                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                         December, 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
                          DECEMBER 1989

THE WINDS OF CHANGE
  by Kenneth Jernigan

Even THE MINNEAPOLIS SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND CATCHES ON

THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, SUB-MINIMUM WAGES, AND THE 
SOUTHWEST LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND

IMPLEMENTING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1986: 
CHANGES IN SUB-MINIMUM WAGES FOR BLIND WORKERS
by Senator Howard Metzenbaum

UPWARD MOBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BLIND: 
THE JAVITS-WAGNER-O'DAY ACT
  by Beverly Milkman

TWENTY YEARS AFTER
  by Jana S. Moynihan

IF YOU CAN'T SEE ME NOW: 
MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES
 by Barbara Pierce

STILL MORE ABOUT CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES

INCIDENTS AT WASHINGTON UNION STATION: 
VARIATIONS ON A TIRED, OLD THEME
  by Steven Hastalis

HOW DO YOU EAT AN ELEPHANT?
  by Barbara Pierce

CURTIS CHONG
  by Andrea Engler

MAKING THE CORRECT CHANGE:  WEEKLY READER  LEARNS ITS LESSON

CONCERNING  POKADOT  AND OTHER COMPUTER MYSTERIES
by Kenneth Jernigan

WHAT COLOR IS THE SUN?   
  by Lauren L. Eckery

READERS' VIEWPOINT: IN DEFENSE OF BRAILLE
  by Teresa Myers

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
  by Barbara Pierce

EDUCATE THE EDUCATED THE BLAND USE OF BLIND
by Bill J. Isaacs

BLINDNESS ISN'T A HANDICAP IT'S A NUISANCE
by Deborah Scoblionkov

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

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

                       THE WINDS OF CHANGE
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

Most (although certainly not all) of the people who are
knowledgeable about such things would agree that today the two
strongest forces
in the affairs of the blind of this country are the National
Federation of the Blind and the American Foundation for the
Blind. Consequently, how these two organizations interact is of
considerable importance.  Sometimes the relationship has been
stormy and sometimes quiet, but it has rarely been what one would
call close and cordial.  Recently, however, there has been a
pronounced change. I suppose it started in the mid-eighties when
the Federation and the Foundation began working together in the
World Blind Union. It has now spread far beyond that. To begin
with, I should say that Bill Gallagher, the Foundation's
Executive Director, and I have been meeting on a fairly regular
basis for quite some time; and although it is not a controlling
factor, I find Bill Gallagher friendly and easy to deal with. In
short, I like him as a person. My experience has been that he
faces issues and keeps his word. That does not mean that we
always agree or that either of us approves of everything the
other does.  It simply means that it is easier to work with
somebody who treats you courteously and shows some responsiveness
than with somebody who doesn't.
An incident occurred not long ago which shows what is happening
and how the balances are altering. It will be remembered that
President Maurer said in his 1989 banquet speech:  The American
Foundation for the Blind has produced a special psychological
test called the `Anxiety Scale for the Blind.'  He went on to
ridicule the test and tear it to pieces, pointing out how
negative it was. Dr. Susan Spungin, one of the Foundation's top
officials, was in the audience, having spoken to the Federation
convention that afternoon.  Shortly after the conclusion of the
NFB convention Bill Gallagher called me to say that he felt it
was unfortunate that President Maurer had attacked the Anxiety
Scale for the Blind, implying that it was current when in reality
it was outdated, having been produced in the late sixties. I told
him that it was my understanding that the Anxiety Scale was still
being used by the Foundation and that if it was, it didn't matter
when it was produced. He said he would look into it.  A few weeks
later he called me to say that he had learned that the Foundation
was, in fact, still distributing the Anxiety Scale. He said that
he had reviewed it and wasn't sure he could pass it himself.  He
concluded by saying that the document was immediately being
withdrawn from circulation and would no longer be used.
This is the sort of responsiveness which can lead to a new
climate in the blindness field. I emphasize that the National
Federation of the Blind and the American Foundation for the Blind
are not going to agree on every issue and that when we think it
is necessary, we will publicly state that we think the Foundation
is wrong. But the
incident I have just described could not have occurred ten years
ago or, for that matter, even five years ago. Hopefully it may be
a sign of things to come.
      EVEN THE MINNEAPOLIS SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND CATCHES ON
The name of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind (MSB) jangles
unpleasantly on the ears of Federationists living in Minnesota or
possessing long memories. As measured by blind consumers (whose
assessment admittedly focuses primarily on quality rehabilitation
and constructive assistance in finding good jobs), the
Minneapolis Society has never been an effective agency. In
addition, it has run a sheltered shop, which paid wretched wages
and bankrolled a substantial part (some sources say up to seventy
percent) of the agency's operating budget. It should come as a
surprise to no one to learn that MSB has been one of the most
loyal of the NAC agencies. The National Accreditation Council for
Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped has praised
and petted MSB, and MSB in turn has enthusiastically supported
NAC and done what it could through the years to destroy the
National Federation of the Blind.

Throughout the Seventies and early Eighties the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota had no choice but to
concentrate much of its energy and most of its resources in a
long struggle against the MSB. Many Federationists will remember
the nation-wide proxy battle we were forced to undertake when the
Society flatly refused to allow blind consumers to stand for
election to its Board of Trustees until a judge forced it to do
so in 1979. As a result of that struggle, eight blind consumers
were elected to the board and served for several years, although
because they were a minority they were unable to do much to
improve things for the blind people served by the agency.

In recent years, however, the NFB of Minnesota has been able to
move on to other matters. The creation of a rehabilitation center
founded on the philosophy of the Federation is only one of the
projects that have improved the lives of blind Minnesotans
throughout this decade despite the MSB.
Perhaps as a result the Minneapolis Society for the Blind has
been slipping further and further out of the public consciousness
in the state. Several executive directors have come and gone, and
the state rehabilitation agency's internal reports disclose that
fewer and fewer blind people are taking part in MSB's full-time
rehabilitation program.

The most recent Executive Director of the MSB has been Jane
Pazlar, a woman who worked for some years at Litton Industries. A
number of years ago she began serving on the MSB Board and,
growing out of that association with the Society, was asked to
serve as its acting director beginning in 1983. Members of the
NFB of Minnesota did not expect her to continue long in that
position, but to their surprise, after some months she was given
the job permanently.  The appointment was not good news for blind
people. The clearest memory Federationists have of her from their
years of service on the MSB Board is Pazlar's saying repeatedly
to her blind colleagues who were asking questions before voting, 
Get with it,   just vote! 
Despite her antagonism toward members of the NFB, Pazlar has not
found relations with her own board to be smooth sailing.
According to reports from within the rehabilitation establishment
in Minnesota, rifts began to develop between Pazlar and her board
and between the MSB and State Services for the Blind, Minnesota's
primary source of rehabilitation funding. Pazlar did not seem to
have the political savvy that her position required, according to
Joyce Scanlan, President of the NFB of Minnesota and Director of
BLIND, Inc., which might be considered as competing with MSB for
rehabilitation clients and funding. It has been clear to
observers, Scanlan says, that in recent years MSB's share of
contract work with State Services for the Blind has been
shrinking.
In August, 1989, the MSB Board indicated that it would accept
Pazlar's resignation, a move which sources close to the situation
report took Pazlar by surprise. The resignation was tendered, and
Bette O'Donnell, the Society's chief fiscal staffer was named as
Acting Director. The fact that an employee with no previous
experience with service delivery was named to head MSB has fueled
rumors around the state that there are questions about Pazlar's
financial management of the Society.
No one has come forward with specific allegations, but late in
August MSB announced that it would be closing its sheltered
workshop by the end of 1990. To hear MSB tell the story, one
would conclude that this decision is just one more stride forward
in the Minneapolis Society for the Blind's committed effort to
make life better for the blind.  Certainly no one would argue
that the closure of the shop will damage
blind people; we have maintained for years that the MSB shop was
detrimental to the blind of the Twin Cities area. A careful
reading of the news story that appeared in the  Minneapolis Star 
on August 25 reveals the true motive behind the decision to close
the MSB sheltered shop.  Fewer and fewer blind people are willing
to work for the low wages paid by MSB and its sister industry
programs. The shop, therefore, is no longer the profit-making
operation that it was only a few years ago.
As usual the blind are leading the way, and the Minneapolis
Society for the Blind is floundering along behind, waving
excuses, blaming economic circumstances, and hoping that no one
will notice that it
is increasingly irrelevant to the blind, who seek their
rehabilitation from agencies that believe in them and who find
their jobs in competitive employment.
The importance of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind may be
shrinking in the blindness community, but its public relations
department is still on the ball. Not a word of the agency's
leadership upheaval crept into the workshop story as it appeared
in the newspapers no speculation about slipping market share or
financial problems. Only the up-beat announcement that the
Minneapolis Society for the Blind was doing what was best for the
blind. That it is, and the blind,
at least, know how it happened. Here is what the  Minneapolis
Star  had to say:

               Workshop's Passing is Hopeful Sign,
                   Says Society for the Blind
             by Diana Ettel Gonzalez (Staff Writer)

For the Minneapolis Society for the Blind, the decision to close
its manufacturing workshop signals a recognition that the
business community and society in general are more accepting of
blind people, say members of the agency.
 When we first incorporated in 1914, one of the first things that
we did was to provide jobs for blind people. At that point in
time, society thought that a blind person had to be in a
sheltered environment.  Now blindness no longer dictates that a
person has to be in a sheltered center,  said Bette O'Donnell,
interim president and chief executive officer of the society.
It announced this week that it will stop operating its
manufacturing division by the end of next year. Officials said
the division has been losing money, in part because of cutbacks
in defense and other federal government contracts.
It makes textiles, mops, and medical catheters for the federal
government.  Society officials say the closing does not reflect a
change in philosophy.   We recognize, and it's part of our
fundamental philosophy, that people with that disability have
every right and every ability to succeed at whatever they do, 
said Jim Lande, chairman of the society.
It is a philosophy that has prevailed in the society for years,
Lande said.
But critics of the society claim it wasn't always so.
In the 1970's, Joyce Scanlan, president of the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota, led the group in a bitter
fight trying
to gain more control over the society. The Federation sued the
society, alleging discrimination against the blind and membership
restrictions.  The Federation eventually gained some seats on the
society's board but severed its ties in 1981 when Federation
members resigned from the board.
In a fight that spanned a decade, the Federation also contended
that the society's workshop limited blind people's opportunities
by offering low-paying manual jobs, and illustrated society's
paternalistic attitude toward the blind.
 The sheltered workshop has held blind people down for a long
time. People looked to this society as the place where blind
people belonged, and that limited the possibilities for the rest
of us,  said Scanlan.
Lande said the fight between the two should be classified as
ancient history. Scanlan said that nowadays the Federation and
the society largely ignore each other. Whatever the reasons for
closing the workshop, it is a move that the Federation welcomes,
she said.
Society officials say the nonprofit agency, which provides
services
for the blind, plans now to focus its efforts on other existing
programs.  The first is aimed at rehabilitating the visually
impaired; the second tries to address problems of an increasingly
large number of people in Minnesota who are troubled by declining
vision.
 It's a matter of deciding for the future where you wish to place
your resources to do the widest good for the most people, 
O'Donnell said.
Lande said workshops aren't a thing of the past, although he said
most blind people no longer need them.
 In other situations, particularly with respect to people who
are both blind and have multiple handicaps, there remains a
legitimate role for agencies that provide sheltered work. Other
agencies who serve the multiply handicapped are better able to
serve that section
of the blind community for whom blindness is one of several
disabilities.  But for people who have just blindness as a
handicap, they are best served by having employment in the
mainstream,  he said.
The society is developing a program to help employees of its
workshop make the transition to other jobs, he said.
There are two other workshops tailored for the blind in the
state, one in Duluth and the other at the St. Paul Society for
the Blind.THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, SUB-MINIMUM WAGES,  AND THE SOUTHWEST
LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND
 On Saturday morning, July 8, delegates to the 1989 convention of
the National Federation of the Blind turned their attention to
the sheltered workshop system and the problems and challenges
facing the nation's blind sheltered shop workers. President
Maurer introduced the first pair of presenters to address the
subject by saying:  The next panel is entitled  The Right to
Organize, Sub-Minimum Wages, and the Southwest Lighthouse for the
Blind.  Two people will be participating on this panel: Glenn
Crosby, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the National
Federation of the Blind and is President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Texas, and Fred Schroeder, who is
Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind and also a
member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of
the Blind. I spoke with you about the Southwest Lighthouse for
the Blind in the Presidential Report two days ago. We have been
severely challenged by the Lighthouse in Lubbock, Texas. It was
essential that we do something in this case because a few months
earlier the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had indicated that
blind people do not have the right to organize. That was in the
case involving the Lighthouse in Little Rock, Arkansas.  On the
other hand, in Texas
we have made significant progress for blind people to be able to
organize and also to gain their rights under the 1986 Amendments
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Now Glenn Crosby and Fred Schroeder, I wish to speak to you both
directly.  I said to the panel before you,  ten to twelve
minutes,  and I don't believe a single one of them paid attention
to me. I'm not going to give you twelve; I'm going to give you
ten. So pay attention.  I'm going to call time on you after ten
minutes. Glenn Crosby, go.

 G ood morning, Mr. President, friends, brothers and sisters in
our movement. It is good to be here, isn't it? Well let me tell
you, you ought to have been in Lubbock with us. If you had been
in attendance Wednesday in a meeting of the Blind Industrial
Workers of America, one of our divisions, you would know that
most of our blind workers in the Lubbock shop in the Southwest
Lighthouse for
the Blind earn something in the neighborhood of $2.05 an hour or
less.
You would also know that the working conditions in that shop are
horrendous.  You would also know that out of this fine paycheck
that they can accumulate by working forty hours a week, every
month these guys were asked to pay insurance premiums. You would
know a number of other things.  That story, however, is in our 
Braille Monitor  for all of us to read. It's also available by
talking to some of our people who are here at this convention.
Let me tell you one little point, however, that is not in the 
Monitor  and that these guys may not tell you either. We learned,
after talking with our friends in the shop, that they have at
least one supervisor there who (on a regular basis when
frustrated and aggravated) would walk over to blind workers and
slap them. It was so common that these people didn't even realize
that they were being assaulted. So you see, that's the kind of
thing we're talking about when we are talking about the shops.
The workers in Lubbock called the National Federation of the
Blind, and we responded by going out to help. We formed a picket
line and were able to get a lot of good press coverage. We took
pledges and organized a union. We were able to win a hearing from
the Labor Department and are now in the middle of filing
complaints. And finally, we have now been able to run off the
Director (Dale Odom).  During the Labor Department hearings last
fall he was asked about the training and who all were in training
there.  He finally said,  Well, everyone in the shop is in
training.  And not only that, but he said that even he was in
training. So now we're happy
to say that Mr. Odom has gone off to a different phase of his
training elsewhere.
In any event, the Southwest story is not limited to Lubbock,
Texas.  That story is prevalent in practically every shop in this
country.  We all know it.
And the message that we can all learn from Lubbock is this: If we
put our hands together, and if we work in a unified effort, we
can improve these conditions. We can help our brothers and
sisters in these shops to make a good living and have a decent
place to work.  The message is clear. We are changing what it
means to be blind, and we intend to go forward. We are going to
work in every one of these shops until they are decent places for
blind people to work. Sir, I'm going to give you back some time.
Thank you.

 President Maurer responded:  Thank you so much, Glenn. When
Glenn Crosby and the members of the National Federation of the
Blind set their hands and their minds to a problem, you can count
on that problem's being solved. Now, I would like next to ask
Fred Schroeder,
who appeared in a hearing that was held concerning the Southwest
Lighthouse for the Blind, to come and to tell you about that for
ten minutes
or such part of it as you want. Fred Schroeder, here's the
microphone.  

 T hank you very much, President Maurer. We are here today to
talk about the Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind in Lubbock,
Texas.  But the story that we'll be talking about and the story
that you have heard has to do really with the sheltered workshop
system across the nation. The sheltered workshop system has
systematically exploited the unacceptably high unemployment rate
among the blind and used that unemployment rate to draw in blind
people for whom there have not
been other opportunities. Because of the high unemployment rate,
sheltered workshops have been allowed to systematically practice
oppression of blind people. And we've not had an example more
clear than that of the Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind in
Lubbock, Texas.
The annual report of the workshop showed that the previous year,
management collectively received in excess of 420,000 dollars in
wages, whereas blind workers collectively received less than
200,000 dollars for their work. We could ask our previous
panelists whether private sector industry normally has wages of
management in excess of twice the wages of direct labor
employees. I don't think it's very common. The workers in the
Lubbock facility were being paid on an average of $2.05 an hour.
At one time they received health insurance as a work benefit. 
Last fall, when the workshop announced that times were getting
tough and they weren't able to provide the insurance any more,
management announced to these workers that the insurance premiums
would have to come out of their wages. The workers went and tried
to talk to management, but they refused to talk to them about it,
so the workers properly turned to the National Federation of the
Blind and the Teamsters for help.
We set about to try to organize that workshop. Management took
the age-old position that the workers at the workshop were not
employees, but clients. Therefore, that money that they were paid
was not wages but a training stipend.
So last fall, when I was asked to testify before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board, I was asked to
discuss whether or not a person was a client or a worker and how
you would determine
whether an activity in which a person was engaged was work or
rehabilitation.  We said that if a guy was an employee, then the
money that he was receiving would be wages. And how did we know
whether they were wages or training stipends? Well, there are a
couple of things that led us to believe they might be wages. The
Internal Revenue Service certainly was clear on it. It taxed the
wages that the guys were making.  IRS didn't think it was a
stipend. The Social Security Administration certainly wanted its
withholdings. They were pretty clear about it. They didn't think
it was a stipend. They thought it was a wage. So it was very
clear that the workers in the workshop were getting real money;
they were getting real wages not a training stipend. Were they
workers?
Were they employees or were they clients? Well, the Immigration
Department, through the U.S. Department of Justice, was pretty
clear about it.  Nowadays you have to have a thing called an I-9
filled out on you if you go to work anywhere, to show that you
are legally eligible to work in the United States. The
Immigration Department requires
the I-9's of people who are working in sheltered workshops. They
certainly don't regard it as rehabilitation training. You don't
have to sign an I-9 to go get training. You just get an I-9
filled out if you want to go to work. People at the Lubbock
facility were certainly engaged in work.
We talked about other things. Were there work rules? Did you have
to come at a certain time, and did you have to clock in? Did you
have to follow the rules of the shop? If you didn't follow the
rules of the shop, could you get fired? We said that those were
indicators that a person was engaged in work and not in
rehabilitation. We said that the kind of thing that a guy did all
day would determine whether it was work or rehabilitation. Are
you making a product for resale?  Well, they certainly were in
Lubbock. What was the kind of work that was involved in
manufacturing those products? It seems to me that if it is
training, you'd go out and you'd look around the community, and
you'd say,  Where are the jobs? What kind of skills does a guy
need to be able to compete for those jobs?  Then you'd train
people to develop those kinds of skills.
But that's not what happened at the Southwest Lighthouse for the
Blind.  Instead, they went out and got contracts contracts that
made them a lot of money. They didn't really worry about whether
the skills used for that kind of work transferred anywhere else
in the community.  They just wanted to make sure you could do the
work to fill the contract to make the workshop money. We said
that's an indicator of whether a thing is an employment setting
or whether it is rehabilitation.

There are other indicators of work versus rehabilitation and
employee versus client status. They have to do with leave.
Certainly if you are an employee, you acquire leave and other
benefits. So, it was clear to us and clear during the testimony
that we made before the National Labor Relations Board that the
blind people working at the Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind
were not clients. They were workers, and they were not receiving
training. If they were receiving training, they certainly were
not paid for it as well as Dale Odom was paid for his training. I
think he was paid in the neighborhood of $40,000 a year. The
blind people in the workshop were not being paid at the level
that other workers were. I think what was significant in the case
of the Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind, and certainly in the
testimony about my own agency in New Mexico, was that we went
about raising the wages of workshop workers. People said you're
going to go broke. Blind people aren't going to be able to
produce enough to keep the shop afloat. We did it at a time when
we had had the lowest federal contract that the shop had ever
had, and we were scraping around for work. Yet we raised the
wages of the workers in the workshop, and for the three years
that our agency has existed, every single year we have turned a
profit at that workshop, paying those wages and offering
reasonable benefits. We're not going to be flimflammed by the
Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind or any other workshop in this
country. I was very proud to be part of that hearing and to be
able to testify and stand up for blind people throughout this
country, who are working hard and deserve a day's pay for a day's
work.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Fred. I commented last November, as we were getting
ready for the hearing to determine whether this sheltered shop
activity was work or training, that we in the National Federation
of the Blind needed to be a part of the  hearing for a very good
reason. There
isn't anybody in America that knows about blindness and the
capabilities of blind people in the way that we do. There isn't
anybody who can
get in there with the knowledge of the law and the experience of
management fairy tales. Anybody else might be flimflammed if we
didn't get in there. Could the union do it? No, the union knows
about labor and management, but it doesn't know about the
National Industries for the Blind, the Fair Labor Standards Act
exemptions, certificates of exemption from the Labor Department,
and other matters. It doesn't know enough about the capacity of
blind people to say,  You say this is training, but it has all of
the earmarks of work.  Labor people are accustomed to working
with those who are able to see well enough that they don't have
to discuss those matters. The special laws that apply to the
blind (and there are a number of them) would have confused issues
significantly in this case if we had not been a part.
As you can tell from the presentations that were made, Glenn
Crosby (a tough-minded leader) brought people together, kept them
on the streets with the picket signs to demonstrate the unity of
the workers and also to show the support of the blind of the
state and the nation for the Southwest Lighthouse workers being
paid pitifully small wages.  Fred Schroeder, Jim Gashel, and
others went to the hearing and presented testimony which was the
best, the toughest, the clearest we could manage. And within a
few months there was a labor union in Lubbock, Texas. That is the
work of the National Federation of the Blind.
   IMPLEMENTING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1986: 
CHANGES IN SUB-MINIMUM WAGES 
FOR BLIND WORKERS
                  by Senator Howard Metzenbaum
 Following the remarks of Glenn Crosby and Fred Schroeder,
reprinted elsewhere in this issue, President Maurer introduced a
long-time friend of the organized blind movement, Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, to continue the discussion of sheltered shops and
their workers. Here is what he said: 

We have a real honor this morning. We have met the next gentleman
who is to speak with us before. He has been a friend and an ally. 
We have talked in this convention and in our previous conventions
about the rights of blind people in the airways. Senator
Metzenbaum has been our friend and has co-sponsored legislation
to protect the rights of blind people in the airways. It's not
his fault that the Federal Aviation Administration is trying to
use that very piece of legislation to implement rules that will
prevent blind people from having the same access to airlines that
other people have. In fact, he is one of our friends, a great
supporter of the blind. To talk with us about  implementing the
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1986, changes in sub-minimum
wages for blind workers,  we have the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee on Labor of the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the United States Senate. Welcome, Senator Howard
Metzenbaum.


