                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           March, 1990

                    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
                           MARCH 1990

MORE ABOUT TEXAS GOLD

BLIND WORKERS PAY FOR FEDERAL FOLLY
  by Marc Maurer

OF LITERACY, BRAILLE, AND THE ODDITIES OF SEMANTICS
by Kenneth Jernigan

WHY BRAILLE?

ALL WE WANTED WAS TO DANCE
  by Karl Smith

BLIND BOSS CHOSEN TO RUN SPANISH TV STATION

FREE RIDES FOR THE BLIND COST US TOO MUCH
  by Zach Shore

SOCIAL SECURITY: 
FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW CONCERNING DISABILITY INSURANCE
by James Gashel

SOCIAL SECURITY: 
EMPHASIS ON VENDORS, BUT FACTS EVERY BLIND PERSON SHOULD KNOW    
by James Gashel
A WARNING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM RECIPIENTS

BLIND IS BEAUTIFUL
  by Eric Duffy

WASHINGTON SEMINAR: 1990

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS JOIN ORGANIZED BLIND 
IN PRESSING FOR ACTION ON AIRLINES LEGISLATION
by Marc Maurer

NFB OF CONNECTICUT INFORMS MOTORISTS AND EDUCATES PUBLIC

THIEF TO PAY BLIND VENDOR

GROOMING FOR GOLD

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

 Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1990
                                 
                      MORE ABOUT TEXAS GOLD

Plans continue to go forward for the fiftieth anniversary
convention of the National Federation of the Blind, to be held at
the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt, Saturday, June 30, to Saturday, July
7, 1990. As befits such an occasion, this convention will not
only be the biggest but also the best in Federation history true
Texas style. Besides the outstanding program exciting tours and
social events are planned.  In last month's issue of the  Monitor 
we carried some of the details. Here are more. All roads will
lead to the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt this summer. Get your
reservations in today, and prepare to enjoy yourself at the
convention in July.
As is traditionally the case, Wednesday afternoon (this year July
4) will be devoted to tours. There will be a number of choices:
1.) Kennedy Memorial/Texas School Book Depository with visit to
West End Shopping area $18.00. This tour will begin with lunch at
the Old Spaghetti Factory, orders to be made from the menu and
cost
of lunch not included in the tour price. The Texas School Book
Depository, which is now a museum and memorial, is the place
where Lee Harvey Oswald stood on the day President Kennedy was
assassinated. The West End is one of Dallas's biggest and most
interesting shopping areas, where those on the tour can browse
through the stores and spend in Texas style an exciting and
varied afternoon.
2.) South Fork Ranch, $27.00 Price includes transportation,
lunch, and a tour of the Ranch. Those who follow the TV show 
Dallas  will want to see where J. R. lives and examine his home
and property.  3.) Wild West Tour, $20.00 Price includes a
Tex-Mex lunch, a visit to the stockyards, and a stop at Billy
Bob's Texas, advertised as the world's biggest honky-tonk. Don't
miss it.
4.) Galleria Shopping Center, $6.50 Buses will leave the hotel at
one o'clock and take people to the shopping center. Buses will
return to the hotel at 4:30 and 8:00 p.m.
5.) Six Flags Over Texas, $30.00 Price includes admission and
transportation. Buses will return to the hotel at 5:30, 8:30, and
10:00 p.m. Six Flags is an amusement and theme park with over 100
rides and other forms of entertainment. Once the admission price
is paid, there is no extra charge for rides or other
entertainment. A variety of food can be purchased.
These are the activities for Wednesday afternoon, July 4 but
there is a great deal more. On Friday evening, July 6, there will
be an opportunity to witness a real live rodeo. The evening will
begin with a 14-ounce T-Bone steak dinner at the Trail Dust
Restaurant and will conclude with all the excitement of riding
and roping. Price (including dinner and transportation) $30.00.
On Saturday morning, July 7, there will be an opportunity (first
come, first served until the tickets are gone) to go to a ranch
for horseback riding. We believe the price (including
transportation) will be $15.00 per person. It must be emphasized
that there are only a limited number of tickets available for
this activity.
But there is still more. On Tuesday evening, July 3, Glenn Crosby
and the other Texans are planning a big outdoor barbecue with
corn on the cob and all of the trimmings. It has even been hinted
that there may be an unlimited supply of free beer but, then, you
know how rumors are. The barbecue will be combined with the
traditional Tuesday evening reception and dance under the stars.
Yes, the fiftieth anniversary convention will be a time to
remember pure Texas gold. And do we need to remind you of the
fantastic hotel rates?  singles, $27; doubles and twins, $30;
triples, $33; and quads, $37.  There will also be the usual array
of fabulous prizes and the renewal of friendships and everything
else that goes to make up the fun and harmony and inspiration of
an NFB convention.
But, of course, the tours, the entertainment, and the hospitality
are in a sense only preliminary and peripheral. The central
activity of the week will be the program that will occur in the
meeting rooms at the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt, where fifty years
of Federation history will be reviewed, where the present will be
assessed, and where the future will be planned. No Federationist
will want to miss this historic occasion, so get your
reservations in today and begin to make your plans to come to
Dallas.
                                 
BLIND WORKERS PAY FOR FEDERAL FOLLY
  The Committee for Purchase from the Blind  and Other Severely
Handicapped Approves Increase  in Payments to NIB: NAC Paid Off
                         by Marc Maurer
One of the most obscure federal agencies ever created by
Congress,
the Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely
Handicapped, holds enormous power over the lives of thousands of
blind workers.
This agency can decide (at least in part) how blind employees in
sheltered workshops will be treated, what wages will be paid to
them, what minimum standards for working conditions are
tolerable, and whether there will be programs for advancement.
There are approximately 6,000 blind employees working in the
shops. In the neighborhood of one-third of these are being paid
less than the statutory federal minimum wage.
The Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely
Handicapped has taken no action to change these deplorable
circumstances. However, the position of the Committee is not
merely one of passive acceptance; this federal agency is fully
prepared to defend subminimum wages.

In 1938 Congress adopted the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to provide
assistance to the employable blind. In those days, almost no
blind person had found a way to become employed. Special
workshops had been established
in which the blind could receive sheltered work. The term 
sheltered  meant that sighted people were ordinarily not offered
this employment.  Instead, these jobs were designated and
reserved for blind workers.
It is arguable that the system was (at least at the beginning) a
benefit.  Sheltered employment offered an opportunity for the
blind to work and made it possible to demonstrate that the blind
were capable of successful performance in an industrial setting.
To promote this sheltered employment, Congress adopted the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, which created the Committee on
Blind-Made Products (now the Committee for Purchase from the
Blind and Other Severely Handicapped). This Committee was given
the responsibility of identifying products used by the federal
government which could be produced by blind workers in sheltered
shops.  Federal government agencies were required to order these
commodities
from sheltered workshops that were under the jurisdiction of the
Committee.  Federal contracts for such commodities are not
awarded through the ordinary competitive bidding process. They
are simply granted to sheltered workshops as a form of federal
subsidy. Those who established the program theorized that
protected federal contracts would help to support the shops and
that the shops would offer employment and training to the blind.
More employment and more training would help an ever-growing
number of blind workers become independent, self-sufficient
people.

Even though the system of sheltered workshops increased the
number of blind people who were able to find work, segregated
employment caused at least as many problems as it solved. Blind
people were offered simple, repetitive tasks. The managers and
supervisors were almost always sighted. Sometimes sighted people
were hired to work alongside the blind; and very often the wages
of the sighted were higher than those of the blind even when the
jobs being performed were exactly the same and sometimes when the
production standards achieved by the blind exceeded those of the
sighted. Outmoded production techniques, dismally poor standards
of efficiency, and worn-out equipment very often became part of
the working environment in these shops. Efforts
to inhibit the exercise of free speech and attacks on collective
bargaining occurred.
The Javits-Wagner-O'Day program was established at a time when
almost no blind person had a job. This program is the same today
(or almost the same) as it was fifty years ago. It has almost
certainly outlived its usefulness. Nevertheless, this antiquated
system controls the working lives of approximately six thousand
blind employees. The results are hardship, lack of opportunity,
and often hopelessness.  Shortly after adoption of the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, managers of sheltered shops persuaded
the Committee for Purchase of Blind-Made Products to designate a
central non-profit agency to distribute federal contracts on
behalf of the Committee. The workshop managers formed an
organization called National Industries for the Blind (NIB), and
National Industries for the Blind got the nod from the Committee
to handle federal contracts that were being distributed to
workshops for the blind.
From the beginning, National Industries for the Blind has acted
on behalf of the Committee. In the fall of 1988, Mrs. Beverly
Milkman
was selected to serve as Executive Director of the Committee for
Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped. Leaders
of the National Federation of the Blind wondered whether the
change in administration might portend a more realistic and
understanding approach. There had been decades of inattention to
the needs of blind workers. Perhaps
with a new administrator would come a fresh examination of the
underlying assumptions which had come to be endemic to the
sheltered workshop system. Perhaps there would be a spirit of
cooperation with the organized blind movement and a genuine
concern for the needs of blind workers.

