fight, there are other considerations. The facts
of life are that today in the United States the National
Federation of the Blind and the American Foundation for the Blind
are the two strongest forces in the blindness field not the only
ones but the strongest. If we can find areas of agreement and
cooperative effort, the long-term benefits to the blind and the
blindness system can be incalculable.  And in recent months there
have been such areas of agreement.
Let me give you just two: Not long ago the Foundation wanted to
make a survey in Illinois, and we sent their material to our
membership list in that state some 1,000 copies. They could not
have contacted that many blind people and parents of blind
children without our help.  On the other hand, there may be some
reciprocation.
Next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the National Federation
of the Blind in short, the fiftieth anniversary of the founding
of the organized blind movement in the United States. In
recognition of the importance of that milestone we will (among
other things) ask Congress to issue a commemorative postage stamp
with Dr. tenBroek's picture on it. Both Bill Gallagher, the
Executive Director of the American Foundation for the Blind, and
Dr. Spungin have told me that the Foundation as an organization
and they personally will do everything possible to help us get
this accomplished.
The fact that they have promised to do this (and I assume that
regardless of other circumstances they will keep their promise)
does not mean
that they agree with everything Dr. tenBroek did, that they will
support us on every issue, or that we will not oppose them when
we feel we must. Likewise, the same can be said concerning our
mailing of their literature. These acts represent gestures of
good will or, if you prefer, recognition of reality.
We tell anybody who cares to know (and quite a few who don't)
that we are today the strongest force in the affairs of the blind
of this country. If that is true (and all you have to do to test
it is to
look around you at this convention), we must recognize the
responsibility which goes with such clout and behave accordingly.
We must attempt to build positive relationships where we can and
work with others to achieve positive results when that is
possible.
To that end and fully realizing the significance of it, we have
asked Dr. Spungin to come here today and appear on our program. I
personally and we organizationally have not always agreed with
Dr. Spungin, but we may find it possible to have increasing areas
of joint effort and cooperative action. At least, this should be
the goal. In this context
Dr. Spungin's appearance on our platform is as much symbolic as
substantive.  Dr. Spungin is a woman of ability. In the meeting
of the Committee on Joint Organizational Effort at the National
Center for the Blind in Baltimore in March, she very strongly
supported the proposition that there must be an increased
emphasis on the teaching of Braille to blind children and that
all teachers of blind children should be expert in the use of
Braille. Consequently, we have asked her to talk today on the
subject:  Braille Literacy: Issues for Consumers and Providers. 
In view of all that I have said, we will not take questions at
the end of Dr. Spungin's remarks, and we will confine ourselves
to the topic listed on the agenda. Dr. Spungin, I want to welcome
you to this convention and say to you that we are glad you are
here. Here is Dr. Spungin:

Good afternoon. I appreciate those warm remarks. I am also very
honored to be on the same platform with Dr. Nemeth.
In 1889 a person was judged literate if he could sign his name
enough for the farm and buggy economy. In the machine economy of
1939 it
meant completing the sixth grade. Today the information age of
computers and high technology assumes for some a bare minimum of
reading and writing skills at the high school graduate level.
However, because changes in the workplace are so dramatic and
unpredictable, many people must be ready to adapt to jobs that
did not even exist when they were in school.
There are twenty-five million Americans who cannot read or write
at all. An additional forty-five million are functionally
illiterate, without the reading and writing skills to find work,
and that number is growing by more than two million a year.
Unfortunately, it seems only natural that the problems of our
total society are frequently the sum of the parts. Although I do
not believe that the causes of Braille illiteracy are necessarily
based on the causes of the illiteracy epidemic in the United
States, in general I do believe our concerns over the lack of use
of Braille have been sensitized by society's concerns in this
area. There clearly is a growing awareness and concern about the
decrease in Braille reading and writing in the United States,
both from consumers using the Braille system and providers of
service teaching or producing materials in Braille. This is not a
new problem but a growing one that can no longer be ignored. It
appears to be an issue that we all agree exists that is, both
consumers and providers of teaching or producing Braille have
consensus in their respective outrage or concern. Where these
groups of individuals break down is in their belief as to why the
situation has been allowed to develop and what to do about it.
My presentation this afternoon will attempt to detail some of the
common reasons offered as to lack of Braille usage, others that I
believe are closer to the mark, and some final discussion as to
potential solutions.
The more frequent explanations as to why we have increased
numbers of illiterate blind people seem to fall in one of eight
categories of reasons why.
1. The changing population of children born blind with other
disabilities due to medical advances saving children has
diminished the number of potential Braille users. This population
of multiply handicapped children is often quoted as being fifty
percent of the total population of visually handicapped children
with varying degrees of disabling conditions. However, there are
no documentable statistics or prevalence rates or even
demographics to support this suggestion. However, it
is stated that this population for the most part is made up of
non-readers with retardation and learning disabilities as the
most frequently cited additional impairment.
2. The work of Dr. Natalie Barraga and others in better use of
residual vision, initiated and more fully implemented in the
decades of the seventies and the eighties, have encouraged
educators and parents
to strive for visual utilization when possible as opposed to the
more historically common practice of teaching Braille to all
students regardless of individual need or visual acuity measures.
Consequently, there are fewer Braille users.
3. Positive attitudes toward the use of Braille have diminished,
and potential Braille users are given second-class status and
attention.
4. University training programs for teachers of the visually
handicapped have given lip service to teaching Braille and have
over the years graduated less-than-proficient Braille instructors
as teachers.
5. The complexity of the Braille code causes illiteracy among
blind students and should be changed in one way or another.
6. Audio dependency in tapes and speech output devices has helped
to minimize the perceived necessity for Braille.
7. The existing service delivery models in schools serving blind
children has, through the concept of the least restrictive
environment found in Public Law 94-142, favored itinerate and
teaching consultant models of service, limiting time spent with
students due to large case loads and geographic regions served.
8. The Individualized Education Program (the IEP of Public Law
94-142) process is not working and favors what is available in
the school district where the blind child resides rather than the
needs of that child. This approach is often the result of
professional rather than parental concerns as well as critical
shortages in teachers of the visually handicapped.
Those are the eight areas that in my opinion are the most
frequently cited as explanations to the problem of lack of
Braille usage. I agree on the surface with many of them but
believe they are only surface and often miss the mark as to the
details that make up each of the eight categories.
1. Yes, there is no doubt that the multiply handicapped
population has grown tremendously since the forties with the
number of RLF's
as a result of high levels of oxygen in incubators (now known as
ROP) and the fifties and sixties with the rubella epidemic.
However, the multi-handicapped/visually handicapped population
has been sold down the river. When wishing to child count and
serve this population as required by Public Law 94-142, we are
told that their primary handicap
is other than vision and they become lost to us and unserved or
underserved by others with no knowledge of the effects of visual
impairment or sensory, motive, and cognitive development.
Consequently, our numbers decline along with justification for
funding programs and training teachers. Until we are ready to
fight the growing generic model of service, this issue will grow
and affect service in general to all children, whether they are
multi-handicapped or visually handicapped.
2. We have for too long been a nation looking for a quick fix a
country that problem solves bilaterally, yes or no, right or
wrong, sighted or blind. I truly believe that Dr. Barraga and her
close colleagues never intended work in vision stimulation and
vision efficiency to be unilaterally applied to all visually
handicapped children with some remaining sight. But that's what
we did and do  suggesting, of course, to the system and the child
that to see is better than
not to see, to encourage the visually handicapped child to use
remaining vision at all cost. This bandwagon mentality for the
quick fix (to
be more like seeing than blind) has short-changed many visually
handicapped children and adults in our country's illiterate, to
be added to twenty-five million Americans who cannot read or
write at all. The pendulum has swung too far. It must be brought
back and centered.
3. Negative attitudes toward blind people and the communication
skills they need are indeed present and truly unintended. That's
what makes them so insidious. Because without perhaps realizing
it, how we as educators of blind children and adults perform and
interchange with our students or clients and other professionals
makes a statement of attitudes toward the blind person. Depriving
blind students of
the right to Braille over print when clearly they read at a
less-than-functional speed is to deny them equal access to life.
It can't help but to suggest that perhaps Braille is inferior and
therefore print, or having sight, is superior. Do we positively
reinforce a blind child to learn Braille with the same enthusiasm
we do to learn print?  Another negative attitude I find is more
of a function of human frailty. That is, one does not
often support an activity about which he or she is not fully
knowledgeable.  Therefore, if a teacher of the visually
handicapped is not comfortable in the knowledge and teaching of
Braille codes, the necessity for doing such can't help but be
diminished.
4. The inadequacies of teachers of the visually handicapped in
knowing Braille is not all of their making. The attitudes toward
Braille instruction at the university or college preparation
level is uneven, to say the least. Some programs are truly strong
with equal emphasis on Braille code acquisition and the teaching
of reading and math intrinsic to imparting Braille instruction in
these areas. Others give the whole thing lip service, some
believing it should be a prerequisite to college or graduate
course work needing only an independent or correspondence course
type of approach to learning. This varies with the coordinator of
each preparation program some excellent and some not, and some
leaving the Braille instruction just to the level of a
transcriber's knowledge, omitting anything specific to reading or
the teaching of math in Braille.
5. There has recently been a rash of articles placing the reason
for illiteracy of the blind person at the foot of the Braille
code as being too complex. Moon type, Morris Code, etc.
revisited, only reminds me of the waste of the War of Dots. Let's
not sing that tune again.  Let's not choose to believe the
Braille code is archaic or too complex.  In a recent article, it
stated that a blind honor student couldn't read a novel or write
a paper. This is, of course, inexcusable. But to say that his
illiteracy is due to the complexity of the Braille code is
unfounded. There is no research supporting the notion that the
Braille code, in and of itself, causes illiteracy among blind
students, thereby limiting the career opportunities available to
them.
6. The concerns that technology of any form will diminish the
need for and use of Braille goes back as early as the forties
with the beginnings of the talking book program. This either-or
attitude seems to permeate the field of services to the blind.
Throughout the years of technological development (ranging from
talking books, records, cassette players and tapes, and computer
and speech technology) I
have yet to meet a proficient Braille user who has put this
communication skill away but rather treats this advance in print
accessibility as one of several options available and, in point,
complementary to each other. In fact, the ability to do word
processing in Braille and edit Braille text accurately and
convert to hardcopy print represents for some one of the most
significant advances in communication available to blind persons
in this century. The potential concern over competing
technologies in terms of diminishing the need for Braille is, in
my opinion, minimal when one considers the problems of location
and production of titles due to multiple listings within various
organizations lacking any source for acquisition information. The
number of blind students waiting for Braille texts in school is
unconscionable. If we believe in equal access to print (in this
case, via Braille) and have now
the technology to allow for this easily, why are Braille users
waiting, receiving books half way through the year?  How many
books go undone and how many books are physically transcribed
unknowingly more than once, more than twice?  What type of
statement does this make?
7. The issue around service delivery models and their effect on
Braille instruction is crucial. We have so encouraged community
educational placement for visually handicapped children that in
many states we have restricted the alternative of residential
school placement, which has become mostly schools serving the
more multiply handicapped blind child. This would not be a
problem if, at the same time, we assured families of visually
handicapped children itinerant and consulting programs of
reasonable case load size, permitting teachers trained in working
with visually handicapped children actually the time to do so. In
more cases than not, we have promoted an outward appearance of a
physical setting of least restrictive alternative with an
academic program representing the most restrictive environment.
What we all
need to do is ensure the most enabling learning environment for
visually handicapped students, insuring appropriate
teacher/student ratios according to individual need rather than
administrative mandates.  No child can learn anything from a
teacher from any academic area that comes to school only once a
week.
8. The IEP process of Public Law 94-142 is indeed the most
important part of this historic legislation, the Education of All
Handicapped Children's Act. It is a time when experts, parents,
and (where appropriate) students come together to chart the
academic course of the visually handicapped student for the year.
This process is so critical that its application for all school
age children, handicapped or not, seems obvious. However, where
it falls short is that the IEP process relies heavily on the
following assumptions:
1. The IEP team is equally able and willing to assess the
visually handicapped child's need and plan a program accordingly.
2. All parents are committed to the process and work hand in hand
with the school district and the professionals that work with
their child.
3. The school district has desire, access, and money for trained
visually handicapped teachers and orientation and mobility
instructors and any necessary books and equipment.
4. The IEP team and parents will work toward problem solving and
use as a last resort due process.
5. Finally, they all agree on the definition of appropriate
education in the least restrictive environment. Believe it or
not, there are some cases where these five points are in place,
and programs and children flourish. However, there are other
instances where this is not the case, and limitations shape the
results rather than need and expectations. To assure the
efficiency of this process, consumers
and providers of services must join forces to insist on trained
teachers with more than two or three courses (as required by some
states) for state certification be present, as well as informed
parents. Together we need to recruit teachers from our respective
friends and colleagues in order to insure adequate personnel.
There is indeed much to be done, but I believe it is doable.
In my concluding remarks let me offer some possible solutions
that attempt to take into account the various positions of
Braille illiteracy issues and its causes. There are no winners in
this controversy nor simple answers. The real tragedy is the ones
who lose the most not us here today, but the blind children
themselves.
Of greatest concern in this issue is definition the definition
of visually handicapped children we serve and many multiply
handicapped/visually handicapped children we do not serve but
should serve. The most tragic error we have made as a field has
been to agree to primary versus secondary handicap labels to
define our population. We have lost children to the generic
cracks found in the system, espousing individual need for unique
program development. The issues of economy of scale have sent
costs of service delivery skyrocketing, compounded by allowing
ourselves to lose many children to other areas of disability.
These children are educationally crippled by receiving generic
services.  We need to define what we mean by blind and Braille
users and develop appropriate reliable assessment measures that
allow for decisions made on use of Braille or print or use of
both. Measures such as work distance from the page, portabilities
of reading skills, reading rates and accuracy, visual fatigue,
and proper interpretation of assessment results are all
assessments lending themselves to objective measure and could
easily serve as a basis for a uniform assessment tool. Those
children who do not fit neatly into Braille or print users
deserve the option of learning both Braille and print until such
time as the child himself can make an informed choice.
Instruction in reading and writing of Braille should be based on
what we know about teaching of reading and writing. Many good
teachers do this. However, this approach addresses the issue of
development versus adaptation of material. I believe we have
faulted on the side of adaptation when we consistently adapted
the Basal reading and math books from the sighted curricula for
the blind. We need to bring into balance efforts in curriculum
development specific to the needs of the Braille reader.
To insure quality Braille instruction, national standards should
be developed and applied, perhaps with the Library of Congress,
to insure a minimal level of competence in the knowledge of
Braille. The teaching of this skill should remain in the
curriculum of teacher preparation course work as a required
course. But slate and stylus must not be ignored either, and this
skill also could receive national standards for excellence.
To change the Braille code in any major way is pointless and only
confirms the lack of understanding of the Braille system by the
individuals who make such a suggestion. But we have not used the
standard-setting body of the Braille Authority of North America
as much as we should to insure that the Braille code is adequate
for the times in which we live. BANA has many subcommittees in
literary, math, music, and others. By assuring that consumers and
teachers are present in each of these committees is to insure the
reality of need for any proposed change.
We need to re-evaluate the nation's visually handicapped service
delivery models in public schools around the country and demand
lower case loads as well as an appropriate trained teacher in
vision and other related professionals. We can only succeed in
doing this through assuring that the IEP process works not only
to guarantee the proper teaching
of Braille but for orientation and mobility, activities of daily
living, and many other skills as well.
We have in place a potentially good system in Public Law 94-142.
Let's commit ourselves to making it work for all visually
handicapped students in need as well as those using Braille. To
legislate or mandate by law any system of human service always
creates problems problems of interpretation, problems in
monitoring, problems in funding. I believe we have seen the
reality of this since 1977, when Public Law 94-142 was
implemented. To create new legislation state by state to address
the problem of a federal law seems redundant. Let's work together
to insure that the meaning and spirit of Public Law 94-142 is
implemented, which can happen if we use our respective influences
together as one voice demanding the individual rights for blind
children  demanding access to the world, through reading and
writing, through independent travel, and through access to the
written word.
The lack of a centralized source of information for easily
locating books in special formats for blind and visually
handicapped persons in this day and age is incomprehensible. Data
base systems are growing like wild fire, yet the reading needs of
blind or visually handicapped people for the most part rely on an
informal system of literature search, usually dependent on the
help of a sighted person. However, agencies that serve the
recreational and educational reading needs
of visually impaired children and adults have now formed the
Coalition
for Information Access for Print Handicapped Readers to focus on
developing and implementing a computerized central listing system
and to act
as a conduit for networking. Hopefully, in time, with speech
technology,  blind persons themselves can access the system.
To summarize, I would like to quote my friend and colleague, Fred
Schroeder, who stated at a recent meeting:  Braille has been
proven time and time again to be the way to literacy for blind
people. It
can be produced more easily and more cheaply than ever before in
history.  With Braille and the other skills of blindness, we as
blind people can fulfill our potential and take our true place as
contributing, participating, taxpaying members of society. To
achieve this goal will take concerted and collective actions. 
I, too, wish to achieve this goal, for Braille is an assertion of
equality between blind and sighted persons with respect to
written communication. With one voice, I have no doubt that
equality can become a reality. Thank you.

 Dr. Jernigan:  Thank you very much, Dr. Spungin. As I said in
my introduction, I'm glad you came. What the future holds for
cooperative relations between our two organizations probably
depends on whether we have so many areas of disagreement and
especially an increasing number of them that the overall climate
kills what is possibly a flowering growth of understanding and
working together or whether we can diminish areas of disagreement
and begin to find more and more areas of joint work. That is the
way trust is engendered or the way it is killed  depending on
what we do. As you can see from being here, we have some two
thousand-plus people here. This will be the largest gathering of
blind people to be held anywhere in the world this year. And we
are not simply speaking for ourselves but for the people back
home who elected us and who sent us here as representatives of
the blind of this country. Again, I say, we're glad you came. I
understand you'll be with us tonight at the banquet, and we're
pleased that you will.
  THE DILEMMA OF THE SHELTERED SHOP WORKER by Kenneth Jernigan
It is common knowledge that most of the workshops for the blind
in
the United States have substandard working conditions and pay
shamefully low wages to their blind employees. They can get away
with this because of a provision in the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act which says that blind shop workers may be paid less
than the minimum wage if they cannot produce as much as a sighted
worker similarly situated in private industry. Of course, sighted
workers in private industry cannot be paid less than the minimum
wage regardless of their productive capacity. And then there is
also the question of how productive capacity is measured and who
is similarly situated.
Presumably tests are made, but we have repeatedly demonstrated
that many of those tests are rigged. What would happen to the
average factory worker in the United States if there were no
federal labor laws, no unions, and no governmental mechanisms for
inspection? All we have
to do for an answer is to look at what happened during the last
century.  But with the blind it is even worse. Nobody believes
that the average sighted person is incapable of working
competitively, but the traditional wisdom is that the blind are
substandard and only able to work if
they are given charity and special consideration. Attitudes are
changing, but the outmoded notions are still far too prevalent.
In the circumstances it is not surprising that sheltered workshop
managers take advantage of the situation and exploit. It would be
remarkable if they did not. There are budgets to meet,
administrative salaries to pay, and little likelihood that the
managers will have
to pay penalties (and certainly not personal penalties) if they
stretch the law or cheat. Therefore, they say that their
employees are not really workers at all but just trainees, that
most of them are mulitply handicapped, and that the workers (no,
trainees) like the conditions at the shop, and wouldn't have them
otherwise.
So what do you do if you are a blind employee in a sheltered shop
in the United States today? If you complain, try to help form a
union, or contact government authorities, you are likely to get
fired, have your wages cut, or be told that there just isn't
enough work to keep you on a full-time basis. It may be done with
big words and professional terminology. It may even be documented
and supported by studies but it hurts just as much, and the
message is just as clear. On the other hand, if you remain
silent, you are likely to continue with starvation wages and
substandard conditions for the rest of your life. It is not easy,
and it is not pleasant; but it is the everyday experience of many
blind shop workers throughout the country.
Here is where the National Federation of the Blind comes in.
Unlike labor unions, we are knowledgeable about the Fair Labor
Standards dodge and the ways of the professionals, and we cannot
be bamboozled.  Moreover, we are strong enough to resist
pressure, and we cannot be intimidated. Through our division for
shop workers (the Blind Industrial Workers of America) and
through local chapters, workshop employees are joining the
Federation in growing numbers. They are beginning to have
heightened expectations and to feel their strength.
President Maurer recently received a letter from an NFB chapter
officer concerning conditions in the local workshop. The letter
and President Maurer's response are indicative of what is
beginning to happen in the shops, and I want to share them with
you. For obvious reasons the name and locality are being omitted.
These letters should cause each of us to do soul-searching and to
ask ourselves what action we can take to help the shop workers in
our local areas. Regardless of our financial situation or social
position, each of us has a stake in what happens to the shop
workers. Their struggle is our struggle;
their hope is our hope; their dream is our dream. Here is the
correspondence:

Dear President Maurer:
At our last chapter meeting we discussed at length the workshop
for the blind here in our city. As I am sure you know, this is a
sheltered workshop that employs many handicapped persons,
including a few blind, and some of our chapter members. Most of
these people, including myself, are paid less than the minimum
wage. Last July there was a ruling by the board of directors of
the shop that they were going to pay each worker what he or she
produced and no longer have any make-up
pay. In the past each person was guaranteed a base rate and also
received more than that if his piece rate was above this rate.
Since only about fifteen percent are blind, it is next to
impossible to get a union in there. Many of the workers are slow
learners and would not understand the benefits of the union.
Often we are put on jobs where we do not make close to the
minimum wage, and the shop management assures us that soon new
time studies will be made but they never are. The employees are
hesitant to file a complaint with the Labor Board because we are
fearful that if a hearing were held, we would still not get the
higher wages.
It was mentioned at our last chapter meeting that the
Federationists
who are working at the shop should sign a petition, stating the
complaints, and circulating it to the suppliers of contracts for
the shop, thus making them aware of the problem.
Our chapter is wanting to help in any way it can, but we do not
want to do the wrong thing. We have thought of going to the press
or the news media, but the local stations have been doing
advertising for the workshop. Any advice you can give is
appreciated by all of us.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                                                 
____________________
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear   :
I have your recent letter describing problems of blind workers at
your local workshop. In 1986 a law was adopted by Congress at the
urging of the National Federation of the Blind.  This law said
that any person working in a sheltered workshop for the blind who
was being paid less than the minimum wage had the right to file
an appeal with the Department of Labor.  The Department of Labor
is responsible for conducting a hearing to determine whether the
wages paid to the blind employee are proper.  The employer must
demonstrate that the wages
are fair.  If the employer fails to do this, the blind worker is
entitled to receive at least the minimum wage.  The burden of
proof is on the employer.  The employee does not have to show
that the wages paid are unfair.  Subminimum wages are presumed to
be unfair unless the sheltered shop administrator can show that
they are reasonable.  It is not necessary to establish a union
before the complaints are filed with the Department of Labor. 
The complaints may be filed whether there is a union established
or not.  If workers want to file such a complaint, the National
Office of the Federation is ready to help.  If a workshop is to
receive contracts from the federal government through National
Industries for the Blind, seventy-five percent (75%) of its
direct labor hours must be performed by blind employees.  If your
local workshop is using very many sighted laborers, it may be
in violation of those standards.  A complaint may be in order on
these grounds as well.
If there are workers who want to raise these questions or others
before the Department of Labor, please let me know.  Part of the
reason for the National Federation of the Blind is to help with
problems like these.