 T hank you very much, Marc. Thank you for again giving
me an opportunity to address a convention of the most ruggedly
independent group of Americans that I know.  Now, as many of you
know, it's no secret to anyone which way my politics lean. But I
want you to know that, for the good of our country, I wish the
Bush Administration every success. As a matter of fact, I
certainly hope we never find
ourselves again in another Watergate or Iran-Contra type scandal
especially since the President's chief of staff is a guy named
John Sununu. Now I'd hate to be the Senator who'd have to ask the
President of the United States what Sununu knew and whether he
knew Sununu knew he knew.
Now, as Marc has said, I've had a long-standing relationship with
NFB for many years, a productive working relationship, and I want
to thank you for your support on so many issues during that time. 
I like being at this convention for a special reason. I was
riding on an elevator and I want you to know that I haven't taken
an elevator since I've been here that hasn't been a crowded
elevator.  But I thought that the remark of a lady on that
elevator this morning was wonderful when she was talking about
how crammed in we all were when she said,  It's all right. We all
like each other.   I thought that was wonderful.
Now I enjoyed some free time away from Washington the last ten
days.  I had an opportunity to reflect on the things that are
going on back there some positive things and some not so
positive. But they all center on one basic theme our basic,
fundamental rights as Americans. When I return to Washington next
week, thanks in large measure to the Supreme Court, these issues
and this theme will be topic A: the First Amendment and the
question of amending it. This Senator is opposed to amending it.
The Supreme Court's having addressed itself to the issue of
reproductive rights, my recognition that there are strong
advocates on the side of free choice and on the side of right to
life, I respect their positions, but that's certainly going to be
a controversial issue before the Congress. Civil rights and
the cutbacks by the Supreme Court of the United States this
Senator will address himself to trying to put back in place the
rights that the Supreme Court has taken away. We will also
address ourselves this coming Thursday to a piece of legislation,
which I have authored, banning the sale of semiautomatic assault
weapons in this country.  We don't need them.
Now we will also look at some lower profile issues issues little
noticed by the news media but probably more important to some
people's lives. The resolution of these issues will affect you
both in the context of blindness and in the broader context of
your rights as Americans. As I told you earlier, I have had a
long association with this organization and your members, and
I've learned something
very important in that time. I have learned that blindness is a
disability; it is not one that need inhibit a blind individual's
productivity, intellectually or physically. Yes, you have special
needs; but in
my opinion, when those needs are met, you need not be treated
specially.  You have more to offer in your determination, in your
dedication,
and in your willingness than any sighted person in this country.
Unfortunately, when you are treated specially, too often it is to
your detriment.  Let's take the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
example. The special treatment you have been receiving from that
law is objectionable, and it's unjustified. The Fair Labor
Standards Act, as most of you know, sets our nation's minimum
wages. And this Senator says to you that when the President and
the Congress can in the same week deal with a
three-hundred-billion-dollar bail-out of the Savings and Loan
Industry, it sure'n the devil shouldn't be fighting over an
additional thirty cents an hour in the minimum wage. The Fair
Labor Standards Act hasn't been so fair for every worker because
since 1938 we've allowed a sub-minimum wage for disabled workers
and too often that has included blind workers.  A sub-minimum
wage was wrong then, and it's wrong now. A blind worker (or any
other worker) who can do the job should not be paid a sub-minimum
wage. (The world has changed
a lot.) In the past fifty years since 1938 when the Fair Labor
Standards Act was first enacted, technology has changed,
attitudes have changed, and finally (almost fifty years after its
enactment) the law has changed with respect to the sub-minimum
part. In 1986 I authored some landmark changes to the Fair Labor
Standards Act changes which sought to improve employment
opportunities for Americans with Disabilities, changes which
would ease paperwork burdens on businesses which employ disabled
workers, and changes which will guard against abuses of those
workers. With the help of this organization and your very able
Washington representative, we've won the legislative battle.  The
NFB supported my amendments to the Act, and that support was
instrumental in assuring the President's signature on the
legislation. For the first time an
employee in a sheltered shop has the right to challenge the wage
determination of the employer. That's a special right, and we're
going to fight to see that that right is implemented with
regulations to be issued by the Department of Labor. Under the
new law, the Amendment to the law, you'll get a hearing from an
impartial administrative law judge appointed by the Department of
Labor; you'll have the right to face your employer and
cross-examine him with legal council, just as you did in Lubbock
in the case previously mentioned.
And for the first time, the burden of proof for justification of
the sub-minimum wage will fall on the employer, where it should
be. And unless I miss my guess, employers are going to have one
tough time proving that a sub-minimum wage is justified for a
blind worker.  Now as with most legislation, we didn't get
everything we wanted.  It's a process of give-and-take. I predict
that as a result of this change in the law, the day will soon
come when a sub-minimum wage
to a blind worker will go the way of the dinosaur. I have been
assured by the Department of Labor that within the month they
will issue final regulations on this issue. And I have let the
Labor Department know
my view that the final regulations must protect the rights of
employees to receive wages based on their individual
productivity, not on their individual disability. I have let them
know that their supervision of the new law must be meaningful, it
must be tough, and it must be fair. And I've let them know that
if we get anything less, we'll be back at them with new
legislation. They know I'm on your side.  But I didn't come all
this distance simply to talk about our past achievements. We've
got work ahead of us, and we need your help again.  Next week in
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, we'll be voting on a
bill that will mean equality and justice for all Americans who
are disabled. In the 1960s we extended the guarantee of civil
rights to minorities in this country. It was perhaps our greatest
social accomplishment of the century. Inadvertently or otherwise,
one minority was excluded the disabled. I've talked with your
leadership with your President and Jim Gashel about the fact that
there are some concerns about the blind concerning the language
that's included in that law having to do with the disabled. I
tell you now: we'll work out the problems to see that the blind
are treated fairly, but basically we'll see to it that no longer
will it be possible in this country to violate the rights of the
disabled. They'll be treated equally and fairly, as all other
Americans are.
Let's face it. Despite the undisputed abilities of blind
Americans, discrimination occurs all too often. And this kind of
discrimination is just as wrong as discrimination against any
other minority group.  You don't want to be treated special; nor
do you want to be especially discriminated against. You want to
be treated equally and fairly, as all other Americans are. The
Americans with Disabilities Act will put into place definite
hiring policies with respect to the disabled.

But it's not enough simply to make discrimination against the
blind or the disabled officially illegal. We must go much
further. We must raise the consciousness of the nation. We must
strike at the conscience of the people of America. We must make
discrimination against the disabled unacceptable. And too many
people in America, too many in this room, have felt the pain and
heartache of discrimination. It continues today; it's happening
now. It's wrong, and our bill will stop it. We'll fight together
to make a great bill for all disabled Americans.
But we need your help.  We'll get the bill out of committee. But
we
have opposition in Congress. There's opposition in the business
community.  There's opposition in the transportation industry.
And yes, there's
some limited, but not total, opposition on the part of the
Administration.  But I believe they'll come on board. You can
help us win this battle.  Friends, let me tell you something. You
are your own best advocates.  You have proven that. And I want to
say this to you: I don't know of any group in America that when
they're on the move, when they are determined, when they make up
their minds that it will come to pass, can do more. Then, the
blind are a very effective lobbying force.  You speak loudly; you
speak clearly; you speak intelligently. You
can have an impact on the political process. You can send to
Washington and to state legislatures people who are concerned
about what's happening to you in America, or you can let it just
go by default and let somebody else choose who's getting elected.
You have the power in your hands to have a far greater impact
than just your own vote. You have the power to be a political
force, and I just want to say this to you today. I'm on your
side, but there are a lot of members of Congress who are
indifferent. So get off your butts. Get off your butts, and get
out there and let them know how you feel. We can win the battle. 
Thank you very much.

 Mr. Maurer responded to this informative and impassioned speech
with the following words:  Senator, it is good always to have a
friend. It is even better to have one with as much spirit and
power as you possess. I remember times when you have come and
spoken with us at our conventions in previous years. I see that
although my memory was very good, you have exceeded all
expectations. We are most pleased that you have come to share
with us and also to plan with us for the times ahead. We have
concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we do
need to have changes to make better lives possible for us. We
know about your commitment as you brought it to us today.  Thank
you very much, Senator Metzenbaum.
       UPWARD MOBILITY AND EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BLIND:  THE
JAVITS-WAGNER-O'DAY ACT
                       by Beverly Milkman
 The final presentation concerning sheltered employment of the
blind during the July 8, 1989, convention session was made by the
Executive Director of the Committee for Purchase from the Blind
and Other Severely Handicapped. President Maurer introduced her
by saying: 

This morning we have been speaking about employment of the blind. 
One program where as many as four thousand blind people work is
under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act is
administered in part by the Committee for Purchase from the Blind
and Other Severely Handicapped. We have had representatives of
that committee come to our convention in the past. The task of
the committee is to implement a program to distribute federal
contracts to sheltered workshops.  There has been a change in the
leadership of that committee within the last year. I have had the
opportunity to meet the new executive director.  She has come to
the National Center for the Blind. We have talked pleasantly
enough, but also candidly. And we have said to her that there are
problems in the workshops prob- lems that we would like the
committee to help solve. Exactly what will become of the
relationship between the organized blind and the Committee for
Purchase is not known. However, we have met with the executive
director, and it appears that the executive director may be more
responsive to the wishes of the blind than has been the case in
the past. We hope, at
least, that this is the case. Therefore, to speak with us about 
upward mobility and employment for the blind in the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day program,  I would like to present the
Executive Director of the Committee for Purchase from the Blind
and Other Severely Handicapped, Beverly Milkman.  

 I 'm delighted to be here today to talk with you about
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program and its present and future
contributions to employment for the blind and other severely
disabled individuals.  As Mr. Maurer just told you, I am the new
kid on the block. After
many years at the Commerce Department working in an economic
development program which was designed to create jobs for
unemployed and under-employed people around the country, I joined
the Committee last August. Now,
as my father's conservative friends tell me when I visit, I'm a
dyed-in-the-wool BUREAUCRAT. You've all heard stories about
bureaucrats. I want to
share with you one of my favorite ones today. This is a story of
a bureaucrat who dashes out of his office for a meeting, and he's
running late, and realizes as he gets in the car that he forgot
to do something critical. He sees a phone booth, pulls over, gets
out, puts his money in the telephone, makes the call, arranges
for what he needed to have done, and then heads back to the car,
only to discover to his chagrin that he has locked the keys
inside the car and the car is running.  He's totally freaked, as
they say in the parlance of some of our younger friends, and goes
back to the telephone booth to call a locksmith, who says that he
can't get there for a couple of hours but will get there as soon
as he can. So he paces nervously, like an expectant father in the
old days. (These days they're more likely to be found inside the
delivery room.) Finally the locksmith arrives and unlocks the car
just in the nick of time, because of the feelings of the three
bureaucrats who were sitting inside, who were really reaching
their last gasp.
Now I wish I could tell you that there's not a smidgen of truth
in
any of that that we're all highly motivated, hard charging,
dedicated, creative geniuses. As you can imagine, the truth lies
somewhere in between. And over the coming years, as you observe
my tenure at the Committee for Purchace, you'll have to make your
own judgment as to what kind of bureaucrat I am.
In addition to being a newcomer at the Committee, I'm also a
neophyte in the blindness field. Although my mother-in-law is a
legally blind diabetic and I purchased my lunch for years from a
blind vendor in the Department of Commerce, when I joined the
Committee eleven months ago, I really knew very little about the
issues or the organizations in the blindness field. At that time
I'd never heard of NFB, NIB,
AFB, ACB, NBC (sorry), or any of the other organizations whose
acronyms I now normally recognize. They say that education is the
progressive discovery of our own ignorance, and I must say to you
that as my education in this field has progressed, I have
certainly become aware of how little I know. But I've been very
fortunate to be able to pick the brains of some very
knowledgeable people, including your own Jim Gashel and Marc
Maurer. And I am certainly dedicated to learning as much as I
can.
I hadn't been with the Committee very long when I heard about the
National Federation of the Blind and some of your deep-rooted
concerns about workshops and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program.
From what I'd heard, it was clear to me that you were a group
that I needed to talk with. I needed to understand your
perspective on the workshop movement.  Toward that end I
contacted Jim and arranged to visit your headquarters in
Baltimore, talk with the staff, and learn more about what you are
doing, what your visions were, what you thought of the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day program, and how we could work together to
improve conditions in workshops and generate more employment and
training opportunities for blind persons. That meeting and
subsequent discussions paved the way for my appearance before you
here today.
I appreciate that opportunity, and I thank you for having me. I
want to say right now, too, that I apologize that I'm not going
to be with you tonight at the banquet. But those of you who have
children will understand why I booked a return flight early this
afternoon, when my seven-year-old said to me,  Mom, you have been
out of town on business now for two Saturdays in the last month.
And it's really not fair that you're going to be gone on Sunday,
too.  Maybe next year she will be more understanding, and I can
stay with you longer.  But I do appreciate the opportunity to be
here.
I want to concentrate today, in the time that I have left, on
those issues like upward mobility that I know are of particular
importance to you in the NFB. But for those of you who may not be
that familiar with the Javits-Wagner- O'Day program or the
Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely
Handicapped, I just want to very quickly give you some pertinent
information. As President Maurer has said, the Committee for
Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped is a
federal agency. It's a very small, independent federal agency,
and it is composed of fifteen members, who are appointed by the
President of the United States, as well as a very small staff. 
Now you have heard the story about the young boy who after
listening to his father tell stories about his office, asked his
dad if he could go into work with him someday. Well, his father
was delighted. After all, the child had never expressed any real
interest in his work before.  So the father said  Great.  He set
it up and they went into the office, and the son, who was
normally a very shy child, insisted on meeting everyone in the
office. The father thought that was a bit strange, but he was
pleased and arranged for him to meet with everyone.  On the way
home the father noticed that the child seemed rather downcast and
dejected. The father said,  Son, you seem a little disappointed. 
What's the matter?  He said,  Well Dad, I didn't get to meet any
of the clowns you told me you worked with. 
I'm pleased to tell you that none of the members of the Committee
and none of the twelve other staff members that I work with are
clowns.  In fact, they truly are very dedicated individuals, who
are doing
the best they can to administer this program. The goal of the
program, as you're well aware, is to generate jobs and income for
blind and other severely disabled individuals. This is
accomplished through the purchase of commodities and services
from nonprofit workshops around the country employing the blind
and other severely handicapped.  When the program was initiated
back in 1938, it focused solely on blind people.   As I don't
have to tell you, there weren't too many employment opportunities
outside sheltered workshops at that time.   The intent of the
program was to provide stable employment opportunities for people
who could not get them otherwise. It was their only job option.
Today, I think in large part due to the work of NFB and other
organizations, employment prospects are not quite as bleak as
they
were then. Notice I said not quite. Obviously, unemployment and
under-employment rates among blind people are still appallingly
high. Still, sheltered workshop employment is not the only option
today. And as a result, the role of workshops and the role of the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day program are changing.
I want to just very briefly run through the types of roles that
workshops can play in providing opportunities for blind persons
to engage in productive employment. I think the appropriate role
workshops can
play varies considerably, depending on the abilities and the
motivations and the interests of the people who are working in
them. They can offer direct labor jobs. These are blue-collar
jobs, if you will.  They're often on an assembly line as part of
a manufacturing process.  And in earlier days, realistically,
they were probably the kinds of jobs that most blind people could
aspire to. However, things have changed.
Blind people, like Eileen [Rivera] and others, who are entering
the
job market today, do not have to look for direct labor jobs in
workshops for employment. In fact, many of the younger blind
people who are coming into workshops are multi-handicapped blind.
Other people who are coming into workshops these days are older
workers, some of whom have been there for years; and through
discrimination, or perhaps their own personal preference, they
have chosen to remain in workshops as opposed to going outside
and being able to get competitive jobs.  Others are people who
have become blind like my mother-in-law in their older age and
feel that a workshop is the easiest place for them to go. They
either get skilled training so they can get competitive jobs on
the outside or, in fact, stay and remain in the workshop. Whether
or not those individuals are able to be promoted in the workshops
and move into higher level positions of supervision, management,
or certain indirect labor jobs which are higher paying and
perhaps require more skills than the direct labor jobs is really
a function of the individuals themselves, obviously the policies
of workshops, and whether or not the individuals are interested
in doing that kind of thing.
To a lesser degree, and it's just because of the number of jobs
involved, the sheltered workshops offer employment opportunities
in supervision and management positions as well as
administration. These jobs are available, not only to people who
have worked in the workshops in direct labor positions, but also
for individuals who (again I'll use Eileen as an example) have
come and worked in other organizations, have acquired skills and
training, and are interested in applying those in running a
sheltered workshop. In addition to the employment per se,
workshops do offer training opportunities. Obviously in the case
of the Lubbock situation, that training was probably...having
people in training for twenty years, I think, is no one's idea of
training. I would not suggest to you that that is appropriate. In
short, I think workshops have the potential to be many things for
many people. For some people workshops will never be a relevant
part
of their lives. For others they can provide the opportunity for
productive employment.
I want to talk for a few minutes about what you're really
interested in. That is, what is the Committee going to do to
improve conditions in workshops and assure that they meet, to the
maximum extent possible, employment and training needs of blind
persons? Well, I've warned you that I'm a bureaucrat. True to
form, I'm going to do something that no self-respecting
bureaucrat would shirk doing. That is, I'm going to give you a
caveat first. That is, the Committee itself is composed of
fifteen people, thirteen of whom have other full-time jobs, and
two of whom are retired. We have a very small staff. In addition
to myself, there are twelve people. In addition, our primary
function, as defined in the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, is to
designate items and price those items that the government will
purchase from workshops. So there is a limit to what we can do
with those contained resources.
Be that as it may, NFB and other organizations (including the
United States Congress, of which Senator Metzenbaum is certainly
an outstanding representative) have, over the past years, raised
the consciousness levels of members of the committee, I think to
an extent that perhaps they had not been raised before. And
although they are very cognizant of their primary function, which
is to consider which items should be purchased from workshops by
the federal government, they are also willing to lend their
influence to accomplish other objectives which
are consistent with the goals of providing meaningful employment
opportunities for blind persons.
There are a number of initiatives that we already have in place.
I want to tell you briefly about them today. We have, in
addition, a strategic planning meeting, the first the Committee
has ever had.
It will be coming up fairly soon. We will be talking within the
Committee about a number of issues that are of interest to NFB as
well as other organizations working on employment issues related
to the needs of blind and other severely disabled Americans. For
the first time in the Committee's history, we expect to receive
an appropriation from Congress this year that will enable us to
do some research, to use objective, outside research
organizations (be they consulting firms, research institutes, or
university think tanks), which will look at the impact of this
program and its operations to give us some data that we have not
had in the past. We will be looking at some of the issues that I
have discussed with Jim and with Marc as well as others relating
to this program. And I think it will give us a solid foundation
on which to move forward and on which to make some changes some
additional changes I should say.
We have also within the last six months improved, and I think,
expanded the Committee's own workshop review function. We have
only two people that are devoted to this function. Two out of
thirteen is a fairly significant portion of our staff. They spend
much of the year on the road traveling to workshops. In the past
they were in workshops for between four and six hours per
workshop, which doesn't give you a lot of time to get a fairly
in-depth knowledge of what's going on in the workshop. The focus
of those visits was directly related to the Committee's statutory
responsibility. We have now extended the time that will be spent
in each workshop, and we have added to the agenda of that visit
some things that have not been looked at in the past and which,
while not necessarily related directly to our statutory
responsibilities, are things that we feel are important for us to
know about. One of the things that we'll be looking at (and this
relates directly to the situation in Lubbock) is, instead of
simply looking
to see that a workshop, in fact, has an appropriate system for
determining productivity and relating wages to that, we will go
the next step and (in a summary way) check out whether or not
that system is, in fact, being able to get implemented. As you
all know, you can have the best system in the world, and if it's
not implemented properly, it's not going to do any good.
Again, the Department of Labor has the primary responsibility for
this. We have, as a member of our committee, the deputy
administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of
Labor. We have told her that we want to do more, but we recognize
that it is their primary responsibility, and so when we see
problems, we will be flagging them, bringing them to their
attention, and asking Labor to go in and take a hard look. She
has committed to doing that.
We will be talking with the workers, which is something that we
have not done much of in the past. I encourage those of you who
work in workshops or know people who do to let them know that
when the Committee staff comes in for a visit at the workshop,
they will be wanting to talk to a select number of individuals.
If they are interested in sharing with them their complaints, any
praise they might have (that's always nice to have obviously),
the door is open. I told Jim and Marc back in January, when I
visited your Center in Baltimore, that my door was open, too. If
they heard of situations in workshops that were participating in
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program that they were concerned about, I
would like them to bring them to my attention, and we would look
into them.
Another thing that we're doing is increasing emphasis on upward
mobility.  We've been influenced by NFB and others as well in
this regard. We are for the first time collecting specific data
on various aspects of upward mobility. In addition to just
looking at who got a raise, which might or might not be too
significant, we're also looking at who got raises in conjunction
with true promotions to other jobs and those who move into
management and supervisory positions. We are asking this not only
during our on-site sessions, but at the end of the year every
workshop participating in our program must provide us with that
information.
We are also asking workshops for the first time to tell us what
percentage of their non-direct labor staff, in other words their
management, supervisory, and administrative staff (in the case of
blind workers) is blind or legally blind.
We are also talking with the members of the boards of these
various organizations. These are, for the most part, nonprofit
organizations.  They are controlled by local boards, and in
talking with them we are trying to raise their consciousness
levels as well. We are specifically asking them if they have a
policy of hiring blind or, in the case
of the other severely disabled population, those folks for
management and supervisory positions when they come open. And if
they say that they don't, we ask them if they would consider
doing such a thing.  We've also talked in a preliminary way about
wages. That's an issue that we will continue to focus on,
hopefully talking with your leaders in NFB.
And as I said, I do want to have a continuing dialogue with NFB
to make sure that we're aware of the issues that you're concerned
with, to have your ideas. We're not going to agree on everything.
I think that's obvious. Even where we agree on a goal, we may not
agree on
the approach to achieving it. But I think it is certainly in the
Committee's interest, and I hope it is in yours as well, to have
a continuing dialogue.
While I was at the Commerce Department, I ran an economic
development planning program among other things. I worked a lot
with planners
around the country. They convinced me that planning ahead is an
important thing. I'm not as obsessive about it as the Soviet
citizen who had worked for a long time filling out the forms to
get a car. Finally he was at the last step, and he was told that
his application to get a car had been approved. And the fellow
said to him,  You should come back ten years from today, and you
can pick it up.  Well, the citizen looked at him and didn't even
seem taken aback. He just said,  Should I come in the morning or
the afternoon?  The official said,  What difference could it
possibly make ten years from now?  And the fellow said,  I've got
the plumber scheduled in the morning. 
I don't plan that far head. My plans aren't that long-term. But I
do plan to be available to work with NFB, and I hope to be
invited to come back and be with you at next year's convention as
well. Thank you.