Early in 1989 Mrs. Milkman visited the National Center for the
Blind.  She was new to the field of work with the blind, and she
did not have background or experience in it. Among other things,
this new executive director was astonished that there was any
conflict in programs established to serve blind people. Her
attitude seemed to say:  Surely we
are all working for the same thing. Surely those involved in
providing charitable assistance to the blind could have nothing
but the most noble and praiseworthy motives and objectives.
Surely, the good of the blind is paramount, and everyone agrees
on what ought to be done for blind workers.  In short, Mrs.
Milkman affected a complete naivet.
The leaders of the National Federation of the Blind described to
Mrs.  Milkman in detail the problems that exist in programs
dealing with blindness. Of course we told her about the efforts
on the part of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) to gain control
of programs for the blind. The facts concerning the unethical
behavior of NAC were made available. Mrs. Milkman was informed
that NAC approves workshops that pay less than the minimum wage,
that it has accredited schools for
the blind at which some of the most bizarre and illegal acts
imaginable have occurred, and that it has condoned actions of
officials running agencies for the blind that threatened blind
workers. Apparently she learned for the first time that National
Industries for the Blind has a policy to pay the costs for
workshops to become a part of NAC.  By underwriting these costs,
National Industries for the Blind can put several hundred
thousand dollars into NAC's treasury each year.

But, of course, these are only indirect payments. The financial
base for NAC has declined drastically during the past few years.
NAC's financial future has always been shaky, but recently its
small number of supporters has become even more reluctant than
formerly to prop NAC up with further infusions of money. There
have been some who have said that the best description for NAC is 
on the skids,  or  down for the count. 
National Industries for the Blind officials, being aware of the
imminent demise of NAC, recognized an immediate danger. When
workshop managers have been criticized for the poor treatment
meted out to blind workers, their response has very often been
that blind people and the public simply do not understand. The
workshops in question, the managers say, have been accredited by
NAC. This so-called  accrediting  organization has supposedly
reviewed the workshop programs and found them to be in compliance
with its allegedly nationally-recognized standards. In short, NAC
serves as a shield for some of the worst, most despicable
practices occurring in sheltered shops. If NAC were
to disappear, shop managers would have to address the reality of
actual working conditions and wages. They could not simply hide
behind their certificates of accreditation. No longer would there
be a supposedly even-handed, unbiased third party to vouch for
the workshop when it engaged in shady deception or questionable
behavior.
On September 19, 1989, George J. Mertz, President of NIB, wrote
to all of the NIB-associated workshops to tell them that the
amount being paid by the workshops to NIB for federal contracts
was being raised from three and three-quarters percent to four
percent. Nowhere in the letter does George Mertz mention NAC.
Instead, the purpose for demanding more federal dollars is to
establish what he describes as new service programs to the shops.
The three programs described in the letter are:  1. A government
marketing program to assure that workshops employing blind people
are recognized by Federal procurement personnel as a reliable
source for competitively priced quality products....
2. A new service development department to assist workshops to
enter the government's service market. [and] 3. An internship
program to bring blind college graduates into the workshop
system. 
Prior to the writing of the September 19, 1989, letter, the NIB
Board of Directors had voted to make grants to the National
Accreditation Council. Less than a month after George Mertz sent
his letter to the shops, another letter was distributed, this one
over the name of the chairman of the NIB Board of Directors,
Abram Claude. This second letter sets forth the urgency with
which NIB wishes to support NAC.  Furthermore, it raises
substantial questions concerning Mr. Mertz's veracity regarding
the reason for increasing the amount of workshop money to be paid
to NIB which is to say, the amount of federal money because of
the requirement that federal agencies purchase from the shops
without taking bids and at whatever prices may be set.  The
letter from Abram Claude dated October 9, 1989, states, in terms
that carry an unmistakable message, that workshops are obliged to
support NAC. Before the end of the month, National Industries for
the Blind held a conference in Austin, Texas. At this conference
Abram Claude revealed that National Industries for the Blind was
providing direct support to NAC of at least $125,000 during
fiscal year 1990.  Additional grants are planned for the 1991 and
1992 fiscal years.

National Industries for the Blind receives its money by taking a
percentage of all federal dollars paid to sheltered shops for
performance of federal contract work. NIB had been receiving
three and three-quarters percent of the money paid by the federal
government. The NAC grant caused a shortfall in the NIB budget.
Therefore, the amount authorized for payment to National
Industries for the Blind from federal contracts was being raised
from three and three-quarters percent to four percent effective
October 1, 1989. Approximately two hundred million dollars worth
of federal contracts are awarded to sheltered shops by National
Industries for the Blind each year. The additional money to be
paid NIB as a result of this percentage change is five hundred
thousand dollars. National Industries for the Blind will have
one-half million extra federal dollars to spend. The Committee
for Purchase approved this increase.
Many sheltered shops have told blind workers that they do not
have enough to pay the minimum wage. National Industries for the
Blind wants somebody to say that it and the sheltered shops
within the NIB system are doing a good job. NIB authorizes a
grant to NAC. Additional money is collected from sheltered shops
to pay the bill. NAC accredits workshops that pay less than the
minimum wage. The Committee for Purchase from the Blind
conveniently authorizes payments of federal contract dollars in
this cozy little scheme. National Industries for the Blind gets
more money. NAC gets more money. Recently NIB testified on behalf
of the Committee for Purchase, and the Committee gets increased
appropriations.  When everybody gets more money, who pays the
bill? There are fewer dollars from federal contracts to pay blind
workers. The blind, the very people who are supposed to be served
by this elaborate system, pay for all these layers of bureaucracy
and the chicanery that goes with them.
The organized blind predicted that there would be increased
efforts by National Industries for the Blind to support the
disintegrating structure of NAC. When Mrs. Milkman became
executive director of the Committee, we suggested to her that it
would probably occur. She didn't believe that it could. Last
spring we received information that the National Industries for
the Blind Board of Directors was planning to meet and vote to
provide direct assistance to NAC. Mrs. Milkman said that they
wouldn't. Shortly thereafter, the National Industries Board
authorized a grant. Mrs. Milkman came to the convention of the
National Federation of the Blind in Denver in July of 1989 and,
after telling certain  cutesy  stories, made it plain that the
Committee for Purchase would take no action to prohibit National
Industries for the Blind from diverting federal dollars from the
workshops to NAC through NIB. Specifically, the Committee would
make no statement that it was wrong for NIB to pay NAC.
On Friday, January 19, 1990, I visited Mrs. Milkman at the
offices of the Committee for Purchase in Crystal City, Virginia.
I reviewed with her two documents: an affidavit of Joseph Cordova
dated January 18, 1990, and a letter of October 9, 1989, from
Abram Claude to National Industries for the Blind workshops. The
affidavit describes pressure by NIB officials on workshops to
commit resources for the support of NAC. Attached to it is the
letter from Abram Claude. As you read Mr. Claude's letter,
consider certain phrases. He says:

 If it were mandatory to be accredited in order to receive
government orders, there is no question that all shops would be
accredited...  we may be forced to seek accreditation in the
future from some other type of accrediting body that will not be
focused and sympathetic to the very special needs of blind
people. 
One might insert here that the National Accreditation Council
appears to be focused and sympathetic more to the needs of
National Industries for the Blind than to the needs of blind
people. But Mr. Claude's communication goes on:
 This is not a police action.... If you are accredited, please
maintain your accredited status. If you are not accredited, I ask
you to give immediate and serious consideration to applying for
accreditation.... 

 We earnestly seek your cooperation and participation as we
attempt to build a solid foundation for NAC in the coming years.
A viable NAC is an essential underpinning to our future success. 
Mr. Claude cannot be faulted for being subtle. The message is
clear sign up or else. There are some high-sounding phrases and a
few self-serving assertions mixed in with the threats. However,
it would be difficult to misunderstand what is being said. Here
are the affidavit and the letter in full.