                                                       Cordially,
                                           Marc Maurer, President
                                 National Federation of the Blind
____________________
This is the letter from the local chapter and President Maurer's
response.  Is it any wonder that the managers of the sheltered
shops resent the Federation and call us names? Is it any wonder
that they have voted
to give up to $200,000 a year to NAC (the National Accreditation
Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped)?
Is it any wonder that NAC is willing to take the money and to
accredit these organizations? The answers are obvious, and they
speak for themselves.
                     TEACHING MATHEMATICS: 
ONE CAREER FOR THE BLIND
                        by Abraham Nemeth
 One of the most lively and charming presentations on the 1989
convention agenda was an address by Dr. Abraham Nemeth, the
creator of the Nemeth code of mathematical Braille notation and
an active member of the Federation's Research and Development
Committee. Dr.  Nemeth wrote the code for the new scientific
calculator program, which is now available exclusively from the
Materials Center of the National Federation of the Blind at a
cost of $40. He has been sharing his expertise in mathematics for
more than forty years now, and the blind, as well as the sighted,
have been the beneficiaries. As Dr. Jernigan said in introducing
him:  I know that Dr. Nemeth is the most eminent blind
mathematician alive, that he is an all round good fellow, and
that he is a Federationist. What more does one need?  Here are
Abraham Nemeth's remarks as he delivered them to the convention
in Denver: 

Good afternoon, fellow Federationists. I remember the days when I
was teaching. If I walked into a classroom, sometimes I said good
afternoon, and I noticed that the students wrote it down in their
notebooks. That was a graduate class.
I want you to know that the other day my wife and I were walking
outside the hotel on the street. We stopped at a street corner
waiting for
a light. And like all good Federationists, we were wearing our
badges.  A lady was standing alongside us waiting to cross the
street, and she said,  I see that you are attending a convention. 
I said,  Yes, we are. 
She said,  What convention are you attending?  I said,  We are
attending the NFB convention. 
She said,  NFB, please tell me what does that stand for? 
I said,  Well, NFB stands for National Federation of the Blind.  
Oh,  she said,  that's wonderful, and I would like you to know
that I, too, am attending a convention. 
I said,  That's lovely. What convention are you attending?  She
said,  Well, I am attending the DAM convention. 
I said,  DAM, could you please tell me what that stands for?  She
said,  DAM, that stands for Mothers Against Dyslexia.  I came
here with a message, to tell you a little bit of what love and
care and commitment and attitude and the vagaries of fortune can
do to a person. The best way I can tell you about it is by
highlighting some aspects of my life, and then you will see what
forces came to influence and forge me into the person that I am.
I was born congenitally blind, on the Lower East Side of
Manhattan in New York City. And I want you to know that my
parents raised me in a very close and loving family. I had a
brother and a sister and two sets of grandparents and lots of
aunts and uncles and cousins.
We led a very happy life. And although my parents were both
immigrants and lacking in any kind of formal education, they
instinctively knew
not to over-protect me on account of my blindness. So I became
street-wise in a tough neighborhood on the Lower East Side of
Manhattan at a very early age.
Without knowing it, my father taught me what today would be
called mobility and orientation. Whenever we walked to a familiar
destination, he would take me there by a different route. As we
talked, he would tell me such things as  We are now walking west,
and in a moment we will be making a left turn, and then we will
be walking south.  We are passing a luncheonette, and after that
we will be passing a bakery. Now the traffic on this street is
one way going west. On the next street the traffic is one way
going east, and there is a fire hydrant at the corner. Across the
street there is a mailbox.  So he instilled in me a very good
sense of direction.
He also taught me the formation of printed letters by letting me
touch the raised letters on mailboxes and on police and fire call
boxes.  He bought me wooden blocks with raised printed letters to
play with, and he got me large rubber stamps on which I could
feel the printed letters.
My elementary education began at Public School 110. Now you know
that New York is such a big city that we run out of eminent
people's names, so we just put numbers to the schools. The one I
went to was Public School 110, which happened to be within
walking distance of my home.  One of my aunts walked with me
every day to and from school. PS 110 had a resource room staffed
by a blindness resource teacher. There were five elementary
schools in the city of New York operated in the same format, one
in each of the five boroughs. The fact that my school happened to
be close to home was fortuitous. Other blind students who came to
the school required transportation to and from home.
In my daily activity, I attended regular classrooms with all the
sighted students for general curriculum subjects like arithmetic,
spelling, and reading. But when the sighted students were engaged
in activities like art, penmanship, and things of that kind, I
returned to the resource room for training in specific blindness
skills like Braille, typing, and even geography. There was a very
large globe of the world with raised land masses and even more
highly raised mountain ranges. Braille reading and writing skills
were very strongly emphasized by the resource teacher for all
students, even for those who had some useful vision and who could
read large print. I functioned in what today could be called  a
least restrictive environment. 
Because of family circumstances, I went to live and continue my
education at the New York Jewish Guild for the Blind in Yonkers,
New York. In September of the year that I went there, I
transferred to PS 16. This was the Bronx school of the New York
City Public School System with a resource room and a blindness
resource teacher, just like the ones
in Manhattan. I was bussed back and forth to school every day. I
entered the fourth grade in that year and again functioned in the
least restrictive environment, going to class with all the
sighted students. Braille skills continued to be emphasized.
At the Yonkers Home children were encouraged (although not
required)
to engage in activities like music, handcrafts, light sports and
athletics, and religious education after school. While I was
there, my father came to visit me almost every Sunday, no matter
how severe the weather was. My mother would come whenever her
busy household chores would allow about every other week, I would
say. They would bring me my favorite foods, and they were
refrigerated and dispensed to me during the week by kindly
kitchen staff.
In the spring and summer months many of my uncles and aunts would
also come to visit me. We would all go to a picnic area in a
nearby park and enjoy the food they brought as well as such
activity as the park provided. My father's favorite was rowing.
On many weekends and holidays I returned for a visit to my
parents' home, and even during the summer, I spent extended
periods of time with my family at a vacation setting in the
Catskill Mountains near New York City.
One of my grandfathers was particularly attentive to me, and he
gave me the religious training that I now possess. He would try
to find messages that would be encouraging to me and that would
serve as a guide for me as a blind person. One of those messages,
which has stayed with me and which has had particular impact on
me during all the years that I was growing up and by which I am
still guided, is:  It is better to light a candle than to curse
the dark. 
Now you may not believe this, but at school I experienced
particular difficulty with arithmetic. When I reflect on that
circumstance now in later years, I conclude the reasons were
two-fold. First, I was
taught to use the Tailor Code, which was then in use. But it was
inadequate to the task of representing mathematical concepts in
Braille. Second, I had to use what I now guess is a museum piece:
the Tailor Arithmetic Slate. Someone once saw me operating that
thing, and he wanted to
know if I was taking an aptitude test. I was required to do my
computations on that slate, and it was very slow. I didn't
realize that a Tailor slate was intended to simulate print
practice because I was never informed what print practice was to
begin with. I graduated from the eighth grade of PS 16 deficient
in mathematics, but with my father's earnest and sincere promise
to the school that he would see to it that the situation was
remedied.
So I enrolled in the fall at Evanderchild's High School in the
Bronx, to which I was also bussed back and forth from the Yonkers
Home. This school, too, had a resource room and a very good
resource teacher, who also taught some of the regular math
classes at the high school.  He took a particular interest in me,
and as soon as he discovered that I had this deficiency in
arithmetic, he made sure to remedy it.  He insisted that all my
computational work must be done on a Braille writer so that I
would not be using one notational system while reading (Braille)
and another notational system while writing (the Tailor Code). In
one year's time, I not only caught up with all the arithmetic
skills I should have had in elementary school, but I also
received top grades in a first year algebra course in which I was
enrolled.
I continued to do well in all my high school courses, and during
this
period I became keenly aware of an ambition to be a teacher
particularly, believe it or not, to teach mathematics. One of the
boys at the Yonkers Home was a good friend, but he was one grade
behind me in school.
As I learned algebra, I shared with him my knowledge and my
enthusiasm on that subject. When he entered high school a year
later, he was able to pass an algebra exam with honors and was
thus exempted from first year algebra. This was an instance of
what today would be called advanced placement, which had occurred
before its time.
In due course I graduated from high school and returned to live
at home with my parents and my brother and my sister, who by now
had moved to Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Then it was time for me to go to college. By that time I had
already acquired independent travel skills. I knew the routes of
all the New York City subways and most of the Brooklyn bus lines.
Equipped with this skill and with a high proficiency in Braille,
I entered Brooklyn College. In those days there was still no
formal campus. The administrative and classroom buildings were
converted factory lofts and warehouses, and they were scattered
about a wide area in the traffic-filled downtown Brooklyn area.
In two years we moved to a beautiful campus, although it was by
no means finished when we took occupancy there.
I knew that I wanted to major in mathematics, but my guidance
counselors were not at all supportive of this goal. They insisted
that mathematics was too technical a subject for a blind person,
that notation was specialized, that there was no material
available in Braille, that volunteer or even paid readers would
be difficult to recruit, and that no employer would be likely to
consider a blind person for a position related to mathematics.
Counselor after counselor told this to me. You know, my wife told
me that her mother said if three people tell you that you are
drunk, you better lie down. So after several counselors told me
this, I obediently declared psychology to be my major a subject
more amenable to the abilities of blind people, my counselors
told me.
I took as many psychology courses as I could fit into my
schedule.  Nevertheless, whenever there was an opening for an
elective course, I always chose one from the Math Department. In
taking these courses, there were two things that I did which
were, I would say, decisive in my later career. When I found that
there was no way of putting mathematical notation down in
Braille, just as my counselors warned me, I began to improvise
Braille symbols and methods which were both effective for my
needs and consistent from one course to the next.  So this was
the beginning of the Nemeth Code. The other important skill I
developed was the ability to write both on paper and on the
blackboard. Acquiring this skill was made much easier for me
because of my father's earlier attention to this matter in my
formative years.  Sometimes it was the only method I had of
communicating with my math professors. And although I was
certainly no calligrapher, my handwriting was perfectly adequate
for these purposes, and it was surely far superior to the
alternative of shouting and arm waving.
In this way I graduated from Brooklyn College in 1940 with a B.A. 
degree and a major in psychology. Nevertheless, I succeeded in
having completed courses in analytic geometry, differential and
integral calculus, some modern geometry courses, and even a
course in statistics.  I knew that a B.A. degree in psychology
was not a sufficient credential for anyone intending to enter
that field professionally. So accordingly, I applied for graduate
admission to Columbia University. My grades were adequate to
ensure my acceptance at that prestigious institution, so in 1942
I graduated from Columbia University with an M.A. degree in
psychology.
Meanwhile, it was time to begin looking for a job. The only work
I could find was of an unskilled nature. At one time I worked at
a sewing machine, where I did seaming and hemming on pillowcases
at piece-work rates. I worked for seven years at the American
Foundation for the Blind, and there I counted needles for Talking
Book phonograph records.  I collated Talking Book records. I
loaded and unloaded trucks in the shipping department. I typed
letters in Braille to deaf-blind clients of AFB, transcribing
incoming Braille letters from these and other clients on the
typewriter. I also designed and organized itineraries in Braille
so that they could be read by Helen Keller.
After graduating from Columbia University with a Master's degree
in hand, I began to look earnestly for work more suited to my
training.  The employment environment for the blind is never too
hospitable, as you well know. But in those days, it was more
inhospitable than it is today. In 1944 I was already married to
my first wife Florence, and as time went on, she perceived my
growing frustration. After working all day at AFB, I would find
relaxation in taking an evening course in mathematics. By 1946 I
had already taken all the undergraduate math courses offered by
Brooklyn College, and my wife perceived that I was much happier
in mathematics than in psychology. So one day she asked me if I
wouldn't rather be an unemployed mathematician than an unemployed
psychologist.
Well, I began to wonder how we would support ourselves if I quit
my job and went to school full-time, working toward a graduate
degree in mathematics. Florence suggested that I give up my job
and do just that. She would go to work while I went to school. If
I couldn't find work as a mathematician even after completing my
training, I could always get an unskilled job like the one I was
currently holding at that same skill level, she pointed out.
By 1946 the war was over. Men were returning to civilian life. At
Brooklyn College there was a large contingent of men who had
taken a first semester course in calculus, and now (a war later)
they were returning to enroll for a second semester course in
calculus. I leave it to your imagination how much of the first
semester they remembered.  So I offered to be one of the
volunteers in a corps that was organized to assist those men. I
offered to be one of their volunteers after classes were over in
the evening. Each student was stationed at one panel of a
blackboard which ran clear around the room. Each wrote
on the board as much of the problem as he could do, and the
volunteers circulated helping the students to complete their
work. I would ask the student to read me the problem from his
textbook and then read as much of the solution as he was able to
put on the blackboard. You know, many times the blackboard panel
was blank. I would do my best to show the student how to proceed.
Unknown to me, I was being observed by the chairman of the Math
Department.  One Friday night I received a telegram from him. He
informed me that one of his regular faculty members had taken ill
and would be disabled for the remainder of the semester. He asked
me to report on the following Monday evening to assume that
professor's teaching load. Over the weekend I got the textbooks,
boned up to know just enough to teach the following Monday
evening, and launched my teaching career.
My ability to write on the blackboard, I believe, was the
difference between continuing as a mathematics teacher and
finding some other work to do. I continued this way, doing
part-time teaching at Brooklyn College.
In 1951 I again applied to Columbia University and was admitted
as a doctoral student toward the Ph.D. degree in Mathematics. My
wife went to work.
In the summer of 1953 I registered with an employment agency for
teachers.  I received a call from that agency to report to
Manhattan College the following Monday, there to conduct a course
in the mathematics of finance a course I had neither taken nor
known anything about.  But anyway, I made sure I knew what to do.
Manhattan College is a school run by the Christian Brothers.
Brother Alfred was a little dubious when a blind man showed up,
but he really had no choice. Classes began in an hour. However,
when the summer course was over, Brother Alfred naturally assumed
that I would return to teach in the fall, and he handed me my
teaching schedule for the semester, beginning in September.
When January came, I received another call this time from
Manhattanville College to fill in for a professor who was on
sabbatical. Now Manhattanville College is a very elite girls'
school run by the Order of the Sacred Heart. As a matter of fact,
Jacqueline Kennedy attended that school, although not in the time
that I was there.
Dean Mother Brady received a glowing letter of reference from
Brother Alfred, and so I had no difficulty securing the position
at Manhattanville College. Commuting to Manhattanville College
was an entirely different matter, however.
To do that commuting, I had to walk six blocks from home to the
local BMT subway station, take the train to Fourteenth Street in
Manhattan, and change at Fourteenth Street from the BMT to the
IRT line through an intricate maze of stairs and tunnels which,
however, I was already familiar with. Then I had to take the IRT
to Grand Central Station.  I had to negotiate a complicated route
through the New York Central Railroad, and that took me to White
Plains, New York, where finally I was picked up by the school bus
for the final fifteen-minute ride to the school in Purchase, New
York. And of course I had to do this in reverse at the end of the
day.
The Sunday before reporting to work, I went alone to Grand
Central Station; and there, all day long, I practiced negotiating
the route between the IRT subway station at 42nd street and the
Grand Central Railroad Station. The most important landmark on
that route was the New York Central Railroad Station Information
Booth. Every morning I would stop at that booth and inquire on
what track the 8:02 for White Plains would be leaving. It was a
two-hour commute each day, and I was surely glad when the
semester ended.
It was time to begin to search for permanent employment. By 1954
I was becoming tired of part-time work. The search for employment
is stressful for anyone, particularly for a blind person. So I
embarked on a campaign of letter-writing with a view to securing
permanent employment. I consulted hundreds of college and
university catalogs in the local library to determine which ones
offered a math curriculum in which my teaching skills would be
valuable. I arranged my choices in the order of geographical
preference you know, by section of the country. I composed a
master letter, tailoring it from time to time as circumstances
dictated, and I sent out about 250 letters and resumes. I felt it
necessary to inform a potential employer in advance about my
blindness. Most replies were negative. They went something like: 
At present we have no opening for a person with your training and
experience.  Many of them were noncommittal:  Thank you for
inquiring about a position at our institution. We will keep your
letter on file and will contact you if any opening should
materialize in the future.  Sound familiar? Some were downright
hostile:  We do not feel that a person with a visual impairment
can effectively discharge the duties required of professors at
our institution.  Nevertheless, I did receive two letters
inviting me to appear for an interview: one from the University
of Detroit and one from the university right here in Boulder,
Colorado. Since, however, the University of Detroit offered a
position leading to eventual permanence and tenure, I responded
positively to the invitation from that institution first.
My wife and I both appeared at the university's request. I was
interviewed for a full day, and at the end of the interview we
were told to return home and that we would be informed of the
outcome within a week. So I mentioned in passing that we were
going on to Boulder, Colorado, for another interview.
The University of Detroit is a Jesuit university. The following
day, early in the morning, I received a call from Father Dwier.
He told me that the position was mine if I wanted it. He was
calling early
so that I could cancel the trip to Colorado if I so desired. I
accepted on the spot.
I went to work at the University of Detroit as an instructor in
1955.  And in due course I progressed through the ranks to become
an assistant professor, an associate professor, and finally a
full professor. Along the way I was awarded tenure, and I also
completed the requirements
for the Ph.D. degree in mathematics and got it from Wayne State
University.  I received that degree in 1964.
For fifteen years I taught all kinds of courses in mathematics at
the University of Detroit. But it was becoming increasingly
evident to me that my training and skills would soon become
obsolete unless I acquired knowledge and skill in computer
science. Accordingly, I applied for, and was fortunate to
receive, a grant from the National Science Foundation to spend
two summers at Pennsylvania State University in State College to
train in computer science. Each session was nine weeks long, and
all the students in this program were also college teachers. The
pace of instruction was, to say the least, quite lively.  My wife
and I gave up the comfort of a nice home in Detroit to live in a
dorm room for nine weeks of a hot summer during two consecutive
years. These were 1968 and 1969.
When I returned to the University of Detroit in the fall of 1969,
I designed and implemented a graduate curriculum in computer
science, and I taught most of the courses. They included
elementary courses like FORTRAN and ALGOL and more advanced
courses like data structures, artificial intelligence,
non-arithmetic programming, automata theory, systems programming,
and so on.
In 1970 my wife Florence died.
In 1971, however, I was married to my present wife Edna, and she
is
here with us today.
So although I taught mathematics almost exclusively during the
first fifteen years in my career, I taught computer science
almost exclusively during the last fifteen years. Meanwhile, the
neighborhood which surrounded the University of Detroit campus
was deteriorating. In the course of my work it was necessary for
me to have expensive and specialized computer equipment. In the
time of my residence near the university, we had several
break-ins, and finally, in 1985 I decided it was time to take
early retirement even though I was neither emotionally nor
physically in need of retirement at that time, nor do I feel I am
ready even now.
So we moved to our present residence in Southfield, Michigan, and
I have been retired ever since September of 1985. I tell my
friends that looking back on my working days, I reflect that work
wasn't that hard. But it took a whole day.
Now as I told you, during the time that I spent in the early
years of studying and teaching mathematics, I perfected the
private system that I had devised until it became a very
efficient tool. There was a Doctor Clifford Wichert, now
deceased, who was a friend of mine.  He was blind, and he was
studying theoretical physics at Columbia University. He was also
on the Mathematics Sub-Committee of the Joint Uniform Braille
Committee, which is the grandparent of today's BANA.  One day, he
asked me if I knew of a good table of integrals in Braille.  I
told him that I had one, but it was a private Braille code which
he would be unable to read unless he was instructed. Would I show
him the code so that he could borrow my table of integrals? I
agreed.
He was so impressed that, at the next meeting of the Mathematics
Sub-Committee, he proposed the study of my code with a view to
eventual adoption.  He asked me to write a short report, setting
forth the principles and symbols of my code, and I complied
although the report turned out not to be as short as he wanted. I
was asked to present it first to the Sub-Committee and then to
the Joint Uniform Braille Committee, and in 1952 I did so. With
hardly any debate or any discussion, the code was adopted. It was
named the Nemeth Code for Braille Mathematics, 1952. Before I
knew it, it was published with all of its rough spots and bugs
and printed by the American Printing House for the Blind, and it
became the official code.
In 1956 APH undertook to rearrange the code by putting all the
rules and all the symbols pertaining to elementary and secondary
mathematics at the beginning of the Code, and all the arcane and
esoteric symbols at the back of the book. This rearrangement was
then published in 1956.
As the Code began to be more widely used, all of its bugs and
flaws
began to surface. In 1965 a more extensive and complete code was
published.  I am often asked when the Code will be complete. To
this question I ask questions in return. When will the
encyclopedia be complete?  When will a dictionary be complete? As
long as mathematicians invent new signs and insist that those new
signs be used to facilitate precise formulation of newly
discovered mathematical phenomena, so long will the Nemeth Code
continue to evolve and change. The changes when they are made,
however, are not capricious. They are in response to a need which
was not previously present.
Accordingly, another update was published in 1972, also by APH;
and this is the one in current use. It is used in the United
States, in Canada, in New Zealand, and possibly in other
countries of which I am not aware.
Along the way (in 1954) I also wrote a dictionary of Braille
musical symbols, which was also published by APH; and two years
later, a committee was convened to get a new music code. That was
the shortest time in which any book became obsolete.
When my code was published in 1972, the Soviet Union became aware
that such a code existed and invited me and my wife (at their
expense) to attend a conference which they conducted in an
endeavor to achieve a worldwide uniform mathematics code. I want
you to know that at that time, another well-known Federationist
was also invited: Chuck Hallenbeck.  Although their effort to
achieve a worldwide uniform code was not
realized, the experience was extremely instructive. There were
representatives from seventeen countries, and in each case it
became abundantly apparent how a Braille code reflects the
expectations a society has of its blind citizens. In 1976 my wife
and I were again invited by the Soviet government (under the same
conditions) to attend a conference dealing this time with
computer access by the blind.
The Nemeth Code features very close simulation of the printed
text, and it is that feature which has made it possible for me to
communicate with my students just as if I were holding the
printed text in my hand. Very complicated formulas I put on cards
which I arranged in a small card file in my left jacket pocket in
the order in which I planned to present them. At the right
moment, I casually walked up to the board and put my left hand
into my pocket, read the formula
from the top card, and copied it with my right hand onto the
blackboard.  I gave the students the impression of what a big
genius I was and also what mental acumen I possessed, and I tried
not to disillusion them. After completing that formula, I
transferred the card from the front of the pile to the back in
preparation for the next one. Exam papers, projects, and other
assignments were corrected for me with
the help of a graduate assistant. The University provides this
assistance not just to me but to all their senior professors.
They feel that
a professor should not be required to do clerical tasks at
professorial salaries.
In conclusion I would like to say the following: I hope that the
experience that I have had in my lifetime and that I have
described here demonstrates how important are the early
acquisitions of Braille skills, facility
in mobility, a knowledge of print practice, and good attitudes.
Equipped with these skills, a blind person can progress as far as
his motivation, his ingenuity, and his talent will permit.
Without them, a blind person is restricted to semi-literacy and
lack of independence. I thank you all very much.
                 THE BLIND APPLICANT REJECTED: 
WHY NOT DIPLOMACY FOR THE BLIND?
                          by Rami Rabby
 Saturday afternoon, July 8, delegates to the 1989 convention of
the National Federation of the Blind were privileged to hear two
stirring speeches addressing the U.S. State Department's absolute
refusal to consider the candidacy of blind applicants to the
Foreign Service.  The first of these speakers was Avraham (Rami)
Rabby, a long-time leader in the Federation. Here are his remarks
as he delivered them to an enthusiastic audience: 

President Maurer, Dr. Jernigan, and fellow Federationists: As you
heard in President Maurer's first-class Presidential report on
Thursday, for the past three and a half years I have been engaged
in the process of applying for a position as a Foreign Service
Officer (FSO) in the
U.S. Foreign Service. Prior to November, 1988, it was the State
Department's practice to assist blind candidates for the Foreign
Service with the written examination by providing them with
examination papers in Braille, and with the oral assessment by
providing them with the necessary readers/notetakers. At the same
time, the State Department would automatically disqualify blind
candidates in the medical examination. Under this set of policies
and procedures I had passed the written examination three times
and the oral assessment twice, had received the necessary
security clearance, and of course, been disqualified because of
my blindness at the medical examination. Since the recruitment
process for FSO's is so lengthy, all candidates  sighted and
blind are encouraged to continue taking the examinations each
year, in an effort to improve their scores, until such time as
their names are selected from the Foreign Service candidate
register and they are actually hired. This was my situation when,
on November 10, 1988, as I was about to take the oral assessment
for the third time, I was notified
by the State Department that:  It has been decided that,
henceforth, the Foreign Service selection process will serve not
only to test a candidate's knowledge and intellectual skills,
but, as well, to test a candidate's ability to work effectively
and independently with original source documents. As a
consequence the Board of Examiners will not offer the written
examination in Braille nor will it provide the services of a
reader for visually impaired candidates at any stage of the
selection process, including the oral assessment. 
This letter, however, did not reveal the amazing complex of
prejudicial attitudes and negative assumptions about blindness
and the blind which actually led to this change of policy
regarding examination logistics.  These only came to light in the
November 30, 1988, broadcast of  Good Morning America,  during an
exchange between John Lunden, the show's co-host, and George
Vest, the Director-General of the Foreign Service, as follows:

 Lunden:  Ambassador, what you and the Department are really
saying, of course now, is that blind people are not suitable for
Foreign Service. Why do you say that?
 Vest:  Because people who serve in the Foreign Service must be
prepared to serve overseas, do a diversity of jobs which we think
are either incompatible with being blind or dangerous to the
blind person him- or herself.
 Lunden:  And what would constitute incompatible or unsuitable or
dangerous?
 Vest:  A person who is blind is asked to move into a foreign
community in an area where he or she is not familiar with the
locality, will have to deal with people who may be very hostile
(because there are many parts of the world that are hostile to
us), and will have to, as well, deal (among other things) with
classified documents and have no way on his or her own to know
what classification that is.  And it's similar in this country.
You don't ask a blind person to drive a bus or be a bank teller.
There are jobs which are dangerous or unsuitable for them. And in
the Foreign Service, we are full of jobs like that.
Rarely have so much ignorance, prejudice, and twisted logic been
packed into so little air time! Is it any wonder that, as Vest
says,  many parts of the world...are hostile to us?  These parts
of the world may soon include the National Federation of the
Blind!
A little later during that  Good Morning America  confrontation,
George Vest touched on one of the main rationales for the State
Department's opposition to blind Foreign Service Officers:  The
fundamental rule which is in the Foreign Service Act is anyone
joining our Foreign Service must be worldwide available not just
with extraordinary qualifications to serve in one country or
another country be worldwide available and that is in the law. 
Vest implies that, while sighted FSO's  can  be expected to serve
worldwide, blind FSO's can't be expected to do so. The National
Federation of the Blind totally rejects this lowered expectation
of blind candidates for the Foreign Service.
By consistently regurgitating its principle of worldwide
availability, the State Department would like us to believe that,
with no more than a moment's notice, all Foreign Service Officers
are typically and routinely uprooted from their present locations
and flown, willy-nilly, from Brussels to Beijing or from
Ouagadougou to Ottawa. In reality, however, Foreign Service
Officers are not inanimate objects manufactured on some mythical
State Department assembly line according to some fixed scientific
formula, and are not perfectly interchangeable with one another.
Each FSO has unique strengths and weaknesses and highly
individualized assets and liabilities. One may have a degree in
East European Political History, while another may not; one may
have years
of on-the-job experience in Saudi Arabia, while another may be a
complete novice in Riyadh; one may be fluent in Hebrew, while
another may be fluent in Japanese; one may be married and the
mother of three children, each with his/her individual
educational needs, while another may be single and much more
flexible in his/her assignability; one may have a life-long
passion for the culture and mores of the Far East, while another
may not be so wedded to any one region of the world.  Does the
State Department really pay no attention to any of these
individual characteristics? Does it  really  switch its Foreign
Service Officers like so many identical pawns, from one embassy
or consulate to another, across the world's diplomatic
chessboard? Of
course it pays attention to these and other individual FSO
characteristics!  Although it theorizes glibly about worldwide
availability, in reality it behaves it  must  behave like any
intelligent manager of people who recognizes that not all jobs
are the same, not all work environments are identical, and most
importantly, that every Foreign Service Officer, blind or
sighted, is an individual in the fullest sense of that term.
How do we know that this is, in fact, how the State Department
behaves?  We know it, believe it or not, from the State
Department's own admission which it is happy to publicize,
whenever it is not engaged in flim-flamming blind candidates
about worldwide availability.
In a profile of George Vest yes, that same George Vest of  Good
Morning America  fame published in the February 10, 1988, issue
of the  New York Times , we read the following:

 His daily tasks are more likely to involve matching the needs of
ordinary diplomats with available postings: `I have to reconcile
an enormous variety of preferences with service needs,' he
said....`They come to me and say: The wife is ill and they have a
difficult kid in high school, or I don't like hot weather, or I
did Africa, now
I want Paris.' The unhappy diplomat can air his problems
confidentially with his career development officer who either
deals with them directly or, in grave cases, takes them up with
Mr. Vest. 

Well, well, well! Worldwide availability,  indeed !
Given this more than realistic and accurate process of assigning
Foreign Service Officers to locations and circumstances around
the world,
a Foreign Service Officer's blindness and his/her individual
handling of it would naturally become just one more
characteristic in the mix of characteristics some of them
advantages or limitations in some situations, others assets or
limitations in other situations which the FSO brings to the
diplomatic task and which determines his/her assignment. So, in
the  real-world  Foreign Service, blind FSO's could be as
world-wide available as any sighted FSO and could function
perfectly happily  within  the strictures of the Foreign Service
Act.
As a matter of fact, unfortunately for us but fortunately for Dr.
Euclid Herie, the Canadian Foreign Service  does  employ a
full-fledged blind Foreign Service Officer who, so far in his
career, has served in Japan a modern industrial state of the
first order and in India perhaps the best example of a
still-developing nation.  An experienced U.S. Foreign Service
Officer who had an opportunity to work with this Canadian in
Tokyo has attested to the fact that he is extremely effective and
successful in his work.
The second main rationale used by the State Department to support
its opposition to blind Foreign Service Officers has to do with
the Department's attitude toward readers and the impact which the
use of readers may have on one's ability to read classified
documents independently. With independence high on the State
Department's order of priorities, J. Edward Fox, Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, wrote as follows to
Congressman Benjamin Gillman of New York:   Any person, blind or
otherwise, could take the test using any mechanical device which
allowed them to work independently from the original exam book. 
Incidentally, in a letter to the editor of the  New York Times ,
on January 16, 1989, our friend Bill Gallagher, Executive
Director of the American Foundation for the Blind, tossed  his 
opinion into the public debate about the State Department's
discriminatory policy. While clearly well-intentioned, Gallagher
played right into the hands of the State Department and
demonstrated how out of touch the agency establishment is with
the real problems facing blind people in the work-place.
 I read with concern,  Gallagher says,  that the State Department
has ruled that blind people are not suited to be United States
diplomats because they are unable to work with printed documents
without resorting to Braille or sighted readers. State Department
officials have not kept abreast of new technologies that enable
the blind and visually impaired to work with materials in print. 
Not very helpful, Mr. Gallagher! Rather than attacking their
discriminatory policy, you told the State Department exactly what
they wanted to hear and promoted the myth that it is technology,
rather than a change of attitude, which will solve the employment
problems of blind people.  It is true that mechanical means do
exist which enable blind people to read print independently, such
as the Opticon and the Kurzweil Personal Reader. However, these
machines have serious limitations
as to portability, versatility, speed, efficiency, or all of the
above.  The fact is that our overriding objective is for all
Foreign Service Officers to work not so much independently, but
rather, effectively and with speed. While technological reading
devices can serve a useful purpose in certain reading situations,
we recognized long ago that in terms of overall versatility,
flexibility, efficiency, and speed, nothing can beat a competent
human reader. By the way, the Canadian Foreign Service Officer
mentioned earlier has been given exactly that.

In his letter to Congressman Gillman, Mr. Fox continues as
follows:
 We have also determined that Foreign Service Officers must
independently perform certain tasks that blind persons could not
perform without assistance. For example, our security procedures
bar out-loud reading of classified materials at posts abroad,
except in specially designed acoustical rooms. 
Again, this may be either wishful thinking or what the Foreign
Service policy manual says. But what about the real world of the
Foreign Service?  Is  out-loud reading of classified materials 
barred at  all  posts abroad? Are  all  posts electronically
bugged? Do  all  Foreign Service Officers  have  to read
classified materials?
And why should not the specially designed acoustical rooms be
occasionally used by blind FSO's and their readers? These are all
fair questions, but they are not likely to be asked as long as
the State Department persists in its global and arbitrary
exclusion of the blind from the Foreign Service. But that's not
the end of it! Is the State Department honestly telling us that 
no  out-loud reading of classified materials ever takes place at
posts abroad? What about the out-loud  interpreting  of
classified materials written in a language
not understood by a particular Foreign Service Officer? And, if
classified materials are never read out-loud, are they never
discussed out-loud either? It simply does not make sense! If
sighted FSO's have their interpreters, blind FSO's by analogy
should have their readers.  Three other negative assumptions
about the blind complete the system of prejudice and
discrimination constructed by the bureaucrats at the State
Department. First, the assumption that, if one is blind,
one is necessarily slow, inattentive to one's environment, and
hopelessly vulnerable to any international terrorist who is
intent on doing harm and for whom a blind diplomat would be an
easy mark. Where is the statistical evidence to support this kind
of assertion? Blind people are not robbed, raped, killed, or
otherwise harmed in any greater numbers than their proportional
number in the general population.  This was the case when we
successfully argued the safety issue against the insurance
industry; this is the case when we now argue it against the
airlines industry; and this will be proven to be the case when
the State Department finally dismantles the arbitrary,
exclusionary barriers against the blind in the Foreign Service.
Second, the assumption that, just because one is blind, one can't
function effectively in unfamiliar territory. In his letter to
Congressman Gillman, Edward Fox says:  We have not been able to
hire blind applicants because of anticipated problems in moving
blind persons
into unfamiliar settings and cultures.  What unadulterated
nonsense!  Just look at Eileen Rivera! Just look at Homer Page!
If the State Department met Eileen Rivera and Homer Page, the
talk would not be
of the Foreign Service  moving blind persons into unfamiliar
settings and cultures  but rather of blind persons moving
bureaucracies, moving voters, changing societies, and changing
what it means to be blind! But the State Department would not
even have to go that far!  It need only have looked for
leadership on this issue to the positive experience of the Peace
Corps which has hired and effectively used blind volunteers in
vastly unfamiliar settings and cultures for years, and many of
them are in this organization and probably at this convention! 
Third, the assumption that, during diplomatic discussions and
negotiations, blind FSO's would be unable to interpret visual
cues and signals communicated by the parties across the table.
This assumption is the result of a highly exaggerated and
over-romanticized view of the diplomatic life! The fact is that
we have, in this country and elsewhere, blind judges, blind
lawyers, blind psychiatrists, blind administrators,
blind politicians (working and otherwise), and all of them have
developed effective means for interpreting cues and signals, both
visual and non-visual, and doing what they have to do! The
results are there, and, if that is the case, the State Department
has no business getting bogged down and paralyzed into inaction
by a hysterical concern about non-existent problems and
manufactured issues.
The double standard practiced by the State Department in its
pursuit of international relations, on the one hand, and its
internal personnel policies on the other, is glaring. It is
unconscionable for it to grant full access by Chinese students to
American territory in the United States while refusing access by
blind candidates for the Foreign Service to the American
territories of our embassies and consulates in the People's
Republic of China! It is intolerable for it to lecture the
Republic of South Africa for its policy of Apartheid between
whites and blacks, while, at the same time, practicing
segregation between blind and sighted, within the State
Department itself! The yearning
for freedom of choice is the same! The struggle for equality and
opportunity is identical!
Those of you who may have joined our movement within recent years
only may believe that our campaign against State Department
discrimination is but a few months old. Such is not the case.
Here is a letter sent to a Federationist by a United States
Senator on August 19, 1975:  I am awfully sorry to have to
disappoint you further in your quest
to become a Foreign Service Officer despite your particular
disability.  Frankly I know of nothing else I can do. The Foreign
Service (and, I think, rightly so) requires extremely high
physical qualifications for a variety of reasons--not the least
of which is the element of risk involved while stationed in
literally hundreds of posts throughout the world under conditions
(which simply put) are substandard to those we are used to here
at home. Qualified medical care is not always at hand. Living
conditions (except in the capitals of the world's developed
nations, where assignments are at a premium) often are seriously
substandard, where even the absolutely fit often find it hard to
make adjustments and to maintain adequate levels of personal
welfare. Further, I am told paperwork unfortunately comprises a
large amount (perhaps too much) of diplomacy. And one must have
considerable visual acuity
in order to function adequately. In view of that I would be at a
considerable disadvantage were I to petition the Department of
State to alter its physical requirements sufficiently to accede
to the desires of a single person no matter how qualified and
motivated.
Again, please understand when I say I am sorry I cannot offer you
much encouragement at this particular time.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                   John V. Tunney
                                United States Senator, California
____________________
I bring this letter to you for two reasons. First, as a reminder
of what Dr. Jernigan has told us time and time again: namely,
that although we may occasionally lose a skirmish or a battle, we
need never give
up the fight until we have won the war. Second, the letter is
indicative of a very positive change that has taken place between
1975 and today.  While in 1975 former Senator Tunney saw no
alternative but to concur with the State Department's position,
in 1989 we have found in Congress a true friend and ally,
Congressman Gerry Sikorski of Minnesota, who with superb counsel
and advice from his congressional district director (our own Judy
Sanders) will fight the skirmishes and the battles with us until
we do win the war. With Congressman Sikorski we say to the State
Department: We are not looking for a kinder, gentler Foreign
Service. We are not seeking charity from you. We believe
unequivocally that blind people can serve in the U.S. Foreign
Service on an absolutely equal footing with the sighted. All we
want from you is the willingness to sit down with the National
Federation of the Blind and in one session finalize the details.
Thank you very much.
BLIND PERSONS IN THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE:  A VIEW FROM CONGRESS
                        by Gerry Sikorski
 Immediately following the remarks of Rami Rabby, delivered on
July 8, 1989, during the national convention of the National
Federation of the Blind, which are reprinted elsewhere in this
issue, Congressman Gerry Sikorski addressed the convention. He
has been a good friend to the blind of this nation, and his views
on the State Department's policy of denying blind people access
to the Foreign Service as a career were certainly made clear
during the briefing he arranged before the Civil Service
Sub-Committee of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service (see the February, 1989, edition of the  Braille Monitor. 
On the Saturday afternoon of the convention, however, Congressman
Sikorski was not required to be the dignified, even-handed
chairman of a Congressional committee. He was among friends with
whom he shared a deep sense of outrage and injustice. His remarks
were unequivocal, blunt, and to the point. Quite simply, he
intends to see that the State Department changes its ways. Here
is what he had to say: 

The loud group up here in the front is from Minnesota. We're very
very proud of our contribution to America over the years. We
don't have to go back to Judy Garland or Bob Dillon or Hubert
Humphrey.  Just in the last four or five years we've given
America's culture tremendous contributions. We've given America:
Prince, Jessica Lang, Fritz Mondale, the Minnesota Twins, and
Tammy Fay Baker; and none of you can make that claim.
Thank you for welcoming me. It might be a hundred and five
degrees outside, but it's about a hundred and fifteen in here
with all your energy and spirit.
I put some time into my work today. I'm developing somewhat of a
reputation (Judy Sanders will tell you) back home in Minnesota.
I'm called to speak a lot. I was at a congregate senior citizen
dining program the other day. I over-heard two ladies in the back
before I was called
up to speak. One lady whispered to the other,  You know, I'd
rather hear Gerry Sikorski speak than eat.   And the other one
said,  Me too. I've heard him eat. 
I asked Dr. Jernigan,  What should I say? What should I say?  He
said,  Just the usual congressional expression, you know, the
usual congressional expression. 
So I did some quick research and came up with a description by
Mark Twain over a hundred years ago of a lizard in a South
African hotel courtyard. He said,  A couple of skinny cones
project from the sides of this lizard's head with a wee shiny
bead of an eye set in
the apex of each. And these cones turn bodily like pivot guns,
pointing every which way. Each has its own exclusive machinery.  
Mark Twain said,  When I'm behind this lizard and someone's in
front of him, he whirls one eye rearward and the other forward,
which gives him a most congressional expression.  So, I've done
the job already.  Not too long ago we got the same kind of
expression, but not from Congress from the State Department. On
February first of this year I had a briefing of the Post Office
and Civil Service Committee titled  the State Department's Policy
Regarding Blind Applicants to the Foreign Service.  Rami Rabby,
who was just here, and a number of other individuals (including
representatives of the State Department, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and your President Marc
Maurer) testified. Let me tell you about that, but first, a
little history.
In recent years the State Department has provided readers to
assist blind applicants for the Foreign Service Officer position.
Exams were also provided in Braille. However, as we learned from
Mr. Rabby and other witnesses, blind individuals who successfully
passed both the written test (and he passed it three times) and
the oral test (he
passed that all the times he took it twice) and the security
clearance (he passed that as well) were nevertheless denied entry
into the United States Foreign Service for failing the
Department's physical examination requiring visual acuity.
We know that concerns about these policies have been raised at
least since 1975. In fact, in 1982 a complaint was filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the State
Department. In
1987 the EEOC completed a staff report highlighting the State
Department's contradictory hiring and testing policies. Opening
the door to opportunity and equality and hope with one hand and
closing the door with the other, the EEOC report concluded that 
It would be unwise for
the Department of State  (and I'm quoting)  to conduct a
recruitment program that would raise false expectations of
handicapped individuals hoping to enter the Foreign Service.  It
went on to say:  Recruitment that leads to exclusion based on
handicap will increase the possibility of discrimination
complaints.  The report strongly recommended that the Department
modify its recruitment program to comply with the laws of the
United States that it seeks to represent abroad: the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 regarding
the hiring, the placement, and the advancement of handicapped
individuals.  It already by this time had settled the claim (for
over a hundred-and-fifty thousand dollars) by a blind applicant
who was turned down.
Well, what happened after this EEOC report came out? Instead of
opening doors to the Foreign Service, the State Department
installed a deadbolt.  Instead of changing the medical
requirements or examining the practical application of the State
Department's vaunted world-wide availability policy, which has
been used to turn down blind applicants, the Department decided
that it would no longer provide the exam in Braille. Blind
applicants would not be permitted to use readers, and any blind
people who made it through the test would still be washed out on
the physical exam even though blind people have honorably served
our government and the citizens of the United States in highly
sensitive intelligence areas, in the Peace Corps, in the civil
branches of the armed services, and even in the Foreign Service.
This is the kinder, gentler nation the President was talking
about?
I found out that these  thousand points of light  the President
talked about were light beer, light salad dressing, and a light
Vice President.
Well, at our hearing we heard a lot of buts. We heard a lot of
howevers.  We heard a lot of  We're studying the issue.   We
heard a lot of rationalizations and excuses and so sorries. We
heard about worldwide availability, about the need for reader
assistance in embassies.  We heard about security and personal
safety issues. We heard about unfamiliar settings and unfamiliar
cultures. We heard about important visual cues and diplomatic
indicators' being missed by blind people.  Well, we know that
blind people can be just as available worldwide
as anyone that's in the Foreign Service today. In fact, in the
Foreign Service today we have blind people serving honorably who
became blind while currently working under the operation of
worldwide availability.  We know that other countries have blind
Foreign Service Officers.  There are disabilities, and there are
things that prevent people from functioning in a job, and they
are not automatically the same in fact, in many cases they're not
the same at all. We also know that blind people are just as
trustworthy, just as protective of national security as sighted
people. We know that blind people can fend for themselves
anywhere in the world today, and they do so without any more
difficulty than sighted people. We know that blind people served
in the Peace Corps, which is more demanding than the Foreign
Service and for a lot less pay. And we know that blind people are
no less capable (and probably far more capable) than the sighted
in dealing with unfamiliar settings, unfamiliar cultures, and
unfamiliar ways of life. One of the State Department's own
studies showed that blind people had much higher safety records
in factory situations than sighted people. We know that blind
people are more than capable in picking up non-visual
communication. People are doing it here today, doing it
throughout America, probably doing it right now.
At the hearing we heard the State Department tiptoe dance all
around the issues raised. Now I want to be respectful of the
State Department's position, But it's hard. They're just so wrong
and so stubborn.  These issues are not new. They've been raised
now for over a decade, and it's only reasonable to expect from
the State Department full answers, a full defense of their
position, or changes and promises to change. Yet we received no
answers, no defenses, no promises, and
no changes. We did get a lot of  We'll get back to you on that. 
Three weeks after the hearing the State Department got back to us
with, in part, this statement:  Since 1985,  the State Department
said,  the Department has employed a full-time coordinator to
establish programs for employment of persons with disabilities
and
to assist with policy development. Since then the Department has
steadily
improved its record for hiring and advancing employees with
disabilities.   End of quotation.
Well, the coordinator the Department referred to was one of the
witnesses at the briefing. The coordinator was the official who
made the following response to one witness who called and
challenged the new examination ruling precluding reader aids.
This coordinator for equal employment opportunity for the
Department of State explained why no reading aids were available
with this quote:  Would you like to ride a bus where someone was
standing beside the driver having to tell him to turn left, to
turn right, to do this, to do that?   How's that for an equal
employment opportunity coordinator?
I'm reminded of Moe Udall's story about the guy that hadn't been
to church for a while. One Sunday morning he finally got up and
spruced up, drove over to the church, got out, and walked up to
the church.  And outside was a sign that said  Tired of sin? Come
on in. If not, call 8227 ...   (the State Department's telephone
number).  Well, a few days after we got this letter Congressmen
Dymally and Campbell; Senators Harkin, Simon, and Wirth; and  I
sent a letter
to the State Department, expressing our concern about the
Department's hiring policy again and telling them that their
responses were inadequate again. We asked the State Department
again to revoke its ruling, re-examine its worldwide availability
policy, and re-examine its medical standards
so that they provide some flexibility to ensure that people with
disabilities could be accommodated. The Department's reply to
that letter was quite diplomatic, very rhetorical, but very
noncommittal.
Oh the Department did agree to continue studying these issues.
But while the Department is content to sit and wait it out, we're
not going to let 'em.
Moe Udall told about the prospector who came down one Saturday
night about this time. He had been up in the hills prospecting
for a long time. He was a little stiff, moved a little slow,
riding a mule into town. The cowboys were having a good time
whooping it up and carrying on and feeling their whiskey. And
they picked on this old prospector and said,  Old prospector, get
down from that mule.   So he got down, and one of them took out
his six-shooter and said,  Mr.  Prospector, I'd like to see you
dance,  and started shooting bang, bang. And the prospector was
dancing, and he said,  I want you to dance a little higher, 
bang, bang, bang.  Dance a little higher,  bang, click. While he
was reloading the gun, he looked up and saw that the prospector
had his shotgun aimed right at the cowboy. And the prospector
said,  Well Mr. Cowboy, have you ever kissed a mule's hind end?  
The cowboy said,  No, but I've always wanted to. 
Well, we're working with the members of the Appropriations
Subcommittees with jurisdiction over the State Department to help
the State Department to do some... to meet with the mule and
restrict funding unless the examination... We're also looking at
chances to legislate some changes in the personnel system. As my
subcommittee on civil service examines the two reports recently
completed, which are very critical of the Foreign Service
personnel system, and a new GAO study that was just released this
week, very critical of the widespread discrimination against
women in the Foreign Service, we'll continue putting pressure on
the State Department. The rights at stake are too important to be
ignored.
Well, let me conclude. The United States of America was born and
washed and nurtured in the blood of human rights. That's the
beginning, the essence, and the very soul of America. And
wherever you go abroad, our embassies and consulates stand as
monuments to human rights, to freedom, to democracy, to justice.
The United States of America stands for something special in this
world something special called human dignity for all people, not
black or white, or rich or poor, or educated or not, sighted or
unsighted. We lecture other countries repeatedly and freely about
democracy, about freedom, about the human spirit.
We have Foreign Service Officers around the world who spend full
time they're human rights officers working with other countries,
cajoling them, pushing them, pinching them, pulling them, asking
them, pleading with them to adjust their policies on human
rights, on human justice, on freedom, on democratic ways, on
dignity. And when governments balk
or become nasty, we work with pro-democratic groups in those
countries.  Think of it: Poland, the Philippines, China. It's
just inconceivable to me. It's so wrong, so stupid, so cruel, and
inefficient for us then to bar the door of the Foreign Service
Office to people who have a visual problem and to people who have
any handicap or disability from serving in these offices where
they could do so much absolute good by being there. As
Congressman Campbell told us in our hearing, it's a tragedy that
in choosing the representatives of our country to foreign
nations, we would apply such a prejudice. The message that
America should be sending is that individuals are chosen on the
basis of their intrinsic worth and that any obstacle (including
blindness) can be overcome in the United States of America what a
powerful message to send!
I know a little of this myself because my district director, Judy
Sanders, is an active member of your organization, right behind
me
on this speaking platform today. She started in my office on the
lowest rung and is now serving on the highest rung, walking over
all kinds of people on the way up there I might add. Judy is more
than capable at running an entire district office, managing a
host of troublesome problems, supervising eight other staff
members, a budget of over a quarter million dollars each year,
covering all kinds of events and meetings and conferences around
a sprawling suburban and rural district, including in the middle
of Minnesota's cold, frigid, snowy Januaries. She has gone into
foreign territories Republican areas in my district. And she has
convinced people that what we do as a congressional office is
worthy of their knowledge and support. She has dealt with every
kind of person from the most comfortable to the most distraught
and dispossessed people with incredible problems: no money, no
family, no home, no place to go. She has helped them. She has
dealt with chief executive officers of some of the biggest
corporations in the world, and she has handled everything in
between.
And there is Rami Rabby with two degrees from two metropolitan
universities one abroad, one in the United States. He speaks like
a diplomat. If President Bush had had him call Lee Ping, maybe
President Bush's call would have been returned. He's lived in New
York City for over fourteen years. If you can live in New York
City for one year, you can live in any place in the world.
Well, let me end by saying, we know that to bar the doors of the
Foreign Service to people with these talents, these resources
that God has given them simply because of old biases and old
prejudices is contrary to American law and American tradition. It
is wrong. With your help, we're going to change it. I talked
about Mark Twain in South Africa.  Twenty-two years ago, Robert
Kennedy was in South Africa, and he told young blacks there that
every time a human being stands up against injustice, strikes out
to better the lot of others, stands up for an idea, he or she
sends out a tiny ripple of hope which, joining
a million other ripples of hope from a million other centers of
daring and energy, can together form a mighty torrent which can
break down even the greatest walls of injustice. Ladies and
gentlemen, with your energy, your daring, your hope, we're going
to break down this wall of injustice. Thank you.
            LOUISIANA CENTER FOR THE BLIND STUDENTS 
ATTEND CLASS IN THE SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
                        by Barbara Pierce
Many things distinguish the training centers for blind adults run
by the National Federation of the Blind affiliates in Colorado,
Minnesota, and Louisiana from the run-of-the-mill programs
offered in most states.
But two of the most distinctive elements are the wide-ranging
extra-curricular activities in which the students participate and
the staff's insistence upon their learning in all situations and
profiting from everything that happens. Sixteen students and
staff at the Louisiana Center for the Blind (LCB) probably got
more than they bargained for on June 2, 1989 (but not more than
they could handle), when they walked into Sugie's bar after
dinner that evening to dance for the hour and a half they had to
kill before returning to the Center.
There aren't a lot of inexpensive places in West Monroe,
Louisiana, where the group could have gone to relax and enjoy
music. They chose Sugie's because rumor had it that a blind man,
who was not very well adjusted to his blindness, played in the
band, and they thought they might be able to strike up a
conversation with him and offer him some help. Groups from the
Center had come to the night spot before without incident. The
owners did not seem to mind that the blind folks were not there
to drink, and the students came and went in the building without
mishap. When he was interviewed after the adventure of that
Friday evening, however, Ron Lunceford, one of the owners, began
(in the words of Joanne Fernandes, LCB Executive Director) 
making
up past incidents  in which he said students had been found
wandering in the street while attempting to find the men's room
and had been saved from attack by drunken patrons only through
his quick action.  Fernandes assured the  Braille Monitor  that
no such adventures had ever befallen her students in Sugie's. She
puts these tales down to Mr. Lunceford's assumptions about what
happens to unaccompanied blind people. His experience with the
blind band member, who does not use a cane and cannot move
independently around the building when customers are present, has
no doubt helped to shape his preconceptions.