 President Maurer then responded to the speaker as follows:  Mrs.
Milkman, I want to say something to you about what you've said,
like this. You say that you are going to go and talk to the
workers.  I think that's admirable. I think you should. But you
must keep in mind that when you go to a workshop, you are on
workshop territory, and the workshop management will no doubt
bring out a worker or two to talk to you. And no doubt that
worker will have something to say.  And no doubt the picture will
not be exactly the same as if you were in the home, in the
kitchen of the workshop worker. If you want to know what is
happening in the workshops with blind workers, then you must
come, and you must speak to the blind. And the blind workers in
those shops are here in this room.
For the first question, I'll recognize Dr. Jernigan.
 Dr. Jernigan.  Mrs. Milkman, keeping in mind that what we are
saying is not only being tape recorded but going on to video tape
and that we are speaking for the record, I want to say something
to you and ask you to respond to it. For the record. We have been
told repeatedly by the sheltered shops in this country that they
cannot afford to pay even minimum wages. Many of them pay
sub-minimum wages.  And we are being told that it is because they
do not have the funds.
At the same time as the American Foundation for the Blind has
apparently begun to diminish its financial contributions to the
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and
Visually Handicapped (NAC), which has done so very much to hurt
blind people in this country, and which the blind of this country
have rejected overwhelmingly, National Industries for the Blind,
which is a combination of the sheltered workshops, officially
voted in June that it would pay (as I understand it) up to
$200,000 a year as a direct grant to support NAC. This money
comes from the wages of workers. Yes, I know it's not called
that, but it does come from the wages of workers. So we're asked
to believe that they can't afford to pay even the minimum wage,
but they can afford to pay a couple of hundred thousand for an
outfit that doesn't do anything to help blind people. And, in
addition to that, they do it with federal money. Yes, I know it's
not called a direct federal subsidy, but they are given federal
contracts by law, channeled through your agency, and these are
given on a monopoly basis. There isn't anything that's more
important than trying to have some honesty in the administration
of this program, and as far as I'm concerned that doesn't mean
taxing the workers for what the workers have rejected and doing
it with a federal monopoly. I want to know, as unequivocally as
you are prepared to tell me, what is it that the Committee can
do or will do to see that this kind of disgraceful action is
discontinued?   Mrs. Milkman . That's a tough one. As I have
spoken with Jim Gashel at some length, as well as Marc Maurer,
the Committee has certain responsibilities under the legislation
with regard to the National Industries for the Blind, which is an
independent, nonprofit organization with an independent board of
directors. We do have responsibility for overseeing some of the
operations of that organization. In fact, when this issue was
brought to my attention in late spring by NFB,
I spoke with the NIB president. I also asked the chairman of the
board of the NIB, the president, and another member of the board
to come to my office in Washington to brief me on their plans
with regard to support of the National Accreditation Council.
What I asked them
was to give me information on the kinds of things they were
considering what steps had they taken to assure themselves that
NAC, as it's called, was being an effective organization or had
the prospect of being an effective organization in the
accreditation field. And I said that on behalf of the Committee I
thought that it was important that they thoroughly and carefully
consider the decision that they were preparing to make. In
addition, I spent one of the Saturdays that I referred to earlier
in my remarks last month traveling to Mississippi, where
I met with the board of the National Industries for the Blind. I
explained to them that I had read the material which NFB had
prepared on the National Accreditation Council. I had also read
material that was provided by NAC itself as well as the American
Foundation for the Blind, which of course, has been supporting
NAC for many years. I told them that, while I was satisfied that
support of NAC was not inconsistent with the overall objectives
of the National Industries for the Blind, I felt that before they
made the decision to support
it they needed to look very carefully at just how effective an
organization it was, what the prospects were for improving it.
There is no question, from things that I have read and the NIB
board members said this to me, too that NAC could be improved. In
fact, in talking with them later I suggested that NFB could play
a role in helping to reform NAC. That may be very naive, but
that's where I'm coming from. I am the kind of person that
believes that you work together on things.  At any rate, I made
it very clear, on behalf of the Committee (but saying to the NIB
board of directors that the Committee had not voted on this and
had not discussed it, although I had discussed it with members of
the Committee). I thought this was a very serious decision for
them to make. I wanted to make sure that they took a number of
things into account, including, what has NAC done to benefit
blind people?
 Dr. Jernigan . Look, Mrs. Milkman, here's where we are, though. 
That's all very well, but what that really said to them was, okay
even though there may be some reform needed. But I think you
should understand where we're coming from. If the Foundation,
which has poured millions into NAC, feels it has to withdraw I
know they have put out a press release to the contrary but I know
they have diminished support (that's why NIB is picking it up).
They told NAC to get their act together, or else they couldn't
continue. Assuming, however, that NAC was the best outfit in the
world, assuming that it was exemplary, made up of saints, I don't
see how on earth you can justify taking $200,000 of federal
monopoly money out of the wages of workers who don't even get
minimum wage to give in a grant to an outfit like that. Surely
you have enough problems without our having to go to Congress and
see if we can get them to start applying pressure to your
Committee and creating what some will call an unreasonable row. 
But we're not going to let this pass. We're not going to try if
you've read the material you'll know why to sit down with NAC and 
work it out.  NAC's about to die, and we're going to help it do
that.
You have here between two and three thousand delegates
representing the blind of this country. A lot of people claim to
represent the blind, but if you look about you, you will see
here, not just people who are here for themselves, but for their
local chapters and state organizations back home. We are the
blind of this country and representative of the blind of this
country, elected by the blind community to represent them. And we
tell you, officially and formally, and for the record, that we
believe it is immoral. We believe it is illegal for NIB to
take the money that it has from the shops and give it to any
organization in this manner and especially to give it to NAC. I
don't know whether you want to comment further, but that's our
opinion.
 President Maurer . I would add one thing. I spoke to you about
NAC in January when you came to the Center. You said you'd get
back to me with information. It occurred to me in March, since I
had heard a rumor that perhaps NAC would be funded by NIB, that I
should call you, which I did. I raised the question with you. You
assured me that it wasn't going to happen. Then I heard in late
May or early June
that it either had happened or was in imminent danger of
happening that NIB would vote to support NAC. So I called your
office once again, and I said,  What about this support of NAC? 
So far, I have not received a return phone call from your office.
Now I learned the information anyway. But it does seem to me that
a matter which I have told you is of central importance to this
organization might have warranted a little more investigation.
 Mrs. Milkman . I'd like to respond to that. First of all, you
did raise it with me. I don't remember, frankly, that you raised
it
in January, but you did raise it in March. I did talk with the
National Industries for the Blind, which at that time told me
that they had no plans to do it, and I told you that. I either
told you or Jim.  With regard to your subsequent call in June
(and perhaps this was my error) I have been talking with Jim
Gashel, and I think Jim can confirm this. He and I have had
several conversations about this matter.   President Maurer . The
reason that you had them is that I said to him,  I have called
her office, and so far I don't have the information, and I now
have information from another source which suggests strongly to
me that it is confirmed and that there is money going out of NIB
and into NAC's treasury. Call and find out.  He called and found
out. I didn't get it from you. He got it from you because I told
him to go find it.
 Mrs. Milkman . It's not worth getting into a  Who shot John 
over it, but I feel that I have lived up to my responsibility as
a public official to communicate with you. I feel that I have
been very open with you. In fact, there are many in the blind
field who are not here today, who are members of other
organizations, and who are not happy that I have been so open
with you. I'm a public official, and I view this as my
responsibility, and obviously, this is a group that I must listen
to, and I will.
 President Maurer . I should say this to you, Mrs. Milkman. I
hope that we don't get into a problem of mis-assessing, because
we are committed on this issue, as you have seen by this
convention,
and we don't want to have an abrasive relationship. But if it is
required for decent wages and working conditions in the
workshops, we will regard it as no real choice, and we will have
to have one. We will bring to the attention of the Congress that
this money is being spent in the way that it is and that it's not
going into the pockets of blind people. They say they can't pay
this money, and yet there seems to be at least a $200,000
surplus, and that ought to be used for the blind. We'll tell the
members of Congress that.
 Mr. Schroeder . It seems to me that there are six thousand jobs
through the sheltered workshop system around the United States
that are supported, in large part, by the federal government.
Those are jobs that blind people desperately need to have, but we
need to have reasonable wages in those jobs. The workshops say,
first of all, that they employ multi-handicapped people, who
after all, can't produce that much, and that's why they have to
pay them sub-minimum wages.  In our agency in New Mexico in 1986,
the Commission for the Blind
then included a sheltered workshop. That workshop was paying
sub-minimum wages, and on June 30th of one year they had
sub-minimum wages, and the very next day we just went in and
upped everybody to minimum wage.  We didn't go and fire anybody
or turn over any of the workforce. We didn't change it by one
person. Not only did we up everybody to minimum wage, we took the
so-called work activity people, who in some cases were getting as
little as $5 in a two-week work period, we upped all of them to
minimum wage, and we're still making a profit. Blind people are
working hard and are profitable, and the sheltered workshop
system is just frankly systematically exploiting the condition of
unemployment.  In connection with that, I want to say quickly on
that upward mobility business, I was very disappointed last year
when the General Council of Workshops for the Blind published
what they regard as an upward mobility plan. If you read it
carefully, they have framed it in such a way that their
statistics will shoot up, looking like all kinds of blind people
are getting raises when they aren't. For example, it says that if
you go from a status where you are presumed not to be employable
outside, to a status where you are employable, that's a raise
that's a promotion. So a guy who gets a rehab case opened
on him, that's a promotion. A guy who goes from direct labor to
non-direct labor, even if he doesn't get one penny more in wages,
he's considered to be promoted. A guy who goes from working in
the shop to working
on the outside, which is a good thing, even if he doesn't get an
increase in pay, even if he took a decrease in pay, by virtue of
going to a job outside the shop, he's considered to be promoted.
I think that what we're talking about is integrity, and the
workshop system has lost faith with blind people. That's why you
see the emotion that you see. We need you to help us correct that
situation.
 Mrs. Milkman . I was listening to Fred earlier, and I applaud
what he has done in New Mexico. I think that's something that we
need to see if other workshops can do around the country. I look
forward
to working with Fred in that regard. With respect to the General
Council of Workshops and their promotion policies, I did get a
copy of the letter that Fred wrote. I think he's probably sent
one to me. I can't remember exactly how it came into my hands,
but I read it, and I had
a very similar reaction to what Fred had. I met with the General
Council of Workshops on this matter, discussed with them why they
had done
it that way, what it was all about, the fact that I felt it was
misleading, and in fact appeared to be a very defensive kind of
thing as Fred just said. They explained to me what they had in
mind and what they
didn't have in mind. They agreed that perhaps it had not been a
particularly well-worded statement of policy and that they would
change it. I think that we probably all know what a promotion is
and what it isn't. And I think the General Council does, too. I
understand, as I say, their motivation in doing it, and I don't
think it was intentionally to mislead, but it certainly came
across that way, and they agree with that, and it will be
changed.
 Mr. Maurer . I believe I understand their motivation, also.  The
NIB people and the General Council of Workshops are the same, you
know. They wanted to say that they were doing a great job in the
workshops. So they came up with a standard to say that a lot of
people were multiply handicapped in those shops and that you
couldn't really expect as much of the multiply handicapped. What
did you have to do to be multiply handicapped? Well, if you were
twenty pounds overweight and blind, you were multi handicapped.
It's that kind of thing that makes a person suspicious. They may
have had the best intentions in the world, but on the other hand,
blind people are still getting less than the minimum wage. I
talked with a man at this convention about wages of a $1.68 an
hour. How many people at NIB get that kind of money? They all get
more, and you know they do.
 Jessie Lee . To the officials of NFB, to the honorable Senator
from Ohio, Mrs. Milkman, and rank and file NFB members and their
associates who came to this wonderful convention, I'm here from
Rochester, New York. And the story I'd like to tell you is not a
good story, but
it must be told. We blind members in Rochester are considered
clients who have to be toilet-trained, who have to have
assistance to get decent housing, and who are paid less than the
minimum wage.  Myself, I was a member of the United States Air
Force, I was a crew chief in the Strategic Air Command, I was
stationed in New York, and I was honorably discharged. I've had
over fifteen years of managerial experience. I have an
undergraduate degree in business administration; I have a
master's in public administration. Both degrees came from
Washington, D.C. And do you believe it? I can only make $4.21 an
hour right now. It's unbelievable!
The state of New York paid for the Association to find me a job.
They have a placement agency there. They wanted me to pay $17.50
per hour for them to locate a job. Up front. They never found a
job. Yet and still, seven jobs came through the Association for
jobs there at the Association in the range of $22,000 to $45,000
a year. I was never told of any of those jobs. Why? Because they
say I am mentally retarded and I cannot work at the Association
for the Blind. If those jobs are not gainful employment, why do
they want to work there?
As far as your Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, Mrs. Milkman, I think you
should look more into it because they say at the Association in
Rochester, it does not apply to the blind. It only applies to the
sighted. That is on the record. They even have educational
programs for the sighted.  They have nothing there for the blind
or the disabled. Your upward mobility program is for the birds.
If you want to work in the workshop and go from bench to bench or
become a material handler, then you
are in upward mobility. But if you want to be a supervisor or an
administrator, which I am, that is a no-no because you are blind.
We pay federal taxes every year. What are they going for? Why do
we have subsidized discrimination? The federal jobs that you are
overseeing come from our pocketbooks, but we do not get the
benefit from them. We have people in Rochester making $40 a week
one dollar an hour. It costs more than that for them to get the
liftline to work. I don't hear anybody saying anything about
that.
The Congress and the President talk about all the atrocities that
happen in China and Russia; what about the human rights of the
blind in the United States? You know, the time has far passed.
It's time that we stand up for our rights because we have no help
in many areas.  The Honorable Senator from Ohio is only one;
there are 99 more Senators there. We have 435 House members. They
all must be informed about the issue. The food they put on their
tables, the rent they get for their homes, come from the
taxpayers, and we are taxpayers.
As the old saying has it (you've heard it on radio and
television), the Negro College Fund says that a mind is a
terrible thing to waste.  In the closing of Martin Luther King's
speech in 1963 in Washington, D.C., he said,  Free at last, free
at last, thank God almighty, we're free at last.  Thank you and
God bless.
 President Maurer . And I would say to you, Mrs. Milkman, here is
a man who has had much experience in the work world. He is
offered a job at a workshop. That job is a direct labor kind of a
job, where he works at a bench. He is not offered any kind of
supervisory job although he has applied for a number. What can
the Committee do? What is the Committee prepared to do to see
that discrimination that occurs in those shops comes to an end?
 Mrs. Milkman . As I indicated before, at this point what the
Committee is doing is asking for data and, in meeting with board
members as well as executive directors of workshops (but the
board members are the ones who set many of the employment
policies), asking them
if they are committed to hiring blind people in management and
supervisory positions. Whether or not we will go beyond that will
be up to the Committee. I can promise you this. It is a question
that will be addressed and addressed soon.
 President Maurer .  Mrs. Milkman, I appreciate your coming to
the meeting. I knew when you came, and I'm sure that you knew
when you came, that direct questions would be asked of you. I
knew when you came that some of the past we have discussed
(although it is a brief past) would be brought to your attention.
I'm sure that you knew it. Yet you came here representing the
agency of which you are executive director, and you came here
with good spirit to talk with us about programs that are going to
be initiated there. Our direct speech undoubtedly will remain;
yours undoubtedly will also remain.  Nevertheless, I hope that we
will be able to work more closely in the future. We will say, as
we have told you, what we think is right.  We expect the same of
you, and we know we can count upon it. So thank you very much for
coming and especially for your good spirit.   Mrs. Milkman .
Thank you as well. And I look forward to working with you all of
you.
                       TWENTY YEARS AFTER
                       By Jana S. Moynihan
 This article appeared in the July, 1989, edition of  The Blind
Missourian,  the publication of the National Federation of the
Blind of Missouri. Jana Moynihan is one of the long-time leaders
of the Missouri affiliate. Her perspective is valuable and helps
to remind us all how far we have come as a movement. Here is what
she has to say: 

Sitting in the middle of the Missouri delegation at the
convention of the National Federation of the Blind this year, I
heard President Maurer give the registered attendance figures for
his first convention in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1969. He
compared the figures of that convention (731) with the
registration figures for the 1989 convention we were attending
(2,012). He wanted to know how much the Federation had grown
during that twenty-year period.
 It is good to reflect on our past,  I thought as a flood
of memories about that same 1969 convention, my own first
convention, swept over me. Many changes have taken place in the
Federation over
the last twenty years which can be clearly seen at our national
conventions.  Yet many things remain the same. It is good to see
where we have come from at the same time as we look ahead.
The strong contrast in size between the two conventions is not
the only sign of change over the last twenty years. In 1969 we
had at least six or eight fewer affiliates than now. The ghosts
of the 1961 Federation Civil War appeared during the Roll Call of
the States in 1969. Alabama, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Florida, and
some others failed to appear among the delegations. Great
enthusiasm and excitement were generated by the presence of
Kansas and Illinois among the delegations in 1969. They had been
organized during the previous year. This showed that the NFB was
on the move and growing again. Today we have all 50 states and
the District of Columbia as affiliates.
At that 1969 convention Missouri had about thirty delegates. Most
other states, except Iowa, had about the same number. State
representatives introduced every member of their delegations
during the Roll Call
of the States. I was the only member of our delegation under
thirty-five years of age. Today introducing every delegate would
be impossible.  In fact, 1969 may have been the last year it was
done.
Perhaps my comparison of the two conventions may be colored by
the changes in my own life during the twenty-year period. I came
to the 1969 convention a twenty-four-year-old graduate student
working on an MA in history. I lived with my parents and had no
job although
I hoped to teach junior college history in a year or two. Today,
after a seven-year stint as a behavioral therapist, I have
completed ten years as an investigator with the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights. I obtained
this last position, in part, through my participation in the
Federation. I brought with me a husband, whom I met at the 1978
NFB convention, and two children.  Naturally, the changes in my
lifestyle have some bearing on what I do at conventions today
compared to what I did at my first convention and on what does or
doesn't attract my maximum attention.
I recall that there were fewer young people at that first
convention although there were many students attending their
first or second convention in 1969. The Student Division of the
Federation had been organized only a year or two before. Also,
except for the delegation from Iowa, many delegates seemed
hesitant in their mobility skills.  Many older delegates carried
collapsible canes or the old wooden crooked canes reminiscent of
Bo Peep. One often saw five or six delegates, with hands on the
shoulders of the person in front, snake through the hotel led by
a sighted guide or, lacking that, by someone with
some sight. They reminded me of work gangs with invisible chains
bonding them together whether they liked it or not. This year, I
saw few delegates who could not travel competently and no more
chain gangs wending their way through the convention. Most
delegates carried the long fiberglass cane.
Today's convention revealed blind persons in a wider variety of
jobs, including professional positions. There are many more
minority delegates:  Blacks, Hispanics, and persons of Asian
heritage. More families are attending, too. There were scarcely
any small children in attendance in 1969. In recent years we have
established childcare and in 1989 had at least fifty-one children
of delegates or blind children of parents who were attending, and
that didn't count children who felt
they were too old for childcare and were pursuing the type of
entertainment teen-agers enjoy.
In 1969, as I recall, we had no blind children at the convention.
Of course, we didn't have a Parents of Blind Children Division
either.  It was good to see the number of children going around
the convention this year who were using canes and beginning to
develop a knowledge of their own competence and strength through
the Federation. It was also good to see their parents actively
involved in learning Federation philosophy to pass on to them.
The Parents of Blind Children Division is not the only new
division or committee established in the last twenty years. In
1969 we had plenty of time to socialize in a small hospitality
room, singing around a piano or sitting at tables talking. This
year there were seminars, workshops, and meetings going on almost
every evening during the convention and during the three days and
evenings preceding. While some of these committees and divisions
existed in 1969, most have come along since then.
Thanks to the numerous leadership seminars and increased
communication between the National Board and the state affiliates
and general membership, the delegates seem much more aware of the
issues being discussed than in 1969. There also seems to be a
greater consensus and spirit of cooperation at all levels.
Some of the issues at convention this year were also raised in
1969.  However, in most cases we can see considerable progress.
For example, the problem of low wages and unfair treatment of
workers in sheltered shops by management was discussed then as it
was this year. However, the blind did not then have the tools to
bring the National Labor Relations Board and the unions to our
assistance. Through the persistence and force of the Federation,
we have these tools today. In 1969 organizing shop workers into
unions was only a hoped-for dream. Today, in several instances,
it is reality. The same can be said for issues regarding blind
vendors. We now have the changes in the law which permit and
allow for protection of vendor rights. This was only partially
the case in 1969.
In 1969 NAC was only dawning as an issue on the horizon. After
almost two decades of unremitting struggle to defeat NAC during
the 1970s
and '80s, NAC received only minimal comment in the Presidential
Report.  On the other hand, the airlines seemed to present no
threat or problem to blind people during the 1969 convention. In
1969 most of us felt fairly confident that Braille was here to
stay. After the technological revolution in the 1970s and 1980s,
we find Braille endangered and must rise to make people aware of
its value and the need for it to be taught to blind children.
In 1969 Iowa had the leading program for the blind in the country
because of the Iowa Commission for the Blind where Dr. Jernigan
was director. The Iowa delegation evidenced great satisfaction
and pride.  Today Federation members have learned that State
programs can change
for the worse as well as the better. We have learned that it is
necessary to establish our own centers demonstrating how programs
for the blind should function and to advocate that Social
Security funds now given to state agencies be distributed through
a voucher system to allow blind individuals in need of training
to select the programs they believe will most benefit them.
The Missouri delegation in 1969 was essentially the Kansas City
Chapter.  I think we had only two or three members at large from
other parts
of the state. Kansas City was the only chapter in the Missouri
affiliate.  Many of the faces of that 1969 convention are gone.
Owen Rittgers and Tiny Beedle and Bob Peterson are almost the
only members still active. The others are deceased or have
dropped out along the way.  The same is true of names which were
familiar to all Federationists in 1969. Muzzy Marcelino, Tony
Mannino, and Isabelle Grant have all gone to their reward. John
Taylor, Manuel Urena and Mae Davidow differed with us in
philosophy, attacked us, and eventually were left behind by the
movement.
Just as in 1969, the banquet is the highlight of the convention.
In 1969 Dr. Jernigan gave the banquet speech in the second year
of his presidency. President Marc Maurer, a somewhat rowdy
undergraduate student in 1969, gave an excellent speech this
year. In 1969 I don't recall much of an overflow at the banquet.
This year many tables had to be set in the lobby after the Grand
Ballroom had filled. Those in the lobby enjoyed the banquet
through closed circuit television hook-up. The banquet in 1989,
as well as the entire convention, was videotaped. This was not
the case in 1969. The method of preservation was audio tape only.
In case anyone wants an idea of how much it cost to go to
convention in the good old days, here are some comparisons.
Registration this year was about $5.00 per person. I don't think
this has changed more than a dollar or two over the years.
However, this year's banquet was $20.00 per person. In South
Carolina, I think it was $10.00 or less. I know that the room
rates in 1969 were $12.50 for a double.  This year they were
$28.00 for a double. There was a $100.00 door prize drawn at the
beginning of each session in 1969 as there is now,
but the value of other cash prizes seems to have increased with
inflation.  I recall that in 1969 we were just about as happy
over a $5.00 or $10.00 prize as over the $25.00 cash prizes of
today. But then isn't the real value about the same?
One thing I am glad to see hasn't changed about the NFB national
convention is the optimism, power, and enthusiasm that emanate
from the delegates and surge through our movement. This
commitment inspired and moved me to become an active part of that
movement at my first convention in 1969. It raises my spirits
today. I can't help believing that the students attending their
first convention in 1989 will find the NFB convention as awesome
and inspiring as I found my first convention.IF YOU CAN'T SEE ME NOW: 
MORE REVELATIONS ABOUT CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES
                        by Barbara Pierce
Most Americans who watch television at all regularly are familiar
with an attractive young woman who cavorts around a cruise ship
among equally glamorous representatives of both sexes. She sings
a maddening little ditty that bounces around the brain for hours
after she has danced off camera. It begins:

 If they could see me now out on a
 sun-filled cruise 
 Eating fancy food and doing what I choose. 