                            AFFIDAVIT

Comes now Joseph Cordova and, being first duly sworn, deposes and
states as follows:
1) My name is Joseph Cordova. My address is 305 La Media, S.W.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico  87105. I am employed by the State of New
Mexico, Commission for the Blind, as Director of the New Mexico
Industries for the Blind program. I have served in this capacity
for three years.
2) The program I direct employs forty blind people in a 
sheltered workshop  which produces commodities for the federal
government under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. The federal
government is not our only customer, but federal contracts amount
to a substantial portion of our work. Without these contracts it
is certain that approximately half of our employees would be
terminated, since there would not be
enough nonfederal work to keep them busy and productive. Federal
government orders are placed with us through National Industries
for the Blind (NIB). Approximately one-third of our business
comes directly from contracts assigned to us by NIB. NIB is a
private nonprofit corporation designated by the Committee for
Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped to
administer the distribution of all federal contracts awarded to
sheltered workshops.
3) Our certification as a qualified workshop for the blind in the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day program was awarded by the Committee for
Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped. The
Committee has specific federal rules for certifying the
eligibility of workshops, such as
ours, to receive orders for commodities to be purchased by the
government.  We have complied and continue to comply with the
Committee's rules in all respects.
4) The production activity of our industries program is governed
by various state and federal laws and regulations, including the
state law establishing the New Mexico Commission for the Blind,
state laws concerning labor standards and workers' compensation,
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, and various other statutes and regulations which we
must follow in
order to stay in business. We are a unit of a state agency which
receives substantial federal funds, some of which are used to pay
expenses of the industries program. With the application of these
laws, and our use of both state and federal funds, we are subject
to significant monitoring and reporting requirements of various
state and federal government agencies. All of the products we
make are also subject to inspection and approval by the
purchasing agency in accordance with contract specifications. In
these respects we are typical of sheltered workshops for the
blind throughout the United States. Few industries are so
thoroughly regulated.
5)  Talk has begun to circulate in workshop circles that we may
be required to undergo accreditation by a private New York
corporation calling itself NAC (National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). Under
date of October 9, 1989, our agency received a communication from
Abram Claude, the Chairman of NIB's Board of Directors (copy
attached) saying that accreditation may be required. NIB has
begun to finance a portion of NAC's annual operating costs, as
reported to us by Mr. Claude on October 29, 1989,
at NIB's 1989 annual meeting sponsored by the General Council of
Workshops for the Blind in San Antonio, Texas. I have heard that
the total amount to be paid to NAC by NIB during this year and
the two years following is about three hundred thousand dollars,
one hundred and twenty-five thousand being paid during this year
alone. NIB is also picking up
the costs for any affiliated workshop that agrees to pursue NAC
accreditation.  The exact amount of these costs would depend upon
the size of the workshop, but the minimum would be several
thousand dollars for each of one hundred or so workshops
affiliated with NIB.
6) The revenues which NIB has available to pay for NAC-related
costs are derived from workshop sales. Until October 1, 1989, we
were paying commission fees to NIB in the amount of three and
three quarters percent of our gross sales on orders placed with
us by NIB. On September 19, 1989, all NIB- affiliated workshops
were advised that the commission rate would be increased to four
percent effective October 1, 1989.

7) The commission increase was widely discussed at the annual
meeting in San Antonio. NIB's practice is to hold closed meetings
with the workshop directors from each region. NIB's Vice
President of Finance,
Guy DeRossi, was present at the regional meetings to discuss the
commission increase. In response to many questions from directors
in our region, Mr. DeRossi said that NIB's budget for this year
had not included the payment now committed to NAC, and the
commission increase was needed to make up the shortfall. Other
reasons were also given. In
a subsequent telephone conversation with me, Mr. DeRossi denied
attributing the commission increase to the grant being made to
NAC. However, his previous explanation of the relationship
between the NAC grant and the commission increase can be
corroborated. Many workshop directors in our region voiced
objection to the commission increase. They pointed out that while
funds are being diverted to provide a grant to NAC, over half of
the workshops in our region are losing money. The New
Mexico Industries for the Blind could not now afford the cost of
contributing to NIB's grants to NAC, even if such a policy were
advisable.
8) The program at the same national conference included extensive
discussions of NAC. Abram Claude expressed a particularly
aggressive
point of view in warning that contracts for workshops in the
Javits-Wagner-O'Day program could in the future be conditioned on
NAC accreditation.
9) Policy-making officials of our agency are firmly convinced
that NAC accreditation is not in the best interest of blind
people. The law requires us to use this agency's resources in
ways that best help blind people. We are a public agency and
accountable to state and federal authorities for our use of
public funds. We are also accountable to the blind to be sure
that the resources we use on their behalf are not wasted. Our
agency does not approve of the NAC accreditation process or
standards. Even so, we currently have no option but to pay NIB's
required commission increase which is being used in part to fund
NAC. We had no choice in this decision but feel that we are
forced to contribute to an unjustified use of NIB's funds.
10) The foregoing statements are true and correct in all respects
to the best of my belief and knowledge.

                                                   Joseph Cordova
Dated at Albuquerque, New Mexico, this 18th day of January, 1990.


                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT


State of New Mexico
County of Bernalillo.
On this 18th day of January, 1990, before me, the undersigned
officer, personally appeared Joseph Cordova, known to me (or
satisfactorily
proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to within this
instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the
purposes therein contained.
In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

                                                   Lilamae Warner
                                                    NOTARY PUBLIC
                                     My commission expires 7-6-91
________________
                                National Industries for the Blind
                                      Abram Claude, Jr., Chairman
                                                Wayne, New Jersey
                                                  October 9, 1989

National Industries for the Blind (NIB) has given vocal and
continuing support to the concept of accreditation for many years
and recently the Board of Directors voted to give significant,
direct financial support to the National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC).
The Board voted to provide NAC $125,000 for their fiscal year
ending June 30, 1990 which represents approximately 50 percent of
the projected budget shortfall for the
year with the other 50 percent to be provided by the American
Foundation for the Blind (AFB).
AFB has been the sole provider of financial support over and
above income provided by those organizations which are accredited
and pay dues. After 20 years of support, AFB understandably felt
that it was time for others to give tangible support to this
important activity.  NIB and AFB have committed financial
resources for the support of NAC for a three-year period during
which time NAC is committed to substantially expand its roster of
accredited agencies and educational institutions serving blind
people thereby becoming substantially self supporting.
It is the belief of the NIB Board of Directors that the field of
blindness needs its own dedicated and specialized accreditation
body and the accreditation process is essential to the long-term
viability of our work. We applaud those agencies and shops which
are currently accredited, and we urge them to maintain their
accreditation. For those that are not accredited, we ask that you
give the most serious consideration to initiating the process. If
it were mandatory to be accredited in order to receive government
orders, there is no question that all shops would be accredited.
As it is currently voluntary there are
some shops that feel it is an unnecessary intrusion or that they
already meet or exceed the basic accreditation standards and,
therefore, it is unnecessary to go through the process.
Accreditation does not work unless it is universal, and we feel
strongly that it is important to have a viable specialized and
independent accreditation body to serve the field of blindness.
Otherwise, we may be forced to seek accreditation in the future
from some other type of accrediting body that will not be focused
and sympathetic to the very special needs of blind people. In my
personal opinion, the process of accreditation is a unique and
important opportunity for self-study and evaluation which will
add value to even the most exceptionally well-run shop. It is
hard work to prepare for accreditation but it is well worth it.
In addition, this peer group analysis process helps to assure our
blind workers, the federal government and your local and regional
communities that each of our shops is maintaining an appropriate
level of service and is operating in an efficient and modern
manner. This is not a police action. Quite the contrary, it
is primarily an opportunity for self evaluation against a set of
established and reasonable standards.
The field of blindness needs your support in this matter. If you
are accredited, please maintain your accredited status. If you
are not accredited, I ask you to give immediate and serious
consideration to applying for accreditation so that the shops
associated with NIB may face the world in a unified manner giving
clear evidence that we are a group that believes in high
standards of performance being maintained in our service to blind
people. There is little doubt in my mind that if we do not behave
in this manner voluntarily, we will at some point in the future
be required to become accredited. If NAC should not prove to be
viable because of lack of participation and
close its doors, we would then be forced to turn to some other
accrediting body with a mission not solely dedicated to serving
the field of blindness.  It is especially important that our
larger more powerful shops be among those that maintain an
accredited status to set an example and to lend their strength
and knowledge to the process for the general good.
We earnestly seek your cooperation and participation as we
attempt to build a solid foundation for NAC in the coming years.
A viable NAC is an essential underpinning to our future success.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Abram Claude, Jr.
 ____________________
In the meeting with Mrs. Milkman which occurred January 19, 1990,
I told her that very serious matters needed to be discussed. Her
statements as Executive Director of the Committee for Purchase
from the Blind
and Other Severely Handicapped in support of the National
Accreditation Council were being interpreted to mean that the
Committee endorsed NAC. The letter from Abram Claude dated
October 9, 1989, was being regarded as in accord with the
thinking of the Committee. More than ninety days had passed since
Mr. Claude's letter had been written
and mailed. No word had come from the Committee renouncing the
sentiments of Mr. Claude or disavowing the tenor of the
communication. If the Committee had not given its outright
approval to such a message, its behavior clearly indicated tacit
consent. I asked Mrs. Milkman if it were fair for the federal
government to assist NAC in extracting hard-earned dollars from
the pockets of the blind. She responded by telling me that I was
speaking nonsense.
When I asked if the Committee had approved an increase in the
federal dollar amount being paid to NIB, if NIB was being paid
more federal dollars, if NAC was receiving a grant from NIB, and
if the money being paid to NIB was no longer available to pay
wages for the blind, she grudgingly admitted that it was all
true. I asked Mrs. Milkman if she would disavow the statement
made by the Chairman of the Board of National Industries for the
Blind. She said that she could not be certain. I asked her if it
were reasonable for the Committee to lend its name to the support
of private organizations that advocate wage scales below the
federal minimum. She responded that the law permitted such
payments and that the Committee would make no effort to change
this. At several points throughout the discussion, Mrs.  Milkman
said she would have to check with others about the specifics of
what she was prepared to do. National Industries for the Blind
testified on behalf of the Committee for Purchase when the budget
hearings occurred. NIB has considerable influence in affairs of
the Committee for Purchase from the Blind. Whether Mrs. Milkman
retains her position as Executive Director of the Committee or
goes elsewhere
to find work may, in her perception, depend in large part on how
favorably NIB regards her performance. Be this as it may, Mrs.
Milkman has made at least one point absolutely clear. Unless she
is forced to do so, there will be no support from the Committee
for better wages or working conditions for the blind.
The responsiveness of the Committee for Purchase is, perhaps,
exemplified by a letter from Mrs. Milkman to sheltered shops
dated January 24, 1990. In this letter Mrs. Milkman tries to
steer a middle course.  The Committee does not approve of NIB's
position on NAC. However, it does not reject this position.
Strongly implied in the letter is the notion that whatever NIB
and the workshops want to do is perfectly acceptable. This is to
be expected. Mrs. Milkman does not wish to appear to be
controlled by NIB. She does not say that the workshops are
required to pay NAC, but it will be perfectly all right if they
do.
It is said that at the end of the Peloponnesian War, there were
three groups of people the victors, the vanquished, and the
neutrals.
The victors received the spoils. The vanquished were exiled. The
neutrals were killed.  The Committee for Purchase from the Blind
and Other Severely Handicapped has been given by federal law
responsibility for managing the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program. It
cannot simply say that it does not know any better when problems
arise. If the blind are helped, it gets the credit. If the blind
are hurt, it deserves
the blame. When the decisions to be made are hard, the Committee
cannot simply duck them. NIB is demanding that the already meager
wages and poor working conditions of blind shop workers be
further diminished in order to give money to NAC and, of course,
all in the name of standards and quality services. There can be
no justification for such behavior. Mrs. Milkman cannot (like
Pontius Pilate) wash her hands of the matter and turn the
unprotected workers over to the NIB mob. Here is Mrs. Milkman's
letter. It speaks for itself.  