In any case, the group from LCB had just been seated when they
were informed by management that they could stay only if they
would consent to being escorted to and from the dance floor and
rest rooms by Sugie's employees. Preliminary discussions with
management indicated that this ruling could not be ignored, so
Fernandes led the group outside where they could discuss their
options in peace. About half decided to retire to the van to
await developments. The rest tried to return to their tables.
They discovered, however, that in the meantime Mr.  Lunceford had
called the West Monroe police, and almost immediately the group
was escorted outdoors again by the law. There the LCB group
attempted to explain Louisiana's White Cane Law to the officers,
pointing out that if anyone deserved arrest, it was Mr.
Lunceford, who was denying them their legal right of access to a
public place.
The group finally began to move back into the bar, and the police
arrested the first four people they could grab, according to the
students.  These were Joanne Fernandes; Michael Baillif, a
student at the Center who will be entering Yale Law School in
September; Karl Smith, a student who is the Past President of the
NFB of Utah; and Harold Wilson, another Center student. Baillif
was handcuffed and thrown into a separate car for the trip to the
police station. All four were charged with  remaining on the
premises after being asked to leave,  and Fernandes and Smith
were also charged with  aiding and abetting others to remain on
the premises. 
The four were fingerprinted, booked, and then released to return
to the Center and spend the weekend coming to terms with the
irrefutable fact that, even though they were adult citizens of
the United States of America, they had been denied free access to
a public place, and the police had been unable to understand the
injustice and illegality of the situation.
Everyone at the Center worked long and hard that weekend because
it is rare that blind people face such clearly undeniable
examples of discrimination as this one had been. Some of those
arrested had to come to terms in a new and personal way with the
fact of being a member of a minority group to whom these things
happen. Several of those who had waited in the van were asking
themselves if they had feared to be counted. Self-examination is
never a comfortable exercise, but as so often happens, the LCB
students came through the experience stronger and more certain of
their rights and responsibilities as competent blind adults. They
had been demeaned and insulted because of ignorance and
prejudice, but the result was personal strength and conviction
that such behavior must stop.
This new resolve was to be tested in the days that followed. On
Monday, June 5, the story of the arrest in the Monroe, Louisiana,
paper was picked up by the Associated Press and published widely
around the state and even by  USA Today . It was what one might
have expected from the pen of an uninformed reporter. Here is the
story as it appeared in the  Shreveport Journal :

The man who had some blind students arrested for staying in his
nightclub after they refused to accept escorts to the bathroom
says he just wanted to help the students.
Joanne Fernandes, 42, the director of the Louisiana Center for
the Blind, and three students Karl Smith, 33, Harold Wilson, 22,
and Michael E. Baillif, 22 were booked Friday night with
remaining at Sugie's, a West Monroe nightclub, after being asked
to leave.  Ron Lunceford, one of the bar's owners, said Saturday
that the group
was told at the door that its blind members would have to accept
bathroom escorts because of problems during previous visits.
 They won't use the aisle. They bump tables and spill drinks,  he
said.  Last month one of them bumped a table and this guy jumped
up like he was going to kill one of them. If I hadn't been there
to break it up, he would have. 
Ms. Fernandes said students are taught to use canes to avoid
accidents.

 We don't go around crashing into stuff,  she said.  The problem
of being blind is not the loss of eyesight. It's the
misconception and stereotypes that people have. We felt like this
was a matter of civil rights and we need to take a stand on this
issue.  Lunceford said he wasn't discriminating, only offering
help.   Why would I discriminate now? They've been there before, 
he said.
He said one student who refused help on a previous visit had gone
through the wrong door.  He was plum going out the back door into
the street. 

That's the way the papers reported the story on Monday. The
phones at the Center rang steadily. A few callers took the Center
to task for allowing blind students to enter a bar (Ruston, where
the LCB is located, lies in an area in which many people deplore
alcohol and believe that it is particularly damaging for blind
people to be exposed to such temptation), but most people who
called were rallying around in the face of negative publicity.
Fernandes and the Center's attorney decided to call a press
conference for 1 p.m. Tuesday, June 6, to tell the Center's side
of the story and to explain the White Cane Law that should have
protected the group. Every reporter or news crew invited came to
the conference. Fernandes outlined the situation, and then the
students spoke about their experience and the effect it had had
on them. The impact of this testimony was obvious in the stories
that appeared afterwards. Here is an example from the  Ouachita
Citizen  of June 7:

                     Blind Center Director 
Claims Civil Rights Violation
                       by John DeGiovanni

Last Friday night, Joanne Fernandes, director of the Louisiana
Center for the Blind in Ruston, gathered up 16 students for an
evening on the town.
Fernandes, who is also blind, and the group first stopped for
dinner at a Monroe seafood restaurant. During dinner, some of the
students who had recently lost their sight mentioned that they
wanted to go dancing  Because they wanted to get back into the
mainstream of life. 
Fernandes and the group proceeded to Sugie's on Trenton Street in
West Monroe. As Fernandes explained, she and others connected
with the Center for the Blind have visited Sugie's several times
in the past.
This trip, however, would become somewhat dramatic. Fernandes and
four of the 16 blind clients on the outing were arrested by West
Monroe Police when they refused to leave the premises at co-owner
Ron Lunceford's request.
Fernandes claims the incident began when Lunceford announced 
some rules  when the group entered the crowded club.
 We went to Sugie's three times before and we always had a good
time,  she said.  But as soon as we walked in the door, he
(Lunceford) said that we'd have to be escorted to the bathroom
and that we'd have to pay for any drinks we spill. He also wanted
us to sign an insurance waiver if any of us got hurt. 
Although the group had already paid their $2 cover charge,
Fernandes brought her students outside to discuss the situation.
 I told them that the staff at the Center could teach them skills
but that there was also a need for them to deal with the public's
attitude toward blind people,  Fernandes recalled.  They had to
do that on their own.
 Some of them felt real crummy and said that they didn't want to
be anywhere they weren't wanted,  she continued.  The others said
they wanted to go back into the bar. They wanted the public to
know that even though they are blind, they can take care of
themselves.  They wanted to educate by example. 
By Fernandes' account, the group paid a second cover charge. One
couple in the group proceeded to the dance floor.
Then the police arrived.
 They (the police) asked us to come to the front of the building, 
Fernandes said.  They told us we couldn't go back into the club,
and that if we did we would be arrested. They said the owner
called them. 
The arrests were made shortly afterward. The four were charged
with refusing to leave the premises after being ordered by the
police to do so and  aiding and abetting  others to not leave.
Those arrested were released shortly afterward on their own
recognizance.  An arraignment will be held June 28.
Fernandes called the incident  a real injustice  and noted that
civil rights for the blind are ensured through Louisiana's White
Cane Law.
She also noted that according to the law,  blind people cannot be
denied access to public domains. 
 I admit that we refused to leave the premises,  Fernandes added. 
But they don't have the right to forbid us to enter. This whole
incident was wrong and we feel we need to take a stand to educate
the public. It's a matter of principal and we feel our civil
rights have been violated. 
Lunceford, meanwhile, said the group is welcome to return to his
club but that an incident last month forced him to set down some
rules.
 I never had a big problem with them until last month,  Lunceford
said.  A couple of guys in the group were walking between tables
and knocking over drinks. There is a matter of liability here if
one of them gets hurt. 
According to Lunceford, when the group arrived Friday night, he
requested that they  let a waitress or myself escort them to the
bathroom.   They just wouldn't listen to reason,  he added.  And
when the police arrived, they told the group `he's just asking a
simple thing.' But (Fernandes) said that was discrimination. 
Ironically, one of the regular performers at Sugie's  country
musician Talmadge Wells is blind. Wells, who was playing
keyboards last Friday night, also needs assistance to find the
restroom, according to Lunceford.
Lunceford recalled a conversation he had with Wells following
Friday night's incident. Their talk concerned how the club's
layout changes often when there's a large crowd. Chairs are often
moved to different places by customers and tables are pushed
together to accommodate large gatherings.
 Talmadge told me, `Ron, I know every inch of this club but when
the tables and chairs are moved around every few minutes, there's
no way I'll go walking through there,'  Lunceford said.  And that
was the case Friday night. We had 210 people here.
 Talmadge is real upset by what happened,  Lunceford continued.  
He told me that these people just want to make an issue out of
this deal. 
Lunceford said he would welcome back the students from the Center
for the Blind but he suggests that they return on less crowded
Wednesday or Thursday nights  so we can give them more personal
attention. 

That's the way the  Oauchita Citizen  told the story after
listening to the students and staff at the Louisiana Center. The
editor of  The Ruston Daily Leader  also had some personal
thoughts after attending the press conference. Here is his
editorial which, in addition to a full story about the arrests,
appeared on June 7:

                 Incident Has Educational Value 
to be Gleaned

Since 1985, Ruston has been home to the Louisiana Center for the
Blind.  On most any given weekday morning, it is customary to see
blind students walking from their apartments through downtown to
class.
To watch students practicing their cane travel skills is also
commonplace here, as is the interaction of blind individuals with
sighted citizens.
Much to its credit, our community has accepted the students as 
regular  men and women who can think, feel, and work just like
sighted persons.  That acceptance, however, is not universal, and
Center Director Joanne Fernandes is trying to use a recent
incident to help both her students and the public overcome
stereotypical images of blind persons and the limitations of
blindness.
By now, the chronology of the incident is well known. In brief, a
group of the students went to a West Monroe nightspot last
weekend,
and when they would not agree to a list of admittance conditions
presented them by one of the establishment's co-owners, they were
asked to leave.  Some did; others went back into the club. Four,
including Fernandes, were arrested for not leaving the premises
after being asked to do so and for aiding and abetting others.
Few situations are totally one-sided. However, we agree with
Fernandes' assessment that old notions that blind individuals as
well as
other persons with various infirmities are less than  whole  and
less than  normal  still exist.
We also agree with the Center's staff that those stereotypes need
to be shattered once and for all.
Kenneth Jernigan, in a paper entitled,  Blindness Concepts and
Misconceptions,  writes  ...the real problem of blindness
is not the blindness itself not the acquisition of skills or
techniques or competence. The real problem is the lack of
understanding and the misconceptions which exist. 
 The blind are able to compete on terms of equality in the full
current of active life,  Jernigan says.
It is not our place to make a judgment on the charges involved in
Friday's incident. That is a legal matter now. But it is our hope
that educational value can be gleaned from the incident, that the
attention called to the Center and its students will be in a
positive vein, accenting the full ability of blind people to be
productive participants in society.

That's what  The Ruston Daily Leader  had to say, and it's clear
that its editor has understood what the Center staff is trying to
accomplish. One Shreveport television station even conducted an
interview with a woman in a wheelchair who came forward to say
that she had
been thrown out of Sugie's last year based on the same sort of
argument about her alleged safety. She had swallowed her anger
until she saw what had happened to blind people who would not lie
down meekly and be walked on by Mr. Lunceford.
Thursday, June 8, Fernandes and the Center's attorney met with
the West Monroe City Attorney. By this time, having received
legal advice, the city was clearly fearful that the four blind
people would sue the police under the provisions of the Louisiana
White Cane Law. West Monroe was happy to drop the charges against
Fernandes, Baillif, Smith, and Wilson. In addition its attorney
agreed to provide each member of the police force with a copy of
the White Cane Law and to arrange for training about blindness
for police officers. Here is the text of the statement released
by the West Monroe City Attorney on behalf of himself, Mrs.
Fernandes, and her attorney:

Joanne Fernandes, Director of the Louisiana Center for the Blind,
her attorney, E. Frank Snellings, and Murphy Blackwell, attorney
for the City of West Monroe, met Thursday afternoon. After a full
review of the facts and merits of the matter, the City of West
Monroe agreed to drop its charges, and Ms. Fernandes agreed that
no lawsuits would be filed against the City of West Monroe. In
addition Mr. Blackwell agreed to distribute copies of the
Louisiana White Cane Law to the West Monroe Police Department for
informational purposes. The Louisiana White Cane Law provides
that the blind shall have the same right as
the able bodied to the full and free use of the streets, public
facilities, and other public places.
Ms. Fernandes stated at the meeting that there was no ill will
towards the Police Department and that she appreciated the
willingness of the City of West Monroe to resolve the matter
amicably. She said she believed the West Monroe Police Department
was enforcing the law as they knew it and that they acted in a
responsible manner.

This statement was circulated widely to the media, and it
admitted clearly that West Monroe officials recognized that the
police had
been in the wrong. The net effect of all this publicity has been
positive.  The students have learned first-hand that blind people
are members of a minority group with all that the term implies.
The police of West Monroe now know about the White Cane Law and
will not soon allow themselves to assist in the oppression of
responsible blind adults who wish only to do what all adults are
permitted to. The public has learned about the Louisiana Center
for the Blind and what it is doing to enable blind people to take
their proper place in society. Those who were already supporters
of LCB have closed ranks more solidly than ever, and new
enthusiasts have come forward to be counted. In fact, one wealthy
woman who has financed activities for blind youngsters for years
in an effort to help them gain self-confidence read the first
stories published about the arrests and grasped immediately
that here were blind people with courage and purpose. She has
contacted the Center to learn what she can do to help.
On June 11 the chairman of  The Monroe News-Star , in West
Monroe, Louisiana, apparently responded to the West Monroe city
fathers' anxiety that they would look foolish because of the way
the police had treated the blind students. In his column he wrote
a nasty little article lambasting the Center. It is a clear
reminder that  a little learning is a dangerous thing.  The
author grew up with blindness in his family. He explains that his
mother eventually regained some of her sight and was then able to 
function routinely. There it is in a nut shell. Having been a
child in a family including blind adults, the writer considers
himself more of an expert on the capacity of trained blind people
than a blind woman who has built and directed
a rehabilitation center for blind adults. People will engage in
astonishing intellectual gymnastics to protect their prejudices,
and still some wonder why members of the National Federation of
the Blind take every opportunity offered to demonstrate the truth
of our contention that blind people have been denied and now
deserve equal treatment. Here is the editorial:

                 Bar Incident No Boost for Blind
                        by Bodie McCrory

Oh, happy day.
We all can stop wringing our hands. No more guilt trips,
wondering if our thoughts are pure about handicapped people,
blind persons in particular.
Joanne Fernandes, director of the Louisiana Center for the Blind
in Ruston, has stepped forward once again and saved the day.
You read about Fernandes and three blind persons from the Ruston
center being arrested Friday a week ago for a disturbance at a
West Monroe bar.
Well, Friday of this week, the West Monroe police dropped the
charges they didn't want to file in the first place, and
Fernandes issued another statement, her third since the incident.
She said she had distributed copies of the  White Cane  law to
West Monroe police, and they had agreed to read it, and she
agreed not to sue the city.
Again, oh, happy day.
See what can be accomplished when we reason together?
For Fernandes to have involved blind people in a hassle in a bar
over whether or not they had a  right  to find the bathroom by
themselves is nothing short of asinine; nothing more than a push
for publicity, a self-serving farce.
Was she actually concerned about the civil rights of the blind?
Who was concerned about dignity? Or lack of it? Where did plain
ol' common sense come into play?
I think the whole scam was demeaning as hell to blind people. 
Fernandes was quoted at the time of the arrest as saying,  We
don't want special privileges, and we don't want to be denied any
rights either. We have the right to do things other sighted
people can do. 
Shouldn't a little respect for the dignity of the blind be
considered?  Where is the dignity (or reason) in loading up a
bunch of blind people, white canes in hand, and hauling them 30
or so miles to a bar to demonstrate their  rights  to find their
way to the bathroom? Then agitate until police are provoked into
making arrests?
It's admirable that handicapped persons, including the blind,
seek to become as independent as possible. But to take, and
agitate for, the position that they don't need, or want, special
attention, sorta turns me off.
To say that blind people are normal is about as absurd as...well,
expecting a blind person to read this article.
Or drive a vehicle from Ruston to Sugie's.
I respect the rights of the blind as much as anyone including
Fernandes and understand the problem better than most, maybe even
Fernandes.
My grandfather was blind. My mother was blind, for a time.
Poppa Broadus (from whence the name Brodie [and Bodie] was
prostituted) was diabetic and lost his eyesight when he was
somewhere in his 40s.  He used a white cane for years, until he
lost his leg and didn't need it any more.
My mother (also diabetic) lost her eyesight when I was a little
boy.  After a period of time I don't remember how long she
recovered some of her vision and could function routinely.
No, I don't need Fernandes to tell me about blind people. Or
their rights.
Maybe she needs to be told that blind people also can be
reasonable and responsible. And that blind people can use a
little help every now and then. And, that blind people can
function with dignity.  Now, we come to the guilt trip. About
this  civil rights  thing.
I confess that I must have helped my mother and Grandpa thousands
of times. But please understand, I was young and didn't know any
better.  I'm now afraid Fernandes will find out and come after
me. I surely
didn't intend to violate the civil rights of my dear mother and
grandfather, and I realize ignorance of the law, according to
Fernandes, is no excuse.
Maybe it will help if I reveal I never helped my mother or my
grandfather to find the way to the bathroom. But, then again, we
never hauled them around to bars, either.
No, we're not talking civil rights here. We're talking about an
understandable incident that was fanned into a self-serving
confrontation at the expense, not for the benefit, of blind
people.
Don't roll over, Grandpa. Everything's gonna be all right.
Fernandes decided if we'll all read the  White Cane  law, she'll
go away.
If she will do that, I'll read it twice.

This unprovoked attack was totally unexpected, and the LCB staff
were shocked and perplexed at its ferocity. The LCB attorney, who
has personal contacts in the political power structure of West
Monroe, explained to Fernandes his theory that McCrory was simply
trying to use his column to make West Monroe officials look less
foolish. The attorney told her to leave it to him. He would put a
stop to this gratuitous sniping at the Center. The final chapter
of this adventure was published by the  Monroe News-Star  in its
Letters to the Editor section on June 18. Here it is:

                       McCrory's Comments 
Were Unnecessary

The savage and self-serving article by Chairman McCrory on the
director and students of the Louisiana Center for the Blind was
very unnecessary.  It not only was unkind, but you would think a
man in his position could be more objective in his remarks.
I've known Joanne Fernandes for a number of years, and I find her
to be a dedicated, hardworking person whose goal is to educate
and to enhance the lives of all the students at the Center;
therefore,
the adverse publicity and the editorial attacking her are not
justified.  This lady deserves an apology and a thank-you for the
fine job she is doing.

By this time the dust has settled, but things in Ruston and
Monroe, Louisiana, will never be quite the same again. Until
there is a change in management, Sugie's will probably continue
to be a hostile place for independent blind people, but the LCB
students can surely find another place to dance. The students and
staff who went to Sugie's on June 2, 1989, are certainly
different people today because of the self-examination and
soul-searching they did as a result of this experience.  It seems
clear that the public, as well, is more aware of the struggle
that the blind are engaged in to win civil rights protection. It
may seem a foolish exercise for those like Mr. McCrory who think
they know that the blind are incapable of competence and adult
conduct, but those with open minds and good intentions have been
exposed to active blind people who are not afraid to stand up for
their rights and who are gracious in victory. These
confrontations (though never pleasant in the doing) are the very
stuff of freedom. They strengthen all of us engaged in the
struggle, and they prepare the public for our inevitable
emergence as first-class citizens.
  THE VOICE OF THE FOURTH GENERATION:  BLIND KIDS EXPRESS THEIR
VIEWS
From the Associate Editor: Our opponents are inclined to dismiss
the National Federation of the Blind as a bunch of type A
over-achievers with half-baked notions about how the blind can
compete on terms of equality if given an even break. When
confronted with the evidence
of ordinary blind people successfully living normal, productive
lives, they mutter about our philosophy's being nonsense but the
training we advocate being sound.
It is not clear how these apologists would explain away the crop
of youngsters who are emerging now as products of the NFB's
philosophy as expressed and lived by the members of the NFB's
Parents of Blind Children Division. Informed and reinforced by
the Federation, these parents are demanding that their children
receive (often for the first time) appropriate and necessary
instruction in Braille, keyboard skills, and cane travel. These
parents are coming to understand that their children can live
normal, fully productive lives if and only if they learn to
believe in themselves and equip themselves with the skills they
need to compete with their sighted peers.
Two young men, products of the NFB philosophy so disdained by
these experts, took part in a panel discussion during the
parents' seminar preceding the 1989 convention of the National
Federation of the Blind, sponsored jointly by the Parents of
Blind Children Division and the Job Opportunities for the Blind
Program. Their remarks are inspiring and highly instructive. As
the mother of three sighted youngsters, the youngest of whom is
older than these two teen-agers, I am tempted to ask whether most
sighted teens could have written and presented
talks as interesting, well-constructed, and inspiring as the two
reprinted here. Most of us would agree that blindness, while it
does not confer special powers, certainly does provide
extraordinary opportunities for growth. The remarks that follow
illustrate this point.
Dan Ryles, son of Ruby Ryles, First Vice President of the Parents
of Blind Children Division, is fourteen. He is now a sophomore in
high school. Here is what he had to say to parents of blind
children when given a chance to tell it like it is. This was his
first real public address, and he delivered it from a Braille
text:   G ood morning. My family moved to the Seattle area the
summer before my eighth grade year. I was, and still am, the only
blind kid in my school district, and the teachers and students
had little or no experience with blind people before I enrolled.
The kids' preconceptions about blindness, along with the normal
junior high mentality, made the first semester exceptionally
difficult. Not many people spoke to me or had much to do with me.
Of course, there were those few who constantly hung around me
wanting to know exactly how I did everything. I could live with
that, but what hurt me were the times spent getting dressed and
undressed for gym class in the locker room. Surely most of you
remember what eighth grade locker room talk is like. Much of it
is obscene and very cruel. My blindness seemed to make me the
perfect target for insults and ridicule. I couldn't cry in front
of the kids, but I did cry on occasion at home. Even
my new girl friend had lots of negative attitudes, which were
painful to me.
The science teacher took it upon himself to decide for me what
assignments I could and could not do, never considering the
possible adaptations I might make. I knew his attitudes were not
good when on the first day of class he assumed I would need to
tape his lectures instead of Brailling notes with my slate and
stylus. Those were hard times, but my mom helped me through them
with the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind. She
told me that the things the kids said weren't really true. Junior
high kids will find something wrong with everyone, and they will
greatly exaggerate it. My blindness was the most obvious
characteristic they could see.
I have come a long way since then. The kids have gradually come
to accept me. This last year (my ninth grade year) I took
algebra, Spanish, chemistry, American history, English, and
symphonic band. I would
never have gotten to where I am today if my mom had not had the
necessary reading and writing skills to teach me when everyone
else was learning them in print. I also learned basic cane skills
in first and second grade. That may seem early when compared to
some kids' experience, but not as early as I should have been
taught it. If I had had a cane in preschool, things would have
been a lot easier. The earlier you teach a kid cane skills, the
sooner he can travel independently.
Now I can travel as well as anyone and have a daily paper route,
which brings in $120 a month. I do the route entirely on my own,
including collections, for which I Braille the receipts. I was
lucky. I had a mom who didn't over-protect me. I did, and still
do, occasionally scrape a knee or bruise an elbow. I once even
had stitches in my head, but that's just a natural part of
growing up. It has nothing to do
with my blindness. What is not natural is for blind kids to have
reading and writing skills taught to them later than sighted
kids. This may sound a little crude, but if you'll be as mean as
my mom, your blind kid will be okay.