The purpose, of course, of all this mindless propaganda is to
persuade the viewer that he or she would fit into such a scene
after putting down several hundred dollars for up to seven days
of steaming around the Caribbean on a Carnival Cruise ship. The
only real objection to this Madison-Avenue hype is that, if you
can't see that actress now, Carnival doesn't want you or your
money. (See the story in the August, 1989, issue of the  Braille
Monitor ,  Litigation Filed Against Carnival Cruise Lines. )
As so often happens, attention focused on one example of
discrimination results in other incidents' being brought to
light. After reading
about the Urbanek case in August, Marilyn Womble (the energetic
President of the National Federation of the Blind of Florida)
sent the National Office copies of letters she had received from
various officials while she was working on a Carnival Cruise case
in her state. The situation, which involved Joyce Thorton, a
member of the NFB of Florida, was all too common.
In March of 1987 Ms. Thorton was a member of a foursome of blind
people who wanted to vacation together in the Caribbean. The
other couple had a nine-year-old daughter, and Thorton used a dog
guide. The cruise line was willing to admit the humans to the
ship under certain conditions, but the dog was another matter.
Carnival thumbed its corporate nose at the concept of White Cane
Laws. Its ships did not sail under the American flag, and its
cruise would be in international waters, so no dog period and no
discussion. Moreover, each couple would have to find a sighted
adult to bunk in the cabin with them someone who could provide
them with all the extra information Carnival thought they would
need and who could take care of them in case of an emergency.  In
vain did the four argue that all they required was a little
orientation at the beginning of the cruise. Talk of independence
and competence was lost on Carnival officials. Negotiations had
reached an impasse.
At that time Ms. Thorton did not know of the Federation, and her
friends did not like to make waves. She, on the other hand, was
not about to introduce a sighted companion into her cabin during
her vacation.
She began to look for another cruise line. In the midst of the
discussions with the Carnival people, Thorton had ascertained
that the Holland America Line had no objections to a dog and
would not insist on sighted guides for its blind passengers, but
their cruises were not what the four were seeking. She discovered
that the Cunard Line would be delighted to have the four as
guests. The dog would be no trouble; the steward could place a
sandbox near the cabin for the dog's convenience. But Thorton's
friends were looking for a less expensive vacation.  Late in the
spring they contacted the Norwegian Line. They learned that the 
Norway  would be sailing in the Caribbean for seven
days in June. At first the Norwegian officials offered the same
objections that Carnival had. But Thorton refused to consider
paying for a sighted companion to stay in her cabin, and
eventually, with poor grace, the requirement was waived. The dog,
however, was another matter. At this point Thorton contacted
Marilyn Womble, and together they went to the Miami City
Attorney, Janet Reno, who was very interested in the case. She
assured Womble that if Thorton wanted to report to the ship with
her dog, Reno would have police there to back her claim that the
dog could accompany her. But again, Thorton's friends did not
want a scene, so she did not press the point.
As they were about to board, however, a Norwegian official
bustled
up with a waiver for them to sign, releasing Norwegian from
responsibility for any accidental injury to them that might
occur. They refused to sign the paper. The official was angry,
but she did not stop them from taking their places on the ship.
The cruise was a huge success despite its difficult beginning and
the absence of Thorton's dog. The crew was inexperienced with
blind people, but they were willing to learn and were not overly
protective.  They mentioned to Thorton that they had had a dog
guide on board once before and that there had been no difficulty
with it. They couldn't imagine why management would take such an
absurd view of the matter a reaction which confirms again our
contention that such rules are devised in corporate headquarters,
at a safe remove from anyone who knows anything about the matter
in question.
Meanwhile, Marilyn Womble was seeing what could be done to
educate Carnival. It appeared that the answer was not much.
Carnival officials demanded that she come tour a ship so they
could show her how dangerous it was for blind people. Wishing to
keep the discussion focused on principles, Womble at first
refused. It became clear, however, that principles were far
beyond the capacity of the folk at Carnival.
Mrs. Womble eventually agreed to tour a ship and did so with
officials, pointing out as she went how the white cane supplies
information that the blind person needs. They were dazzled by her
performance. Did it convince them that they were mistaken in
their assessment of the abilities of blind people? Certainly not.
They dismissed Mrs. Womble's performance on the grounds that she
has a tiny bit of vision (Womble says that, with her lack of
depth perception, she can't trust her sight at all) and that,
since she is a state president of a national organization, she is
clearly more competent than most blind people.

Some people ask us why we resort to attorneys and the courts so
often.  But when logic and reason fail, what alternative is
there? Here is the letter that the Associate General Counsel for
Carnival Cruise Lines, Greggory Rand,  sent to Congressman
William Lehman of Florida, one of the people whom Mrs. Womble
contacted in her effort to bring enough pressure to bear on
Carnival to make their company policy comply with Florida law. It
is clear that so far, at least, Carnival officials see nothing
but sweet reason and corporate considerateness for their
passengers in their policy. Here is what the attorney had to say:

____________________


                                                   Miami, Florida
                                                     June 6, 1989


The Honorable William Lehman
Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Lehman:
We are in receipt of your letter dated April 4, 1989, wherein you
address the topic of Carnival's policy regarding blind
passengers.  We appreciate your concern with this issue and that
you have taken the time to pursue this matter on behalf of Ms.
Marilyn Womble and blind individuals in general. In response to
your letter, I would like to first describe our specific policy
and the reasoning behind its implementation. Secondly, I would
like to give you an overview of the policies of the other major
cruise lines on this same subject.  Lastly, I will outline the
recent changes in our policy, stemming from our meeting with Ms.
Womble.
Carnival's long-standing policy has been that all passengers
desirous of traveling aboard our ships must be self- sufficient
and if not, they must be accompanied by an able- bodied, sighted
companion who will take responsibility for any physical
assistance needed during the cruise and in case of emergency.
[Let us interrupt here to note that Carnival has remained deaf to
the pleas of self-sufficient blind people that all they want is
to be left in peace to enjoy independently their days of sea and
sun. But back to the text.] It is essential
to understand the nature of taking a cruise on the high seas and
some of the hazards which most people do not consider beforehand.
As I am sure you are aware, travel on the high seas involves
inherent risks not found in land-based travel accommodations and
leisure facilities.  A fire, explosion, or collision are
potential calamities which history has proven can and do occur.
In serious situations such as these, each passenger's chances of
survival are directly related to his/her ability to move swiftly
and uninhibitedly to their designated lifeboat station.
Additionally, the ships, on rare occasion, do encounter heavy
weather. If the passenger is incapacitated or not
self-sufficient,
he is especially dependent upon his limited abilities and his
traveling companion(s) for assistance during this precarious
time. [Let us interrupt again to point out that the natural
extension of the Carnival policy would require that any sighted
passenger incapacitated by sea sickness during heavy weather
should be required to bring an assistant not subject to the same
malady in case of storm.]
During the course of a typical seven-day voyage, this potential
for injury exists for approximately 132-1/2 hours during which
the vessel is at sea, and is one reason Carnival, as a basic
premise, requires
that each passenger be self-sufficient. If a passenger is not
self-sufficient for any reason (i.e., an infant, confinement to a
wheelchair, blindness, etc.), then as stated previously, we
require that he travel with someone who is self-sufficient and
will take responsibility for attending
to any special needs as well as assisting him around the ship.
[Carnival,
of course, reserves the right to determine which passengers are
self-sufficient and which are not. What is it about the travel
industry that convinces its members that they are omniscient that
they know better than
the disabled adult whether extra assistance by the crew will be
necessary?  But back to Mr. Rand.] Primarily this policy is for
his own safety
and so as not to hinder the safe and efficient movement of other
passengers.  All ships are constructed with unique structural
designs which are mandatory for compliance with the various
classification societies and vessel flag registrations. Examples
of these structural anomalies not found in your local Holiday Inn
or Hyatt Regency include raised thresholds in entry and
passageways, narrow staircases, fire door strips on the floors as
well as changes in floor elevation in various areas. Negotiation
of these and other structural components of a large cruise ship,
even in calm waters, for a person who is not self-sufficient, can
be difficult. [No one debates this point, but why should a
competent dog guide or cane user be so classified?] It will come
as no surprise to you that we receive claims from able-bodied
passengers related
to these unique architectural and structural designs. You can
therefore appreciate the risks faced by a disabled person if the
vessel is rolling heavily in bad weather or he is faced with an
emergency situation.
Our primary goal is to ensure that our passengers enjoy a safe,
comfortable, and thoroughly pleasurable cruise. We believe that
we owe our stockholders, employees, and passengers a duty to
implement risk-reducing policies so long as those policies remain
within the bounds of the law and reflect sound business judgment.
[When writing to a member of the United States Congress, Carnival
apparently feels more compulsion
to pay lip service to the laws of the United States than it does
when brow-beating a potential passenger.] Other cruise operators
employ the same or similar policies with respect to passengers
who are not self-sufficient, whether they are technically
handicapped or not.  Contrary to the  understanding  stated in
your letter, Carnival is not  one of the few cruise lines that
has such a policy.  Carnival, along with numerous others in the
cruise industry, is well aware of the potential dangers and
liabilities that exist in these circumstances and consequently
has taken the requisite precautions
to protect its passengers. Following an investigation into this
matter, it has come to our attention that at least seven (7)
major cruise lines: specifically, Norwegian Cruise Lines; Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines; Princess Cruises, Inc.; Holland American
Cruise Lines; Dolphin Cruise Lines; Chandris Cruise Lines; and
Commodore Cruise Lines all have the same or similar policies
concerning non-able-bodied passengers.  Each cruise line
implements its policy in one form or another with the same goal
in mind: safety of the passenger. I will be happy to provide you
with copies of each of the above-mentioned cruise lines'
brochures discussing this subject, upon request.
As per our policy, we review each passenger's reported medical
condition(s) and after conferring with the respective passenger
and if necessary his physician(s) and our own medical directors,
we determine what requirements are necessary to accomplish these
goals. [This policy sounds more reasonable than it is.
Conferences with blind passengers
at any rate seem to be limited to inflexible announcements of
Carnival's requirements.] Obviously we desire to sell as many
tickets as our supply of cabin-space allows and therefore seek to
minimize, to the greatest extent possible, boarding denial (we
usually provide a full refund in these instances). We, however,
must then temper those pure business considerations with our
obligations to the safety and comfort of the passenger to whom
boarding was denied, as well as all other passengers and our
shareholders.
As communicated to Ms. Womble when she first contacted Carnival,
it was our perception that given the exigencies associated with
travel on the high seas, that a blind person (as well as others)
might have difficulty and that therefore, the individual must be
accompanied
by a sighted companion. That perception was based upon our
reasonable evaluation that a blind person might have more
difficulty in a ship than a sighted person for the reasons stated
hereinafter. Ms. Womble expressed her belief that our perceptions
were wrong and that blind individuals are as capable as sighted
persons on ocean going vessels.  We suggested that Ms. Womble
accede to a shipboard  experiment  to show us that we were
mistaken. Ms. Womble's response was that she  wouldn't stoop so
low  and that she and the Federation for the Blind would file
suit (the quote is Ms. Womble's own words). [And the mistake in
the name of her organization belongs to Mr. Rand.] After many
conversations Ms. Womble finally agreed with our suggestion and
did come to Miami to take a tour on the vessel  Mardi Gras  at
Port Everglades, Florida. I am attaching a copy of a letter to
Ms. Womble sent shortly after that tour which describes the
results of that tour and our agreement to modify our policy. The
conclusions drawn were that although Ms. Womble was quite
impressive in her ability to get around the ship, that she was
clearly not  average  (i.e. she is not totally blind being able
to perceive light, dark, and shapes; she is independent and
self-confident as is best displayed by her position as President
of her chapter of the National Federation for the Blind among
other life accomplishments). Carnival's modified case-by-case
considerations in allowing the blind passenger to travel alone
will include (1) whether the individual has taken prior cruises,
(2) the independence of the individual, and (3) prior experiences
in handling situations on an independent basis. [And how in the
name of all that is rational will Carnival officials determine
whether
a given passenger is independent or has had past experience in
handling things independently? Only open-minded discussion with a
disabled potential passenger could elicit such information, and
Carnival has already demonstrated unwillingness to believe what
blind people say about their abilities. But back to the letter.]
The final decision, of course, is Carnival's as to whether any
individual shall be allowed to sail on our ships. This is a
measure that remains the same, regardless of the nature of the
medical condition under consideration.
Please keep in mind that with respect to medical-related issues,
at no time have we refused passage to anyone, including blind
people, unless we determined from the empirical data provided to
us that the presence on board of any individual would be a hazard
to himself, the other passengers, or the ship.
In summary, we categorically deny Ms. Womble's charge of
discrimination.  As discussed in detail above, Carnival has its
policy requirements in place for the benefit of the concerned
passenger, the benefit of other passengers, and to the extent
possible, to protect the Company and its shareholders against the
potential for unique, high-risk claims presented by a broad
spectrum of medical conditions. This is not discrimnation, but is
a sound business practice. [Apparently Mr. Rand's unfamiliarity
with what constitutes discrimination extends to the proper
spelling of the word.]
We regret that we were not able to provide a response prior to
Representative Claude Pepper's death. We nonetheless have copied
this letter to his office with the realization that a member of
his staff will be its recipient. We trust that this provides you
with the information you seek in order to determine that
Carnival's present policy regarding
blind passengers, modified as outlined above, does not amount to
discrimination, but rather meets its ultimate and intended goal
of preserving and maintaining passenger safety. Should you have
any questions or comments concerning the foregoing, do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.  Thank you for your
attention and consideration.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                                 Greggory J. Rand
                                        Associate General Counsel
                                      Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
___________________

Clearly this is a case for the courts to resolve. Nothing short
of judicial instruction will convince Carnival officials of the
competence of the blind. As the old saw has it: they know what
they think, so don't confuse them with the facts.
In the meantime, people who want to see the Caribbean on a
Carnival ship might take a leaf from Dennis and Carolyn Ranker's
book (see the following story). What would the Carnival
know-it-alls think if they were to learn that blind people are
traveling on their ships without incident? No doubt we will soon
find out.
                                 
STILL MORE ABOUT CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES
  From the Editor:  In the August, 1989,  Braille Monitor  we
carried an article entitled  Litigation Filed Against Carnival
Cruise Lines.  It detailed the struggle which Joe Urbanek, a
Federationist from South Carolina, is having with Carnival Cruise
Lines. In brief, the story is this:
 Urbanek, who is blind, wanted to take a cruise. Carnival Cruise
Lines said that he couldn't ride on their ship unless he signed
all kinds of demeaning waivers. He refused, and the NFB and the
South Carolina affiliate are helping him with a lawsuit to
enforce his rights. At the time of this writing (mid-August) the
case is still in progress and waiting for trial.
   In the circumstances  Monitor  readers can imagine my surprise
when I received a letter today from Dennis and Carolyn Ranker,
Federationists from West Virginia. In October of 1988 the Rankers
signed up to take a cruise, and you guessed it they wanted to go
on Carnival Cruise Lines. Here is the story as Dennis tells it:

                                        Charleston, West Virginia
                                                   August 9, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
I read with great interest the article concerning the problem one
of our South Carolina members was having with Carnival Cruise
Lines.  My wife Carolyn and I had an identical problem to this
last October.  Our dealings with Carnival went something like
this: We went to a local travel agent to book the cruise. Both of
us had our canes, so the agent obviously knew we were blind.
According to her, there is some sort of policy (either initiated
by the cruise line itself or possibly the booking travel agents)
wherein the line is appraised
of blind passengers' intent to use Carnival, most likely through
some type of computer code. When we found out about this, we
informed the agent in the strongest language short of impropriety
we knew how that they (both the agent and the cruise line) would
not hear the last
of us for a long time if we had to comply with the second-class
treatment dealt with in the August  Monitor  article. Our travel
agent, much to her credit, took our names out of the computer,
which also deleted the message about our situation blindness to
the cruise line. She then entered our names in (at least, she
said she did) the same way everyone else's was.
By the time our April cruise date arrived, we were a bit
apprehensive, fearing we would be turned away at the gangway
after flying down to Miami for the week-long cruise. Well, we
weren't! The trip went off without a hitch. I might add that the
other passengers, crew, and everyone except one person we met at
the Miami airport were simply the most hospitable, yet
non-custodial, bunch of people you could imagine.
If the cruise line is alleging that blind people are, in fact,
some kind of extra hazard, Carolyn and I are proof to the
contrary. After all, we spent a whole week on and off the ship at
various ports of call. Only once did we have trouble when a
sighted taxi driver took us to the wrong pier!
To make a long story a bit shorter, Carolyn and I stand ready to
help in whatever way we can should some type of personal witness
testimony, via deposition or otherwise, be deemed helpful with
regard to the South Carolinian and his or their cruise
discrimination case. Feel free to contact Mr. Capps and other
interested parties, sharing the contents of this letter with
them.

                                                       Cordially,
                                        Dennis and Carolyn Ranker
____________________

 I hadn't remembered the incident concerning the Rankers, which
either proves that my memory is failing or that we still have an
inordinant number of cases involving discrimination.  (I choose
to believe it
is the latter.) In any case, as soon as I received the letter, I
called Don Capps to tell him about it and to put him in contact
with the Rankers. He said such testimony would be helpful and
that our attorneys would follow up immediately.
 Next I called the Rankers to thank them for their letter and
tell them of my conversation with Don Capps. They say they had
absolutely no problems on the ship (remember that both of them
are blind) and that they are ready and willing to testify.
 While I was on the phone I asked about the Rankers' new baby
(born July 22, 1989). Premature, the baby had real problems
during and shortly after birth, but everything is all right now.
Mother, father, and baby are well and happy.
   When I called, I talked with Carolyn. Dennis had not yet
arrived home from work. But he soon came, and I talked with him
also. Jobs, babies, vacation cruises, and hopes for advancement
and a full life.  As we have so often said, we want what others
want and the National Federation of the Blind is leading the way
in helping make it come true.
 INCIDENTS AT WASHINGTON UNION STATION:  VARIATIONS ON A TIRED,
OLD THEME
                       by Steven Hastalis
 Steve Hastalis is one of the leaders of the National Federation
of the Blind of Illinois. He is also a lover of trains and a
frequent traveler. Here is what he has to say about recent
experiences in Washington, D.C.: 

The absurd, custodial conduct I have recounted in the following
letter to Amtrak is yet another example of the ongoing nonsense
which is inflicted on blind persons when we seek only to buy a
ticket and ride, just like everyone else. Regardless of the mode
of transportation, the blind have experienced the same clear
pattern of discrimination, humiliation, and misunderstanding 
variations on a theme,  a tired, old theme.
When the Federation organized its Illinois affiliate twenty-one
years ago in August, 1968, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan and others told
of purchasing tickets, along with a sighted passenger. Thus, the
station agent sold the tickets, assuming the blind person was
traveling with a sighted attendant, as the railroad required.
The anger and arrogance of some of the personnel at Washington
Union Station remind me of President Maurer's comment about the
airlines at our national convention a few years ago.  The blind
are expected to  Sit down, shut up, and like it. 
Increasingly, however, the recurrence of such deplorable
treatment only serves to strengthen my resolve to stand for my
principles and rights as a blind person. I will not abide by
regressive practices and policies based on negative attitudes and
myths about blindness.  I will vigorously protest arrogant,
condescending, custodial treatment.  I don't seek strife or
confrontation, but I will do what I have to do.  I am no longer
willing to be treated as a second-class citizen. I demand no
restrictions based on blindness.  I insist on my right to travel
on terms of equality with my fellow sighted passengers. 
____________________
                                                Chicago, Illinois
                                                  August 17, 1989

Office of Customer Relations
Amtrak, Union Station
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir or Madam:
When I was completing my previous  All Aboard America  excursion
to the East last May, I already was making plans for another,
with stops in Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; and New York City
as part of my summer travels.
As background, I have been blind all my life.  For the past
twenty-five years, I have traveled independently with a long,
white cane throughout this country and several others by all
modes of public transportation, including rail.  As a very
well-traveled blind passenger, I feel compelled to share my
experiences with you regarding the overbearing behavior by some
personnel at Washington Union Station.  These individuals
were overly zealous in the efforts to assist me and took strong
umbrage when I took issue with their conduct.
On Sunday evening, July l6, 1989, I left Chicago on Train 30, the 
Capitol .  We arrived at Washington Union Station ten minutes
early on Monday afternoon, July 17.  When I stepped off the
train, a red cap offered to assist me.  Initially, I politely
declined.  It wasn't practical or necessary because I already had
my backpack strapped
on and two other bags on my shoulders.  A second red cap offered
assistance, and again I declined.  Both became very angry and
offended.  They berated me in a most scolding tone of voice,  You
should accept assistance.  Apparently, they expected me to accept
help because
I am blind and then tip them for it. I therefore resolved not to
accept their assistance because I would have felt obligated to
tip them and
was not about to do so after they humiliated me.  Finally, in
desperation I told them,  I'm from Chicago, and I'm familiar with
the ways of big city train stations, so leave me alone. 
I left Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, July 26.  I first arrived
in the main waiting room area near the gates at about 9:30 a.m. A
police officer, attempting to assist me, grabbed my arm hard.  I
tried to
explain that I'd rather have him walk next to me or give me
directions.  He became indignant when I asked him to let go,
saying,  Well then, if you don't want me to help you, I won't. 
He then walked away, and I went to the seating area near Gate F
to await the next departure at 10:20 A.M.
After sitting a few minutes, I realized that I had forgotten
something at the home of the friends with whom I was staying.  I
decided to go back and get it, then to take later trains to
Philadelphia and New York, inasmuch as these were unreserved legs
of my itinerary.  I checked my large bags in the Parcel Room and
left Union Station on Washington Metro.
When I returned about two hours later and retrieved my baggage, I
began asking about the gate for the 12:30 p.m. departure. By this
time, it was 12:28. A first announcement was made for Train 94
and 494, but no gate was mentioned.  Therefore, as I continued
asking people, the police officer I encountered earlier yelled
across the concourse:   Don't try to help him.  About fifteen of
us tried
to help him earlier, and he missed his train. He doesn't want
help.  I walked across the concourse toward the open door where
he was standing and replied,  No, that wasn't the issue; I just
didn't want you to grab my arm. 
I felt that he was too angry to care what I might have told him.
Therefore, I didn't bother explaining why I  missed the train, 
as he put it.
Again, I asked about the 12:30 train, he yelled,  You missed the
train earlier, and you missed this one too.  The next train is at
1:20.  He told another passenger,  Take him to Passenger
Services.  I told that passenger not to take me there, and he
directed me to the seating area.  Shortly after 12:30, another
announcement was made for Train 94 and 494, boarding at Gate J,
Track 23.  I followed the crowd heading in that direction.  Along
the way, I met a lady who worked at Amtrak's Corporate
Headquarters.  I complained to her about the conduct of this
police officer and asked her about the system of corresponding
gate letters and track numbers at Washington Union Station.  She
gave me a brief explanation as we walked to the top of the
escalator.
Once downstairs, I moved to the left-hand edge of the platform
and walked along the train.  As I stopped at the end of each car
to check whether its vestibule was open, this same police officer
repeatedly yelled:   Leave him alone; we tried to help him, but
he doesn't want any help. 
Another man, probably a conductor, asked where I was going.  I
told him New York, and he directed me forward.  The first open
entrance
was at the forward end of the third car from the rear. Given the
self-righteous, condescending manner of this police officer, I
was relieved once I
found that open vestibule, walked up the steps and was aboard the
train.
These unfortunate incidents are my most recent in which Amtrak
officials have behaved in a high-handed, arrogant fashion over
the issue of what, if any, assistance I need as a blind
passenger. Based on my travel experiences over the years, I can't
emphasize enough that Amtrak personnel should ask if blind
passengers need assistance, instead of assuming that we do and
forcing the issue. They should not become offended and indignant,
as these red caps and this police officer did, when blind
passengers, such as I, decline help or take issue with the manner
in which it is offered. Of course, assistance, should be
available to blind passengers who desire it.
Ironically, the development and expansion of programs to serve
persons with all types of disabilities has encouraged the random
but increased incidence of demeaning, discriminatory treatment of
blind passengers in the name of greater  accessibility,  
accommodation, or  safety. 
The enclosed materials ( What Is the National Federation of the
Blind  (NFB) and  Do You Know a Blind Person ) capsulize NFB's
positive philosophy of blindness.  The Ten Courtesy Rules of
Blindness are simple, straightforward pointers which encourage
sighted persons to feel comfortable and at ease with blind
persons.  Please share these with your personnel at Washington,
D.C., Union Station, as well as other terminals.  This
information will aid them in treating blind passengers with the
same courtesy and respect accorded sighted passengers.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                  Steven Hastalis
                   HOW DO YOU EAT AN ELEPHANT?
                        by Barbara Pierce
When I was in the fifth grade, Girl Scout Troop 745 (of which I
was an enthusiastic member) decided to take on an ambitious
project for Christmas: we would stage (albeit in a rudimentary
way) the story of  The Littlest Angel . The artistic members drew
murals that would serve as backdrops, and the not-so-talented
colored them in.  The cutest member of the troop (a vivacious
little redhead) was chosen
to play the littlest angel, and other girls were tapped to enact
major characters.  Everyone who didn't have a special role was to
be a part of the angelic choir massed on the stairs to sing
carols at strategic points in the story.  Since there is not an
artistic bone in my body and since it was clear that no one would
choose me for a part that required walking around in front of an
audience, I resigned myself to being one in the crowd of singers.
It would be hard to overstate my shock, incredulity, and joy when
I came home from school one day to be told that the Girl Scout
leader had called to see if my mother was willing to work with me
to memorize the entire text so that I could recite the story as
my friends silently acted it out.  My mother, bless her, gladly
took on the extra work; and we launched ourselves at the task. I
have no idea how long the
story was, but it constituted an ambitious feat of memory for a
ten-year-old.  I can still quote the opening lines.
The production was a huge success. All of us were attired in bed
sheet draperies, and, as I remember it, our wings and halos were
made of coat hangers and aluminum foil and sprinkled liberally
with glitter.  Mine were the only ones to have multicolored
glitter. I sat on a stool down stage left and gave Sarah Bernhart
a run for her money.
Fond parents heaped praise on all our heads after the triumph,
and, for almost the first time in my life, I was clearly the most
dazzling of the stars. I basked in the glory for several days.
But I was rarely unobservant as a child, and, if I do say so, I
was (for the most part) capable of honesty with myself. I began
to notice that people kept dwelling on my part in the program,
and the more I listened to their praise, the more uncomfortable
it made me. It dawned on me gradually that Barbara, all-around
American girl, was not the person being heaped with adulation. It
was rather one of two other people whom I did not know. Either my
extraordinary memory was admired and simultaneously explained
away by the fact that I was blind and could be expected to do
such things as a matter of course, or
I was extravagantly lauded by people (especially strangers) who
were moved to tears by the thought of a blind child carrying the
bulk of the show and doing it well.
At the time I did not understand why suddenly the pleasure of the
experience dissolved. I knew that I had done a good job and that
it was not because I was blind.  I also knew that any of a number
of other girls in my troop could have done what I had if they had
put their minds to it.
I was painfully reminded of that production as I read the
following news article which appeared in December of 1988 on the
front page
of the  Columbus Dispatch . Diana Felice, one of the most active,
perceptive, and loyal members of our Capital Chapter in the
National Federation of the Blind of Ohio, sent it to me together
with her letter to the editor in response. Miss Felice, who is
sighted, provides a constant reminder that one does not have to
be blind to understand to the depth of one's being the message of
the National Federation of the Blind. She and our sighted
brothers and sisters like her have chosen to stand with us, to
fight ignorance and injustice when they see it, and to suffer for
their beliefs and actions.
Here is the  Columbus Dispatch  story:


                   Blind Kids Give Their All 
For Others This Christmas
                        by Barbara Carmen


In a school workshop, a blind boy's bloody hands grate wood
against sandpaper to make a toy truck for a poor child.
A teacher bandages his fingers. The boy will not quit. Somewhere,
he knows, a tot waits with an eager heart.
Twenty students at the Ohio State School for the Blind are
playing elf to brighten the Christmas of needy children.
In return, the legally blind students get the chance to give
instead of take.
 The kids were so excited,  said Chuck Whitman, a vocational
education teacher.  They receive a lot of good things from people
in the community. This is a chance for them to do something for
others.  Every day for the past few weeks, the students have
sawed and drilled and sanded wood that most of them cannot see.
They fit the drill bit into a metal guide that marks where holes
go in the wood.
A sighted helper watches closely to make sure no fingers get in
the way. The students make all 20 parts that go into each truck. 
Children at the school are either totally blind or have extremely
limited sight. Some can sense shapes or see a pinpoint of light.
Some have only peripheral vision; others see the world as if they
were looking through paper-towel tubes.
 How can these kids do what they do if they can't see?  I ask
myself that every day. They have such spirit,  Whitman said.  He
came up with the idea to make toys for needy children.
 It does a person a lot of good when you give him the opportunity
to do something worthwhile for someone else,  he said.
Student Lance Dorrell, 13, of Hilliard sands a fat, wooden wheel
and envisions Christmas morning.
 The children are going to be surprised,  Lance said.
 I feel very lucky. I have nice things, a nice house. I'm lucky. 
School Superintendent Dennis Holmes later this week will deliver
the 50 finished trucks to Toys For Tots.
 I wish our students could be in a position to see how happy 50
children will be Christmas morning when they receive the trucks, 
Holmes said.
Robert Karman, 17, of Minerva, Ohio, has been working on the
trucks
in his spare time.  It's not difficult. It's just time-consuming, 
he said.
 But I know it will really make a lot of kids happy. 

That is what the  Columbus Dispatch  had to say by way of setting
the mood of the Christmas season at the expense of blind people
everywhere.  Diana Felice spoke for all thinking blind people and
our sighted colleagues who have understood our message and joined
our battle. Here is her reply to the paper's editor:

Dear Editor:
 I am deeply distressed by an article published in the  Dispatch 
the week of December 19, 1988, about the Christmas project
executed by the students at the Ohio State School for the Blind
(O.S.S.B.).  It is unfortunate that the article's message was
neither as positive nor as constructive as the intention behind
it. In truth, this article
turned out to be a piece of propaganda which was discriminatory,
stereotypical, and patronizing. Because of the author's ignorance
about blindness and the abilities of blind people, the article
missed altogether the truth that was there for the seeing blind
kids, like most youngsters, are eager to help others when they
have the chance. The story hurt
not only the blind but the general public as well. We look for
accuracy and top-notch journalism in the  Dispatch , but this
time I fear that we have received far less than we expected or
deserved.
The over-dramatized, near-tabloid style with which the piece was
written was alarming. Comments such as  ...a blind boy's bloody
hands grate...  and  a teacher bandages his fingers. The boy will
not quit  are lurid. They play on the credulity of the uninformed
and insult the knowledgeable reader's intelligence. Most damaging
of all, they rob the blind of dignity.
To point out later that a  ...sighted helper watches closely to
make sure no fingers get in the way...  implies that blind people
can't tend to their own safety, so the sighted must take
responsibility for them by providing constant custodial
supervision. My sighted father severely mangled a thumb and
finger many years ago on similar equipment.  Perhaps if he had
had the supervision of the blind teacher who taught this class,
he would not have been injured. By never even mentioning
the shop teacher's blindness, the reporter missed an excellent 
opportunity to inform the public about the capacities of blind
people. By the
way, do you know of any school that wouldn't have as much adult
supervision as possible in a class such as this?  I don't. What
makes the presence of an aide in this shop so note-worthy at
O.S.S.B? Why did this story merit front page coverage?
There are plenty of hard news stories concerning the blind that
newspapers don't like covering at all, much less on the front
page: the 70% unemployment rate among the blind, airline
discrimination against them, the State Department's refusal to
allow qualified blind candidates to compete in Foreign Service
examinations, to name just a few. These stories don't fit the
public's notions of blind people. When Barbara Carmen writes that 
the legally blind students get the chance to give instead of
take,  she is providing the public with a cozy and inspirational
view of blindness that reinforces old stereotypes.
As long as I have called attention to Carmen's use of the term 
legally blind,  let me point out that all blind people are
legally blind.  It is not helpful to anyone to subdivide the
group. People with no usable vision are as likely to be capable
of accomplishing a given task as are the partially or fully
sighted. Emphasis on degree of sight tends to rank human worth
according to visual acuity and labels
the individual for life. This way of thinking and speaking about
blindness allows, even encourages, the partially sighted to deny
their disability.  Those with a little usable sight are all too
often eager to deny their identity as blind people. They are
ashamed of who they are, and the hair-splitting involved in
talking about legal blindness as opposed to total blindness
contributes to this problem. The bottom line is that it is
respectable to be blind, and the sooner the general public
(including the blind themselves) recognizes this fact and behaves
accordingly, the sooner blind people will be able to take their
proper places in the community as fully participating citizens.
As a twelve-year employee of the Ohio State School for the Blind
and an active member of the Capital Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Ohio, I have seen firsthand the
unlimited array of skills, talents, abilities, and potential of
the blind. But as a sighted person, I must also say that I have
been the beneficiary of the assistance, guidance, support,
patience, friendship, camaraderie, and love of my blind brothers
and sisters. They have been my teachers, students, and friends as
I have tried to be theirs.
The blind, in short, are America's most underrated,
unappreciated, untapped resource. Society simply can't afford to
ignore them any longer because they are too valuable. However,
don't take my word for it; get to know a blind person. Any of
them will be glad to tell you who and what they are when they're
not busy acting as attorneys, raising children, sailing solo on
the Atlantic or Pacific, teaching, editing, repairing plumbing or
electrical wiring, working in labs or hospitals, or finishing a
handmade cabinet unsupervised, I might add.
The blind don't need society's permission to be independent,
capable, contributing members of society because they already
are. What they do need is the sighted public's willingness to
accept them as peers by recognizing their right to enjoy the
opportunities accorded to everyone else.
You'll be amply rewarded if you take the time to be an active
part of the solution instead of being a part of the problem.

                                                    Respectfully,
                                                  Diana R. Felice
P.S. For further information about blindness, please contact Eric
Duffy, President, Capital Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of Ohio at 262-9378. Thank you.
____________________

That is what Diane Felice wrote in response to the kind of
Christmas season newspaper story that conjures up synthetic good
will at the
expense of those about whom the piece is written. When sloppy
sentimentality is focused on people far away and wholly
unconscious of what is said
or thought, the article may be in poor taste, but no one suffers
particularly from it. But when the people reading the story live
in the same community as the subjects, when the ignorance,
misinformation, and condescension of the writer will be reflected
in the way people treat the objects of all this compassionate
respect, and the subjects of the article are children who will
read it and absorb the underlying messages as they bask in the
adulation, then such a story is cruel and absolutely opposed to
everything that Christmas means.
No sooner had Miss Felice's letter been written and sent than she
began to be berated by her Ohio State School for the Blind
colleagues.  The children had worked so hard on the project. How
could she attack it? The reporter had only tried to give credit
to the youngsters.  What gave Diana Felice the right to criticize
her efforts? In vain she pointed out that she had not said
anything to belittle the work of the students. She might as well
have been whistling up the wind when she tried to make the School
staff understand the damage that the piece had done to everyone.
But the saddest comment of all was that of the shop teacher. In
great anger he told Miss Felice that he would have been furious
if his blindness had been mentioned in the story. It is truly
tragic to see a competent adult still unable to admit his
blindness openly and honestly. This man's comment is a painful
reminder of how far we have to go in teaching many blind people
that it is truly respectable to be blind.
The job ahead of us is still huge, and doing it well is
desperately important to thousands of people who don't even know
that they are suffering from their own and other people's
misconceptions. But the organized blind are not alone. There are
members of our Federation who are sighted, who understand our
commitment, and who have placed the yoke on their own shoulders
in order to help us pull.
Each of us can do a bit of the work. As the old joke has it: How
do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
                          CURTIS CHONG
                        by Andrea Engler
 This article appeared in the October, 1989,  Radio Talking Book
Program Guide  issued by State Services for the Blind of
Minnesota. 

Curtis Chong is a man of many accomplishments an activist,
computer programming professional, husband, and father who
expects the best from himself and encourages others to have high
expectations of him as well. One of his goals is to change
society's preconceived notions about what a blind person can
achieve, and to help the blind build self-esteem and confidence
in their ability to live independent
and productive lives. He feels that being blind is not the major
obstacle, but that  the biggest problem is how... (the blind)..
feel about it, and how others feel about it. 
Although Curtis readily admits that  not all blind people agree
with what I say,  he strongly advocates autonomy and independence
for the blind in all aspects of their lives, and favors
integration
of blind and sighted workers in the widest possible range of
occupations.  Referring to his own life, Curtis says  One of the
principles
I absorbed was self-reliance, the ability to deal with blindness
yourself...as opposed to having everybody else figure out what
the answer's going to be to a particular problem.  He believes
that in the workplace, both employer and employee should focus on
ability to do the job, and not on special accommodations for
blindness.  The employer should expect that we can deal with
basic things, like getting things read, finding the bathroom,
going to lunch, traveling to and from work. That's not their
responsibility. Their responsibility is to provide us with the
work environment that we need, and to allow us the flexibility
that we need to function as blind people.  Although today Curtis
Chong is a successful advocate for the rights of blind people and
travels all over the country as part of his job at IDS, he
remembers a time when opportunities were very limited and he had
far fewer expectations for himself. Curt grew up in Honolulu,
where his counselors and teachers gave him little encouragement
to be self-sufficient and provided no positive blind role models
for
him to emulate. He says,  When I was a kid, I didn't think I
could do any of that stuff. The idea of flying alone some place
terrified me. I never would have thought that I could do it.
Holding a regular job, no way, not something that I thought a
blind person could ever do. 
Curtis credits the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) as the
outside influence that most inspired him, saying  I don't believe
that
I would have what I have today if not for the Federation of the
Blind.  It's because of the philosophy.  Curtis attended his
first Federation of the Blind convention in Hawaii as a high
school sophomore, where he was exposed to a school of thought
concerning the blind that said  we were not helpless, and we
could grow up to become normal, functioning, productive members
of society.  Curtis then organized a group of other high school
students and  we started to take on the agency, and we started to
do some public education. 
He never missed a convention after that, and after stints at the
University of Hawaii and the University of California at Irvine,
Curtis attended the University of Minnesota, where he experienced
a welcome reduction in the paternalism that had always plagued
him as a blind student.  Curtis then wanted to go to work but
didn't have the necessary skills.  He decided to get training as
a computer programmer, but first had
to convince Brown Institute to allow him to enroll. He graduated
first in his class from Brown, went right to work for the State
of Minnesota, and was then recruited by IDS Financial Services,
where he is now a systems programmer.
All along Curtis stayed actively involved with the NFB. Currently
he is Vice-President of the NFB of Minnesota and President of the
NFB Computer Science Division, which evaluates adaptive
technology.  Curtis also serves on the Research and Development
Committee of the Federation, on the State Services Technical
Advisory Panel, and represents the Federation on State Services
for the Blind's Advisory Council.  All of these activities keep
Curtis very busy, and he is sometimes asked why he continues to
fight so hard when he could relax and enjoy
his good job, his home, and family life with his wife Peggy and
eleven-year-old daughter, Tina. Curt says,  I could quit NFB
right now, I could give up, I could go home and lead a good
life... but what happens down the road when I want to try
something new?  Curt recounts some of the injustices he feels are
still taking place, such as when blindness is raised as an issue
in parental custody decisions and adoption, or when a blind
person is forced to relinquish an exit-row seat because airline
policy assumes the blind are less capable of making an emergency
exit than other passengers.
Curtis is pleased with many of the changes that have taken place
over the years, changes in attitudes, and in resources available
to blind people, and remarks that  there's a world of difference
today.  Yet there is still work to be done. As Curtis puts it, 
As long as society believes that to be blind is to be less
fortunate, and less capable, as long as we're excluded from the
mainstream in our society, we are a minority.  Curtis Chong is
doing his utmost to change all that.
                                 
MAKING THE CORRECT CHANGE: 
 WEEKLY READER  LEARNS ITS LESSON 


(Note)  From the Associate Editor: Every person who is blind
encounters daily the bizarre, half-unconscious convictions held
by our sighted neighbors about blind people: our sighted spouses
or friends clean our homes; we have been sterilized so that we
will not have to bear and raise children; we are threatened with
malnutrition unless others plan and prepare our meals; we cannot
reliably identify objects in our surroundings such as clothing,
friends, and coins. Depending on the mood at the moment, one
wonders in amusement, incredulity, or exasperation where people
picked up such notions.  Occasionally such folk have known blind
people so deprived of opportunity as to be truly incompetent.
Sometimes they have simply made up these silly theories out of
their personal experience of closing their eyes and discovering
that they are virtually helpless. But most of the time they are
the victims of long-forgotten, perhaps hardly noticed propaganda
circulated through programs and publications for children and
built upon over
the years until the original fictions are lost in the welter of
assumption and prejudice.

(Note)  These vehicles of misinformation to the very young are
particularly insidious because the misconceptions of blindness
they portray are usually accomplished on the way to making
another point humor in the case of the Mr. Magoo cartoons, or as
in the case of a Weekly Reader  paperback book published
recently, education about arithmetic skills and making change.

(Note)  Maureen Toonkel, a rehabilitation teacher working in
Mankato, Minnesota, stumbled by accident onto the following
example of inadvertent damage to the blind by one of the nation's
largest and most prestigious publishers for children, Weekly
Reader.  Mrs. Toonkel recognized the danger and did something
about it. Her action is praiseworthy
as is the response of the Weekly Reader editors who altered the
offending material at least, they say they have done so. Mrs.
Toonkel's correspondent did not quote the changes to be made in
the next edition of the book in question. Vigilance will continue
to be important.  Here is the exchange of letters: 

                                               Mankato, Minnesota
                                                February 26, 1989

Ms. Sally Lodge, Editor
Weekly Reader
Paperback Book Club
Middletown, Connecticut

Dear Ms. Lodge:


I am a rehabilitation counselor at Minnesota Services for the
Blind and Visually Handicapped. I am also the mother of a legally
blind five-year-old boy. In addition my husband is legally blind.
This past month I ordered a book for my son through the  Weekly
Reader  order forms that are sent home with the children. We
ordered the book,  Kids' Own Money Book  by Barbara A. McCall. A
few nights ago my son Flint and I sat down to begin reading the
book and doing the exercises and games. When we got to page 10, I
was appalled. It says that  The coin trader doesn't see very
well. He often makes mistakes.  You must check the coins in each
trade so no one gets the wrong amount.  It then shows the
exchanges that were made. Apparently this coin trader exchanges a
dime for three nickels and a nickel for four pennies.  While I
understand that the idea is to have children learn about coins
and their values, this page implies that not only can't blind
people tell their coins apart but they don't even understand how
to count change correctly. Even if the coin trader could not tell
the difference between the nickels and the pennies, he certainly
would be smart enough to know that for a dime he would need to
give the children 2 coins (or 10 coins or 6 coins) and certainly
not 3 coins. One wonders how the coin trader stays in business if
he doesn't even understand how to count change. Rather than
saying that the coin trader can't see very well, the book might
have said that the coin trader makes mistakes sometimes. In this
book he continues to make mistakes on pages 14 and 18.
It is a shame that the book missed a good opportunity to
demonstrate that blind people can identify coins and count
change. The book could have demonstrated that even without sight
coins can be identified by the way they feel. Dimes and pennies
are smaller than quarters and nickels. Both the dime and the
quarter have ridges on their edges while pennies and nickels have
smooth edges. Usually  Weekly Reader  does a good job in
providing educational materials for young students.  That is the
reason I was so shocked to see the degrading way in which a
visually impaired person was presented in a book for young
children who are very impressionable. My son and husband were
quite hurt by
the portrayal of the coin trader as a blind person who could not
function adequately. We are concerned that if other students in
my son's school read this book, they will make a connection with
my son and have a negative opinion of blind students' abilities.
I think that books for young children must be carefully screened
to make sure that disabled people, minorities, the elderly, etc.
are portrayed in positive and realistic ways. After all, it is
when our children are very young that their impressions and
personalities are forming.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                  Maureen Toonkel
                                  Career Rehabilitation Counselor


cc: National Federation of the Blind
 Baltimore, MD
___________________


                                          Middletown, Connecticut
                                                   March 17, 1989

Ms. Maureen Toonkel
Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training
Services for the Blind
Mankato, Minnesota

Dear Ms. Toonkel:


Thank you for your letter, pointing out the questionable exercise
on page 10 of  Kids' Own Money Book . First, our most sincere
apologies. In no way did we wish to imply that a blind person
cannot function adequately. If that appeared to be the
implication, I can assure you that the error was entirely
unintentional. It's always our own persistent goal to make fair
and appropriate representations of worthwhile concepts. And, in
fact, we ourselves in the mean time had come to realize this
lapse and have had a correction made. It
will appear in our next reprint. We very much regret that in the
course of the manuscript's originally being handled by a variety
of copy editors and proofreaders, the lapsed judgment of
including this exercise did not become very apparent. In the
interest of pursuing textual accuracy, some scrutiny of content
evidently was sacrificed.
To convey fully your finely articulated arguments, I'm also
sending a copy of your letter to the author, on whose behalf I'll
also say that this was an unfortunate oversight. She, a former
teacher, is herself very sensitive to the numerous needs of
different children and the responsibilities of good education.
Thank you again for writing. We appreciate your concern and
commend your active involvement in very worthwhile matters.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                               Elizabeth G. Zuraw
                                     Sr. Editor, Special Projects
                              Weekly Reader  Paperback Book Clubs
                      CONCERNING  POKADOT 
 AND OTHER COMPUTER MYSTERIES
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
It is a well-known fact that I am computer illiterate and that I
am just as happy to keep it that way. Indeed, there are those who
say that I exploit the situation. Perhaps but as the saying goes, 
You have to ride with what you've got. 
In my capacity as Editor of the  Monitor  I receive numerous
requests to run announcements about the availability of this or
that new computer product, process, or miracle. Each claims to be
innovative, wonderful, and very nearly indispensable and I am
sure that a few of them are. However, there are problems in
bringing the glad tidings to  Monitor  readers. Let me specify.
In the first place I always have to ask myself whether the
terminology is so specialized and the prerequisite knowledge so
detailed that most  Monitor  readers will, instead of reading on
with gasps of excitement, simply yawn and go to sleep. As I have
said concerning other topics, it doesn't matter how vital or
important a thing is if people won't read it, it shouldn't be
included. When we start talking the lingo (like booting and
rebooting, directories and subdirectories, paths and batch files,
refreshing the screen and reformatting the disk), I get nervous
and so do lots of others.
At the same time the computer is coming to play an evermore
important part in the lives of each of us. It is a tool of
significance in the march of the blind to freedom, and the 
Monitor  (as a principal voice of the nation's blind) must deal
with it accordingly. There are new developments which should be
reported and, of course,
the average member of the Federation (despite the neolithic
perspective of the  Monitor  Editor) is at least as well informed
about computers and computerism as the average sophisticated
anybody else. So we should report when we should report, and we
should refrain when we should refrain. But how to do it?
It is a matter of balance. To begin with: If I can understand it,
that is sometimes a plus and sometimes a minus. I must say at the
outset that I start with a negative impression when a product has
a cutsie name unless, that is, it is really clever and not just
trying to be.
Take, for instance, the release I recently received from the
National Braille Association. It began like this:  National
Braille Association is pleased to announce the distribution of a
new computer program, POKADOT, by Len Dozier of Washington for
IBM and most compatible systems with one disk drive and 256K of
RAM. 
What is one to make of such a sentence? Braille consists of dots,
and you poke them through the paper so we play on the word 
polkadot  and come up with the name  POKADOT  for the program.
Not funny, not original, and not calculated to inspire confidence
in the innovative capacity of the inventor. Yet, everybody is
entitled to a quirk or two, and I try to remember that working
with computers (like everything else) gets tiresome and needs
something to relieve the monotony besides which, some people may
not regard my jokes as very funny either.
So how do I decide whether to carry the release about POKADOT?
First I read it and see if it makes sense to me. If I think it
may have merit, I then send it to some of the members of the NFB
Research and Development Committee to get their opinions. In this
case I sent it to quite a number, and at the time of this writing
(mid-August) I have had two replies, one from Tim Cranmer and one
from Curtis Chong.  I want to share their comments with you since
I think you will find them informative and since I also think it
will help you understand the process of how things get into the 
Monitor , and how they don't.
Maybe I don't need to say it, but probably it can never be
mentioned
too often or emphasized too strongly. I do my absolute utmost
(regardless of my own personal opinions and prejudices) to bring
all of the important information I can to  Monitor  readers and
to tell it in as balanced and objective a way as I know how. This
is not to say that I don't have opinions or that I don't express
them, nor is it to say that I feel called on (in the
sanctimonious name of so-called objectivity) to present some
cockeyed opposing view every time I take a stand even though that
opposing view obviously has no merit. I won't try to conceal the
truth just because it weakens my case. That's where
it starts, and that's where it stops. If it is something that is
important to the blind, if it is something that needs to be told,
the  Monitor  will print it.
I realize that it is not always easy to live up to this standard
especially when it goes against your preconceptions, your
friends, or your own personal interest. But the effort has to be
made. It has to be made all of the time. It has to be made
regardless of who doesn't like
it. And it has to be made with judgment, compassion, and common
sense.  If it is made successfully, the publication and the
organization prosper.  If it is not, then the publication and the
organization are on the slide. And the final determiners are the
results and the readers.  The  Monitor  and the Federation (and,
incidentally, the Editor) are willing to live or die by that
standard, so I'll leave it at that.  Now back to the National
Braille Association and POKADOT. Publish?  Or not publish? We
probably won't survive or perish whichever way we decide, but the
matter is worth considering so here is what Messrs. Cranmer and
Chong told me:
____________________
                                              Frankfort, Kentucky
                                                    July 22, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
It is now two weeks since I returned from the national convention
in Denver, and I find I am still carrying a letter handed to me
by Miss Myrick with your note requesting an opinion. Better late
than never.
NBA (the National Braille Association) is the organization for
volunteer transcribers. POKADOT referred to in the letter is an
inexpensive software package that would be of interest to NBA
members. The following part of their letter could be a good
Monitor Miniature:
 National Braille Association is pleased to announce the
distribution of a new computer program, POKADOT, by Len Dozier of
Washington for IBM and most compatible systems with one disk
drive and 256K of RAM.  Program features include: six-key Braille
numbered-line entry; Braille dot screen display; direct ASCII
keyboard input; ASCII review; help screens; manual on disk; tab
settings; delete, insert, and search; 70-90 page file length
capability; input files directly from ASCII file including
DUXBURY for editing; word wrap; easy single page or entire file
embossing; compatible with most embossers. The program is
distributed by National Braille Association, Inc., 1290
University Avenue, Rochester, New York 14607, for $5 in American
currency postage paid. Technical questions can be answered by Lee
Calligan, 66 Noe Avenue, Madison, New Jersey 07940, (201)
377-4683.  ____________________
                                           Minneapolis, Minnesota
                                                    July 24, 1989