____________________
                                  Committee for Purchase from the
                             Blind and Other Severely Handicapped
                                              Arlington, Virginia
                                                 January 24, 1990


Dear Workshop Director:
It is my understanding that there is some confusion among the
workshops associated with the National Industries for the Blind
(NIB) regarding the position of the Committee on accreditation.
The purpose of this letter is to remove any misunderstanding with
regard to the Committee's present, past, and probable future
position in the Javits-Wagner- O'Day (JWOD) Program.
The Committee does not now require and has never required
accreditation by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind
and Visually Handicapped, the Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities, or any other comparable organization.
Moreover, there are no plans to require such accreditation in the
future. As you are aware, the Committee has its own review
procedures for monitoring workshop compliance with the various
rules established by the JWOD law and the Committee. If workshops
comply with these rules, they are eligible to participate in the
program on an equal basis with other qualified workshops,
regardless of their accreditation status.

This position should not be construed to mean that the Committee
opposes accreditation by any organization or believes that
accreditation per se is harmful or a waste of time. Rather, the
Committee believes that decisions on accreditation are the
province of the individual workshops' boards of directors.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
regarding this matter.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                               Beverly L. Milkman
                                               Executive Director
____________________
The program established in 1938 to help the blind become better
employed has adopted a policy that protects shop managers but
tells blind workers that they must fend for themselves. Mrs.
Milkman and Mr. Claude may well believe that the blind are too
weak to respond effectively to this outrage that we constitute no
danger, no threat. Others have made that mistake and (too late)
have come to regret it. If programs established to help us fail
to give quality service and do not achieve reasonable standards,
we know how to respond. That is why the National Federation of
the Blind exists. We know how to protect ourselves, and we have
both the will and the means to do it.
                                 
OF LITERACY, BRAILLE, 
AND THE ODDITIES OF SEMANTICS
                       by Kenneth Jernigan
 Is it proper to refer to a blind person who cannot read Braille
as illiterate? How much do we owe to the blind of the next
generation, and how can we balance that obligation with the needs
of the blind of today? I recently found myself pondering these
and a variety of related questions. Here is how it happened: 
                                                December 31, 1989
Dear Dr. Jernigan:
I write you to shed some light on a recent controversy I have had
with my fellow Federationists. First of all, I must give you some
background. I have been in a local chapter of the Federation for
over
a year and have attended a national convention, which was an
enlightening experience. Recently I was lobbying in the state
capital for blind rights and further funding. One item on the
agenda (an item which I wholeheartedly supported) was the request
that Braille training
be provided as an option for all children who are identified as
legally blind in the school system. These children would learn
Braille with other traditional reading and writing methods.
I would have been one of those children back in the fifties who
would have benefited from such a program. Now, at middle age,
after dealing with retinitis pigmentosa for a number of years, I
have seen the advantage of learning Braille and am currently
pursuing the study of it.
My dissatisfaction arose when my fellow Federationists referred
to
the adult community, in the process of losing their vision, as 
illiterate.  This term is not appropriate for blind adults since
it is synonymous
with ignorance, lacking education, and violating speaking and
writing patterns. Instead, I prefer to see myself as print
handicapped or unable to access print.
We have recently seen Dustin Hoffman win the Academy Award for
his portrayal of an autistic savant. Twenty years ago, when I was
a freshman and sophomore in college studying many psychologies,
the term was  idiot savant.  When we look to the deaf community,
their strides are highlighted by the avoidance of the term  deaf
and dumb.  Fifteen years ago, I was an employee of our local
board of education working with  emotionally disturbed  children. 
Once again, the terminology has been changed to include  learning
disabled  or the  Office of Special Education.  I make these
illustrations to question the role of semantics in our view of
ourselves and society's view of us.
Let us make an assumption that the word illiterate is correct. Is
a blind person skilled in Braille who experiences diabetic onset
with a loss of feeling in the fingers then considered 
illiterate?  My suggestion is as follows: Avoid emotional pleas
to educators and congressmen at the expense of peers and fellow
Federationists. We should be aware of linguistics and the part
they play. Governmental agencies, libraries, and groups dealing
with the blind look to the blind for cues in language and
descriptive literature as to how we wish to be portrayed.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to any comments you
have regarding this matter.

                                                Very truly yours,
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                 January 11, 1990