Darrell Shandrow, son of Betty Shandrow, President of the Parents
of Blind Children Division of Arizona, is a junior in high
school.  He has taken public speaking, but speech class was never
like this.  Here is what he had to say:
 G ood morning everybody. I have congenital glaucoma. I lost my
left eye when I was little, and I have very little usable vision
in the other. I was also born deaf, but I have been able to hear
since age five. My parents and the National Federation of the
Blind are helping me to live independently. My parents felt that
it was important that I learn cane travel and other orientation
skills at an early age so that I would be independent. By doing
so I have been able to participate in public service events and
communicate using amateur radio for the last four years. My
parents said that
I could do anything I set my mind to. I was raised as a normal
person who cannot see. I was not over-protected, and this is the
major reason I can function normally.
My parents always felt that I should be allowed to function on
the same grade level in school as that of the sighted. My mother
took classes at the University of Arizona in Grade II Braille,
Nemeth Code, abacus, structure and function of the eye, and daily
living skills.  With this knowledge my mother helped me learn how
to read and write and to have a normal life. By tutoring me at
home, she made sure that I was not held back. Due to my
experiences with amateur radio, my parents felt that I was ready
to use high-technology equipment. They got me an Apple II-E
computer, an Echo III synthesizer, a printer, a Braille 'n'
Speak, and computer software that is written for the blind. This
technology makes things go much easier in school. I can take
notes on the Braille 'n' Speak at school, and when I get home,
I can send the notes to the computer, where they are printed and
saved onto a disk.
The National Federation of the Blind has reinforced my
independence.  I can't help but get that feeling of independence
when I'm around people like Jim Omvig, Norm and Bruce Gardner,
Ruth Swenson, and the other Federationists. I feel that the NFB
promotes independence in many ways. I feel that one of the major
ways is through the national convention. It's great to be around
so many independent blind people.  I also feel that the  Braille
Monitor  gives ideas of independence through its informative
articles. This is the key to Federation philosophy.  We must be
independent to fight discrimination. We are the blind speaking
for ourselves. That's what makes the National Federation of the
Blind unique.
The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind has caused
me to decide that I want to fight against discrimination. The
National Federation of the Blind hired Richard Arbach and Ruth
Swenson as my attorneys in my case against the Moranna School
District to be allowed to attend public school. The case was
settled in my favor, and the Moranna School District pays for
transportation and tuition for me
to attend Pallaverty High School in the Tucson Unified School
District.  I am now a junior and have a 4.0 grade point average.
I would like to thank Ruth Swenson, Richard Arbach, and the
National Federation of the Blind for helping me to get into
public school. Now I have
a famous quote from the  Braille Monitor  that I feel goes along
with what I've said about the Federation, and I'm sure you can
guess which one it is. It's in the front, I guess on the
masthead. It goes
like this:  The National Federation of the Blind is not an
organization speaking for the blind it is the blind speaking for
themselves,  and that's it for me. Thank you.
                 THE BLIND IN ELECTIVE OFFICE: 
MY EXPERIENCE AS A BOULDER COUNTY COMMISSIONER
                          by Homer Page
 Homer Page, First Vice President of the National Federation of
the Blind of Colorado and a long-time Federation leader, took
part during the Saturday morning session of the 1989 convention
in a panel discussion entitled  The Blind at Work.  Eileen
Rivera's remarks from that program item are reprinted elsewhere
in this issue. Homer Page served for a number of years as a
member of the Boulder City Council, and was elected in 1986. as
Deputy Mayor of Boulder. Earlier this year he resigned his
position as Director of the Office of Services to Disabled
Students at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He had just
been elected County Commissioner and could not hold down two
full-time positions simultaneously. He continues, however, as
a member of the faculty of the School of Education at the
University, teaching occasional courses. Here are the remarks he
made at the forty-ninth annual convention of the National
Federation of the Blind. 

Good morning, Federationists. I come before you this morning as a
working politician, which leads me into a story about a working
politician that I heard the other day. It seems that a loyal
supporter of one of my colleagues came to him and said:  Sir, I
need to tell you about a problem you've got. There's a fellow up
in the northern part of the county who is going around telling a
lot of lies about you.  So the politician said:  Well, I
appreciate that a lot. Your support means a lot to me. But I've
got a priority I've got to take care of.  There's a fellow down
there in the southern part of the county who's telling the truth
about me. 
Dr. Jernigan said earlier at a meeting at this convention,  Don't
apologize and don't brag just tell it like it is.  And I think
maybe that's how it is. We'll see.
On January 10, 1989, my life really underwent a significant
change.  For on that day I was sworn in as a Boulder County
Commissioner. In part, my remarks to Diane McGeorge and the
students of the Colorado Center for the Blind and other
Federationists at the time were these:   This office is at least
in part yours.  And I want to make that same statement to you
because over the years you have supported me with funds; with
your work; and, more importantly, with your faith; and with your
encouragement. For that I will always be grateful.
I never really thought about running for the office of County
Commissioner.  I had a job that I enjoyed. I was Deputy Mayor in
the city of Boulder.  But one day in April of 1988, I started
receiving phone calls first from a County Commissioner; then from
the District Attorney; then from the chair of the Boulder County
Democratic Party; and, finally, from another Commissioner. All of
them asked me if I would consider running for the seat of County
Commissioner. The task which I was asked to take on was a
difficult one. It involved overturning a seated County
Commissioner, who was popular, had not made any mistakes, and was
going to have the support of most of the major newspapers in the
County.
Marcie and I walked and talked and thought about it, and we
decided that it was worth a try that in fact, if we were to be
able to move into a full-time political commitment, this was the
best time, and this was the right office. So I ran.
It was a hard race. I did not have the support of the newspapers. 
They went with the incumbent. However, I did have the support of
the news coverage. And the reason that I had that support was
that I was able to shape the coverage of the news. News comes
from two places:  first, it comes from interviews with the
candidates written by the reporters, and second, it comes from
the speeches and appearances that the candidates make. Throughout
the campaign I was able to set the tone, define the issues, and
shape the news coverage in a way that I thought would help me
win; and it did. It is more important to shape the news than it
is to get the editorial endorsements of the news media.
On January 10 I took office. There were a number of issues that
concerned both the general public and staff of the county. One of
the issues involved reading getting access to large amounts of
material and covering it. I have used readers and a lot of
Braille. We have in Boulder what we call the Computer Braille
Center, which is run by a good Federationist, Priscilla Simmons.
And we've kept Priscilla very busy. I also have an Artic Vision
program which gives me access to all internal memos produced by
the county. We have to keep up with four major daily newspapers
and four weeklies that cover the news in Boulder County. So
there's a lot to do. But that hasn't been a major problem.
Each Commissioner also has access to an automobile. We need it
because we have to travel extensively throughout the County. The
County involves 750 square miles ranging from the Continental
Divide far out onto the plains in the eastern part of the state.
I contracted with the local cab company instead of having a
driver. We found it to be much more efficient. As a matter of
fact, the question was raised in the local newspaper about these
things. Would it cost more to employ a blind person in the
position of Commissioner? My response to them
was clear and, I think, correct. From an economic position, the
citizens of Boulder County would be much better off if all the
Commissioners were blind.
So what is a Commissioner, and what is the job that a
Commissioner has to do? Well, we have over a thousand employees
and a budget of 75 million dollars. I'm responsible for
overseeing that budget and, through those whom I supervise,
supervising those one thousand employees.  We also meet two days
a week in public hearings, considering everything from land use
to building subdivisions, from paving roads to issuing fireworks
permits on the 4th of July. The County Administration includes
the Social Services Department and the Health Department. It
administers the JPTA and Headstart programs. We are responsible
for all the roads in the county. We administer the jail and the
sheriff's office. The District Attorney's office is a part of
county government as is the County Clerk's office, which deals
with all deeds, marriages, auto licenses, drivers licenses,
voting and voter registration. It really is a major operation. We
must perform what I think is probably a very difficult task to
run a county government: not only to make policy, but to direct
employees to administer the county government by consensus. 
There are three members of the Board of Commissioners, and it
takes two votes to get anything done. But in fact, if you don't
find a way to work together, it really does get very difficult.
Boulder County is made up of some 225,000 people. The assessed
value of property in the county is three billion dollars. The
major industry there is the University of Colorado and related
scientific research facilities. There are a major IBM
installation and many other high tech facilities, including
biotechnology. We are concerned with the continuing economic
health of the county and must be involved throughout the county
to ensure that it actually takes place. Over the next three years
(and perhaps longer) I need to be concerned, as a working
politician, about the next step. What happens? For in politics
you really need to move, or you go backward.
A few months ago there was some concern about who would run for
Senate on the Democratic side next year. There was some talk that
Congressman David Skaggs, who appeared here earlier, might run.
Congressman Skaggs is the Representative in my district. One of
the things that we needed to consider was whether or not to make
a run for that seat if he in fact did relinquish it to run for
the Senate. Politics is a game of chance and opportunity and
being in the right place at the right time.  I enjoy very much
being a County Commissioner, and I may be a County Commissioner
only one term or the rest of my life. But if the opportunity
comes for higher office, I will take it.
There's something about being blind and being in the political
arena
that I think is important. Political people are leaders. They're
recognized as leaders in their communities and in their states,
and sometimes it's hard for members of the general public to
acknowledge that a
blind person is capable of being their leader. Such an idea runs
counter to the stereotypes. This fact will always be there, and
people will always raise questions. There was a letter to the
editor in the local paper,  The Boulder Camera , a few months
ago, some three months after I had taken office. The letter said
something like this:  I am really embarrassed by the voters of
Boulder County. They have elected an assessor who was just
arrested for being in a fight, a sheriff who got drunk and got
into a fight, and a District Attorney that lets people off when
they should be sent to jail. Now they have elected
a blind man who couldn't possibly keep up with the reading. I am
really embarrassed by the voters of Boulder County. 
Well, a good friend of mine wrote a strong and wonderful letter
in response to that one I did not solicit but that I did
appreciate.  The point is this. That kind of letter and those
kinds of feelings
are going to be expressed. Now what I really believe is that my
opposition generated that letter to discredit me because they
thought that I would be vulnerable along those lines. My public
remark was:  To show you how incompetent that campaign really
was, they waited until four months after the election to engage
in dirty politics.   But the truth is that it hurt. I've worked
ten years in the public arena to demonstrate that as a blind
person I really can do the work. I was elected to the City
Council of Boulder, for which candidates run at large. The first
time I was the second highest vote-getter. When I ran for
re-election, I was the top vote-getter, and in 1988 when I ran
for County Commissioner, I overturned a popular incumbent by over
3,500 votes. Yet there are people out there who will write that
kind of letter. What one learns in the public arena is that no
matter how successful you are or how much you demonstrate that
you can do
it, for some people you're still just a blind man. That is an
important lesson to learn, to hold close, because really what it
means is that no matter how much you try to escape from being
identified as blind, you can't. But then who would want to?
It is the solidarity I feel with you that allows me to let those
kinds of letters and comments roll off my back like water off a
duck. On the other hand, I keep winning, so there must be some
people out there who believe in me. And if they believe in me,
they'll believe in you.  And that's what it's all about.
Thank you very much.
                 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
PROGRAMS AND THE BLIND
 On Friday morning, July 7, the 1989 convention agenda included
an important series of items, all concerning Social Security
programs of interest to the blind. The following is the entire
portion of the morning session which was devoted to Social
Security.               SOCIAL SECURITY: 
PLANS FOR WORK INCENTIVES AND REHABILITATION
                         by James Gashel
 President Maurer.  The next item on our program this morning is
an important one. Very often this law is misunderstood. Because
of this portion of the law, blind people may have careers and
develop opportunities that we didn't expect we would be able to,
and if we
know about it we'll be able to do even more. The next item is 
Social Security: Plans for Work Incentives and Rehabilitation. 
To present this item on the program is James Gashel, the Director
of Governmental Affairs of the National Federation of the Blind.
Before I put him on, let me say that I believe that Mr. Gashel
knows as much about the provisions of the Social Security laws
dealing with blindness
as anybody in the country, and I think that we have made the
progress that we have because of the knowledge of these
provisions and care
in applying them that he and we have together garnered in this
organization.  So here to talk about work incentive plans is
James Gashel.
 Mr. Gashel.  Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning, fellow
Federationists. We have a song in the National Federation of the
Blind don't worry, I'm not going to sing it I'm going to say it,
or at least, part of it. It says:  I've been working in a
workshop/All the live-long day/And with the wages that they pay
me/It's just to pass my time away/And when I ask about more
money/ They give me the big lie/We'd like to give you lots of
raises/But you'd lose your SSI. 

Many thousands of blind people have been told exactly that, and
many have believed it. All too many still believe it.  We'd like
to give you lots of raises, but you'd lose your SSI.  Well, this
is the big lie more often than it is not. Today we're going to
try to dispel that myth at least a little bit. The problem is
that all too many blind people have been taken in by the big lie,
and they fail to increase their income as a result of believing
it. We've said at this convention that as many as 70 percent of
the employable blind population is either unemployed or
under-employed. Congressman Brown is going to speak next, and I
want to be sure he hears that, that as many as 70 percent we're
not talking 7 percent or 5 percent
or whatever the current unemployment rate is in America for all
citizens but 70 percent of the employable blind population is
either unemployed
or substantially under- employed.
That is a tragedy. That's a national tragedy. We seem to care an
awful lot about it, but the rest of the country doesn't in many
cases. Certainly part of the reason for that high unemployment
rate among the blind is job discrimination. There's no question
about it: discrimination is a factor. But the Social Security
programs themselves (and even more particularly the way those
programs are administered) are also a big part of the reason why
that 70 percent of the employable blind population is either
unemployed or under-employed.
Let me begin this discussion by giving you an example of how the
Social Security programs themselves contribute to the
under-employment of blind people. At this convention one example
comes to mind. I talked to a man from Mississippi, and I'll just
outline the situation. He said to me something like this:  You
know, I just got a notice from Social Security, and they tell me
I owe them $232 back. And the reason is that I worked some
overtime, and they say that I owe them a month of disability
benefits. So I guess I'm going to have to pay them back. 
Well, I told him how he could probably avoid paying them back.
But think about it. The notice he received was for him nothing
but punitive.  He was trying to better himself by working
overtime. He was trying to make more money. And what did he end
up doing but losing? Because he got a notice from the Social
Security Administration that said:   You owe us $232 back.  Now
he's going to have to pay it, unless we help him so he won't.
Now here's how a situation like that could be remedied. He said
to me:  I went down to the Social Security office, and they said
there really wasn't any alternative. I'm just going to have to
pay the money back.  I think that this case should have been
handled in an entirely different way, and I'd like to tell you
why. I think it illustrates what we as a Federation can do, and
what often the Social Security Administration just does not do.
I said:  All right. Tell me about your income situation.  So we
figured it out. He makes $713 a month gross pay in a sheltered
workshop. That's not a very princely sum, but it will at least
enable a person in that situation to continue eligibility for
Social Security disability benefits since the amount you can earn
is $740 a month.  The gentleman in question earned $713 a month.
His disability benefit is $232 a month, so that makes his
combined income before taxes $945 a month. The Social Security
Administration sends him a letter just because he went over one
month saying they want $232 back. I think that's punitive, and I
think that's wrong. And furthermore, I think the law agrees with
me.
I said to him this:  Have you considered the fact that you really
could work more and earn more and still receive at least some of
the benefits you now receive without having to pay the Social
Security Administration back?  He said:  How could that be?  I
said:  Let's take a simple example. Let's say that instead of
earning $713 a month in a sheltered workshop, you increased your
work activity and earned $900 a month. Would you lose all of the
benefits you now receive?  He said:  Well, of course! If they
said I was overpaid when I earned just a little more than $713,
then I'd really be overpaid.  I said:  Not so. Consider this:
Many people in a situation such as we're discussing here could,
rather than receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, shift
over and receive Supplemental Security Income. In a Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) Program the earnings limits are not so
severe, and that's especially the case with respect to blind
people. 
What would the situation be with an income of $900 a month?
Remember, we're talking about a state that does not supplement
the SSI Program.  It's a state where the maximum that you can
receive on SSI is the
federal payment amount. Let's just take as an example a single
individual.  The SSI payment would be $368. Let's say the
gentleman earned $900 rather than $713. The net effect is that he
will still be eligible (considering the deduction of all his work
expenses) for $217 in an SSI benefit. Not quite as much as his
disability benefit, but look
at his combined income now. It is not $945, but $1117. That's a
considerable improvement. He increased his work activity, shifted
over from the Disability Insurance Program to the SSI program,
rather than getting Medicare he now gets Medicaid as a means of
covering his health insurance, he didn't lose all of his
benefits, and his income is considerably higher than it was
before.
Just think of that example and the contrast. When the gentleman
in question went to the Social Security Office, he was simply
told he'd earned too much money and now had to pay some of it
back. But when he came to the convention of the National
Federation of the Blind, he learned that he could earn more money
and not have to pay any of it back.
That's only the beginning. If he had lived in California, he
could earn a lot more money and not have to pay any of it back.
California is a state that supplements the SSI program to a very
great extent.