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Here, as you requested, are my thoughts about the POKADOT program
being distributed by the National Braille Association.
Unlike programs such as NFBTRANS, POKADOT appears to be a tool
uniquely designed for use by transcribers who already know
Braille. Instead
of translating plain text into Grade 2 Braille, POKADOT permits
transcribers, using six keys on the computer keyboard, to type as
if they were using a Perkins Brailler. The dots of the Braille
cell entered in this way are displayed on the screen, thereby
providing the transcriber with the means visually to proofread
what is being entered.
Although POKADOT may be the cheapest program of its kind, it is
certainly not unique. I know of another program, called
MicroBraille, that is marketed by Norman Blessum of California.
This program has been available for many years and has been
picked up by a number of transcribing groups. My information is
that it enjoys a favorable reputation among Braille transcribers
who use microcomputers.
I am told that although MicroBraille contains a wider range of
functions, it cannot handle files as large as POKADOT can. Also,
at $5 per copy, POKADOT is certainly a lot cheaper than
MicroBraille.
From our point of view, I do not think that POKADOT is anything
to
get up and shout about. Certainly, it is something that Braille
transcribers ought to know about. But for blind people, Grade 2
Braille translators such as NFBTRANS are of much greater
significance.

                                                 Yours sincerely,
                                                     Curtis Chong
____________________
So there you have the opinions of two who should know. And when I
showed this article to a few of my colleagues, one said that it
set a fine tone and should be printed. Another said it was
preachy, not to mention being downright sanctimonious.  Still
another said that the point should be made but that I didn't need
to beat it to death.  Another allowed that such stuff was all
right if I didn't do it too often. Ah, well if you don't want
answers, don't ask questions.  And a final thought: Can one be
his own colleague?
y                    WHAT COLOR IS THE SUN?
                       by Lauren L. Eckery
 Lauren Eckery needs no introduction to  Monitor  readers, nor
does her daughter Lynden. Here is Lauren's latest article, taken
from the Fall, 1989,  News From Blind Nebraskans,  the
publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Nebraska. 

The burning hot sun of midsummer is shining brightly today as I
sit out here on the patio beginning to write. What  color  the
sun is is not particularly relevant to me at this moment. I know
that for some blind people the color of the sun or, for that
matter, what anything looks like visually, seems irrelevant. I do
not take this view, however. I am highly interested in my world,
including what things look like. There are those who might insist
that this could not be so.
Back in 1972, when I was nearing graduation from the University
of Nebraska at Lincoln, a sighted male friend and I were
discussing my future. This was a friend I very much liked and
trusted. However, he knew nothing about the National Federation
of the Blind and its positive philosophy of blindness.
I had been approached by the Federation in 1971, had been reading
the  Braille Monitor , but had only begun to assimilate our
philosophy on blindness. Therefore, neither of us understood what
he was really saying when he remarked:  When you get an apartment
of your own, if you have cockroaches, they won't bother you
because you won't see them, so you won't even know they are
there. Besides, if you don't
know what they look like, then you won't know how awful they are. 
 I thought this statement odd and rather gross, and I laughed. I
was
not aware at that moment that he had indeed epitomized the
heartbreaking experience of many of us.
As Pearl S. Buck has written:  There were many ways of breaking a
heart. Stories were full of hearts being broken by love, but what
really broke a heart was taking away its dream whatever that
dream might be. 
My dream, of course, was to be a normal, first-class citizen in
our society. My dream, at that particular time, might have
included him in that apartment of the future. He had obviously
highly respected me as a student, equal to himself, but he really
did not respect me as a blind person.
It was only recently, as I began formulating this article, that I
remembered his words of seventeen years ago, realizing at once,
with my Federation training, what he had really said. I noticed
quite a number of attitudinal  cockroaches  in his remarks. 
Attitudes like those exemplified in this person's remarks often
bring about our being denied opportunities for normal experiences
in the world. As far as visual cues are concerned, many such cues
about our world are kept from us. As an example: what color
something is or where something is located. On the other hand,
often we are given far too many details about visual aspects of
our world. An example being the clock method on the dinner plate.
Behind all of this thinking are ingrained beliefs similar to
those espoused, by implication, by my university friend of 1972.
Evidently he assumed that a blind person keeping an apartment by
him- or herself would necessarily have cockroaches, since blind
people couldn't possibly keep the place clean. (I may not be the
best housekeeper, but blindness is not the reason.) If we can
see, we automatically notice everything in the world there is to
see and we know more about our world because we see it. If we
cannot see, we know nothing about the visual qualities of the
things in our world indeed, we know very nearly nothing
at all forget about the use of other senses, and, of course,
forget about our ability to reason.
Countless times in our lives we have heard such expressions as: 
Out of sight, out of mind,   Seeing is believing,   What you
don't know (or see) won't hurt you.  These are all suggestions of
lack, loss, and inferior capacity for reasoning.
How misinformed was this fine young man, even though he had known
me for several years. How misinformed was I to the extent that I
was unable to set him straight about blindness, resulting in
discouraging him from remaining in a prominent place in my life.
On the other hand, as I began to grow in the Federation, I
learned from those who were willing to teach me, and I have also
learned from
experience (sometimes the hard way) some of the realities of
blindness mainly attitude problems and their impact on our lives
and the means for resolving such problems. I have also learned
(sometimes the hard way) that standing up strongly against such
attitudinal barriers, as a unified collective body, will change
these negative attitudes once and for all. Shared individual
positive experiences can also help toward exterminating such
cockroaches from our lives. Toward this end I relate the
following experiences:
When I entered into my course of study at the University of
Nebraska at Lincoln, I lived at home. Later I moved to the dorm,
thank goodness!  Everyday on the way to school we passed a
certain building. One day I asked my mother what that particular
building looked like. I was startled by her honest answer: 
Laurie, we drive past that building every single day. I don't
know what it looks like. I haven't really looked at it.  Later,
of course, she surveyed the building closely, describing it in
such detail that if another blind person had asked me what this
building looked like, I could have given as accurate a
description of the building as my mother had given me.
This is, indeed, a lesson which many people (blind or sighted)
fail to learn about sight. Sighted people do not necessarily know
more about our world than blind people do. They do not have a
constant edge on us simply because they can see and we cannot.
Neither are blind people necessarily ignorant about their world
simply because they are blind. The blind people I know who are
less knowledgeable about their world tend to be those who are
bitter about their blindness, refusing to concern themselves with
visual factors. This lack of concern may also be noticed in blind
people who have not had, or taken, the opportunity to learn
alternative techniques of daily living. Or it may be simply that
some folks just don't care about those things.  Blindness itself
does not shut us off from or out of our world.  Another example
of this lesson came to me recently. Only several weeks ago my
eight-year-old daughter, Lynden, asked:  Mommy, what color is the
sun?  She blinks and often sneezes upon looking directly
at the sun. Was it possible that she never looked long enough to
notice the color of the sun? Was she testing me to see if I knew
the color of the sun? What answer did she expect to get from me,
the standard  yellow? 
I am totally blind since birth due to congenital glaucoma. I have
no vision in the left eye. Before glaucoma took my right eye, I
could see light, dark, and blobs of color. I cried the evening
before the surgery, panicked a few times immediately thereafter,
and that was it. I was not bitter about never seeing another
sunset, because I knew that in my mind's eye I could conjure one
up easily enough if I wanted to do so. Perhaps this is similar to
the manner in which Beethoven was able to write some of his best
music when he could no longer hear he had a good mind, and he
used it.
I told Lynden that in the middle of the day the sun is said to be
yellow, although it always looked white to me. I explained that
toward sunset the color could change from a brighter yellow,
becoming more and more orange, sometimes setting in a brilliant
red-orange ball with other colors around it (clouds, I surmised).
When this occurs, the bright fiery ball on the horizon looks as
though it is resting on the ground, quite far away. Eventually it
disappears. Sometimes the clouds hide this color. Often the sun
does just the opposite at sunrise. Sunrises and sunsets can vary.
Artists have painted them; writers have described them in words.
Some people often do not notice them at all, but they are there.
 I've never seen the sun change color like that. Why does it
change color? Why does it look like the sun is on the ground? 
she asked, curiously. Her questions were getting beyond me. I
didn't know enough about the physical properties of light, color,
refraction, and distance, plus the rotation of the earth, etc.,
to explain it all to her. Anxiously I said:  Ask your science
teacher when school starts again.  With a sigh of relief, I
presumed the subject closed, only to hear:   Mommy, could you see
rays coming out of the sun?  I told her I couldn't.
 Me neither,  she replied.  Then why do people make pictures of
the sun with rays coming out all around it?  she continued.

I thought:  Ask your art teacher when school starts again. 
However, being somewhat more artistic than scientific, I
explained that maybe it was an artistic way to show that light
and heat were coming from all directions from the yellow circle
which represented the sun in the pictures. That was the end of
the discussion for the time being.
I believe that, due to stereotypical thinking, Lynden was
surprised
by the answer she got from a totally blind person. I was equally
astonished that a sighted child would bother to ask a totally
blind person to describe something visual, taking the answer
seriously. I believe we both learned something extremely valuable
from this experience.  The knowledge gained and the joy received
from this experience were made evident this past weekend as we
were riding the bus home from Kansas City to Omaha. Lynden had
been sleeping, and I was listening to my Talkman. Suddenly she
shouted, with obvious delight,  Mommy, the sun is orange and it
is on the ground just like you said.  (It looked like it was on
the ground.)  It is red-orange, and it's pretty. I've never seen
that before. 
I was aware that if I had believed all of the stereotypes about
blindness, that I would never have done such a normal thing as to
get married and have a child one I was now sharing a sunset with
because I might have believed that a blind person couldn't take
care of a child independently. I was thankful for this
Federation-influenced blessing. I was also aware at that moment
that this sunset might have gone unnoticed by both of us had we
not had our previous discussion.  Certainly it would not have
been a life-or-death disaster to have missed the sunset, but
there was a particular joy in our sharing,  What color is the
sun? 
    READERS' VIEWPOINT: IN DEFENSE OF BRAILLE by Teresa Myers
 The following letter is reprinted from the July, 1989, edition
of  The Blind Missourian,  the newsletter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Missouri. Teresa Myers is an active
member of the Missouri affiliate. She has taken to heart the
all-important lesson of educating the media whenever an
opportunity to do so occurs. This letter was written to the
producers of the  One Norway Street  broadcast on short wave from
Boston by the  Christian Science Monitor.

                                            Springfield, Missouri
                                                     July 3, 1989

To Whom It May Concern:
In the early morning hours of June 29, 1989, I was listening to
your program  One Norway Street,  which I usually enjoy very
much.
I enjoyed most of this particular broadcast until a feature was
presented about a talking computer called  The Personal
Companion. 
Some comments were made during this feature regarding the use of
Braille by blind people which I found very disturbing. As a blind
person who uses Braille, recorded materials, and a talking
computer, I would like to respond to those comments.
First let me say that I am not opposed to the Personal Companion
or any other talking device or computer. The talking computer I
have
is very useful. But I think it would be a sad day for blind and
deaf-blind people if Braille were ever replaced, as suggested in
your program, by any audio device. Let me explain.
The reading of Braille teaches blind students spelling,
punctuation usage, and rules of grammar, which are not taught by
most audio devices.  Many blind persons cannot afford talking
computers, and state rehabilitation agencies have very specific
criteria for assisting in their purchase.  Of those blind people
like me who do have computers with speech output, many have
devices already out of date for which no software to check
or improve spelling, punctuation usage, or rules of grammar is
available.  In addition, the speech of some computers may
actually confuse a poor speller since they often pronounce words
quite differently from the ways they are normally spoken or
spelled.
When looking for a job or performing any job requiring written
work, there simply is no substitute for literacy. Braille is the
means for blind students to become literate.
There are other reasons I strongly support the use of Braille.
When
working as a rehabilitation teacher for the blind, I encountered
intelligent blind students who were functionally illiterate
because their teachers and parents thought they didn't need
Braille since they had computers
and talking books. These students often read very large print
(unavailable without the use of very heavy closed circuit
television systems, impractical to move often) at a very slow
rate. Such students tended to score badly on achievement tests
because they could not read fast enough to complete them in time.
Also, some students simply gave up on work requiring a great deal
of reading enlarged print since it caused eye strain and
headaches and was time-consuming. For these same reasons
the students of whom I am speaking had no concept of reading for
pleasure.  Their grades suffered and from my point of view their
lives were impoverished through not reading.
Some students relied on a combination of large print and taped
materials for school. If a tape didn't arrive on time from the
recording agency, became twisted, or broke, such students
couldn't complete homework.  Unfortunately late-arriving,
missing, twisted, or broken tapes occur fairly frequently. Tapes
also do not teach literacy skills gained from the reading of
written material. Blind students are too often made to feel
inferior by the negative attitudes of those around them.  Add to
this poor spelling, no reading or very slow oral reading in
class, poor use of written grammar and punctuation, and the
situation only gets worse.
Braille is also the only method of reading and writing available
for those who are deaf and blind. As a person with a slowly
progressing hearing loss, I hope there will never come a day when
I find myself
cut off from all information and communication because talking
computers are available to some blind people who can find funding
for them.
It is true that deaf-blind people make up a very small minority
among the disabled, but since we have the facilities to produce
Braille, I see no reason to isolate us further by not producing
it.
The objections to Braille on the part of many who are concerned
with the education of the blind are usually these:
1) It makes people stand out because Braille books are large and
bulky.  To this I say, we must grow up enough as a society to
stop stigmatizing disabled people. We must make it perfectly
acceptable and respectable to be blind. The way to do that is not
by teaching young blind people through our actions that it is
better to be illiterate and seem sighted than to function
effectively and look blind.
2) Braille is costly to produce. True, but the government
subsidizes Braille production of some textbooks and many pleasure
books, making them affordable to all blind persons. Only a few
are eligible for government subsidies to help in purchasing
talking computers.
3) Not many blind people read Braille. This objection to Braille
is related to one of the statements which disturbed me in your
program.  The statement was made that  Braille is so complex that
only about two percent of blind people become proficient in it. 
Who decides what is proficient? Many blind people use mostly
talking books but
need Braille for certain things. To understand why Braille is
necessary, try the following:
1) Going through a lengthy address and phone number file read
onto a tape to find one specific entry near the end;
2) Using a Bible study course referring to specific verses with a
tape recorded Bible there are no verse markings on these tapes as
there are in Braille;
3) Cooking a complicated dish using a tape recorded recipe;
4) Learning a foreign language through only taped material it
is impossible to spell names and words from foreign languages
correctly without having read enough written material in that
language to understand its rules of spelling as they relate to
pronunciation.
Reference books such as dictionaries, concordances, and
encyclopedias are often preferred in Braille but are usually
unavailable to blind people in any format due to their cost. Some
poetry should be read in Braille to be completely understood
since the placement of words
on the page, the punctuation marks, or alternative spellings are
integral to it. Should it be said of a blind person who usually
reads taped materials but prefers the Bible, recipes, address
files, and poetry in Braille that this person is not proficient
in Braille?  Unfortunately such judgments are being made by some
of those who have great power over the quality of life for blind
people. Fewer books are being produced in Braille because people
assume that  most
blind people prefer tapes  or  only a few read Braille regularly. 
Both schools for the blind and public schools (into which blind
children are mainstreamed) show by their actions (not teaching
Braille or refusing to go to the extra trouble of finding Braille
instructors as the law requires) and by their words that it is
better to look as fully sighted as possible, even if that means
functioning poorly, than to stand out as blind, even if this
means functioning better. Of course such students will think of
Braille as undesirable and difficult! Why is anyone surprised
that students taught in this way dislike learning Braille?
Sadly, this attitude about the undesirability and difficulty of
Braille is also found among teachers of adults who have recently
become blind.  I have seen blind clients who were told by
rehabilitation teachers under pressure to get cases closed that
they were too old to learn Braille or that it was too difficult
for people in their particular situations. I know that there are
some people who cannot learn Braille, due to severe peripheral
neuropathy of the hands or other disabilities.  But I have seen
many people who were told they couldn't learn Braille master it.
Some students choose to learn just enough Braille to keep phone
numbers and addresses, play Scrabble or cards, and write down a
few favorite recipes. But I can think of only one student in my
four years of rehabilitation teaching who did not feel that
knowing Braille was very beneficial. I know of an eighty-
four-year-old minister who became blind very late in life and was
successfully learning Braille at the time of his death.
I am not opposed to large print or taped materials, but I believe
that every legally blind school child should be taught enough
print and enough Braille that it can be clearly determined which
will enable that child to function best.  Absolutely no
preference should be attached to one reading medium or the other.
I also believe that every legally blind adult should have an
opportunity to be exposed to Braille in
a positive and encouraging way. If this were done, people with
progressive eye conditions would not fear Braille when they need
it, and many more blind people would have less complicated and
more fulfilling lives. There are simple and effective methods
available for teaching Braille. It is time to demystify the
process and make this excellent tool available to every legally
blind person who can benefit from it!
Thank you for your consideration of this letter. I hope it will
find some person truly interested in the attitudes and
educational and rehabilitation policies having a severe impact on
the lives of blind and deaf-blind people.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Teresa Myers
                       IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
                        by Barbara Pierce
My younger daughter has been lying in wait for her sixteenth
birthday, which occurred yesterday (August 1). Already she has
her temporary driver's license, so I know that disillusionment
will soon begin.  Just because she will soon be able to drive,
she is not yet an adult and will not be treated by her parents as
though she were one. Moreover, she will be expected to run family
errands, even when doing so is inconvenient for her. And most
dismaying of all, she will discover just how rapidly a gasoline
tank can consume baby- sitting money.

At about the time she makes these discoveries, she will no doubt
begin to evolve a new goal some future moment when
happily-ever-after will begin. Margy is actually a very
well-adjusted young woman, and
her tendency to focus her attention on some future moment when
everything will be different is no more pronounced than it is in
most of us.  Still this pattern of thought is a temptation to
most people, and it is one that works against emotional health
and enjoyment of life.

I came across a poem in the summer edition of  Insight,  the
newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of South
Dakota.  It induced in me this current of quasi-philosophical
reflection. Here it is:


 It was spring,
 But it was summer I wanted, 
 The warm days, 
 And the great outdoors. 


 It was summer, 
 But it was fall I wanted, 
 The colorful leaves, 
 And the cool, dry air. 
 It was fall, 
 But it was winter I wanted, 
 The beautiful snow, 
 And the joy of the holiday season. 

 It was winter, 
 But it was spring I wanted, 
 The warmth, 
 And the blossoming of nature. 

 I was a child, 
 But it was adulthood I wanted, 
 The freedom, 
 And the respect. 

 I was 20, 
 But it was 30 I wanted, 
To be mature, 
 And sophisticated. 

 I was middle-aged, 
 But it was 20 I wanted, 
The youth,  
And the free spirit. 

 I  was retired, 
But it was middle age I wanted, 
The presence of mind, 
Without limitations. 

 My life was over. 
 But I never got what I wanted. 