Dear   :
I have your thoughtful letter, and I thank you for it. The
dictionary in my office says:  illiterate 1. ignorant;
uneducated; especially, not knowing how to read or write. 
Certainly a blind person who cannot read may be both
well-educated and possessed of learning, but by definition one
who cannot read cannot read. Therefore, according
to the dictionary, such a person is at least one-third illiterate
in
fact, more than one-third since the dictionary uses the word 
especially.   Illiteracy, it tells us, means  especially not
knowing how to read or write. 
This brings us to the question of what it means to be able to
read.  Again, I turn to the dictionary in my office. It says: 
read1
1. a) to get the meaning of (something written, printed,
embossed, etc.) by using the eyes, or for Braille, the finger
tips, to interpret its characters or signs.   That is what the
dictionary says, and the definition seems quite clear.
You are right in saying that the term  illiterate  carries
negative connotations. You are also right in saying that we
should find a way to make Braille available to blind children.
You say that we should not use the term  illiterate  for a blind
person
who does not know Braille but that we should call such a person 
print handicapped  or say that he or she  cannot access print.  
How are we to distinguish between a blind child who reads Braille
fluently and one who cannot read at all?  Both are  print
handicapped,  and neither can  access print.  There is, of
course, an exception.  What about the blind person who puts a
print page on a Kurzweil Machine and thus  accesses print? 
If we go to legislators and tell them that Braille must be made
available to the  print handicapped  or those who cannot  access
print,  I fear that some of them (being  truly  illiterate) will
not know what we are talking about. We must find a way to get
their attention and help them cut through the jargon of some of
the educators, so that blind children will have the opportunity
to learn to read. In matters dealing with blindness, legislators
(like the general public) tend unquestioningly to take the word
of the so-called experts not the blind, who live with the
problem, but the professional educators, who theorize about it.
Still, we must get their attention and make them understand, and
it must be done in a manner that is not only true but also
graphic and effective. Everybody (legislators, the general public
everybody) knows that to be illiterate is bad, and everybody
knows (it is accepted without a second thought) that those who
cannot read are illiterate. Therefore, a rather cryptic and
powerful way of making our point is to say that a blind child who
is denied the right to learn Braille is forced to be functionally
illiterate which, incidentally, is often the case and which in
certain subtle ways is, at least to some extent, true of all of
those who are so deprived. At least, so the dictionary tells us. 
Actually we are dealing on the one hand with semantics and on the
other with the very real down-to-earth question of what we can do
to see that blind children have the opportunity to learn Braille. 
As I have already said, there are certainly negative connotations
to the term  illiterate,  and nobody wants to cast aspersions on
blind adults who, for whatever reason, did not learn to read
Braille.  So we have to speak with care and sensitivity, but we
must also speak with whatever acerbity is required to see that
blind children have
the chance to be and do all that they can and this means the
chance to learn Braille. For the blind person there is simply no
substitute.  In the heat of battle, when we are trying to get
something which is urgently needed for our children, we may
sometimes forget to be temperate in our language. We should be
careful about this. In our attempt to help the next generation we
must try to avoid doing things which will hurt the present
generation. But after saying all of this, I come
back to the central point. Today's blind and visually impaired
children simply must not be deprived of the right to learn to
read Braille.  This is key to their future, and we are the ones
who have to get the job done. The children cannot do it for
themselves, and their parents do not always have the background,
the information, or the clout to do it.
In a sense what I have said does not directly deal with some of
the central points in your letter. I do not believe that an adult
who
has learned to read and has thereby become  literate  is
generally regarded as illiterate if he or she loses the physical
capacity to continue to be able to read. This may not precisely
square with the dictionary definition, but I think that
definition does not contemplate such a situation.
Moreover, there is the added question of whether one is reading a
book when one gets the information from a tape recorder, a live
reader, a speech synthesizer, or (as I have already said) a
Kurzweil Reading Machine. The dictionary would imply that one is
not, but the matrix
for the dictionary definition was formed in pre-technology days,
fashioned by people who had probably not thought about the
questions we are discussing. I had always believed that the
definition of reading was  getting the thought from the printed
page.   By this definition listening to a book on a tape would
qualify, even if one generation removed. A sighted person reads a
print book (or a blind person reads a Braille book) into a
recorder, and a listener later activates that recorder, thus (one
generation removed) getting the thought from the printed (or, I
suppose, the Brailled) page.
Still, when I stand before an audience of 2,000 people and read
the text of a speech, we do not say that the audience read my
speech.
We say that I read it and that they listened to it. But later if
they
hear it on a cassette (especially if it is included in a
publication like, say, the  Braille Monitor ), we may say that
they read it. Does that mean that they are  literate  if they
have access to
a recorder,  illiterate  if they lose that access, and  literate 
if they get it back? Probably not. One could be driven to the
madhouse at the extremity of such speculations.
Ah, the labyrinthine complexities of semantics and human speech!
The trouble is that the matter does not end with semantics but
translates
into opportunity or crushing deprivation. Certainly the National
Federation of the Blind is cognizant of and sensitive to the
nuances of language in setting the tone of public behavior toward
the blind. All one need do to verify this fact is read President
Maurer's banquet speech of 1989 or mine of 1983.
In trying to get opportunities for our children we must not say
or do things which will damage the present generation of adult
blind persons, but I reiterate that (regardless of semantics,
hair-splitting distinctions, definitions, or high-flown
professional theory) we absolutely must see that blind children
have the chance to learn to read and that the climate of opinion
in the schools (including the nuances
of language) encourages and nourishes that chance. At the bottom
line this means that blind and visually impaired children (all of
them) must have the opportunity to learn Braille. Otherwise,
their horizons will be narrowed and their prospects limited.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               Executive Director
                                 National Federation of the Blind
                                 
WHY BRAILLE?
 The following letters to the editor, which appeared in the 
Baltimore Sun  between June 17 and November 4, 1989, illustrate
with stark clarity the crisis facing everyone concerned about the
growing illiteracy of blind youngsters at the mercy of too many
so-called experts in the field of education. Barry Frieman, whose
sensible letter began the furor, is a professor at Frostburg
State College. He understands the issues and is concerned that so
many children for whom print reading is slow and difficult are
being denied instruction in the Braille that would allow them to
be competitive with their sighted peers.   The full exchange of
views is reprinted here from the Winter, 1990, edition of the 
Braille   Spectator , the publication of the National Federation
of the Blind of Maryland. Here's what the general public, the
Federation, and the Maryland School for the Blind had to say: 
                                                    June 17, 1989
Editor:
College students are becoming increasingly skilled in the use of
computers, but we would not think of taking away their notebooks
and pens. It's hard to use a computer and take notes in class,
write notes to friends, or write down a new friend's phone
number. We wouldn't think of doing away with paper and pencils in
our schools. Unfortunately we are doing just that with blind and
visually impaired students by teaching them to use machines and
by discouraging the teaching and use of Braille.

Instead of discouraging the learning of Braille, we must motivate
and encourage the use of this essential tool. If not, we will
create a class of functionally illiterate children ill-equipped
to go to college or hold most responsible jobs.
In order to meet the educational needs of blind and other
visually impaired children, greater attention must be paid to the
preparation of Braille teachers. The state must re-evaluate the
minimum standards now in force to certify teachers of Braille.
We must teach Braille so that blind and other visually
handicapped children can achieve their full educational
potential.

                                       Barry B. Frieman, Columbia
____________________
                                                     July 7, 1989
Editor:
In response to Professor Barry Frieman's letter on the teaching
of
Braille (Saturday, June 17):
Prospects are bleak for Maryland's blind and visually impaired
school-age children, since the  experts  in special education
continue
to discourage the teaching and use of Braille. Without adequate
Braille skills for taking notes and keeping records, blind and
visually impaired children will be ill-equipped for productive
employment in their adult years.
The Maryland School for the Blind, which should be at the
forefront of teaching Braille, can give you a million reasons why
a particular blind child cannot learn Braille. For the mere
handful of its students who are taught Braille, motivation and
encouragement are certainly lacking. This year, none of the
Maryland School for the Blind's students were entered in the
National Federation of the Blind's Braille-reading contest the
only nation-wide Braille reading competition. It is hypocritical
for a school for the blind to claim to offer quality education
and not encourage its students to learn Braille.
In the public schools, even when parents know enough to ask for
Braille instruction, they are told that it isn't necessary. If
they persist
in their demands, the local education agency starts to play its
bureaucratic stalling game. Parents of a blind child in Baltimore
County had to go to due process hearings before the county and
the state, causing their child to lose two years of valuable
instruction time in Braille.

Do school districts refuse to teach Braille because their
teachers
are not competent to teach it? It is clear that the competence
required of teachers to teach Braille is unacceptably low. We
would not tolerate the teaching of reading and writing (in print)
by a teacher who has completed only one semester of training in
reading and writing, and
who has not mastered the techniques well enough to use them in
practice.  Yet this is the acceptable requirement for teachers of
Braille in Maryland.
The Maryland State Library for the Blind, the primary source of
reading materials for the blind, has no children's librarian and
only 200 Braille titles for primary school-age youngsters. We may
laugh off
a library with such pathetic offerings for children, but parents
simply do not have the option of going to their neighborhood
bookstore to purchase Braille books for their blind children.
The resources needed to improve the teaching of Braille are
modest.  Education officials do not seem to have either the
understanding or the commitment needed to prepare blind children
for productive lives.  With the best of intentions, we are
creating a class of functional illiterates.

                                          Sharon Maneki, Columbia
                                 [President, National Federation 
of the Blind of Maryland]
____________________
                                                    July 23, 1989
Editor:
As superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind, I am
compelled to reply to Sharon Maneki's July 7th letter about MSB's
teaching of Braille.
Our board of directors, which includes members who are blind, has
repeatedly reviewed and affirmed the school's philosophy of
teaching each child to read in the best medium for that child.
I am proud that this school has a national reputation for quality
individualized education of students whose capabilities cover a
wide range, from above-average students whose only disability is
visual impairment to students who are developmentally disabled
and severely and profoundly handicapped.
The school does not  discourage the teaching and use of Braille.  
On the contrary, all students who are capable of learning the
Braille system and who don't have enough useful vision to read
print learn Braille.
We are very pleased that because of a generous bequest, in the
next school year we will be able to employ a full-time Braillist
and add to our inventory of Braille equipment.
Although only about 16 percent of all visually impaired children
who are able to read in the United States use Braille, at the
Maryland School for the Blind, 25 percent of the students with
the intellectual capability to learn to read are using or
learning to use Braille.  We have students who are exceptional
Braille readers, using special Braille codes to read music and
mathematical and scientific notation.