I recently attended a conference sponsored by the Social Security
Administration in Washington, D.C. The people there from the
Baltimore headquarters of the Social Security Administration were
struggling with the problem of how to get people to take more
advantage of work incentives. I listened to this discussion for a
while but finally decided I had something to contribute. I said
to some of the people:   Think about what really motivates
people. Why do they ever contact the Social Security Office at
all? There's one word that I can think of; it's money. That's the
only reason to contact Social Security.  You certainly don't want
to get a hold of the government for too much of anything else.
But if you can get money, you'll make the call and try to figure
it out.  If the Social Security Administration really wants
people to take advantage of work incentives, what they really
ought to do is what's been done at this convention. Teach people
how to use the work incentives so they can earn more money.
That we can do, and that we know how to do. How many of you have
ever received a letter from the Social Security Administration
that said:   You've earned too much money, and now you've got to
pay us back ?  Say aye.  [Loud affirmative from audience]  How
many of you have ever received a letter from the Social Security
Administration that said:  We've been looking at your income
situation and your work potential, and we have some ideas about
how you can earn more money ?  Please say aye.  [jeers] 
I'll tell you, I don't think you're going to get very many of
those letters, but I think we could reverse that by reordering
our thinking about work incentives. The Social Security laws and
the SSI laws truly provide opportunities if we know how they
work. I've only given you one example with the gentleman from
Mississippi. We can truly give blind people opportunities to earn
more money and not have to pay back.
We in the National Federation of the Blind spend a lot of our
resources, as you heard yesterday in the Presidential Report,
trying to help people who get these letters that say:  You've
earned too much money. You now owe us $31,000. Please put your
check in the enclosed envelope, and send it back to us in the
next thirty days.  That's punitive! That's not the way to
encourage blind people to work, and it causes the National
Federation of the Blind to go to the Social Security
Administration, make appeals, get those payments waived, or prove
that there never were over-payments at all. How much better it
would be if we could combine our resources with the Social
Security Administration and, given proper funding of such a
program, grant blind people the opportunity truly to earn more
money and benefit from the work incentive. We can do that, but
making it happen is a two-way street.
Now I have a few comments on rehabilitation. The current Social
Security Law says that to obtain rehabilitation services if
you're a Disability Insurance or an SSI recipient, you've got to
use the state vocational rehabilitation agency. I understand what
that means. It means that there is still a 70 percent
under-employment or unemployment rate among the blind. We know
what the Social Security Administration has just begun to learn
that the exclusive use of the state vocational rehabilitation
system (especially in the case of blind people) simply does not
work. The rehabilitation system doesn't want to work for them.
We have proposed an alternative in the form of H.R. 855,
introduced by Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee. Once again it
is the National Federation of the Blind that is on the cutting
edge of change, making people challenge old ideas and old ways of
doing things, and thinking about new ways of doing things. The
provisions of H.R. 855 would still allow the use of state
vocational rehabilitation agencies for blind people if anybody
still wants to use them. However, the provisions of H.R. 855
would also allow any blind person who received Social Security
Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income to choose,
design, and pursue their own rehabilitation programs through
agencies that they, not the government, select. We don't take
college students and tell them where they have to go to college
in order to get their student loans or student financial aid. We
don't tell Medicaid patients which doctor to go to, just that it
be a doctor who is a Medicaid participant. We don't take people
on Medicare and tell them they can't go to certain doctors. You
choose your doctor, and he bills Medicare.  Why not let blind
people obtain their rehabilitation from the agencies they choose,
not the ones the government chooses?
The Social Security Administration is waking up to the fact that
that might actually be a good idea. We had a session at last
year's convention which truly tells the story. We had the
Colorado Center, the New Mexico Center, the Louisiana Center, and
the Minnesota Center all presenting the kinds of programs and
opportunities that we, blind people working with and for
ourselves, can make available to each other. The programs of
those centers are true landmarks of success for the
rehabilitation of blind people. They prove that when the system
will not work for us, we can create a system and make it work for
ourselves.
Once again, as in the case of work incentives, it's time that the
National Federation of the Blind and the Social Security
Administration get together. There's no point in our fighting
each other over the idea of whether or not we should use state
vocational rehabilitation agencies exclusively. We agree that we
should not. Now we should get on with the future and truly
provide a rehabilitation system that will put blind people to
work and end this seventy percent employment rate that we have.
Just think about it! With the work incentive counseling that we
know how to do under Social Security without much change in its
laws, and with the techniques and the knowledge and particularly
the philosophy that we have in rehabilitation, there isn't any
reason why a concerted effort by the National Federation of the
Blind working in concert rather than in competition with the
Social Security Administration cannot put an end to that seventy
percent unemployment rate. Thank you very much.
   WHAT LIES AHEAD IN LEGISLATION FOR THE BLIND:  A REPUBLICAN
LEADER'S PERSPECTIVE ON 
SOCIAL SECURITY, WORK INCENTIVES, 
AND REHABILITATION
                    by Congressman Hank Brown
 President Maurer.  The next item on the program is called  What
Lies Ahead in Legislation for the Blind: A Republican Leader's
Perspective on Social Security, Work Incentives, and
Rehabilitation.   To present this item is the Honorable Hank
Brown, who is the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee
on Ways and Means in the United States House of Representatives.
Congressman Hank Brown is from Colorado, and he has been a good
friend. I would like now to welcome Congressman Hank Brown.
 Congressman Brown.  Marc, we are proud as Coloradans to have the
National Federation of the Blind come to this state to share this
convention with our citizens in the great city of Denver. We are
proud, not just because you have chosen us, but because of the
mission you perform and what you do for countless citizens around
this nation.  You not only lobby for laws, you not only help each
other, you not
only speak out for the blind in this nation, but you provide an
inspiring example of what men and women can do when they work
together in a common cause, of how they can help themselves, and
of how they can work and fight for a brighter world. So it's a
particular pleasure for all of us in Colorado to have you join
us.
We have been astounded, I think, as a nation in the last few
years
by the incredible changes that appear to be taking place in the
Soviet Union and, until the last few weeks, even in the People's
Republic of China. What's incredible to us, I think, has been the
shifting away from the socialism and the centrally planned
economies that so dominated their thinking in past years. But
when you think about it, those changes are only logical. I want
to share with you a perspective on that because I think it
relates not only to their experience but to ours.
The fact is that the Soviet Union and China are changing, not
because they didn't believe in the government-dominated,
centrally planned economy, and not because they weren't dedicated
Marxists. They certainly were. They're changing because what they
have done doesn't work. They believed in it, but they found it to
be a failure. There's a lesson in that. One looks out from
mainland China at the island of Taiwan, where the same people
live Chinese people with the same background, the same ethnic
origin, the same race, similar creeds (not exactly the same). 
But there's a difference.
The difference is that the Chinese in Taiwan have fewer resources
and a denser population, and yet they produce eleven times as
much
as do the Chinese of mainland China. The same people, the same
language, the same culture, the same background, with fewer
resources and less land produce eleven times as much per capita.
The difference is freedom.  The difference is incentive. The
difference is a reward. The difference is allowing them to keep a
fair share of what they produce. Taiwan is not perfect, but what
is astounding is the difference that can come about where there
is an incentive. Incidentally, the Chinese who live in Hong Kong
produce forty times as much as the Chinese who
live in mainland China: an incredible difference in the human
productivity that can come from a free and open society and real
incentives to work and produce and create. It can astound even
the most violent critic; it can even change a Marxist into
someone who understands
the need for freedom. That's the lesson that has occurred in the
latter half of this century.
We see the Soviet Union changing. The fact is that two years ago,
one hundred and twenty-five million Japanese were producing more
goods and services than two hundred and eight-five million
Russians. The Japanese live on a set of rocky islands in the
northern Pacific with no resources (or almost none); the Soviet
Union enjoys more resources, more than two-and-a-half times as
many people, and has more resources than any country in the
world. The difference is freedom, and the difference is
incentive.
Now why should we talk about those examples here this morning? I
think we need to talk about them because we need to understand
what makes America strong. We are a strong country, not because
of our resources (although we are blessed). We are a strong
country, not because of one ethnic group or another, but because
we are a mixture and proud of it. We are a strong country because
Americans have done one thing better than anyone else. Because we
have believed in economic and political freedom, we have been
given a system that provides incentive and creativity, where we
have allowed people to keep a fair share of what they produce.
Our secret is a belief in the creativity of
the individual and often a willingness to let people keep a fair
share of what they produce. I mention that because I think
there's something terribly wrong, terribly wrong with federal
programs. You've talked about it this morning. James, I thought,
did a beautiful job of pointing out some of the problems that
have existed in our Social Security programs and others. The
Earnings Test (or, as I believe it should be called, the Earnings
Penalty) is just plain wrong.
It's not just bad policy; it is bad philosophy. We need to give
people rewards and incentives for making this country stronger
and more productive and more creative. A mentality that says 
we're going to take it all away from you if you produce and
create  is not the kind of mentality that ought to run this
nation. America can be at the start of the greatest economic
contribution of any nation in history, but whether we are at the
start or the end depends on us. It depends on whether we build
back into the system those incentives that call for a stronger,
more creative America.
What can we do? The Earnings Penalty levied under the disability
program and on those over sixty-five should be repealed. The
Penalty should be eliminated. It was passed during the thirties
when we had large unemployment, and the folks who put that into
the statute were not evil people, but they didn't understand. 
They didn't understand human nature, and they didn't respect the
creativity that I think is so important for our country. We've
fought a constant battle in Congress
to try to eliminate this penalty. I've introduced legislation to
eliminate the Earnings Test. I've introduced legislation to
dilute it. Two weeks ago we won an amendment that increased the
limit before the penalty begins to apply. So the good news is
that by 1991, under the Disability Insurance Program and for
those over sixty-five, you will be allowed to earn $10,440 rather
than the $8,880 you can earn right now. That's not enough. That's
not far enough. That still keeps the same sick idea in the law.
It should be repealed, and it should be repealed in its entirety.
I want to tell you one thing because I believe it. People who
favor the Earnings Penalty keep coming up with estimates of how
much it
is going to cost. I don't think it is going to cost anything. I
think it is going to help this nation, not harm it. I think it
will improve the treasury, not dilute it. Let me tell you why. As
you encourage more work, every dollar that is earned pays income
tax, it pays state income tax, it pays Social Security tax. Every
dollar that comes in pays tax dollars as well. When you get the
marginal tax rate to the 94, 95, or 96 percent bracket, which is
what happens with the Earnings Penalty in Colorado (and in some
states that marginal tax rate goes above one hundred percent),
when you do that you simply discourage people from being
productive and creative and make this economy worse off, not
stronger.
Secondly, we need to take a new look at the SSI test. The fifty
percent marginal rate (that is, the fifty cents of every dollar
that is above the limit) is simply not the right ratio. It needs
to be dramatically changed so that we can build a real incentive
into the system.  Thirdly, with regard to vocational
rehabilitation, you spelled that out clearly. We need to develop
options that give you options for the best training, the best
vocational education, options that will develop programs that are
valuable to you, and ones that you can use.  The purpose of those
programs has to be to provide greater opportunity to you in this
country, not to force you into a program that you may or may not
like. So the bottom line (and I believe the message of this
convention and the message for Congress in the coming year) is to
build in options and opportunities and incentives. The factors of
human creativity that made America great can make us survive and
thrive in the years to come. But it will only come about if you
take the time to speak out and stay involved. I salute that
involvement.  Thank you for having me here today.
 President Maurer.  Thank you very much for coming and talking
with us this morning. Congressman, you speak our language.
                 SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME: 
THE CURRENT PROGRAM AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
                         by Rhoda Davis
 President Maurer.  The Social Security system is important to
the blind. We have heard from Jim Gashel, who is our Director of
Governmental Affairs. We have also heard from the Congress of the
United States.  We have a third element this morning. To discuss
that, we have with us Rhoda Davis, who is Associate Commissioner
of Supplemental Security Income of the Social Security
Administration. The title of her remarks is  Supplemental
Security Income: The Current Program and Plans for the Future.  
Therefore, we have heard from the blind, from Congress, and now
from the Social Security Administration. Here is the Associate
Commissioner for Supplemental Security Income, Rhoda Davis.
 Mrs. Davis.  Good Morning President Maurer, Dr. Jernigan, Jim
Gashel, Congressman Brown, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for
having
me at your national convention. I think that the Social Security
Administration's presence at your meeting every year is a good
sign of our working relationship. It says that we have a good
working relationship, even though there are bumps along the way.
It says that we have mutual respect, and President Maurer was
quite right when he talked about Jim Gashel's knowledge of Social
Security programs and his ability to know all of the details that
are so important. I do enjoy working with him. I am especially
pleased to be here at your convention because your turn-out is so
impressive, and I hope that a lot of you will
be interested in what we have to say this morning about the
Supplemental Security Income program. In my remarks I will focus
on the Supplemental Security Income program today, what it does
and doesn't do, and how the Social Security Administration is
working to improve access to the program, as well as what I see
us doing in the near future.  Let's start out with the basics of
SSI. Many of you know these, but I want to say them out loud
again this morning just in case some of you have questions and
just in case some of you know somebody who might be eligible who
hasn't applied. Let's look at these basic rules.  You have to
either be blind, disabled, or over sixty-five. You have to have
limited income. You have to have limited resources. You have to
be a citizen, a lawful alien, or a legally admitted alien under
certain rules, and reside in the United States. You have to apply
for other benefits to which you may be entitled, for example
Social Security insurance benefits. These are the five basic
requirements.  They have not changed since the program began in
1974, but a lot of things have changed about the program. The
benefits are higher, and how much you can have in the way of
income and resources has changed a lot. The law also says that
states can supplement the SSI program.  This makes it kind of a
unique program in which money paid out by Social Security is
sometimes both federal and state money.
Now almost all of the states supplement (some not very
generously,
but almost all do). Some states have Social Security pay the
supplement in the same check with the SSI benefit, some make you
apply separately to the state, some pay everyone who qualifies
for a federal benefit, and some pay limited groups of people.
There is a lot of variation in what the states do. In getting
ready to speak to you, I noticed particularly differences in how
they deal with the blind. For example, in Connecticut they pay a
supplement for blind children. They do not pay a supplement for
other disabled children. In Florida they pay
a benefit for disabled children who are in long term care
residential programs, but they do not pay a benefit to blind
children. So the states go about the business of supplementing
SSI in a lot of different ways. That's America for you, and
that's state's rights for you.
The problem it causes us is that it gets very hard to tell you
exactly what amount of money you can get in your state and
exactly how much income you can have in a state before you don't
get any SSI. It makes it hard to answer a very simple question: 
How much SSI can I get?  In 1989 if you have no income that we
would count against
your benefit, the federal amount of SSI, as Jim mentioned, is
$368.00 but remember now that in most states it can be more for
at least certain groups of people.
I want to talk for a minute about the income rules because it is
important to remember how complicated they are in one sense. In
another, though, the idea of the income rules is very simple, and
Congressman Brown alluded to this. If you have earnings (that is,
money from work), these are treated more favorably than other
money that you might have coming in each month. Right now for
each two dollars earned, one dollar of SSI is reduced. If you get
a Social Security benefit, for each dollar of Social Security,
one dollar of SSI is reduced. So earnings are treated more
favorably. But it is important to remember that not all earnings
count, and that most blind people who are working can deduct
things from their income before that money counts to reduce SSI.
There's a session on your agenda this afternoon that is a
workshop at which there will be Social Security people to explain
how you can deduct your work expenses from your income so that
they don't count against your SSI. If you don't know about those
provisions in detail, I urge you to sit in with us this afternoon
from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.  We also count property you own; we call
it resources. Like income, it is a simple idea, but I want to
make sure that everybody knows that we don't count everything you
own. The limit is two thousand dollars, but we don't count the
house you live in, we don't count the vehicle you use for
essential transportation, we don't count most personal and
household effects, we don't count money you have set aside for a
burial fund up to a certain limit, we don't count some life
insurance, and lots and lots of other things.
Well, why am I reviewing all of these rules with you? To make the
point that people who don't know that they are eligible might be. 
There are lots of twists and turns to the resources and income
levels.  For those people who feel that they don't have enough
income and they don't have enough resources, I would hope that
they talk to Social Security about whether they could get on SSI.
The National Federation does a great job in making sure that
blind people know about SSI. So I may be preaching here to the
converted, but we do know that there are a lot of folks out in
this country be they blind, disabled, or over sixty-five who
could be eligible if they would only come in and apply. Social
Security is hoping that by working with organizations like the
National Federation, we can get the word out. Each of you who
leaves this convention this week
I would hope will help us to get the word out to your friends,
family, and neighbors who might be eligible but who just haven't
inquired.

I also want to talk about all the income and resource rules
because we want to make sure that people who are eligible and who
are working (or trying to work) do know the kinds of things that
Jim Gashel was talking about. We do want people to take advantage
of the work incentives in the law. I would hope that when the
next Social Security representative speaks to your convention
next year, a lot of you will answer  yes  to Jim's second
question about hearing from Social Security about
how you can work and what we can do for you. So I accept your
challenge, Jim, and we will be looking forward to getting that
message out too.

It is a two-way street in terms of the problems that arise. We
don't like to deal with people's over-payments any more than the
National Federation likes to find itself in the middle of dealing
with people's over-payment problems. So I would say to you: while
we do want to reach out, and we will do everything we can to make
sure that you know about work incentives, we want you to reach
back to us and make sure you tell us when you are working, and
how much you are making.  And when those amounts change, tell us
promptly. When you do, we can make sure that your benefit record
is correctly representing what you are earning, so tell us and
we'll tell you.
Let me make another important point about SSI that those of you
who know the program know well. This is important too. Those of
you who don't get SSI and may be eligible, and those of you who
know someone who might be eligible: sometimes people say that  it
isn't worth talking to those people at Social Security because I
know all I will get is ten or fifteen dollars.  Well, that may be
so. Maybe all you will get is a dollar. In most states, though,
if you get a dollar
of SSI from the Social Security Administration, you will also be
eligible for Medicaid. That makes that one dollar of SSI very
valuable, and we want to be sure that folks know that. For people
who work and get SSI, there is a very good provision in the law
now that says that even if your income makes it impossible for
you to get the SSI benefit because you have too much earnings,
you can still get Medicaid as long as you are working. So it is
important to know that when your earnings get too high to receive
the SSI check, you can get and still will have Medicaid
protection. That provision is awfully hard to remember.  It is
known by its law reference 1619-B. That's how you know I am a
bureaucrat when I talk in numbers like that (Section 1619-B of
the law). So if you have a question about whether you can keep
your Medicaid when you work, you call Social Security and ask
them to explain to you how this provision will work for you to
keep your Medicaid under Section 1619-B.
In order to do what Jim invited us to do and get our message out,
we're talking to a lot of organizations. We were very pleased
that Jim was at our kick-off meeting last month in Washington, in
which we talked about working together to get the message out
about how
SSI can be a safeguard for persons when they can't work and a
springboard to work when they can.
Let me tell you a few facts which will also let you know that I
am a real bureaucrat. In 1989 about five million people will get
SSI checks some time during the year. This number is growing
every year.  While the number of people who get a benefit because
they are over sixty-five stays about the same, the number of
people who get benefits specifically because they are disabled or
blind continues to increase.  The number of people who are
getting benefits because they are meeting the definition of
blindness in the law has grown less than that of those who are
disabled. In 1978 there were 77,135 people. In 1988 there were
82,864. Also, if you don't know too much about SSI, it's
important to know that a lot of people get both SSI and Social
Security benefits. In fact, about forty percent of those people
who get SSI because they are blind also get a Social Security
benefit. Let's talk about how many people get SSI and still work.
That's a small number.  Right now it is about seven percent.
Seven percent of the 82,000 or so people who get SSI because they
are blind are working at any one time. It is better than the
general disabled group, but we would hope that more and more
people will be willing to try work and that the seventy percent
unemployment rate that Jim referred to will go down and our
number of people who are working will go up.
Clearly we have a lot to do to help you as you try to get into
work.  Again, a little plug for our workshop this afternoon to
tell you more about how those work incentives work in detail and
let you ask questions about your situation or cases that you
might know about.
Another way that Social Security is helping people to work is to
fund demonstration projects. Jim and Congressman Brown referred
to the
need to change the law. The law has to be changed before we can
reimburse private V.R. providers other than states, but we can do
some things under current law to fund demonstration projects, to
try different ways of getting rehabilitation services available
to people. We have been doing that for the last two years. In
fact, the Louisiana Center for the Blind has one of those
demonstration grants. They are looking at ways of educating
employers and providing technological assistance to the blind to
secure jobs that would otherwise not have been available to
people who are blind or visually impaired. I recently read their
first annual report, and they seem to be coming along very nicely
with a number of job placements. That's true for a lot of our
demonstration projects, and as they wind up their second year, I
think we will have lots of documentation for Congress to consider
as they look at this legislation to change the way Social
Security can fund V.R. programs.

What about the future? Well, I would not be the one to predict
what is going to happen to legislation. There is a package of
legislation that the Congressman alluded to, a very interesting
package of changes with respect to SSI. Almost all of them deal
with the  how's  and the  why's  of income and resource
measuring. But with or without legislation, we are committed to
doing more to help people learn about the program. Going beyond
that, making it easier to do business with Social Security
offices, we will continue to be there.
We are planning ways of making it easier to deal with us on the
telephone.  We continue to invite you to deal with us through the
mail. We will still be there in person in the local Social
Security offices. If you want to visit a Social Security office,
we hope that you will call ahead and get an appointment. With our
appointment system, we hope that you will get prompt service
without long waits.  Finally and this is hard for everybody
whether they are offering Social Security benefits or
manufacturing anything is the question of giving you quality when
you deal with us whether it's on the phone or in person or by
mail. The quality of our service, we know, must meet the highest
standards. As always, we continue to do what we can to make sure
that our personnel who answer your questions and take your claims
give you the best possible service.
Here's something really boring. Ready? In my office and in a lot
of our central offices that deal with other parts of Social
Security programs, we have been rewriting the manuals that the
people in the local offices refer to when they answer your
questions. Boring. Thousands and thousands of pages of
instructions. Why should you care? You should care because we
said to ourselves:  Boy, that manual is poorly written, and if it
is poorly written, those people in the local offices can't answer
questions right.   So we have spent a lot of time giving them the
materials that will help them make sure they give you the right
answers. It sounds like a little thing, but I assure you that it
is a big, big job; but we hope it will go a long, long way to
making quality better. Likewise, we are doing a lot to make sure
that our automated system can get answers quickly for the people
in our local offices and get claims processed quickly. So the
future I see for us at the Social Security Administration whether
it
is SSI or Disability Insurance or Retirement or Survivor's
Benefits that future I summarize by saying: service service to
those who could get benefits but don't now, service to those who
are trying to work and understand what the law can do for them,
and service to all who inquire or get benefits in whatever way
best meets their needs. We look forward to working together with
you, our customers, as we work on ways to achieve this service.
My hope for next year, as I have said, is that you will answer 
yes  to Jim Gashel's second question. Thank you.
 President Maurer.  I want to thank you for coming and talking to
us, and I would invite you to take a microphone at the table
along with Jim Gashel. I should say that the Associate
Commissioner for Supplementary Security Income has worked in the
Social Security Administration in local offices as well as in
district offices and consequently knows first-hand some of the
things that happen in those offices and can speak from some
personal experience about the questions and frustrations in
dealing with the people in those offices. I should also say to
you that when you say rewriting the manual seems to be a little
thing, we know that it is in fact not a little thing, but a big
thing. We know because we very often run into misunderstandings
about what is available to blind people. From time to time we
have assisted by offering to write a document which has been
distributed to those very Social Security offices so that some of
the perspective on the Social Security law may be transmitted in
language that can be understood. Therefore we think it is a good
thing to rewrite it, and if you'd be of a mind to have us do so,
we would be interested in looking at the provisions dealing with
blindness to give assistance there.
We have time for some questions.
 Jim Omvig.  I first want to make several comments in the nature
of a speech, as information for our members, and then I have a
question for Rhoda. For those of you who are talking with your
Congressmen and Senators about sponsoring the National Federation
of the Blind's proposal to let blind people collect quality
rehabilitation services wherever they can find them, you ought to
know these things. By the way, I don't know what kind of official
position Social Security is taking on that issue, but these
things happened when I was at Social Security. As you know, in
the old days Social Security, wanting to help rehabilitate people
for two purposes to get people back to work and to productive
lives and also to reduce the insurance or SSI payments got into
the rehab program, and that was a fine thing to do. We paid the
states money up front in order to use that money for
rehabilitating SSA recipients.
In 1980, however, three or four things changed, such as paying
after the fact. I say all of this as background, because when you
talk to
your Senators and Congressmen, you should know this. When Social
Security did a survey to find out what percentage of the people
whose cases were closed as rehabilitated with Social Security
funds really had gone to work and were therefore no longer
receiving Social Security payments, they found that less than
eight percent of the people rehabilitated actually were working
sufficiently not to receive Social Security money. That made SSA
officials so unhappy about the rehabilitation programs in the
states that their first effort was to try to close the
rehabilitation program altogether. The states were simply not
effective. Then the change came to pay after the fact. I tell you
all of that because I think when you talk to Congressmen and
Senators to try to get people to help sponsor this legislation,
that if they really knew that Social Security itself understood
the defectiveness of many of the state programs, it might help to
stir the Congress along.
Secondly, just a quick question. I don't know whether you deal
with the state rehabilitation programs, but when I was working
for SSA and represented SSA at these conventions, I always took
back little memos about issues about which I learned, and I hope
that you do the same. I have learned what I find to be a
remarkable thing in the state of Arizona. It is one of the states
with one of the poorer service to the blind programs in the
country. It does bill Social Security for people after the
closures are made, but the money received from Social Security as
a result of the closure does not get returned to the agency
providing services to the blind. It goes to the larger agency and
is distributed to other programs. Then when blind people need
equipment, services to the blind says it doesn't have enough
money. Something about this does not seem right to me. It seems
to me that the money that was used to rehabilitate blind people
should be paid back to services to the blind so that it can be
used for other blind people.
 Ms. Davis.  I don't have much to say in response to that. I
am not responsible for the area that deals with rehabilitation
reimbursement, but I will certainly take that concern back.
 President Maurer.  The Social Security Administration has been
very responsive to this organization. We appreciate that, and we
appreciate your being here, and we appreciate Ken McGill's being
here.
 Brian McCall.  Why isn't there a better program geared for
college students on SSI? Specifically, college students can
sometimes earn small amounts of money through temporary work,
such as private tutoring, selling sandwiches during finals week,
or sometimes work-study programs, which I understand might be
considered unearned income.
 Ms. Davis.  You raise an interesting question, and I would like
to give you an answer quickly and then go home and think about it
some more. It seems to me that some of the things you are talking
about would traditionally be considered self-employment. To the
extent that it is self-employment earnings, it is treated just as
earnings from an employer. I would also like to mention that
certain kinds
of loans and scholarships do not count as income. Did you have a
specific experience?
 Brian McCall.  Well, I was told that work-study or campus jobs
would count.
 Ms. Davis.  I think that you might want to pursue that with us
in detail. We are doing a lot to make sure that people understand
the difference between earnings and non- earnings, and I wouldn't
want to generalize and say that it all counts because some of it
would likely be counted as earnings or self-employment. One thing
you might want to do  we are trying to reach out to this group in
particular, and Ken McGill and I were discussing this at
breakfast we have been trying to get to people in college
financial offices to make sure that they know about Social
Security and SSI because they are often in a position to answer
questions. So anything you can do to help us get that
organization attentive to knowing about SSI and Social Security
will help us all.
 Jim Gashel.  I'd like to comment on this because I think that
the question that is being raised is a good one. I think that
work-study counts against SSI just as any other earnings do that
is, just as though you went out and got a job anywhere when you
are not in school. In think that in the case of a person who is
in school and earning money as part of a work-study program (and
in many cases those earnings are related to carrying out the
person's ultimate goal),
part of that could be done as a deduction under a plan for
self-support.  So there is a mechanism, the plan for
self-support, that might allow the disregarding of all of those
earnings. That might be a limited mechanism. I think that we
might want to think of a way that Social Security could disregard
some work-study income altogether. A lot
of times, work-study income is related to whether or not you are
going to get a job when you get out of school. There is no
question about it, a student with a good work record has a better
chance of becoming employed and getting off of SSI than the
student with a non-work record.  It is particularly true of blind
people. If you just go to school and have no work record to
demonstrate, it is a lot harder to get
a job when you get out of school. That is another way the SSI
program could work with us to encourage employment.
 Dr. Jernigan.  Mr. President, I believe that Congressman Brown
is here, and I would like to speak directly to him. I also
believe that Congresswoman Schroeder is here, and I want to speak
to both
of them and to some extent Ms. Davis. I want to go beyond the
specifics of any given question about Supplemental Security
Income or Social Security. I want to talk about something else
for a minute, which is the mechanism for dealing with problems.
It is illustrated by what happened in 1981 when the
administration then in power and Congress were considering a
rehabilitation bill.
I got a call from one of the members of the committee saying: 
Would you like to come over and testify on the budget for
rehabilitation?  I said:  Not unless you can assure me that there
is going to be some reform of rehabilitation.  The Congressman
acted as if I
had insulted motherhood and said,  Wouldn't you rather have
rehabilitation with the problems it has and have it funded,
rather than not have it at all?  I said,  Congressman, it may
surprise you, but the answer is quick and simple: No, I wouldn't.