This poem was written by a young man named Jason Lehman, who was
fourteen when he wrote it. If he has the good sense to live his
life profiting from the implicit advice he offers, he will be a
contented adult, at peace with himself and able to contribute
much to his world. I believe I will show my daughter his work and
take it to heart myself.  Jason Lehman's admonition not to focus
on future pleasures at the expense of the present can, with as
much wisdom, be applied to regretting the past. The well-adjusted
blind people I know, for example, have very little time or
interest to spend analyzing the onset or progress
of their blindness. Life, they believe, is lived in the present,
preparing for the future. They are convinced that one must use
those skills
and abilities which one has been given, and sitting around
contemplating what one might have done if one had been equipped
differently seems to them an exercise in futility and crashing
boredom.
Yet there are many blind people who are nearly immobilized by
rationalizations and excuses. If I had been born blind, I
wouldn't miss my vision so much now and could get on with my
life. If I had been able to
see for at least a few years, I would understand about facial
expressions, color, and spatial relationships. If I had always
been blind, I would have learned Braille as a small child and
therefore effectively. If I had learned to read print first, I
would have mastered my signature and print letters and numbers.
All of these statements may be true, but they do not constitute
excuses for neglecting to sit down and learn the body of
information still awaiting mastery. The fact that a thing did not
happen yesterday is
no reason why mastering it cannot begin today. Very frequently,
however, the situation is even worse. We seize upon ignorance
today as justification to postpone learning until some vague time
in the future or to abandon altogether plans for mastering the
material.
The resulting desert of human accomplishment is as bleak as the
closing line of Lehman's poem:  But I never got what I wanted. 
As the poet John Greenleaf Whittier said:

 For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
 The saddest are these: It might have been!EDUCATE THE EDUCATED THE BLAND USE OF BLIND by Bill J. Isaacs
Supposedly, according to Shakespeare,  Ignorance is such sweet
bliss.  Many of the blind, as an emerging national minority, are
growing weary of the glib ways in which cartoonists, the media,
professionals, and writers of all sorts use the words  blind,  
blindly, 
and  blindness  as synonymous with  awkward,   clumsy,   crazy, 
and  stupid.  I say,  no, no, 100 times no!  And I am sure that
some of my less restrained blind friends would say,  H---, no! 
As a rule, a trained blind person is exceedingly cautious about
what he/she does and where he/she goes, perhaps much more so than
the general public. I would not for one moment consider the
skillful use of a cane or well trained guide dog as symbolizing
clumsiness, stupidity, awkwardness, or craziness. Quite the
contrary. The alternative techniques of the blind may appear to
be different and, therefore, a bit weird to the sighted observer;
but, in fact, these skills for the blind are very practical and
help to start them down the road toward an independent lifestyle.
Many legally blind persons who would have much to gain by using
alternative blind techniques refuse to do so because of the
stigma the general public associates with blindness, not too
unlike many light-skinned blacks in times past trying to pass for
white for the same reason.  The use of Braille might look like
the back side of a BB gun target to the untrained eye, but for
the blind fingers it is a very efficient and orderly means of
communication.
I attended a national historical convention in St. Louis
recently.
On the first night, there was just one big session where five
panelists were reviewing their civil rights- minority situation
during World War II. One was a lady who found World War II a
golden opportunity
to complete her graduate work in history and landed a very good
government job in Washington, D.C., largely due to the man
shortage created by the war. The second panelist was a
Japanese-American who was caught up in the relocation problem.
The third was a soldier sent to Europe on a large ship with
hidden away black troops in the lower decks.  The fourth speaker
was a military person in India, who experienced the division
between the British raj and the Indian populace. The fifth
spokesman was a distinguished historian who couldn't get into the
U.S. Navy because he was black and was determined not to be
drafted into the Army because he was the only black historian in
his state with a Ph.D. outside the armed services. Being the
blind father of
four adopted children representing four different ethnic-racial
classes, I could well appreciate the thoughts presented in the
various speeches.  When one of the speakers rather lightly made a
statement to the effect that the nation  moved blindly down the
path toward war, 
my ears pricked up! My wife nudged me and said,  You're not going
to respond to that, are you? 
I replied something to the effect that  So help me God, I could
do no other. 
After two hours of panel discussion, the audience was invited to
make comments. I went to the microphone placed in a nearby aisle
and stated that I very much appreciated the topics discussed that
evening. I told them a little bit about myself and my family, and
I thought I needed to do a little bit of educating of the
historians present there.  There were many well-known and
well-established historians from major universities all over the
country. No doubt, there were numerous graduate history students
in the crowd as well. Since the general topic was on civil rights
and minority interests, I thought it was the most opportune time
to speak up and speak out. I mentioned that when persons
use  blind  and  blindly  in ways that are very uncomplimentary
to the blind, I'm the one they are talking about. I don't strike
out blindly or walk down the path clumsily or awkwardly. My blind
friends do not do that either. I think such stereotypical views
of the blind are conjured up in the minds of writers who believe
that is the way it would be if they were blind. I told the
attentive audience that
night that when they are writing and mean  awkward,   clumsy,  or 
crazy,  they should say so and not use terms which reflect
adversely on the blind. I heard an understanding chuckle from the
crowd following that remark.
One of my blind friends stated that careless remarks about the
blind did not bother her. She could laugh at such statements
because she felt they were thoughtlessly spoken and nothing
serious would come
of it. I personally believe that when uncomplimentary statements
about the blind are carelessly made on an everyday basis and
allowed to pass without challenge, it is harmful to us all. The
airline people don't take those bland words carelessly and
neither do many professionals or members of the business
communities who question our ability to do graduate work or
fulfill the requirements of a job. We the blind can laugh and
joke about our difficulties, but it's quite another thing for the
sighted public to create such false imagery. Theodore Roosevelt
could say that President William McKinley did not have the
backbone of a chocolate eclair, but for the Spanish minister
Dupuy de Lome to say essentially the same thing as a foreign
visitor led to his dismissal and helped to pave the way for the
Spanish-American War. We can politely talk to our relatives about
the foibles of one of the members of the family; but it hurts a
bit to hear an outsider talk about your brother or your sister in
a derogatory way.
There are funny things that we do which are laughable. One
legally blind teacher tried to pick up a sheet of white paper
lying on the floor in the front of the classroom. She laughed
with the students when she challenged them to try to pick up a
piece of sunshine. Then there was the blind fellow trailing the
right wall in a hallway, when he ran into a girl with a guide dog
walking on the left going the opposite way. After he had hugged
the girl around the waist about
three times, they both managed to go forward in their opposite
directions.  There is, of course, a place for using  blind  and 
blindness  in scholarly writings, such as a person blinded by the
light or blinded by the fog, or they were all blind as bats when
the lights went out
in the subway. The comment one hears when one views a sparkling
diamond or a beautiful girl that it (or she)  will knock your
eyes out!  is acceptable. The blind could appreciate that, too.
It's the equating of blindness with awkwardness, stupidity, and
clumsiness that is so intolerable.
In ancient times the philosopher Antiphon tried to shake up the
Greeks a bit by challenging their belief that they were superior
people and that all of the rest were barbarians.  Do not the rest
of mankind breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat the
same kind of food?  he said.  Upon what grounds did the Greeks
place their superiority?  The difference between the blind and
the sighted is not all that great.  Like the sighted, the blind
want to become educated. They want to become employable. They
want to get married. They want to buy homes.  They want to raise
families. Intentionally or not, sighted stereotypes and mental
barriers make the achievement of reasonable goals by the blind
difficult to achieve.
Many of my relatives grew up in the South, and I can recall as a
child that when one of us children behaved in an unbecoming way
in the presence of company, it was not uncommon to hear one's
elders say,  He/she was as awkward as a nigger.  When one
analyzes that statement, it would appear that no black could be
socially graceful or mannerly.  You do not hear that statement
any more or many others similar to it, which is as it should be.
The blind community has often tried to follow in the footsteps of
the blacks in improving their lot in the area of civil rights.
Sometimes I feel that I want to be like Carry Nation, who went
around with her handy hatchet smashing saloon windows and doors
in her anti-liquor crusade. I would like to chop out or snip out
unflattering words concerning the blind in written
matter and oral speeches. It is my association with the National
Federation of the Blind which has given me the courage to step up
and speak out in this regard when I think the situation calls for
it.
A few years ago I kept quiet in a faculty meeting when a
distinguished sociologist concluded a rather complimentary speech
about the teaching profession with the remark  Lest ye be like
the blind leading the blind.  I felt very uncomfortable with that
remark and even
more so because I did not speak up at the time. I know that the
statement is found in the Bible, but it must be read in the
context in which
it was written and with the perspective of today's society and
culture.  Statements such as these need to be seen in light of
changing cultures and modern standards.
When I hear the expression  striking out blindly,  I think
of an incident that I was made aware of while walking the Via
Dolorosa in Jerusalem a few years ago. I was with a party of
about twenty persons, when one of the elderly gentlemen found
himself encased between two would-be pickpocketers. Even though
he was eighty years old, he flailed his arms and kicked his legs
and beat them off successfully. He was sighted. Would you call
that  striking out blindly?  How about sportsmen on the
basketball court or on the football field who conduct themselves
rather energetically at times to achieve their goals? Is it
proper to say they  strike out blindly?  Would it not be
more proper to say they  struck out wildly or bravely or
determinedly?  These adjectives are much more accurate and
logical, are they not?  It has been reported that Lincoln,
observing the slave market in New Orleans, said:  If I ever get
an opportunity, I'll strike that thing.  I would very much like
to play a role in removing the hindrances that prevent the blind
from being fully integrated into American society, hindrances
which keep us from enjoying the basic civil rights which the
American Constitution affords. With from seventy to eighty
percent unemployment being the norm for the blind American, one
can easily see that there are still many bridges to be crossed
before the goal is achieved. Think before you speak, before you
make comments about blindness. I say to my fellow Federationists:
Do not be a bland leader of the blind.
                                 
BLINDNESS ISN'T A HANDICAP IT'S A NUISANCE
                     by Deborah Scoblionkov 
Copyright, 1989, The New York Times
 This article, which appeared in the  True Life Stories  section
of the October, 1989,  McCall's  magazine, focused on the Maurer
family. The reporter and photographer spent considerable time at
the National Center for the Blind and with President and Mrs. 
Maurer in their home. The article has generated a great deal of
positive comment around the country. We have received permission
to reprint it. Here it is: 

Mornings are hectic times at the home of Patricia and Marc
Maurer, both 38. As soon as the breakfast dishes are cleared,
they hurriedly prepare their five-year-old son, David Patrick,
for preschool; dress
their two-year-old daughter, Dianna Marie, and drop her off at a
baby-sitter's house down the street; then rush off to work.
Marc, in addition to practicing law, has since 1986 headed a
50,000-member organization with an annual operating budget of $6
million. Patricia, a former school teacher, works by his side as
coordinator of public information and community relations. The
Maurers work hard to ensure a comfortable life for themselves and
their children; indeed, their home, a three-story, red-brick row
house in a pleasant and close- knit Baltimore neighborhood, is
warm and inviting. Portraits of the children are proudly hung
above the fireplace mantel in the living room, and good dishes
and wineglasses are displayed in the dining room china closet. In
the evenings, Marc's favorite relaxation is barbecuing on his
backyard grill.
Their lives might appear to be a baby boomer's ideal, were it not
for one thing: Marc and Patricia are blind.
As infants, both suffered from retinopathy, or detachment of the
retina, to this day one of the leading causes of blindness among
babies born prematurely. It is brought on by the high
concentration of oxygen in incubators and is not hereditary. Both
of the Maurers' children have normal eyesight.
The organization they run is the National Federation of the
Blind, based in Baltimore. The Federation advocates the complete
integration of the blind with the rest of society and makes
education and job opportunities for blind people a top priority.
With 70 percent unemployment among working-age blind people, a
lot of talent and lives are being wasted, say Patricia and Marc.
In his capacity as director of the Federation and in his private
legal practice, Marc lectures widely on issues affecting the
blind and has initiated a number of legal proceedings to combat
discrimination. But mostly, Patricia and Marc want to inspire
other blind people to accept their blindness as a physical
nuisance or  characteristic  rather than a handicap.   Together,
Patricia and I are exploring the possibilities of what blind
people can do,  Marc explains.  But we're not different from
other blind people. We might have had different experiences,
greater opportunities and training, but we all have the same
hopes, drives, and fears. 
They weren't always so confident of their capabilities. Both were
born in Iowa to parents of strong midwestern stock, who instilled
in their weak-sighted children the value of education and the
will to persist.
Patricia Schaaf grew up in the small town of Dexter, Iowa
population 400. As a child, she had a little residual visual
perception and could get by as long as she wore thick glasses.
But as Patricia approached her teens, her eyesight rapidly
deteriorated to the point where she could not read the print in
her school books even using a magnifying glass. She was the only
blind person in town, and as a consequence there were no special
programs to help her. The closest school for the blind was 300
miles away, and her parents did not want to send her so far from
home.
So she attended public schools and struggled to keep up with the
other students. Her parents would read her homework assignments
to her each evening.  But I couldn't get around very well, and
relied on friends to help me when we went out,  she says,
remembering the embarrassments of her adolescence.  I was
extremely self-conscious. 
Marc Maurer was born in Des Moines, Iowa, a capital city. He
recalls that he was five years old before he realized he was
blind.  I could see some colors, some light, and some objects,
but everything disappeared beyond ten feet,  he says.  As a
child, I assumed that everyone saw the world like that.  Then one
day he was shattered to discover that his brother could see way
down to the end of the block.
The next year Marc was enrolled in an elementary school for the
blind.  His mother studied Braille so she could assist him, and
she began
to transcribe books into Braille for the library. It wasn't long
before the reserved boy became a voracious reader. His parents
bought a stereo
so Marc could also listen to the growing number of  books on
records.  He attended a parochial high school for sighted
students, and every evening his mother would read his homework
assignments to him, quizzing
him afterward to make certain he understood.  My mother was
wonderful,  Marc says.  She always insisted that I do things. 
Nevertheless, he was, he remembers, a loner who enjoyed solitary
pleasures, particularly escaping into the exciting books he
ordered from the library of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, an
organization in which he was becoming increasingly active.
Meanwhile, back in Dexter, Patricia attended a church meeting
featuring a speaker from the Iowa Commission for the Blind.  It
was a big event in a small town,  she recalls.  And it was there
that I learned of the availability of books on records and tape.
I knew they would be a big help to me. 
The next year, during her junior year of high school, Patricia
heard a televised public service message from the Iowa Commission
for the Blind. She wrote to them for information and two weeks
later received a telephone call from the commission's director, a
blind man named Dr. Kenneth Jernigan. He told her about a summer
training program for the blind in Des Moines. After discussing it
with her parents, Patricia decided to attend. At the program that
summer she learned
how to read Braille and travel independently with a cane. Most
important, Patricia says, she learned that  it was okay to be
blind.  And it was there that she met Marc Maurer.
 I first met Patricia on June 16, 1969, at 4:30 in the afternoon, 
says Marc with characteristic precision. They were introduced in
a philosophy class taught by Dr. Jernigan. Marc and Patricia
became friends and frequently stayed up in the dorm lounge
talking or, more often, arguing, late into the night. He was
intrigued by this  engaging and very attractive  young woman who
spoke her mind freely and often disagreed with his opinions. She,
on the other hand, thought he was cold, arrogant, and  kind of
conceited. 
They agreed on one thing: Both had a deep respect for Dr.
Jernigan,
a man who inspired thousands of people while directing the Iowa
Commission for the Blind and during his concurrent 18-year reign
as President
of the National Federation of the Blind.  He became our mentor, 
Patricia says.
One early encounter with Dr. Jernigan made a particularly strong
impression on Marc.  Not long after we'd met, he invited me over
for a barbecue,  Marc recalls.  Well, I went, and he put the
charcoal in the grill and lit it that's not so astonishing. But
then he handed me a welding glove and said, `Now I want you to
stick your hand in the fire.' To a blind person, touching
something hot is terrifying. Blind people are particularly afraid
of fire. I said, `No! You're crazy!' But he persisted, and
finally I discovered that with welding gloves you can safely put
your hand in the middle of a fire. 
That incident proved to he a turning point in Marc's life. By
confronting and overcoming his greatest fears, he opened the
doors to new perceptions and possibilities.
Dr. Jernigan encouraged Marc and Patricia to pursue higher
education.  In 1969 Patricia entered Drake University, in Marc's
hometown of Des Moines. The next year Marc enrolled at Notre Dame
University in Indiana.  Occasionally their paths crossed, but
nothing romantic developed until one evening during her junior
year of college, when Patricia impulsively decided to call her
old friend at Notre Dame. She was shocked to realize how much
she'd grown to care for him. That phone conversation sparked a
correspondence between them that ultimately evolved into love.  
It was a romance of letters and telephone calls,  is how Patricia
sums up their year-and-a-half courtship. Finally reunited at a
National Federation of the Blind convention in New York, Marc
decided he'd  had enough of this long-distance relationship.  Two
minutes later, he announced rather than proposed that they would
marry.
 Oh,  responded the stunned Patricia.  When?   As soon as it can
be arranged. 
They were married six weeks later in Des Moines and soon
afterward settled into a small student apartment in South Bend,
Indiana, near Notre Dame.  They were lean times,  says Marc of
the first
years of their marriage.  It was definitely a struggle,  Patricia
recalls,  but I never doubted that we'd made the right decision. 
Upon receiving her degree in education, Patricia was offered a
teaching position in a regular public elementary school back in
Iowa. When she applied for a teaching job in Indiana, however,
she was rejected because of her blindness. Not ones to take this
kind of discrimination lightly, she and Marc threatened the local
school district, sending letters to congressmen, local
newspapers, and television stations.  As a result, the district
reluctantly employed her as a substitute teacher. After a year
the school board, impressed by her performance, offered her a
regular contract.
But that year, 1974, Marc graduated cum laude from Notre Dame,
and the Maurers moved from South Bend to Indianapolis so Marc
could attend Indiana University Law School. There Patricia
supported them by working as a data processor.
Finally, in 1978, armed with his law degree, Marc landed a job
with the Civil Aeronautics Board in Washington, D.C., and the
family moved to their present home in Maryland. It was a
comfortable and responsible position, Marc agrees, but he had
even greater ambitions. After two
years he left to start his own law firm, specializing in civil
litigation.  In 1982 he ran for a seat in the Maryland House of
Delegates, but lost.
During Marc's hectic campaign for the state legislature, Patricia
was right by his side. Their marriage, says Marc, is a  team
effort.  Then, after nine years of marriage, and with their
future looking bright and secure, Patricia and Marc felt that the
time had come to start a family.
Patricia admits that most of her initial concerns about
motherhood were normal fears any woman might have.  I was scared
and didn't feel that I was ready for the responsibility of
children,  she recalls. Later on, though still scared, she felt 
prepared for the challenges. 
What worried Patricia most was how she would teach her children
to recognize colors. Ultimately she enlisted the aid of sighted
friends and family members, and now David Patrick has become so
color-conscious that dressing him has become a problem he refuses
to wear clothes that don't match properly!  We probably
overcompensated,  Patricia admits.
 The only time I really felt bad about being blind,  she
confesses, was when David Patrick was learning to use crayons, 
and he used to plead with me to color with him.  She has learned
to accept David Patrick's disappointment philosophically.  He has
plenty of friends to play with,  she says.
Patricia knows there will be other problems the children will
have to accept. Recently David Patrick became enthralled with
motorcycles, and he wishes his dad could give him a ride on one.
And eventually David Patrick will have to understand that he and
his father will never be able to toss a ball in the backyard
together.
But perhaps the most potentially disturbing dilemma the Maurers'
children will encounter is how to reconcile their parents' view
of being blind
with society's perception of the blind as handicapped and
helpless.  Patricia understands that to a child it must be
confusing.  David Patrick sees us at home handling situations
without any difficulty, but when we go out, he sees other people
treating us as though we aren't capable human beings,  she says.
Of course, their being blind does sometimes create special
problems when it comes to the smooth running of their household,
but so far no problem has been so big that Patricia and Marc
couldn't find a solution. Without the aid of sight or a
housekeeper, Patricia maintains order by keeping herself 
conscious of where I put things and
where the kids are and where they put things.  But, she adds
cheerfully,  the kids will usually let you know where they are. 
To be absolutely sure they always know what's going on, Patricia
and Marc have installed an intercom system that connects every
room in their home. And when unforeseeable problems arise,
Patricia usually finds they can be solved with a little common
sense. Once, when both children became sick at the same time and
were prescribed different medicines in similarly shaped bottles,
she asked the pharmacist to put extra tape on one bottle so she
could distinguish it from the other.
For other, more practical matters, the Maurers' neighbors have
been more than happy to lend a hand. One woman who lives down the
street is also employed by the National Federation of the Blind
and gives Patricia and Marc a ride to and from work. And as a
matter of course, neighborhood friends stop by the Maurers' home
on their way to the supermarket to see if they need any groceries
or just to chat.
In many ways, parenthood has reinforced the Maurers' belief that
they aren't so different from sighted people. Patricia explains
that  I used to think I couldn't find things because I'm blind,
but after talking with other mothers, I've come to the conclusion
that everybody loses socks and misplaces bottles. It was a great
realization.  Marc found that becoming a father had a tremendous
impact on his life, but in ways he hadn't expected.  I was misled
about the whole thing,  he says with humor.  Sure, I'd always
thought it would be a good thing to have children, but I figured
that the principal part of parenting would be responsibility.
Nobody ever told me about the great and wonderful joy involved.
Until I experienced it, I didn't know it existed. 
At bedtime either Patricia or Marc reads the kids to sleep from
children's books transcribed into Braille. Like many parents,
they're looking forward, albeit fearfully, to the time when their
children enter the tumultuous teen-age years. They consider drugs
the greatest threat to their children's welfare, and hope and
pray that they will have instilled in David Patrick and Dianna
Marie the strength and self-discipline to resist destructive
influences.
 Some people might worry about blind parents having children, 
says Patricia,  but for the serious problems that may come before
us, blindness has very little to do with how we will handle them. 
Dinner at the Maurers' is as chaotic as in any normal household
with a young child and an infant, but it is also a joyful affair,
partly because of the antics of the irrepressible David Patrick,
who is just learning to help out and alternately revels in and
rebels against his new responsibilities.
This day the Maurers are preparing a feast. Early in the morning
Patricia and David Patrick baked chocolate chip cookies. A
neighbor stopped by on her way to the supermarket to pick up a
shopping list. By noon Marc had spread his porterhouse steaks on
a tray to marinate and had poured a pile of hickory chips into a
bucket to soak.
Marc loves to grill steaks during any season, and the Maurers'
barbecues have become famous in their neighborhood. Once, Marc
got the urge to barbecue in the middle of a winter snowstorm, and
his neighbors called the fire department.  They couldn't figure
out where the smoke was coming from!  Patricia explains with a
laugh.
Now, with the sun setting and David Patrick watching proudly,
Marc fills the kettle grill with charcoal, douses it with lighter
fluid and carefully ignites it with a spark gun. He hugs David
Patrick close to him, safely out of range of the fire, and waits
for the flames to die down before adding the hickory chips.
Inside, Patricia prepares sauted mushrooms, zucchini,
French-fried potatoes, and fruit salad, while Dianna Marie plays
contentedly in her nearby playpen.
Marc gauges the cooking time of the steaks with a  talking timer, 
a device that fits neatly into his shirt pocket and
electronically  tells  the elapsed minutes and seconds through a
computer-generated voice. Wearing thick welding gloves, he
casually turns the metal grid
that holds the thick steaks. In a few minutes they're cooked to
perfection.  The Maurers easily move around their home without
the white retractable canes they both use outside. Bumping into
each other occasionally is inevitable, however, especially when
gathering around the dinner table, but it's often an excuse for
an affectionate hug or pat. When Patricia leans over to feed
Dianna Marie in her high chair, she feels with one hand for her
daughter's mouth and directs the spoon with the other.
Marc refers to Dianna Marie as  Little Red  for her shock
of flaming red hair, which he has never seen. David Patrick, who
looks out for his younger sister, is called  Little Man  by his
father.
When David Patrick wants to taste his mother's steak, she offers
a speared morsel in his direction. He pauses before taking a
bite.   I love you, Mom,  he shyly offers.
Marc beams with pride.  We're doing things that 25 years ago were
thought beyond the capabilities of blind people. Of course, there
are natural boundaries for us, but unless they're tested, how do
we know? Inevitably there are going to be failures, but unless
you try, there's no opportunity for growth. Besides,  he adds, 
it's such an adventure! 
                             RECIPES 
 From the Associate Editor : The December holidays are a time of
recollection and hope. Hanukkah, Christmas, and even New Year's
Eve bring families and good friends together to remember shared
joys and look forward to the blessings and opportunities of the
coming year. As for any other family, this year in the Federation
has had its share of joys: new babies, new jobs, marriages. But
it has also seen much sorrow. We have grieved together over the
loss of those of our number who have died. We have shared the
pain of illness and suffered together in times of distress.
In short, we have lived together and loved one another this year
as we will next. We will also work to bring our common dream into
being.  We have made progress this year, and we will make more in
our Fiftieth Anniversary year. Whatever the pain or fatigue we
feel at this moment, we can take satisfaction in our
accomplishments and look forward with anticipation to the
challenges ahead.
So take pleasure in this most blessed time of the year. Enjoy
your families and friends, and perhaps take time to prepare one
of these special holiday recipes. They are, after all, old family
favorites.