This past school year, 30 MSB students participated in Pizza
Hut's  National Reading Incentive Program.   Both Braille and
low-vision readers could take part in a contest that is enjoyed
by disabled and nondisabled children. Ten-year-old Paul Jackson,
a Braille reader, led the way among MSB students by reading 50
books. The previous year, MSB students received awards in the
National Federation of the Blind's Braille reading contest.
The Maryland School for the Blind is a unique Maryland
institution which is committed to addressing the needs of all
visually impaired children in the state, including the
multi-handicapped. Among the school's highly trained and
motivated staff are excellent Braille teachers and practitioners.
We are proud of all our students, our staff, and our programs.

                                      Richard L. Welsh, Baltimore
                                                [Superintendent, 
Maryland School for the Blind]
____________________
                                                  August 17, 1989
Editor:
I have read the recent series of letters in the  Sun  regarding
Braille literacy with more than passing interest. Sharon Maneki
in her letter of July 7 referred to a boy whose parents had to go
through two due-process hearings over nearly a two-year period
before the state finally ordered the Baltimore County school
district to teach their child Braille. That boy is my son.
What the letter did not say was that one of the key witnesses
against allowing our son to learn Braille was a long-time
employee of the Maryland School for the Blind. Although this man
had never met our son, much less evaluated him, he testified
against us on the basis that the Maryland School for the Blind
had a policy against teaching Braille unless it had to. In short,
if you are totally blind and have no other problems, the school
will probably teach you Braille.  But what about the large
population of blind children who, like my son, can read some
print, but in limited ways? There are children who can only read
print with a large TV screen magnifier, children who can only
read for short periods of time before they must stop
because of pain and fatigue. There are children who have  pinhole 
vision and can only see a few words at a time. Then there are the
children who have deteriorating eye conditions. It is not
uncommon for these youth to lose their ability to use print at
critical times in their lives just as they start college or as
they are trying
to establish themselves in jobs. These are the children whom the
Maryland School for the Blind will not teach Braille. I know.
Even though my son was never a student at that school, he was
almost a victim of its Braille policy.
Unfortunately, many parents buy into the school's false
reasoning.  The necessity for Braille is often not recognized
until one is trying to get a job or hold a job. That's a bad time
to try to learn.
Braille illiteracy is now recognized by all major agencies and
organizations serving the blind as the foremost problem in the
education of blind children. It has become a prominent topic in
blindness journals.  Dr. Richard Welsh at the Maryland School for
the Blind would have
the public and parents of blind children believe that all is
wonderfully well for blind children in this state and that every
child who needs Braille instruction gets it. I know from personal
experience that this is not so. This is a tragedy that must be
stopped.

                                     Barbara Cheadle, Catonsville
         [President, Parents of Blind Children Division, National
Federation of the Blind]
___________________
                                               September 27, 1989
Editor:
As an alumnus of the Maryland School for the Blind and as an
officer
of its board of directors, I am a strong advocate of Braille
instruction for blind children, and I use Braille myself.
However, Braille is not the best reading medium for every child
who attends the school.

The school's policy regarding instruction in Braille was
misrepresented in an August 17 letter to the editor. Barbara
Cheadle represented
the school's policy as  If you are totally blind and have no
other problems, the school will probably teach you Braille. 
The Maryland School for the Blind believes strongly in the value
of Braille for many visually impaired children. Our obligation is
to find the best solution that will help each child become as
literate as possible.
Contrary to Mrs. Cheadle's impressions, most of the children who
learn Braille at the school have additional problems besides
their visual impairment. Nearly half of them have some mild
degree of mental retardation.  Six are deaf-blind or have serious
hearing impairments. Several have neurological or motor
disabilities. Several have learning disabilities.  In short, they
are representative of the multiple-handicapped population of the
school.
Many of our Braille students began as print readers and were
switched to Braille when it became clear that they could not
achieve their full academic potential as print readers. Some are
able to read print, but it is obvious that their vision is
failing, and they have begun to learn Braille in preparation for
the time when they will need it.  However, for students whose
visual condition is stable and who are able to function well as
print readers, we help them become as literate as possible in the
medium in which they function best.
Three students whose changing visual condition indicates that
they will need Braille eventually are resisting the staff's
efforts to
help them learn Braille. This is not an unusual reaction for
adolescents, and it usually disappears given time, personal
support, and sensitive instruction.
The school's responsibility is to do the best it can for each
individual who is referred to us. Even though our students share
the common problem of a visual impairment, they are very
different individuals with very different needs. Even though some
people advocate teaching Braille to all visually impaired people,
we put our resources and efforts into treating all our students
as individuals.

                                      Dennis J. Fisher, Baltimore
____________________
                                                 November 4, 1989
Editor:
The Maryland School for the Blind claims that its position on the
teaching of Braille has been misrepresented by proponents of
Braille instruction for all students who meet the legal
definition of blindness.  To the contrary, no such
misrepresentation has been committed.
In their letters, the two writers are quite clear. The Maryland
School for the Blind insists on serving as sole arbiter of who
is, and who is not, fit to learn Braille. The Maryland School for
the Blind claims to be the infallible predictor of which child
will suffer future vision loss and therefore needs Braille and
which child will not suffer future vision loss and therefore does
not need Braille.
The School's claim of meeting the individual student's needs by
not teaching Braille is ridiculous. Try taking notes with a
closed circuit TV magnifier, or try searching for a piece of text
recorded on an audio cassette. These can't be done as efficiently
as they can in Braille.
The proponents are simply suggesting that it would be a good idea
to offer Braille instruction to all children who meet the legal
definition of blindness. As is the case with reading and writing
print, reading and writing Braille can be learned most easily
during childhood.
As a matter of public policy, all sighted children are taught to
read and write print, regardless of their audio or visual (or
even tactile) learning modalities. The degree to which sighted
children master (print) reading and writing skills and the future
utility sighted children derive from these skills are correctly
left as matters of individual choice. The same policy should
apply to Braille skills for blind children.

Further attempts by the Maryland School for the Blind to explain
its positions are not needed. On the fundamental issues
concerning the education of blind children, the Maryland School
for the Blind comes up short.

                                          Sharon Maneki, Columbia
                   ALL WE WANTED WAS TO DANCE
                          by Karl Smith
 From the Editor:  In the November, 1989,  Braille Monitor  we
carried an article entitled  Louisiana Center for the Blind
Students Attend Class in the School of Hard Knocks.  Karl Smith
of Utah, who was a student at the Louisiana Center for the Blind
at the time, was one of those involved. His account of what
occurred parallels to some degree what we have already reported.
Nevertheless, it is worth carrying, for it provides in firsthand
graphic detail the feelings and thoughts of one who was there. 
 Although we often deal with the broad sweep of events, we must
never forget that history is made by individual human beings.
While the incident (whatever it may be) is occurring, the
individual involved feels and hopes and fears in the immediate
present. Karl Smith's account of what it was like that night in
West Monroe gives us new insight concerning our struggle for
equal treatment and first-class status.  For that reason his
story is an important milestone on our road to freedom, serving
as a reminder for those who have had similar experiences and as a
spur to preparation for those whose tomorrows are yet to come.
Here is how Karl remembers it: 