A lot of us have become relatively weary of finding ourselves in
this situation. When administrative agencies of government
consider who speaks for the disabled, or when Congress considers
it, they blur
the difference between agencies (even at the state level) and
organizations of the blind. What they do is to say:  We're
talking to the advocates of the disabled or the blind,  and what
do they do but talk to
the agencies? These agencies do not advocate for us, they are
advocating for their positions.
If government wants to talk to government and say that they are
talking to an advocate for the disabled, that is all right, but
it is Micky Mouse, and it is game playing. That's not who
advocates for us. You
see here in this room or at least some of them are in this room
about three thousand people, and we are not all of the
organization. We are the delegates representing tens of thousands
of people back home.  When you have the federal government
wanting to know what the blind think, or what the blind feel, or
(whether it be Congress or whether it be the executive branch)
wanting to appoint someone to represent the blind on this or that
national council, I wish that for once they would really
understand the distinction between a government agency
(or for that matter a private agency) and the organized blind
themselves.  I don't mean to be insulting or presumptuous, but it
really doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand the
difference. It is not blurred.  What we are saying is this:
agencies may very well be interested in what happens to us as
blind people, but they also have a vested interest in the way of
a program to run, money to get, and jobs to keep. We are not
paid. We are the blind themselves coming together through our own
organization and speaking with our own voice, and we want
Congress and the Executive branch of government when they talk
about who can advocate for the blind and who speaks for the blind
to understand that they mean the National Federation of the
Blind.
I understand that the people from Congress and the Social
Security Administration here probably know that almost as well as
we do because they are here, but what we really are asking is
that they take it back to the bodies they are part of and that
they have leadership positions in, and that they help us to see
that this distinction is understood and not blurred by the people
in those bodies. I would like Congressman Brown to comment on
that and later on Congresswomen Schroeder, and if she feels like
it, the Associate Commissioner.   Congressman Brown.  That is as
articulate and forceful a description of the problem as I have
ever heard. I must tell you that it goes far beyond your
experience. It affects almost every facet of every federal
program, that is the built-in biases that are present and are
presented to legislators, and it has an awesome impact. I will be
happy to carry that message back. Let me also ask, because you
are perhaps the most able spokesman on the subject I have ever
heard, that you be willing to continue to carry that message as
well. Let me just suggest to you how extensive this problem is.
The fact is
that government agencies have the money to pay people to come to
Washington.  They have the money to provide expenses to make that
trip, and they have them on the payroll for the purpose of
influencing legislators.  It is very difficult for individuals to
compete with paid government lobbyists who may or may not
properly represent the persons they are working for and with.
That is simply a way of emphasizing how important this
organization is, because without an organization of this kind,
your message does not get through as forcefully as it should.  
Dr. Jernigan.  You however, Congressman Brown, have access in a
unique way to the administration now in power because you are of
the same party. What I am saying to you, among other things, is
this:  although there are advocates for the disabled on all kinds
of national councils, advisory councils, and other things, this
organization,
which is the largest organization of the blind and probably the
disabled in this country, has not a single representative on any
of the national councils set up to advise and advocate for the
handicapped, and that is disgraceful.
 Congressman Brown.  Well, let's do something about it. Let's
change it.
 President Maurer.  We think we know who we would like to
appoint.  We have time for only one or two more questions.
 Dorothy Olson.  I appreciate the presence of the Social Security
Administration, but I question the quality. I have yet to get the
same answer from two Social Security representatives. I get
letters every week that seem to contradict each other letter for
letter or line for line. I would welcome any improvement of
quality whatsoever, and I know I am not the only one who says
that. It really makes our lives more frustrating when we can't
count on people in your organization for help. I now have a job,
and I am told in one letter that they are taking money away and
in the next that they are giving it back.  My employer has to
fill out my payroll information repeatedly, which is not my
problem but is Social Security's problem.
 President Maurer.  Dorothy, I know of a situation where after a
person found a job, they were told that no longer would the
Social Security money be coming and that an over payment of $105
was made
and was paid back. A few months later, a check came in the mail
without comment of $700. That is an experience that hundreds of
people have
had, that is, that you just can't tell what the Social Security
Administration is going to do. It seems so dangerous to tell them
anything, except that it is so dangerous not to tell them
anything, so we are caught.   Ted Young.  I would like to
emphasize the importance of the plan for self-support for college
students and persons preparing for work in a number of ways. I
have had to represent people to as high
a level as an administrative law judge to justify their plan for
self-support.  Almost all earnings as college students and almost
all earnings while in a rehabilitation program can be exempted.
What we find, though, is that Social Security office personnel,
when they know that the person is a college student or when they
know that the person is a rehabilitation client, don't even
mention the plan for self-support.  It seems to me that this is
certainly an area that sets forth what Jim Gashel was talking
about in terms of getting the word down to those field offices so
that they are helpful rather than a hindrance to blind people.
Thank you.
 Ms. Davis.  President Maurer mentioned after I finished my
remarks that I have been in a local office. I started my Social
Security career that way, and I continue to visit local offices.
I was in the Denver downtown office while I was here and in the
Seattle office last week.  They have a tough job out there. It is
my job to make their job less tough, like I said before, and we
are doing everything we can to make it that way: a rewrite of our
manual, our systems, and so on, but it is still very complicated,
and I won't deny that. I don't know that either we or the
Congress can change it. So we're just going to have to work
together, and I can't change it tomorrow, but I do remind you
that I accept your challenge, and we'll be back next year, and I
hope it is a lot better.
 Allen Daniels.  I have qualified for the SSDI under blindness,
and I have heard many different things about what the
qualifications are between SSI and SSDI. I am confused, for
example, whether the $750 per month that can be earned is figured
consecutively or whether each month is viewed separately.
 President Maurer.  What I would suggest is that you attend the
workshop this afternoon. The people there would be informed about
the law and can answer that type of detailed question.
 Allen Daniels.  I was hoping that Ms. Davis could give me an
answer.
 President Maurer.  My belief is that the answer to your question
is quite complex, that is, it is not yes or no. There are
disregards of earnings, for example.
 Jim Gashel.  It is more complex than we can answer in a simple
yes or no. You may very well continue to be eligible for Social
Security Disability Insurance depending on what all of that
income is. But if you are not eligible for SSDI, you may still be
eligible for SSI depending on income and resources. With income
of $750 per month,
there is no question that you would be eligible for Supplemental
Security Income with not much being reduced from it, given work
expenses. That
is an example I was trying to get at where the Social Security
Administration should, rather than talk about regulations so
much, which just ends
up scaring people, say:  Here's how you can earn more money.  
It's pretty simple, I think. In an example like yours, there is
no doubt in my mind that you could be told how you can earn more
money and not lose.
 President Maurer.  I would urge you to keep one thing in mind. 
The National Federation of the Blind has been working on the
Social Security question probably since the forties, certainly
since before I joined the organization, and that was twenty years
ago. Some of us have been in the organization that long, and some
of us have been looking at Social Security. The people at Social
Security offices have often not been able to concentrate on the
portions of the law that deal with blind persons with anything
like the concentration that we give to it. Therefore, if you
believe that somebody has given you the wrong answer, talk to us
at the National Office, and we can help you get the right answer.
Also, you can get some of the right answers this afternoon at the
workshop.
 Blanch Payne.  I want to ask about my granddaughter...  
President Maurer.  I don't mean to cut you off, but I wonder if
we couldn't deal with individual cases either during the break or
this afternoon in the workshop.
 Blanch Payne.  I think this would help many other Federation
members. She lost both her medical assistance and her SSI. She
was asked to return $3,000, but Mr. Gashel won a waiver on that.
Yet Ms.  Davis mentioned this law 1619-B that would let her get
medical assistance, can someone explain that?
 Jim Gashel.  I can deal with that question since I know the
case. Blanch, in this case it wouldn't apply because Sierra is a
child, and her mother's earnings are too high for the child to
receive medical assistance. There isn't anything that Rhoda Davis
can do about that, I'm afraid, the law is the law.
 Blanch Payne.  But $800 is not enough for two people. She is
just slightly above the guidelines, and there should be some
provision for people just above that guideline.
 Jim Gashel.  You should tell it to the Congressman.   President
Maurer.  I think Congressman Brown has expressed his willingness
to help us to change the law for greater work incentives so that
people will not be penalized for being slightly above the
guideline. I know that we have many other questions, but we have
the workshop this afternoon. I am sorry that we don't have more
time for questions. I want to thank you, the Associate
Commissioner, Congressman Brown, and thank you Mr. Gashel for
coming and presenting this item.  It is directly involved with
the money blind people can get to find a way to become
self-sufficient in the long run. Thank you all again for coming.
                                 
REFLECTIONS ON THE PERKINS BRAILLER
                                                 Denver, Colorado
                                                  August 31, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
I am writing to you about the Perkins School in Watertown,
Massachusetts.  As of September first a Braille writer will cost
$475. Isn't that unbelievable? When a friend of mine in
Broomfield, Colorado, purchased hers in 1968, the cost was $90. I
just received a price list of their products, and I got so mad
that I threw it away. Do you know that they receive public
contributions, and they charge these outrageous prices to blind
people? For example, a bracket that holds dymo labeling tape
costs $21.50. It is just a flat piece of metal that fits into the
Brailler and holds the tape steady while you type. I would have
bought it, but I was lucky enough to examine one that a friend
had purchased. A machinist estimates the cost of the bracket to
be about $3 maximum.
How about a slate for $25 or a paper holder for $30? I understand
from my friend that Perkins doesn't even have certified repair
people working on the Braillers. If you send a Brailler to be
repaired, you have to prepay and if the Brailler is ten years old
or over, the charge would be anywhere from $50 to $100. Most of
the time a Brailler needs a good cleaning and no replacement
parts.
Now, I feel that Perkins is taking advantage of the blind
community.  And to receive public contributions and charge these
prices! The people who run the school should be ashamed of
themselves. We as the blind community must not let this go on any
longer. Perkins is the only place that makes a Braille writer, so
they have us by the short hairs.  I really think they are going
too far.
Please look into this matter and see what can be done. They need
to be reported to some type of consumer affairs board. Thank you
very much.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Steve Gomes

From the Editor: As the price of Perkins Braillers has
skyrocketed through increase after increase in recent years, the
chorus of complaints from the blind community has crescendoed to
a roar. Assuming that
the ninety dollar 1968 price was fair (which we have no way of
determining), it is hard to understand why today's cost is what
it is. According to official government statistics, you need
almost (but not quite) four dollars to buy what would have cost
you one dollar in 1967. Ninety times four is three hundred and
sixty. Beginning September 1, 1989, Howe Press (the vehicle at
Perkins from which one orders the Braillers) is putting its
latest price increase into effect.
And it is not just the cost. There is the fact that prepayment
must be made and that there are long delays in receiving the
merchandise, usually several months. There are those who say that
this is so because Howe Press wants to regulate the supply to
insure a steady and uninterrupted source of employment for its
staff, which can be kept smaller by the tactic of limiting the
supply and not expanding the production capacity.  The monopoly
permits these practices and also allows the price to be whatever
Howe Press pleases.
But there may be changes in the wind. The patents on the Perkins
Brailler have expired, and presumably anyone who pleases is free
to make the molds and produce the product. The problem is that
the tooling up would probably cost several hundred thousand
dollars, and there is also the fact that alternatives are now
beginning to be available.  Therefore, until recently nobody had
taken the plunge.
However, a company in India has now begun to produce a Brailler
which closely resembles the Perkins. It has the same keyboard
configuration and also the same other features. Some of its
casing is made of hard plastic instead of metal, but this may
prove to be an advantage instead of a shortcoming. Something over
a year ago the NFB bought and distributed a few of these Indian
Braillers to test their acceptance, and the response was largely
positive. There are still a few remaining problems, but if (as
seems likely) these can be solved, the Indian Brailler may soon
be on the market at something like half the price of the Perkins.
The decision as to whether to market the Indian Brailler is not
an easy one. In today's climate of balance of payments and
competing economies, one would prefer to deal with an American
firm, and there is also the question of reliable service when
something goes wrong.  But even if one makes every allowance even
if some of the Perkins profit from the sale of Braillers is used
to pay for other activities (a questionable practice at best)
Howe Press has still created most of its own problems, plus the
fact that monopoly is about as un-American and objectionable as
buying from a foreign firm.  Beyond the question of whether the
Indian Brailler or the Perkins will ultimately prevail, there is
the broader issue of whether any such Brailler will continue to
hold the position of primacy which has heretofore been the case.
It is increasingly easy, more rapid, and less expensive to
produce Braille by computer than by Brailler, and alternative
devices are proliferating. In this category the Braille 'n Speak
and a host of others come to mind.
If the Perkins (which is universally acclaimed as a quality
product) is not to go the way of the horse and buggy and the
dinosaur, its makers and marketers must reassess, and do it
quickly. The Perkins has unquestionably made a tremendous
contribution to the betterment
of the lives of the blind, but its future viability will not be
determined by its past performance. Many factors will play a part
in the outcome, but chief among them may be the attitudes and
behavior of the people at Howe Press, not to mention the
resources which they are willing to invest.

Postscript: Under date of September 8, 1989, we received a news
release from Perkins, which said in part:

                  Perkins School for the Blind
                   Receives $15 Million Grant
                From Conrad N. Hilton Foundation

Perkins School for the Blind Director Kevin J. Lessard announced
today that the school has received a $15 million grant from the
Conrad N.  Hilton Foundation of Los Angeles, California. The
grant, to be distributed over the next five years, is one of the
largest ever received in the area of blindness and special
education. It is the largest grant ever received by the Perkins
School.
The Hilton Foundation, established in 1944 by Conrad Hilton, the
founder of Hilton Hotels Corporation, has provided Perkins with
funding for
the development of new programs designed to support the
multi-handicapped blind and their families in the United States
and in many different countries around the world.
                                 
BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS CONTEST
 During the past several years the winter months have been marked
in the homes of blind children across the nation by the sound of
fingers whisking across pages of Braille. Is this the
manifestation of the unquenchable love of learning being born?
Perhaps. It is certainly an indication of young readers honing a
skill that will serve them
for a lifetime. What we are seeing increasingly is enthusiastic
participation in the Braille Readers Are Leaders Contest, which
officially began November 1, 1989, and runs until February 1,
1990. This is a competition in which everyone is a winner. Every
blind child who hears about the contest can improve his or her
Braille skills by taking part and reading as much as possible in
the time available. Each of us should do what we can to encourage
blind children and their parents and teachers
to participate in this exciting competition. Here is the entry
information: 


The Parents of Blind Children Division of the NFB and the
National Association to Promote the Use of Braille are pleased to
announce our Sixth Annual Contest for Braille readers,
kindergarten through twelfth grades.
The purpose of the NFB's Annual Braille Reading Contest is to
encourage blind school children to read more Braille. It is just
as important for blind children to be literate as it is for other
children. Good readers can have confidence in themselves and
their abilities to learn and to adapt to new situations
throughout their lifetimes. Braille is a viable alternative to
print for the blind child. Yet, many blind children are
graduating from our schools with poor Braille skills and low
expectations for themselves as Braille readers. They do not know
that Braille readers can be competitive with print readers. The
NFB's Braille Reading Contest helps blind children realize that
reading Braille is fun and rewarding. They discover that  Braille
Readers Are Leaders. 

WHO CAN ENTER THE CONTEST

School age children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade
are eligible to enter. A student can choose to compete from among
five categories. The first category is the print to Braille
beginning reader.  This is for children who have been print
readers, but who have begun learning and using Braille within the
past two years. This includes:

Formerly sighted children who became blind after they had learned
to read print.
Partially-sighted children who are, or have been, print users but
have begun to learn and use Braille in addition to, or in place
of, print.
Again, this only applies for children within the  first  two
years  of learning and using Braille. After the first two years,
she or he must then enter one of the other categories.
The other categories are: grades K-1; 2-4; 5-8; and 9-12.

PRIZES FOR THE CONTEST

First-, second-, and third-place winners will be selected from
each of the five categories. All winners will receive a special
certificate and a distictive NFB BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS
T-shirt which will proclaim to the world that they are  winners. 
Cash prizes are also awarded.  In each category first-place
winners will receive $50.00, second-place winners $25.00, and
third-place winners $10.00.  Prizes will be personally awarded,
whenever possible, by representatives of the National Federation
of the Blind. Schools are encouraged to schedule the
presentations during the yearly school awards ceremony.

Because we believe all the children are  winners  and deserve
recognition for their efforts, all contestants will receive a
Braille certificate and a special token for participating. We
also encourage schools to arrange public presentions to honor
these students. Again, members of the NFB will participate in
these activities whenever possible.

MOST IMPROVED BRAILLE READER

Special recognition will be given to the top five contestants,
regardless of category, who demonstrate the most improvement over
their performance in the previous year's contest.  To be
considered for the Most Improved Braille Reader award the
contestant: must enter the contest for two consecutive years;
cannot be a winner in the current contest or in a previous NFB
Annual Braille Reading Contest; cannot have won this award
before.
Winners of the Most Improved Braille Reader award will receive
five dollars ($5.00) and a letter of commendation.

RULES FOR THE CONTEST

Contest first-, second-, and third-place winners will be selected
within each of the five catagories. Winners will be chosen based
on the number of Braille pages read. The one who reads the
largest number of Braille pages will be the first-place winner;
the second largest the second-place winner; and the third largest
the third-place winner.  The contest entry form MUST be
COMPLETELY filled out and received by the judges no later than
February 10, 1990.
Contestants MUST submit with their entry forms BOTH a Braille and
print list of the books and magazines they have read. That list
must contain information in this order:  1. Name of Student and
student's contest category; 2. Name of book or magazine; 3.
Author of book or magazine volume and date; 4. Number of Braille
pages read in each book or magazine; and 5. Total number of
Braille pages read. Both Braille and print lists MUST be signed
by the certifying authority.


CERTIFYING AUTHORITY

The Certifying Authority is responsible for: verifying that the
student has actually read the Braille material that he or she
reports reading, and that the material was read between November
1, 1989, and February 1, 1990 (contestants may NOT count material
read before the contest begins); filling out and sending in the
contest entry form in an accurate, complete, and timely fashion;
assisting the student in finding Braille materials to read for
the contest.
Teachers, librarians, and parents may serve as certifying
authorities.  The certifying authority must also be prepared to
cooperate with the judges if the judges have any questions or
need additional information about an entry. All decisions of the
judges are final.
Please use this form when turning in the print list of
books/magazines read. If additional paper is needed, be sure to
put the name of the student and his/her contest category at the
top of the page and number the page (i.e. page 2 of 2). The
Braille list should follow the same format. NOTE: Please list the
author's name for books and list volume and date for magazines.
Mail entries to:  Mrs. Nadine Jacobson, 5613 Oliver Avenue South,
Minneapolis, MN 55419.
For more infomation, call Mrs. Jacobson at: (612) 927-7694; or
Mrs.  Barbara Cheadle at: (301) 659-9314.
                     DISTINGUISHED EDUCATOR 
OF BLIND CHILDREN AWARD FOR 1990
                        by Sharon Maneki

(Note)  Sharon Maneki is President of the National Federation of
the
Blind of Maryland. She also chairs the committee to select the
Distinguished Educator of Blind Children for 1990. Other members
of the committee are: Jacquilyn Billey, Connecticut; Allen
Harris, Michigan; Joyce Scanlan, Minnesota; and Fred Schroeder,
New Mexico.

The National Federation of the Blind will recognize an
outstanding teacher of blind children at our 1990 convention June
30 - July 7, at the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt in Texas. The winner
of this award will receive an expense-paid trip to the
convention, a check for $500, an appropriate plaque at the
banquet, and an opportunity to make a presentation about the
education of blind children to the National Federation of the
Blind Parents of Blind Children Division early in the convention.
Anyone who is currently teaching or counseling blind children or
administering a program for blind children is eligible to receive
this award. It is not necessary to be a member of the National
Federation of the
Blind to apply. However, the winner must attend the national
convention.  Teachers may be nominated by colleagues,
supervisors, or friends.
The letter of nomination should explain why the teacher is being
recommended for this award.
The nominee must meet two additional requirements: write a
one-page letter describing his or her beliefs and approach to
teaching, and answer the following ten questions.
1. List your degrees, the institutions from which they were
received, and your major area or areas of study.
2. How long and in what programs have you taught blind children?
3. In what setting do you teach? (Example: classroom in school
for the blind, special education classroom, itinerant program,
etc.)
4. How many students do you teach regularly this year? What
subjects do you teach?
5. How many of your students read and write primarily using: a)
Braille,
b) large print, c) closed circuit television, d) recorded
materials,
e) small print?
6. How many of your students use both print and Braille?
7. At what age do you recommend that your students begin: a)
reading Braille, b) writing with a slate and stylus, c) writing
with a Braille writer?
8. At what age do you recommend that your students begin to learn
independent cane travel?
9. How do you determine which children should learn cane travel
and which children should not?
10. a) At what age do you recommend that students begin typing?
b) When do you expect them to be able to hand in typed
assignments?  Send all material by April 15, 1990, to: Sharon
Maneki, Chairman, Teacher Award Committee, 9736 Basket Ring Road,
Columbia, Maryland 21045; telephone: (301) 992-9608.
The education of blind children is one of our most important
concerns.  Attendance at a National Federation of the Blind
convention will enrich a teacher's experience by affording the
opportunity to meet other teachers who work with blind children,
to meet parents, and to meet blind adults who have had
experiences in a variety of educational programs. Help us
recognize a distinguished teacher by distributing this
announcement and encouraging teachers to submit their
applications.  We are pleased to offer this award and look
forward to nominations from many well-qualified educators.
THE BLIND EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR 1990 by Patricia Munson
The National Association of Blind Educators is an organization
devoted to encouraging blind persons to enter the field of
education. Throughout history there has been a succession of
blind men and women who have
been recognized for their superior contributions as professional
educators and leaders in the organized blind movement. It is not
surprising that the founder of the National Federation of the
blind, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, was universally acclaimed as an
outstanding scholar and teacher at the University of California
at Berkeley and elsewhere.  It is, therefore, appropriate that
the National Association of Blind Educators has created a special
award to recognize the achievements of blind professionals who
have demonstrated superior ability in their work as educators.
This award, known as the  Blind Educator of the Year Award,  is
presented during the annual business meeting of the National
Association of Blind Educators. This meeting takes
place in conjunction with the annual convention of the National
Federation of the Blind. The recipient of the  Blind Educator of
the Year Award  must be present to receive the award.
The honoree will be presented with a plaque appropriately
inscribed to reflect the significance of the recognition being
bestowed.  Selection of the  Blind Educator of the Year  will be
by the recommendation of a committee comprised of three members
of the National Association of Blind Educators. Each member of
the committee is an outstanding educator in his or her own right.
The chairperson of the committee is: Mr. Fred Schroeder, who can
be reached at: 1434 Wellesley, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico
87106. Also serving on the committee are Maria Morais and Lev
Williams.
Anyone wishing to recommend an outstanding blind educator for
consideration should submit the following information in writing
to Fred Schroeder at the address given:
1. A letter of recommendation must be submitted to the
chairperson of the selection committee by April 15, 1990. The
nomination letter may be submitted by the nominee or on behalf of
the nominee by a friend or colleague. The letter should include a
professional profile of
the nominee as well as information on community service or other
distinguishing activities.
2. At least one letter seconding an individual's nomination must
be submitted to the selection committee chairperson by April 15,
1990.  This letter may also be from a friend or colleague and
should affirm the nominee's qualifications. This letter may also
be used to expand upon or provide additional information which
the committee may find useful in making its selection. Additional
letters seconding a nomination may be submitted on behalf of an
individual nominee.
The  Blind Educator of the Year Award  represents a real
opportunity to honor a blind educator who has made significant
contributions both in his or her professional work and to the
organized blind movement.  Please submit your nominations early
so that the selection committee will be able to give each
recommendation the careful attention it deserves.

                             RECIPES 
                        by Barbara Pierce 

Thanksgiving is almost always a memorable day. Sometimes one
would rather forget the recollections, but more often the holiday
provides a time for friends and family to gather together in
appreciation of the blessings that surround us.
Until 1977 all of my Thanksgiving memories from earliest
childhood through the never-ending adventures of raising my own
three small children are full of good food, loved ones, candle
light, sterling silver, and fine china. In the early years my
worry was to avoid breaking or spilling something in the weakness
of acute starvation. Later the anxieties focused on my children's
doing the same thing and on whether or not my repast would live
up to my mother's past extravaganzas.