                     NORWEGIAN RICE PUDDING
                         by Sharon Omvig
 As Monitor readers know, Sharon Omvig is an active member of the
National Federation of the Blind of Arizona. Her husband Jim's
family hails from Norway, and this is a traditional Norwegian
holiday dish that Sharon has learned to prepare. It is delicious
very comforting in cold, blustery weather. The Omvigs assure us
that it tastes good in warm Arizona as well. 

 Ingredients 
1 cup uncooked rice
8 cups whole milk
(part of this may be half and half)
4 teaspoons sugar
2 teaspoons salt
1/4 cup melted butter
cinnamon sugar and raisins for garnish

 Method : In a large, heavy pan heat 4 cups of the milk. Add the
rice and begin stirring the mixture frequently as it cooks over
low to medium heat. Add the remaining four cups of milk, which
you have heated, and continue stirring frequently for 2 to 2-1/2
hours.
As the pudding cooks it will thicken, so you must stir it more
frequently as it progresses. When the mixture is pudding
consistency, stir in the sugar and salt and pour it into a large
serving bowl. Cover and keep warm.
Make a cream sauce by heating 2-1/2 cups cream in a skillet.
Shake together until smooth 1/2 cup cream and 4 tablespoons
flour. Stir
this mixture into the cream, add 1 teaspoon salt, and continue
stirring constantly until cream sauce is thick and bubbly. To
serve, pour cream sauce over the warm pudding. Pour the melted
butter across the surface, sprinkle with cinnamon sugar, and dot
with raisins that have been heated in a little water and allowed
to stand for 10 minutes.  
                         DARK FRUITCAKE
                        by Diane McGeorge
 Diane McGeorge is the First Vice President of the National
Federation of the Blind and the President of the NFB of Colorado.
This fruitcake recipe is her favorite. When her boys were small,
she collected the old Chase and Sanborn one-pound coffee tins
through the year. She then baked eight one-pound fruitcakes using
this recipe. Before giving the cakes as gifts, she and the
children decorated the tins.  

 Ingredients 
4-1/2 cups flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon each salt, cinnamon, and cloves
1 pound butter or margarine
1 pound brown sugar
10 eggs, beaten
1 pound candied fruit
1 pound dates, chopped
1 pound raisins
1 pound currants
1/2 pound nuts, chopped
1 cup honey
1 cup molasses
1 cup apple cider

 Method:  Cream sugar and butter together until light. Add eggs,
beating well. Beat in liquid ingredients and then stir in fruits
and nuts. Finally stir in the dried ingredients, which you have
sifted together. (We used to sift all dry ingredients, but who
bothers anymore?) Pour the batter into prepared pans. Line these
with foil, then grease and flour the foil generously. You may use
loaf pans, tube pans, or small foil disposable pans of any shape.
Bake cakes at 375 degrees for up to 2-1/2 hours, until a
toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.

                    OLD FASHIONED GINGERBREAD
                        by Diane McGeorge

 This recipe originally belonged to Diane McGeorge's grandmother.



 Ingredients 
1/2 cup shortening
1/2 cup sugar
1 egg
1 cup Brer Rabbit molasses
2-1/2 cups flour
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1 teaspoon soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon ginger
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon cloves
1 cup boiling water

 Method : Cream sugar and shortening, then add the egg. Beat
well. Add the molasses then sift together the dry ingredients.
Alternately add flour mixture and boiling water to molasses
mixture. Pour batter into a greased and floured 13 x 9 pan. Bake
at 350 degrees about 45 minutes, until toothpick inserted in
center comes out clean. Gingerbread can also be baked in muffin
tins to make gingerbread muffins.  
                                 
THE FINAL PUNCH
                        by Joyce Scanlan
 Joyce Scanlan is the Secretary of the National Federation of the
Blind and President of the NFB of Minnesota. She serves this
punch at all her holiday parties. 

 Ingredients 
6 bananas
1 12 ounce can frozen orange juice
concentrate
1 6 ounce can lemonade concentrate
1 14 ounce can pineapple juice
3 cups water
2 cups sugar
2 quarts club soda

 Method : Mash or puree six ripe bananas. Combine the banana with
next five ingredients. Stir to dissolve the sugar, then freeze
for at least 24 hours. At least an hour before serving put the
frozen punch into a punch bowl to thaw. At serving time pour club
soda into the bowl and stir. Punch will be a little thickened due
to the ice crystals. Serves 25.

                         MATZO BALL SOUP
                        by Hazel tenBroek

 When we asked Mrs. tenBroek to contribute a favorite Hanukkah
recipe to the  Braille Monitor,  she offered this one. Members of
the California affiliate testify to its excellence. Happy
Hanukkah.   

 Ingredients :
2 tablespoons oil
2 large eggs, slightly beaten
1/2 cup matzo meal
1 teaspoon salt (optional)
2 tablespoons soup stock or water

 Method : Blend oil and eggs together. Add matzo meal and salt to
the egg and oil mixture. Blend well. Add soup stock or water and
mix until uniform. Cover mixing bowl and place in refrigerator
for 15 minutes.
Using a two- or three-quart pot, bring 1 and 1/2 quarts of your
favorite chicken soup stock to a boil. Reduce the flame and into
the slightly boiling stock drop balls approximately 1 inch in
diameter formed from the chilled mixture. Cover the pot and cook
10 to 15 minutes.  This recipe should make about 8 matzo balls.
Variations can be had by adding to the matzo meal mixture finely
chopped walnuts, parsley flakes, or any other spice or herb
desired.
Traditionally, the fat was chicken fat. In these days of worrying
about cholesterol, use your favorite oil. For those who would go
really traditional, check the recipe on the box of Manischewitz
matzo meal.  Matzo meal comes with and without salt.
As for chicken soup I'm fortunate. Sharon Gold makes the very
best and shares her bounty with me.
          * * * MONITOR MINIATURES * * *  **Correction:
When, as sometimes happens, the  Braille Monitor  makes an error,
we try to correct it. The present instance is such an occasion.
In the August, 1989, issue we printed an article entitled  Maine
Center for the Blind Resents Seeing the Truth in Print.  The
first paragraph of our article reads as follows:
 The Maine Center for the Blind (MCB) in Providence, Maine,
purports to provide rehabilitation and evaluation services for
blind people.  It also runs a sheltered workshop, which employs
twenty-four blind people, and a residence for blind adults. The
general public throughout the state thinks of the MCB staff as
experts on blindness. The director for the past thirty-five years
has been Robert Crouse, a Maine institution in his own right. 
This paragraph contains two glaring errors. It is not Providence
but Portland, and Mr. Crouse has not been at the Maine Center for
the blind for thirty-five years. He has been there for a much
shorter time.
We gladly correct these errors, but we wish to emphasize that we
believe the substance and tone of our article are completely
accurate and, if anything, understated. From our research and all
the information we can gather we believe the Maine Center for the
Blind is negative in character and harmful instead of helpful to
the blind of the state.  We are informed that it is referred to
by those who should know most about it (the blind of Maine) as
the  concentration camp.  Therefore, while we regret our errors,
we do not apologize for telling the truth.

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  Never
used Optacon for sale, $2,900 or best offer, includes owner's
manual and carrying case. Contact: Charles Dreher, 98 Park Ridge
Drive, #304, San Francisco, California 94131; telephone: (415)
285-6016. 

**Information for Computer Beginners Available:
A seminar for computer beginners was held at this year's NFB
convention.  Information distributed at that seminar is now
available from the National Federation of the Blind in Computer
Science. All we ask is that you contribute the cost we are
incurring to make the material available to you that is, five
dollars.
Two items are available in Braille or print:  Recipe for a First
Computer  and a  Glossary of Basic Computer Terms . We have also
prepared a report entitled  A Review of Speech and Braille
Software/Hardware Systems Designed to Permit Blind Persons to
Access the Video Display of an IBM Personal Computer (PC). 
Because of its extreme length (about forty-six pages) the report
is only available in print.
For further information or to request any or all of the above
items to be sent to you, contact the National Federation of the
Blind in Computer Science, Curtis Chong, President, 3530 Dupont
Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412.

**Christian Books:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: Christian
Books on Tape: Bestselling, unabridged books on tape, prices from
$9.95-$11.95 plus shipping/handling. Wide range of Christian
topics.  Call toll-free 1-800-366-8090.

**Word Games and Such:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  Trivia
Book, Word Game, Braille 'n Speak Users Group. Top Dot
Enterprises is now selling Crosstalk Trivia, a trivia book on
cassette. Questions are on track one, with answers immediately
adjoining on track three.  Categories of questions, which are
tone-indexed, include sports, geography, t.v., black history, and
(mostly) general information. The cost is $7. Word Rally is a
Braille and large print word game playable by anyone ten years
and up, ideal for one or two players. For $9.50 you receive game
books in both Braille and 14-point large print. The game is a
contest to build the most and longest words from random groups of
letters. Braille 'n Speak owners can join the Braille 'n Speak
Users Group and receive two cassette newsletters per year. Blazie
Engineering will no longer put out these newsletters. Membership
is
$10. For any of these offers contact Top Dot Enterprises, 6809
Sacramento Street S.W., Tacoma, Washington 98499; telephone:
(206) 545- 1818. 

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  For
sale:  Perkins Brailler L9717, New has never been used or out of
box, $350. Contact: Lois F. Wachtman, Route 6, 11577 Fruit Ridge
Drive, Defiance, Ohio 43512. 

**Art Exhibit:
In mid-September we received the following release in the
National Office:  You are cordially invited to an opening
exhibition titled `Through Different Eyes,' representing the work
of Ms. Cherie Heppe.  September 17-23, Yah-tah-hey Gallery, 270
Captain's Walk, New London, Connecticut; September 25-29, 99
Pratt Street, Lobby, Hartford, Connecticut; October 24-28, The
Distant Drum, 83 Plaza, Route 83, Vernon, Connecticut.  Ms. Heppe
will be present on the opening day of the exhibition at each
location. Cherie Heppe, who grew up in Nevada, is totally blind. 
Her work in ceramics has been nationally recognized. Her more
recent work in bone, leather, and jewelry has been inspired by
her move to Connecticut seven years ago. This exhibition is
reflective of her unique perspective as she explores her past,
her present, and looks to her future. 

**Coins to Touch:
We offer the following item without comment. It appeared in the
Fort Lauderdale, Florida,  Sun-Sentinel  on August 20, 1989. It
reads:

                     Exhibits for the Blind
                         by Ed Rochette

In the Netherlands certain design factors in circulating coins
facilitate their value identification by the visually impaired.
Other European nations Braille-emboss denominations on their
paper currency. And now there is an exhibit for the blind to  see
and compare  the designs of coins of the world.
On July 9 the world's first coin gallery for the visually
impaired opened at the Museum of the American Numismatic
Association in Colorado Springs. By donating models of their
circulating coins, more than
20 nations participated, including Australia, Barbados, Belgium,
Belize, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Egypt, Great Britain,
Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Macao, Malta, the Netherlands,
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, South
Africa, Spain, Thailand, Uganda, the United States, and Western
Samoa.
Models submitted by these governments are several times the
actual size and have been recast in epoxy to allow for hands-on
examination.  The designs are identified and described in
Braille.
After touching a model of the South African gold Krugerrand, a
visually impaired visitor from the Colorado School for the Deaf
and Blind commented,  This is the first time that I have seen a
springbok.  The deerlike creature is depicted on the reverse of
the Krugerrand bullion coin.
The museum is at 818 North Cascade Avenue, Colorado Springs, and
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

**Tapes to Sell:
Newstrack Executive Tape Service writes to advise that it records
business articles from major publications. Two 90- minute tapes
containing this information are produced each month. This service
is sold for $249 per year. Articles are selected from magazines
such as  Forbes, Fortune, Inc.,  and  Chief Executive . For
further information write to: Newstrack Executive Tape Service,
Box 1178, Englewood, Colorado 80150.

**Clarke & Smith Easiplay Automatic Cassette Player:
As  Monitor  readers know, W. Harold (Hal) Bleakley is the
President and principal owner of Aids Unlimited. He has asked
that we carry the following announcement:

The famous English Clarke & Smith Easiplay Automatic Cassette
Player has come to the United States. The Easiplay Automatic is
not just another machine that has been modified to play National
Library Service tapes. It has a totally new design. Shaped like a
toaster it will
play the Library of Congress 4 track slow speed cassettes or an
ordinary cassette at the regular 1-7/8 speed and it is far and
away the easiest to operate cassette player ever developed.
Just drop the cassette in the slot in the top, like a slice of
bread, push down and away you go for up to six (6) hours of
reading without touching the machine. If you want to stop for a
while, push down on a button, the cassette pops up like a slice
of toast and the Easiplay Automatic shuts-off automatically. When
you come back to read once more, just push the cassette down
again; the Easiplay Automatic rewinds for a moment or two, gives
about 30 seconds of review reading and then goes straight on.
Several other important features make the Clarke & Smith Easiplay
Automatic a most unique and valuable cassette player. First, if
you are not sure of the track you are on, it can be found easily
by pushing
a button consecutively. When you get to Track 1 it will beep. In
addition, should you think that you may nod off to sleep, you can
throw a snooze switch which stops the Easiplay at the end of the
track you are reading and avoids your waking up to find that you
are at the end of the whole cassette. A remote cord with an
on/off switch and a cigarette lighter cable permitting you to
enjoy the Easiplay in a car are two unusual optional accessories.
Variable speed control, earphone jack, volume control, tone
control, fast forward, rewind, and a mechanical cassette ejection
switch complete the wide range of functions at your finger tips
with the Easiplay Automatic. Its 4-1/2-inch speaker puts out
magnificent sound. The Easiplay Automatic Cassette Player has a
one
(1) year warranty. Prompt repair service is available should it
be needed.
For further details contact: Aids Unlimited, Inc., 1101 North
Calvert Street, Suite 405, Baltimore, Maryland 21202;
301-659-0232. Business hours are 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.

**Spoken Word:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  Many of
your readers have shown an interest in  The Spoken Word.  This
magazine is an interdenominational Christian magazine recorded on
cassette tape. The subscription for the magazine is free of
charge.  We welcome United States and foreign subscriptions.
Please advise
your readers that our address has changed and that we should be
contacted at: Spoken Word Ministries, Inc., 2432 Milburnie Road,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610; (919) 834-5005. 

**Braille Lipton:
John Dragona has asked us to carry the following announcement:
LIPTON RECIPES AVAILABLE The package directions for the complete
new line of Lipton Side Dish Products is now available in Braille
and large print. Separated into six sections Cool Side Salads,
Noodles & Sauce, Pasta & Sauce, Rice & Beans, Rice & Sauce, and
Rice and Sauce Long Grain and Wild Rice each recipe is listed in
a table of contents.  The directions for the twenty-nine
varieties all include Side Dish (stove top), Microwave, and Main
Dish (suggests additional ingredients to turn one package into a
main dish) cooking instructions which are simple to follow by
blind or visually impaired people. For a sixty-page, spiral-bound
Braille copy (three-hole punch available upon request) or a
magazine-formatted large print copy send $6 to: TFB Publications,
238 75th Street, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047; (201) 662-0956.
TFB also Brailles appliance operating manuals, as well as other
material, and has many other publications in Braille.

**New Baby:
We have just been informed by Hazel Staley, the President of the
National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, that Ed and
Tricia Tessnear of Wilson, North Carolina, have a new baby. Erin
Denise Tessnear was born shortly after midnight on August 22,
1989. She weighed 6 pounds, 14 ounces, and was 20-1/2 inches
long. Tricia is Second Vice President of the National Federation
of the Blind of North Carolina, and Ed
is Chairman of the state affiliate's Scholarship Committee.
Congratulations to the Tessnears all three of them.

**Thirtieth Chapter:
In a recent letter Don Capps said: Chalk up another
accomplishment
for the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina. The
thirtieth chapter of the NFB of South Carolina was organized
Tuesday night, August 1, 1989, in Kingstree. The new chapter has
a sizable membership and excellent officers. Let's take it from
the beginning, however.  Several months ago Mrs. Evelyn Dennis of
Kingstree,  who is legally blind, wrote to us, explaining that
she has authored a book and would appreciate any assistance the
NFB of South Carolina could provide in helping her publicize it. 
In June our state secretary, Yvonne Bradley, Betty, and I went to
Kingstree and met with Mrs. Dennis.  We also developed a list of
the names of other blind persons in the Kingstree-Williamsburg
County area. It was determined at that time a chapter in
Kingstree was possible, and plans were made to return to
Kingstree July 31 and August 1 to complete the project. This past
Tuesday Yvonne, Betty, and I spent both days calling on blind
persons in the area. A meeting was held at a local restaurant,
and the thirtieth chapter came into being. The new officers are:
Evelyn Dennis, President; the Reverend Robert Logan, Vice
President; William Allen, Secretary; and Frank Chestnut,
Treasurer. We were also pleased to have at the meeting the
Honorable Jimmy Kirby, Mayor of Kingstree, who is also president
of the Kingstree Lions Club. We were also pleased to have our
state treasurer (Frank Coppel), along with his wife Gail, as well
as the Federation Center of the Blind's Executive Director David
Houck, his wife Darlene, and son Kevin to join us at the banquet.
The NFB
of South Carolina continues to experience  solid growth. The
Federation is truly representative of the blind of the state.

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: For Sale
An R1D Optacon in very good condition with good battery life,
serviced with new camera cable. Includes carrying case, battery
charger, print and Braille manuals, new rubber pad to hold
materials. Price: $2,000 or best offer. Mini-Picht Braillewriter
from Germany in leatherette case with instructions in print and
Braille German text, with English translation. Sturdy metal
construction, very quiet, only three pounds.  Designed for notes
on the road on small-size paper. Price: $200 or best offer.
Contact: Constance Griesmer, 836-C Santa Barbara Street,
Pasadena, California 91101.

**Organized:
Saturday, September 30, 1989, the National Federation of the
Blind of Ohio Student Division was organized in Columbus, Ohio,
following a day-long seminar for blind college students entitled 
Landing
on Your Feet.  The officers of the new division are Tracy
Macincupp, President; Mark Wheeler-Glickman, Vice President; and
David Robinson, Treasurer. According to Barbara Pierce, President
of the NFB of Ohio, the group is eager to grow and take its place
as part of the national Student Division and the state affiliate.

**Labyrinthine Logic:
Melissa LaGroue, President of the Student Division of the
National Federation of the Blind of Alabama and member of the
Board of Directors of the National Student Division, reports that
she encountered an example of airline logic that left her shaken
and incredulous while
she was traveling from Atlanta to Columbus, Ohio, to assist in
organizing the new student division in that state (see the
previous Monitor Miniature).  When she boarded the Delta
aircraft, she discovered that she had been issued a seat in an
exit row. She stowed her cane in accordance with FAA regulations
and hoped for the best. Soon a member of the cabin crew arrived
to say that the cane, which was lying flat on the floor parallel
to the fuselage, was protruding about five inches into the window
opening and would have to be moved. Miss LaGroue was discussing
this question when the captain came to announce that she would
have
to move from her seat because a federal law prohibited her from
sitting there. When she pointed out that she had been assigned
the seat, he retreated to the cockpit, muttering. The stewardess,
however, remained on the scene to continue the discussion about
the cane. She said that in case of an emergency in which the
cabin was filled with smoke, other passengers would not be able
to see the cane lying there and would trip over it. Miss LaGroue
assured her that the cane would be in her hand outside the
aircraft by the time other people passed that way. But nothing
would alter the flight attendant's view. She insisted on moving
the cane. Her solution to the problem of safe stowage was the
thing that left Melissa LaGroue gasping. The attendant insisted
on laying the cane across the horizontal bars under her seat and
the one in front of her so that it lay completely across the exit
row about four inches off the floor surely a position guaranteed
to inhibit the rapid evacuation of passengers, assuming, of
course, that it remained there after Miss LaGroue's departure.
However, the flight was uneventful despite the best efforts of
the air crew.  **Surgery:
We have learned that E. U. Parker, long-time Federationist from
Mississippi, had back surgery on September 1st of this year.
Apparently there was a problem with pressure on a nerve, and at
the time of this writing (early October) he is unable to walk and
must use a wheelchair. He was scheduled to have surgery again in
early October to try to correct the situation, but we do not know
the results. Walking or sitting,
E. U. Parker is able to do more than most. Our thoughts are with
him, and we hope he has a full and speedy recovery.

**Letters Wanted:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  I am
seeking correspondence from anyone who is either a medical
transcriptionist, a legal transcriptionist, or legal secretary. I
wish correspondence by cassette tape or by phone. Hope to hear
from you soon. Contact:  Jeannette N. Dzikowski, 24085 West
Edison Road, South Bend, Indiana 46628; (219) 287-1264. 

**Gambling and Gamboling:
Patricia Maurer submits the following:
The Greater Baltimore Chapter, National Federation of the Blind
of Maryland held their first annual New Orleans Style Casino
Night on September 15, 1989. For the purchase of a ticket, which
sold for $10.00, each person received $3,000.00 in National
Federation of the Blind play money. The money could be used to
play blackjack or roulette, or to shoot craps.
The Greater Baltimore Chapter provided a collection of New
Orleans
style jazz. Refreshments, including New Orleans style food, were
available for a minimal charge.
Patrons, many of whom wore New Orleans style costumes,
participated
in the auction held at the end of the night. A number of prizes,
including a weekend for two at The Harbor Court (Baltimore's most
prestigious new hotel), were auctioned off to those with lots of
play money. Those who did not have much money left at the end of
the night were able to purchase more at $5.00 for $3,000.00 worth
of play money.
The event was held at the Tall Cedars of Lebanon Hall. This large
and beautiful facility was donated to us by the 45 Association,
Incorporated.  The Deputy Grand Master of the Masons, Mr. John
McWilliams Smith,
was given a National Federation of the Blind lapel pin in
appreciation for his assistance in making our event a success.
The chapter received a great deal of help from the Jaycees of
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who provided us the roulette wheel and
craps table.  Our New Orleans Style Casino Night raised more than
$1,300.00. Thanks to all who contributed to its success.

**Spreading the Word:
Books are not usually as dramatic or immediate as stories in the
newspaper or shots on t.v., but their effect is continuing and
long-range. We recently received the following letter in the
National Office:

Dear Sirs:
I am a general elementary education teacher in the state of
Florida.  I have recently taken a post working with the visually
impaired unit at my school. In order to learn more about the
visually impaired, I went to our local library and checked out
several books dealing with visual problems.
The most helpful book was entitled  A Resource Guide for Parents
and Educators of Blind Children , written by Doris M. Willoughby
and copyrighted 1979.
Due to the author's high recommendation of your organization, I
thought I would write to you and see if you have other books or
information available for the blind. One of the children in the
vision impaired program at our school is totally blind, and he
will be receiving an adapted physical education program. The P.E.
teacher is not really aware of things she can do with this blind
student. That is why I am writing you. Do you know of any
resource material available on the subject of teaching P.E. to
the blind?
Any information you could send us about this subject would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

**Student Seminar:
Michael Baillif, President of the National Federation of the
Blind
Student Division, writes as follows:
The Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind will
be hosting a National Student Conference immediately prior to the
1990 Washington Seminar. Join with us Friday, February 2, to
share hospitality and revelry. Saturday's full-day agenda will
include such topics as chapter development, membership
recruiting, and fundraising.  Additionally, there will be events
which inspire philosophical thought and social mixing. Capping
off the Student Conference on Saturday evening will be a festive
banquet.
The Washington Seminar provides an excellent opportunity for
students
to be more active participants in addressing the legislative and
developmental challenges which face the National Federation of
the Blind. The National Student Conference will perpetuate and
build upon this learning experience.  The prevailing Washington
Seminar hotel rates will begin on Friday, February 2.
For more information contact: Diane McGeorge, 2232 South
Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80210, (303) 778-1130; or Michael
Baillif, Post Office Box 8A Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut
06520, (203) 436-2563.