But no more. In 1977 the Pierce family was spending the year in
London, England, where my husband was teaching in Oberlin's
semester abroad program. When we began thinking about
Thanksgiving, we fifteen students and five Pierces were the only
people we knew who would be celebrating the holiday. We did find
three more American students who were looking for a port in the
storm, so it was twenty-three yanks who gathered that day for the
oddest feast I have ever boss-dogged.
The day did not begin well. True, the man from the Gas Board did
arrive early in response to my frantic phone call after I
discovered that the oven would not heat regardless of the number
of lighted matches I held under its nose. And he did produce some
magic that got the thing to behave. But I sent my husband and the
children out as soon as the shops were open to collect the turkey
that the butcher had specially ordered for me. I had taken him
the largest pan I could buy that would fit into my small oven,
and he undertook to order me
a bird that would sit in my roaster. He agreed to keep it in his
freezer for me and to defrost it properly beginning on Wednesday.
I reminded him of his promise that morning when I went in to
shop, and he assured me that he would take the bird out of the
freezer  right away, ducks.  But he didn't! I heard my youngest
child crying while the returning crowd was still at the end of
the street. The bird felt like a turkey-shaped stone, and at age
four, Margy was certain that the end of the world was at hand.
It wasn't. As a matter of fact, at that moment things began to
look up. I stopped worrying about having things turn out right
and started praying that there would be food to serve. The turkey
was superb, and the twenty-three of us, who sat down wherever we
could find a space all over the house, shared the best
Thanksgiving I can remember.  Everyone who came brought his or
her own plate and utensils, and those who could brought a dish to
share. The student who kept kosher and the one vegetarian caused
a few complications, but these were more by way of being
challenges than problems.
We had such a good time that we repeated the celebration the
following November when many of us were back in Oberlin, and most
of the rest traveled from all over the country to join us. Of
such adventures
as these are Thanksgiving memories made. Enjoy creating your own
collection this year. Here are three of the dishes that I serve
every Thanksgiving, including the one in London, along with a
wonderful traditional Thanksgiving dessert and a couple of ideas
for those delicious leftovers.

                 Never-Fail Thanksgiving Turkey 

For best results choose a fresh hen turkey. If you must use a
frozen bird, avoid the pre-basted ones, and never depend upon the
inserted thermometers to tell you when the bird is cooked. I
order the largest fresh hen turkey my butcher can get.
Early Thanksgiving morning thoroughly wash the neck and giblets.
Place these in a large sauce pan with an onion (cleaned, trimmed,
peeled, and having four or five whole cloves stuck into it); one
large carrot, cut in chunks; one or two ribs of celery, cut in
chunks; one teaspoon allspice berries; 1/2 teaspoon sage; 1/2
teaspoon thyme; 1/2 teaspoon poultry seasoning; 1 bay leaf; 1/2
teaspoon peppercorns; and seasoned salt to taste. The whole
berries and larger spices can be placed in a tea ball or tied in
a square of cheese cloth to keep them contained in the stock pot.
Fill the sauce pan with at least one quart of water.  Cover the
pan tightly and bring to a boil, allowing the stock to simmer for
at least one half hour, but ideally up to two hours. This much
of the operation may be done the night before. If doing so,
refrigerate stock overnight.
Rinse the body cavities of the bird and stuff lightly with your
favorite dressing, if desired, skewering closed the neck cavity
whether or not you have stuffed it. Fold wing tips behind the
bird to secure them.
Before closing the body cavity with skewers or thread prepare the
herbed butter for self-basting. With fingers kneed together one
stick of softened margarine or butter, chopped leaves from two
ribs of celery, finely chopped onion to taste (one or two
teaspoons should be sufficient), two teaspoons grated lemon peel,
1/4 teaspoon thyme, 1/4 teaspoon ground allspice, and 1/4
teaspoon poultry seasoning. The mixture should resemble a smooth
paste. Divide the butter mixture in half and insert half under
each side of the breast skin. You can lift the breast skin away
from the meat by inserting your fingers under the skin on the
top edge of the body cavity. After you have inserted the butter
mixture, you can work it up toward the neck by pushing on the
outside of the
skin with an upward motion. Close the body cavity, tie the feet
together, sprinkle the bird liberally with soy sauce, and place
in an open roasting pan. I tuck squares of foil paper under the
wings and over the drum sticks to keep them from browning too
quickly.
Roast turkey at 275 to 300 degrees. Calculate the length of
roasting time by multiplying the weight of the bird times fifteen
minutes per pound, unstuffed, or twenty minutes per pound,
stuffed. Baste the turkey frequently, using a measuring cup or
poultry baster. For the first two hours or so you will have to
use the stock made from the giblets for this purpose. After that
the pan juices will be sufficient to baste with. A slice or two
of bacon placed over the breast for the last half hour of
roasting will give the bird a beautiful finish (the cook deserves
to enjoy the bacon). The turkey is done when the juice runs clear
after a skewer or cooking fork has pierced the thickest part of
the meat between the leg and the body. Remove the bird to
a warmed platter. Remove foil, string, and skewers, and garnish
with parsley sprigs and spiced fruit if desired. Keep bird warm
while making the gravy.
Strain the stock from the sauce pan into the roaster and loosen
the browned particles from the bottom of the roasting pan.
Transfer the stock to a sauce pan for making the gravy. An easy
way to remove the fat is to pour the stock through a colander of
ice cubes. The fat will cling to the ice. You can then make gravy
in your favorite way.

                   Do-Ahead Refrigerator Rolls 

Ingredients
1 cup water
1/2 cup shortening or 1 stick margarine
1/4 cup plus 1 tablespoon sugar
3/4 tsp. salt
1 large or 2 small beaten eggs
1 package active dry yeast
3 1/2 cups flour

Method: Melt the shortening or margarine in a large bowl. Add
water, sugar, salt, and (when the temperature of the liquid is
comfortably warm but not hot) the yeast. Stir to dissolve. Add
the beaten egg, and then stir or beat in the flour to make a soft
dough. Knead until the dough is elastic, but avoid adding enough
additional flour to make it smooth. It will not look like bread
dough because this is
a finer bread than the standard loaf. Turn the dough into a
well-buttered bowl, and brush the top with melted margarine.
Cover the dough tightly with plastic wrap and either set the bowl
in a warm place to rise (if you are planning to use the rolls
right away) or refrigerate for up to one week in a bowl with a
tight lid.
When the dough has doubled in bulk or on the day the rolls are to
be used, grease up to thirty cups in muffin tins. Knead the dough
to release the air. Pinch off a piece of dough the size of a
large olive. Roll it and form a ball with a smooth top and place
it on one side of a muffin cup. Add another ball to the cup.
Together they should fill the bottom but should not reach the
top. Repeat with the rest of the cups to be filled. Brush the
tops of the rolls generously with melted butter. Cover them and
allow to rise until doubled in bulk (about 1 1/2 to 2 hours if
the dough has come from the fridge). Uncover and bake at 375
degrees for 15 minutes. They reheat well in a microwave.


                     Sweet Potato Casserole 

Method: This recipe has no amounts because they vary so widely
depending on how many you are feeding and how you like your sweet
potatoes.  Begin with drained cans of New Jersey sweet potatoes.
For best results rice these using a food mill, ricer, or other
mechanical means of getting rid of all the lumps. Then place
potatoes in a mixing bowl and begin to beat with an electric
mixer or a very strong arm. Heat light cream (skimmed milk will
do for the pure in heart) and butter or margarine. How much? I
start with a stick of margarine and about a quarter of a cup of
cream. The more liquid you add, the runnier will the potatoes be
on the plate, so suit yourself. Beat in this mixture. Add orange
juice concentrate (at least 2 tablespoons), grated orange peel if
available, grated fresh nutmeg, salt, and brown sugar to taste.
Turn the potatoes into a well-greased casserole dish and cover.
Heat through before dinner. This part can be done in a microwave
if you are pressed for time or oven space. When the potatoes are
hot and bubbly, top with marshmallows (lots if you have small
children
or their equivalent to feed) and return to a hot oven until the
marshmallows are melted and browned.

                            Pecan Pie 
                        by Barbara Smith 

 Barbara Smith is one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of West Virginia. Her husband, Mike, serves as
president of that affiliate and testifies to the excellence of
this traditional favorite. 

Ingredients
3/4 cup sugar
2 tablespoons flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup dark Karo syrup
2 eggs
1/2 cup evaporated milk
1 cup pecans
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 9-inch unbaked pie shell

Method: Mix sugar, flour, and salt together. Stir in syrup. Beat
in eggs one at a time. Stir in pecans, milk, and vanilla. Pour
into 9-inch pie shell. Bake 50 minutes at 375 degrees. Pie is
done when table knife inserted in center comes out clean.

                          Turkey Quiche 
                         by Joyce Porter 

 Joyce Porter is one of the leaders of the National Federation of
the Blind of West Virginia. As Federationists know, her husband
Dick was President of the West Virginia affiliate for many years
before his death. 

Ingredients
1 unbaked 10-inch pie shell
3 cups cooked turkey
1 cup chopped onion
1 cup cheddar cheese
2 tablespoons flour
3 eggs
salt and pepper to taste
1/2 cup milk

Method: Lightly toss the turkey, cut in bite-sized pieces, and
onions together. You may add sliced mushrooms, green or red
pepper, sliced water chestnuts, celery, or other vegetables at
this point. Sprinkle this mixture on the bottom of the pie shell.
Mix the cheddar cheese with the flour and sprinkle on top of the
turkey. Combine the eggs, milk, and seasonings and pour evenly
over the quiche. Bake it in a preheated 400 degree oven for 45 to
50 minutes. Quiche is done when custard is set and knife inserted
in center comes out clean. This dish freezes well. It can be
reheated in the microwave.

                          Turkey Gumbo 
                        by Florence Wood 

 Florence Wood is an active member of the National Federation of
the Blind of Maryland. She is also a professional caterer. 

Ingredients
1 turkey carcass plus 2 legs or thighs
1/2 cup bacon grease
1/2 cup cooking oil
1 cup flour
8 ribs celery, chopped
3 large onions, chopped
1 bell pepper, chopped
2 cloves minced garlic (optional)
1/2 cup chopped parsley
1 pound okra, sliced
1 cup to 1 pound smoked sausage, sliced
1/2 cup Worcestershire sauce
Tabasco sauce to taste
4 large fresh tomatoes or one 12-ounce can
1-1/2 tablespoons salt
4 slices bacon cut into 1-inch pieces
2 bay leaves
cayenne pepper to taste
1 teaspoon brown sugar
1 tablespoon lemon juice
4 cups uncooked rice, cooked

Method: Break the turkey carcass into several pieces. Place it in
soup kettle with legs or thighs and 3 quarts water and 1 teaspoon
salt. Bring to a boil and simmer covered for 1 hour, then cool.
Discard bones and other wastes from pot when it is cool enough to
handle.  Set stock and meat aside. Over medium heat in a heavy
pot heat grease and oil. Add flour, stirring constantly and cook
until the roux is a dark golden brown. Add celery, onion, pepper,
garlic, and parsley.  Cook 20 minutes, stirring constantly. Add
sausage and okra and continue to cook for 5 additional minutes.
Add turkey stock and enough water to make four quarts. Add
Worcestershire and Tabasco sauces, tomatoes, salt, bacon, bay
leaves, and cayenne. Simmer covered over very low heat for 2-1/2
hours stirring occasionally. Add the meat and simmer for thirty
more minutes. Just before serving, add lemon juice and brown
sugar. Serve in heated soup bowls over rice.
                                 
 ***MONITOR MINIATURES*** 
**A Federation Wedding:
If there ever was a Federation wedding, it was the one which
occurred at the Garden Villa in Baltimore on the afternoon of
August 5, 1989, when Sandra Kelly and John Halverson were
married. The Reverend Homer Page (who, among his many other
accomplishments, is an ordained Baptist minister) officiated.
Cynthia Towers, Secretary to Mr. Gashel, attended the bride and
read from  The Prophet ; Marie Cobb baked the wedding cake and
managed the serving of the food; the  Monitor  Editor read from 
The Prophet ; Gerald Yeager of Virginia was the best man; and
Federationists from throughout the country came to witness,
congratulate, and see it properly done. It was a gala occasion.
The Halversons are making their home in Kansas City, Missouri,
where Sandy is now a medical secretary and John continues to work
as Deputy Director of the Office for Civil Rights in Region VII.
All of us offer congratulations and best wishes.

**New Baby:
We recently received the following announcement from Ned Godfrey: 
The Capital District Chapter of the National Federation of the
Blind of New York is proud to announce that on Saturday, May 20,
1989, our treasurer, Bill Schultz, and his wife Ema became the
proud parents of an eight-pound, five-ounce baby girl, Ashlee
Rose Schultz. The birth was very successful. Both parents and
baby are well. We wish Bill, Ema, and Ashlee Rose the best of
luck!

**Dies:
Jim Scott, husband of Nancy Scott of Easton, Pennsylvania, died
suddenly August 2, 1989. Nancy Scott is currently serving as
secretary of the Writers Division of the National Federation of
the Blind. She is one of those who stimulated formation of the
Division, and she was one of its first presidents. Jim was a
staunch Federationist who worked closely with Nancy to improve
conditions for the blind and to bring Federation spirit to blind
people from throughout the United States.  Never flashy or
flamboyant, Jim did his part quietly. When there was a need, he
responded.

**Surely There Is Not Still A Mystery:
 First Person:  In the September issue of the  Braille Monitor 
an article appeared entitled  Conundrum.  It referred to the
first Miniature in the July issue. Are you still in doubt as to
what it means?
 Second Person:  Perhaps you can give me another clue.
 First Person:  A flour maker is a miller. And the word  floral 
rhymes with another word. Surely there is not still a mystery.

**Employees Complain of Racism:
 The following article appeared in the August 19, 1989, 
Greenville
 [South Carolina]  News:

                  Racial Discrimination Alleged
                   At Commission for the Blind
                          by Tim Smith

COLUMBIA The State Human Affairs Commission is investigating
allegations that black employees of the state Commission for the
Blind have been discriminated against, officials said Friday.
William K. James, the director of the Commission for the Blind,
confirmed the Human Affairs Commission is investigating
allegations.  Certainly there is a problem,  James said.
He said the investigation began after he asked for the Human
Affairs Commission's help to  reduce racial tensions  at his
agency.  He said about a quarter of the 110 employees are black. 
According to a letter sent to James last week by Jim Clyburn, the
director of the Human Affairs Commission, employees at the
Commission for the Blind outlined 15 charges of racial
discrimination by officials of the agency.
 The allegations summarized above are quite serious,  Clyburn
wrote.  Many of them allege violations of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act and the South Carolina human affairs law. 
Clyburn, according to the letter, said there are allegations that
one white employee made racial slurs without being disciplined. 
Racial slurs appear to exist with your tacit approval,  Clyburn
said in the letter.
He also said,  Black employees have been told they cannot get
certain supervisory positions and raises because white emloyees
might not like it. 
Clyburn said there is an allegation that James once said he would 
hire five white persons for every black person.  James denied
both allegations involving him.
He said he has never condoned any racial slur and  made that
clear in writing  to agency employees. He said that while he has
tried to set quotas to hire more blind workers, he as never said
he would hire more whites than blacks.
There are also allegations, Clyburn wrote, that white employees
of the Commission for the Blind have been pre- selected to fill
vacant jobs and job postings are omitted. He said white employees
have been promoted even when black employees are more qualified.

 Postscript:  As we go to press, we have learned that William
James has been allowed to resign as director of the South
Carolina Commission for the Blind. 

**Sell:
Gail Coppel, President of the Columbia Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina, has asked that we run
the following:   I have an Optacon model RD for sale. It has been
serviced recently and is in excellent condition. I am asking
$1,350 for it. If interested, please contact Gail Coppel, 847
Jefferson Street, West Columbia, South Carolina 29169; or call
(803) 796-8662. 

**Dies:
On August 26, 1989, California Federationist Bob Woods died. He
was an active member of the Diabetics Division of the National
Federation of the Blind, and Ed Bryant (Editor of  The Voice of
the Diabetic ) says:  Bob was thirty- four. In the past he has
served as state representative of our Diabetics Division in
California. He was a long-term diabetic, and although an autopsy
has not been performed, from the reports I have received, the
probable cause of death was a heart attack.  Bob's fiance, Adonna
Frankel, is an active member of our Diabetics Division and the
Federation. Bob and Adonna had already purchased a house in
anticipation of their future lives together. I conversed with
Adonna on Sunday, August 27, and she was trying to `come to
grips' with the situation so she could make arrangements for the
funeral and take care of other details. 
Ed Bryant speaks for all of us when he says that Federationists
everywhere reach out to Adonna to express our love and support.

**Wedding Bells:
From the September, 1989,  Wisconsin Chronicle , the publication
of the National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin, we read the
following:
 We send our very best wishes to NFB-W board members Kathleen
Sullivan and Larry Sebranek for their upcoming wedding and their
future together. Kathleen and Larry will be married on Saturday,
September
23, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Kathleen's new name will be Kathleen
Sebranek.  By the time this issue of the  Braille Monitor  is in
the mail,
the wedding will be an accomplished fact. Congratulations to two
wonderful people. May their lives together be long and happy.

**Surgery:
In a recent letter to the  Monitor  Editor Sandy Jo Hansen, one
of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of South
Dakota, said:  I am having foot surgery September 15 for bone
fragments and will be off my feet for a while.  By now, we hope
that Sandy is fully recovered.

**Perchance to Dream:
Jim Canaday is a blind Federationist who is working on his
doctorate
in clinical psychology at the University of Kansas at Lawrence.
Recently he wrote as follows:
 Recently my wife, Susan, and I were saddened to learn that my
dog guide, Ethel, was rapidly becoming blind. Retinal Atrophy was
identified, with no options for helping it. We are learning much
about attitudes toward blindness through Ethel's becoming blind
herself.  Last May she was diagnosed then retired because of her
significantly reduced sight. And some biases expressed in
response to this news
have simply appalled us. We were told that Retinal Atrophy is a
completely painless condition. And if we kept Ethel at home, she
would have a happy life with the people she knows. In these first
months of her retirement Ethel has indeed been content and
playful, accepting my new dog guide and spending more time with
my wife. Yet, some people (all sighted) upon learning that Ethel
was rapidly going blind asked, `will you have her put down,' or
`will you have her put to sleep?'

 When a friend asked this of Susan, from her surprise she
replied, `Well, should we have Jim put to sleep, too?' This was
an insightful response. I believe these reactions illustrate a
common view of blindness:  better dead than blind. 

**Kentucky Convention:
Robbie McClave writes as follows:  The National Federation of the
Blind of Kentucky held its state convention September 8-10, 1989. 
Elected were: President, Betty Niceley; First Vice President, Tim
Cranmer; Second Vice President, Robert Page; Third Vice
President, Mary Ruth Maggard; Treasurer, Dennis Franklin;
Recording Secretary, Mary Beaven; Corresponding Secretary, Robbie
McClave; and Chaplain, Bill Deatherage. 

**Usher Syndrome:
 We recently received in the National Office a letter from the
Department of Genetics at the Boys Town National Institute for
Communication Disorders in Children in Omaha, Nebraska, which
said in part:  The Genetics Department of the Boys Town National
Research Hospital is conducting a study of Usher syndrome. We are
collaborating in our study with doctors and families in Sweden
and Italy in order to try to isolate the gene(s) responsible for
Usher syndrome. Once the gene is isolated, we hope to learn its
mechanism of action and someday
find a way to treat or cure it. Our problem is a shortage of
participating families with Usher syndrome. We cannot do the
research without the cooperation of families, so we have turned
to you and your publication.  We would appreciate it if you would
print the following statement:

Usher syndrome (US) is a genetic disorder characterized by
hearing
loss and retinitis pigmentosa. It is inherited through autosomal
recessive genes and has an estimated frequency of 4.4 per 100,000
individuals in the United States. Stated another way, more than
half of the deaf and blind individuals in the United States are
believed to have Usher syndrome.
Our department is currently conducting a linkage study of Usher
syndrome in an effort to locate the gene(s) which causes the
disorder. Once the gene is located and its mechanism of action
understood, it may be possible to someday treat or prevent Usher
syndrome. Although we cannot offer an immediate cure, we hope
that the research will benefit future generations.
To conduct our study we need the cooperation and participation of
families with Usher syndrome. Each family member will be asked
for complete family and medical histories. In addition, each
person will be asked to have a pure tone audiogram and to have
their blood drawn.  All tests are paid for by our department, and
all information is strictly confidential.
Interested families should contact Dr. W. J. Kimberling or Kathy
McBrown in the Genetics Department of Boys Town National Research
Hospital at (402) 498-6755 voice, or (402) 498-6631 TDD. Our
mailing address is: 555 North 30th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68131.

**Student Copy:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Student
Copy provides scholarship-finding services to all those searching
for funds to help cover their post-secondary educational
expenses. A database
is searched to determine which of over 4,000 funding programs
available would meet the participant requirements, and for which
the student
is most highly qualified. Matching the student with the programs
before an application for assistance is submitted greatly
enhances the student's probability of receiving some funding.
Electronic and other processing fees are $20. Write to: Student
Copy, The Lower Level, 23-51 97th Street, East Elmhurst, New York
11369; or call (718) 672-7841.

**Edit the Apple:
We recently received the following release in the National
Office:  The Disk Output Service of the National Braille
Association, Inc., 1290 University Avenue, Rochester, New York
14607, is pleased to announce an additional service for
VersaBraille II disk readers. All materials prepared for hard
copy Braille on the Apple ED-IT program can now be transferred to
VersaBraille II disk without any further editing. Materials
already on disk in the Braille Book Bank may be ordered or new
material prepared through NBA's transcription service.  Each disk
will include a special VersaBraille reading program and will be
entirely indexed for easy reference. Cost of this service is $5
per disk.

**New Name, No Change:
We recently received an announcement telling us that the Arkansas
Enterprises for the Blind had changed its name.  It is now
calling itself Lions World Services for the Blind. Impressive,
that name.
It causes one to reflect on motives, purposes, and
accomplishments especially motives.

**Would Like to Correspond:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  
50-year-old, low-income, `shadow vision' blind man: semi-retired
social anthropologist, small boat sailor, ex- anti-poverty social
worker or bicycle dealer with friendly, enthusiastic Labradore
dog guide, basic machine tools, and very small two-bedroom house
at historic old Pacific Northwest seaport. Would like tape,
cassette, or Braille correspondence with youthful spirit blind or
half-blind lady who likes books, economic or social history,
do-it-yourself home craft `survival' or low-cost outdoor sports.
George N. Gieser, 506 Van Buren Street, Port Townsend, Washington
98368. 

**Would Have Helped Air Travelers:
Dennis Wyant, Secretary of the Blinded American Veterans
Foundation,
writes as follows:
 I saw something on my Delta flight to Las Vegas recently that I
thought you might find interesting. An Oriental couple who spoke
no English were sitting in an exit row. They did not have the
benefit of the flight attendants' explanation of emergency
procedures nor
could they read the instructions in the seat pocket. The airline
personnel didn't seem to care or observe that they had missed
these instructions.  However, they were safe because in case of
an emergency I would have shown them what to do. 

**Surgery:
Cindy Handel is one of the most devoted and best loved leaders of
the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania. Wherever
she goes, she radiates harmony and good will. On July 6, 1989,
Cindy had surgery for cancer in the area of her face. The
malignancy was deep and widespread, but the doctors say that they
believe they were able to remove all of it. After a stay in the
hospital Cindy recuperated at home and visited relatives. At the
time of this writing (early September) she plans to return to
work some time during the next month.  Our thoughts and prayers
are with her.

**Elected:
Dr. Homer Page, First Vice President of the National Federation
of the Blind of Colorado and Boulder County Commissioner, was
unanimously elected in September, 1989, as President of the
Advisory Board of the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind. 
Monitor  readers will remember that Dr. Page was named by the
Governor to that board
in December of 1987 over the strenuous opposition of many in the
blindness field, including several from the school, who
questioned the appropriateness of the appointment. Their
reservations are apparently not shared by Dr. Page's colleagues
on the Board of the Colorado School. We add our congratulations
to those of the blind of the state, who will (we are certain) be
well served by his leadership.