The night of Friday, June 2, 1989, began as an evening of
pleasant and cordial relaxation as our group of sixteen students
and staff from the Louisiana Center for the Blind in Ruston,
Louisiana, headed
to West Monroe, about an hour away, for dinner and dancing. Such
activities are common at the Center. As a matter of course, large
and small groups of students and/or staff are encouraged to
participate in activities in the community such as movies,
concerts, parades, ball games, fairs, horse back riding, etc.
This is, in fact, an integral part of the training at the Center
since many blind people have never had the opportunity to do
these things. Also, many newly blind people do not believe they
can enjoy the same kinds of things they did when they could see.
In addition, seeing blind people participating in these kinds of
normal activities is a very effective way for the public to be
educated to the fact that we are normal people who happen to be
blind and that we can participate fully and equally in the life
of the community where we live.
Little did any of us know that this evening, which began with
such happy anticipation of a good time, would end in one of the
most shocking and dramatic examples of the misconceptions about
blindness and the most blatant case of discrimination any of us
had ever experienced.  And on a personal level it forced us also
to confront our own beliefs about our blindness; to plumb the
depths of our souls, where such decisions are made; and to choose
whether to deny what we believed and turn away, or to stand up
for what we knew to be right and face the unpleasant
consequences.
The evening began with a leisurely dinner at The Warehouse, a
steak and seafood restaurant on the banks of the Washita River.
It was a pleasant time of conversation, laughter, and good food.
Around 9:30 we left the restaurant for Sugie's, a local night
spot with a live country and popular music band, for some
dancing. One reason we chose Sugie's was to hear Talmage Wells, a
locally prominent blind singer and keyboard player. This is
partly because he is good and partly because we hoped perhaps to
show him and those who work with him an example of alternative
techniques which might be helpful to him. Mr Wells has never had
training and does not use a cane. In fact, he never travels
anywhere without a sighted person in attendance.
The band struck up  I'm No Stranger To The Rain  as our group
entered and paid the $2 cover charge, which was  accepted without
comment. As the waitresses pushed tables together to accommodate
our large party, several of us began taking seats. Suddenly I
heard Joanne Fernandes, Director of the Louisiana Center for the
Blind, say that the owner did not want us in the club because it
was crowded and he didn't want us bumping into people and
possibly knocking over tables and spilling drinks and perhaps
being hurt by one of the patrons.
The owner, Mr. Ron Lunsford, then stated that we were welcome to
remain if we wouldn't dance because the dance floor was crowded.
He said that we must sign an agreement that if any drinks were
spilled, we
would pay for them and a waiver that in the event any of us were
injured, we would not sue him. Further, we would also have to
agree to allow one of the club's staff or one of the sighted
members of our party to lead us to the bathroom or to the bar.
Despite our attempts to explain that we used our canes to
navigate independently and that
we did not go around knocking things over, he went on to tell us
that he was only concerned for our safety.
At this point we decided to move back outside in order to take
stock of the situation and consider what, if anything, we should
do about it. I was shocked at this sudden and unexpected turn of
events since this was not the first time we had come to the club.
In March of 1989 a group of students (including me) had come to
Sugie's and had had
a very nice time. It was the first time I had ever had the
confidence to dance in public. The waitresses and other staff
members we met on that occasion were friendly and helpful. The
band welcomed us, announcing to the audience that we were there
and even dedicating a song to us.
As we gathered on the sidewalk, Joanne asked us what we thought
we should do. Some of the group wanted to leave, having lost any
desire to go back in. Others of us felt that we should go in,
believing that this was a clear violation of the Louisiana White
Cane law. As the full realization of what was happening began to
dawn on me, I felt
a flood of different and conflicting emotions, from anger to
humiliation to numb disbelief. Here was a man telling a group of
normal, well dressed, and well behaved blind people that he
didn't want us in his establishment simply because we were blind.
I was reminded of Rosa Parks the black woman who, in the 1950s,
refused to move from her seat in the front of an Alabama bus to
the back after being told to do so simply because she was black,
precipitating the Birmingham bus boycott, which changed the civil
rights movement in this country forever.
After some discussion, we decided to call the editor of the 
Monroe News Star World,  a friend of Joanne's, and tell him what
was happening.  A small group of us went back into the club and
asked to use the phone.  Meanwhile (so we learned later) shortly
after our group re-entered the building, five police cars roared
into the parking lot with sirens blaring and lights flashing.
Unaware of this because of the noise inside we proceeded to the
phone. No sooner had we reached it than we were approached by a
police officer who told us to step outside
and talk to him. Outside once more, the whole scene took on the
characteristics of a bad movie. I had a very hard time really
believing it was happening.  The officer told us we could not go
back into the club because the owner said he didn't want us
there. He was worried about our safety and afraid of being liable
if one of us got hurt. Our attempts to explain the White Cane Law
were useless. He told us not to quote the law to him and that
there were better ways to work for civil rights for the blind.
By this time I do not believe any one of us wanted to go back
into that club. The enthusiasm for music and dancing was
certainly gone.  But I, along with a number of others in our
group, now felt that a point needed to be made and that the issue
had clearly become a matter of civil rights. We must either try
to re-enter the club or lose our self-respect. It was
frightening. The choice was not easy. The officer said that if we
didn't leave immediately, we would be arrested. The challenge was
made. There was no turning back. Like a bully drawing a line in
the sand and daring others to cross, he had ordered us to turn
away and confess that we were second-class. We knew that here was
the turning point, the point at which we must decide either to
run and let the bully have his way or cross that line and break
his hold on us.
Gathering our resolve, a group of seven or eight of us headed
toward the door. The officer moved into the doorway, blocking our
path. He
said that if we attempted to push past him, we were going to be
arrested.  We gathered close around him and tried to get past.
Words were exchanged about our civil right to enter a public
establishment without restriction.  Looking back on it now, the
scene seems almost unbelievable even to me. A group of normal
people, who happened to be blind and who simply wanted to enjoy a
relaxing evening out, were confronted by an armed policeman,
refusing us access to a public establishment in direct violation
of the law, as patrons looked on over his shoulder from
inside and others sat on the hoods of their cars or stood on the
sidewalk nearby. Over the turmoil could be heard the sound of the
band inside, pounding out  Pink Cadillac  and the crackling
static of the police car radios. And adding to the unreality of
it all were the red and blue revolving lights atop the police
cars, casting an erie, undulating glow. I remember thinking that
this reminded me of the 1960s when police blocked entrances to
theaters and restaurants to prevent blacks from entering. The
similarity was even more striking because of the blind keyboard
player entertaining, oblivious, inside as blind people wishing to
hear him were refused entrance.  Suddenly things seemed to happen
all at once. Our group around the
door broke up as the police officer moved forward, saying to the
others,  All right, let's arrest them.  I heard another officer
reading us our rights and the ratcheting sound of hand cuffs. As
it turned out, Michael Baillif, a Center student, was the only
one of us to be handcuffed. Joanne Fernandes (the Director of the
Center), Harold Wilson, and I (both students) were placed in one
squad car and Michael was placed in another. For reasons we never
determined, we were the only ones to be arrested. We were taken
to the West Monroe police station and after approximately two
hours of questioning, filling out of forms, and having our finger
prints and mug shots taken, Joanne and I were charged with
violating City Code Sections 11-306 (remaining on land after
having been forbidden) and 11-307 (aiding and abetting others to
remain on land after having been forbidden). Michael Baillif and
Harold Wilson were charged only with remaining on land after
having been forbidden. We were all released on our own
recognizance, and arraignment was set for June 28, 1989.
On Thursday, June 8, we met with Mr. Frank Snelling, a prominent
Monroe attorney and husband of Mary Landrew (Louisiana's state
Treasurer), and with the West Monroe City Attorney, Mr. Harvey
Blackwell. After considerable discussion with frequent references
to the Louisiana White Cane Law, Mr. Blackwell agreed to drop all
charges against us.  Unfortunately, however, it was not due to a
real understanding of our point of view but rather Mr.
Blackwell's desire to extract from us a promise that we would not
sue the city of West Monroe or the police department for false
arrest and for their violation of the White Cane Law. In fact he
said that the mayor of West Monroe had told him not to prosecute
any of us and to make sure the city got no more bad publicity
over the matter. In return for our agreement
not to take any action against West Monroe or the police, Mr.
Blackwell agreed to disseminate copies of the White Cane Law to
all members of the West Monroe police department and to do staff
training of his officers to make sure that in the event something
like this ever happens again in any business establishment, it
will be the proprietor who is arrested rather than blind people.
In the months which have passed since June 2, 1989, the furor
which has raged in newspapers and on radio and TV throughout
Louisiana and nationwide (with an Associated Press story
appearing in  USA Today  on June 5) has ranged from positive
understanding to some of the most vicious and obtuse examples of
sensationalism that I have ever known.  It would be hard to
believe if I had not lived through it. Certainly this
dramatically illustrates the public attitudes and misconceptions
about blindness which we must change. It brings into sharp focus
the opposing philosophies about blindness which are contending
for supremacy.  So where does all of this leave us? Now that the
immediate heat and emotion have faded somewhat, the entire
incident can be viewed in perspective. Sitting in the back of
that police car I experienced feelings of anger, fear,
frustration and disbelief. These emotions boiled up in me as
never before in my life. Since then, these feelings have somewhat
dimmed, being replaced with sober reflection on what the NFB
really means and how important the support of its members is to
me and others trying to become independent, responsible blind
people able to compete on terms of equality in a predominately
sighted society.
For me, it has been much like passing through the refiner's fire. 
I came to the Louisiana Center for the Blind after becoming
totally
blind last year because I wanted to learn the skills of blindness
such as Braille, cane travel, and daily living skills. But even
more than that, I wanted to be in a place where positive
attitudes about blindness permeate the very atmosphere a place
where I could really learn at the gut level what I had only known
intellectually before, that
I am a normal person who happens to be blind, with as much to
contribute
to society as anyone else with my level of intellect and talent.
Confronting a businessman (a perfect stranger, who has so much
fear, anger, or dislike for me that he is willing to have me and
my friends arrested for simply wanting to enter his establishment
and who is willing to lie to the police and the press, describing
potentially dangerous events which never occurred) brought me
face to face with the disturbing realization that there is an
element of the public who would rather not have us around. No
wonder there is seventy percent unemployment among the workable
blind. If other blind people and I are not continually vigilant
in helping and supporting one another, we will fall into the trap
which has captured Talmage Wells, Sugie's blind singer. When he
was contacted the day after the arrests, Mr. Wells said that he
had worked at that club for seven months and that he did not know
his way to the bathroom and would never consider trying to find
his way around the club without a sighted person. He said he
could not understand why we were unwilling to accept the courtesy
of others
as he does. I believe it is likely that Mr. Lunsford's view of
Talmage Wells's inability to travel independently has colored his
views of all blind people and is partly responsible for the
events of June 2, 1989.
In his 1979 banquet speech,  Blindness: That's How It Is At The
Top Of The Stairs,  Dr. Kenneth Jernigan notes that no minority
ever passes from second-class citizenship to first-class status
without going through a period of hostility. Never has a
statement rung so true for me. To anyone who has ever doubted
that discrimination against the blind exists, these events
demonstrate once again that it does and not only the benevolent
kind which is so subtle that it sometimes goes unnoticed but also
the open and blatant kind, demonstrating the feelings many people
have about us but are afraid or ashamed to express.  The
important thing is what we choose to do about it.
We can sit back and let the Ron Lunsfords of the world keep us
out, letting the police and other state officials violate their
own laws or we can stand up with all of the power and force of
the NFB and let them know that we are no longer willing to be
second-class citizens.  The decision is ours but there is only
one choice we can reasonably make. We must either go forward or
lose much of what we have gained and the choice is not only for
the blind as a group but for each one of us as individuals. I
made my choice on June 2, 1989, and I hope never again to submit
to being second-class or to think or feel that way.
                       BLIND BOSS CHOSEN 
TO RUN SPANISH TV STATION
 From the Editor:  When I was in Spain at the meeting of the
World Blind Union in 1988, I met Miguel Duran. He was poised and
determined.  As we reported in the  Braille Monitor  early in
1988, the Spanish organization of the blind (ONCE) has money and
power. Duran is certainly one of ONCE's driving forces (perhaps
its strongest force). The following article appeared in the
January 13, 1990, London, England,  Daily Telegraph.  Here it is:


A blind Spanish executive is to head one of Spain's three new
commercial television networks.
Seor Miguel Duran, 34, one of the country's most brilliant
businessmen, was named yesterday as managing director of
Tele-Five, one of three consortia awarded a commercial television
franchise late last year.  Until now Spain's television has been
a state-run monopoly.  Seor Duran's message to the blind has
always been:  The only thing we can't do is drive a car. 
Blind since birth, he turned the National Organization of the
Spanish Blind (ONCE) from a charity selling lottery tickets on
street corners into a major holding group in industry and stock.
It has so much financial punch that it was able to take a 25
percent share the maximum allowed under the franchise of the new
television company.
He has completely changed the lifestyle of Spain's blind, using
advertising to promote the lottery sales into a daily national
institution, building training colleges and business schools for
the blind, and making sure that every sightless person earns what
he calls a dignified living.  In his early 20s he mass produced
books in Braille. When he was 28 he was made head of ONCE, and
the image of the blind beggar with the white stick pleading with
people to buy a lottery ticket started to disappear.
Now smartly dressed sellers spend part of the day studying and a
few hours selling tickets.
     FREE RIDES FOR THE BLIND COST US TOO MUCH by Zach Shore
 As  Monitor  readers know, Zach Shore was a 1987 winner of a
National Federation of the Blind scholarship. He is currently a
senior at the University of Pennsylvania and edits the  Blind
Activist,  the publication of the National Federation of the
Blind of Pennsylvania. 
 Blind people must eternally grapple with the question of the
free lunch. If, as is obvious to Federationists, it does not
exist, what
is the price? For the thoughtful blind person, those two-for-one
fares, half-price admissions, and cut-rate transit cards for the
blind are
all charitable programs that give rise to reflection and
self-examination.  In the October, 1989, issue of the  Blind
Activist  Zach Shore wrote insightfully about his evolving
understanding of the matters at stake. Here is what he had to
say: 

I am a blind citizen, and although I once utilized half-fares for
public transportation, I would never accept any blind discounts
today.  In most major cities, blind citizens are permitted to pay
half price or discount rates on all forms of public
transportation. I am opposed to such demeaning and unnecessary
treatment.
For many years I carried my public transit half fare card with me
whenever I traveled in Philadelphia and presented it faithfully
with my money, generally saving about sixty cents a trip. I
believed that, since I could not drive, it was only reasonable
that I should not be penalized for this handicap. Since sighted
people had the option
of driving and I didn't, I reasoned that I was entitled to
compensation.   Besides,  I used to tell myself,  times are
tough. I'm not exactly Donald Trump, and I can't afford not to
take advantage of every chance to save money.  Only much later
did I consider that many sighted people cannot drive for numerous
reasons and they take public transportation as frequently as I
do. I began to reassess my basic assumptions about what I could
and could not afford.  Sigmund Freud noted that there are two
desires common to most humans:  the desire to be loved and
accepted by others, and the yearning to make one's own way in
life financially. Certainly this is as true
of the blind as it is of any other group. I recognize that this
charitable offer of blind discounts is made with only the
sincerest and most well- meaning intentions possible, but
nevertheless, their effect
is extremely detrimental to the blind. Rather than giving us a
helping hand, they prevent us from fulfilling the basic human
desire for financial independence by encouraging blind people to
remain dependent on public handouts.
Half or discount fares serve to reinforce the prevailing social
myths that the blind are the objects of charity and pity, who
exist as social parasites depleting the tax dollars of
hard-working citizens. Every time blind people use a half-fare or
blind discount, they perpetuate the image of the blind as
beggars. The bus driver who is presented
with a half-fare card will invariably associate blindness with
inequality and inability. How can he think anything else? It is
simply not worth the cost.
The price we pay in public attitudes far outweighs whatever we
might save in the immediate cost of transportation. There is a
direct link between blind discounts and our economic and social
status. It is
no accident that 70% of our nation's working-age blind are
unemployed.  The majority of the nation's employers view the
blind as helpless, dependent charity-seekers, rather than
competent, motivated members of the work force and potential
employees.
Part of being American citizens is sharing in both rights and
responsibilities.  We can never hope to gain equal status in
society if we are not willing to take on our financial
obligations, and that means paying our fair share along with
everybody else. As long as we shirk our responsibilities, the
blind will remain second-class citizens with all the misery which
that entails. There are still no free lunches or free rides not
even for the blind. We pay a price for everything we do in life.
For the blind as a minority, the price for half-fares is simply
too high.    SOCIAL SECURITY: FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW 
CONCERNING DISABILITY INSURANCE
                         by James Gashel
Social Security Disability Insurance, known by its initials as 
SSDI,  protects working persons from the complete loss of income
in the event of a disability. Cash benefits are payable to
disabled workers and their dependents. Medicare coverage is also
provided after two years of eligibility for SSDI checks. SSDI is
operated under the principles of insurance, not welfare. Hence,
being poor is not an eligibility requirement.
These concepts are generally applicable to blind persons as well
as to persons with other disabilities. However, several rules
apply in special ways to the blind. These and other significant
eligibility provisions may be categorized as follows: (1) the
blindness requirement;
(2) the substantial gainful activity test; (3) impairment-related
work expenses; (4) fully insured status; (5) recent work test;
(6) period of disability; (7) disability freeze; (8) trial work
period;
(9) working blind age 55 to 65; (10) dependents' benefits; and
(11) Medicare.
The Blindness Requirement: Blindness is a qualifying medical
condition, having a specific definition in the SSDI program. A
person is regarded as blind if central visual acuity is 20/200 or
less in the better eye with the best correcting lens or if the
field of vision is 20 degrees or less. Anyone whose vision is
restricted enough to meet this definition qualifies medically as 
blind.   This is the critical first step in establishing
eligibility for benefits.  Substantial Gainful Activity: The
concept of  substantial gainful activity  (SGA) is used in Social
Security to determine whether or not a blind person will be
entitled to SSDI checks. Thus, blindness is not the only factor
to be considered. SGA is an evaluation of any work which a person
may be doing. The evaluation is based on earnings.  To be
eligible for benefits, a blind person may not perform SGA, or, in
other words, have  countable earnings  exceeding $780.00
per month during 1990. The precise amount of  countable earnings 
permitted per month is increased beginning in January of each
year.   Countable earnings  generally refers to income before
taxes, less any amount of income that does not actually represent
payment for work performed. Any impairment-related work expenses
must also be subtracted from income to reach  countable earnings. 
SGA
is intended to be a measure of a person's ability to work, not a
measure of income. Income subsidies and other benefits that do
not result from work should be subtracted from monthly earnings
in order to reach the  countable earnings  used to determine SGA. 
Impairment-Related Work Expenses: If a blind person who works has
expenses attributable to blindness and necessary for doing the
work, these costs may also be deducted from income in order to
determine SGA. Payments to readers, purchases of aids, and
special transportation expenses (if suitable alternatives are not
available) are examples of deductible impairment-related work
expenses. These deductions will offset earnings which must
otherwise be counted in determining SGA.  Hence, they can make
the difference between eligibility and ineligibility for
benefits.
Fully Insured Status: In addition to meeting the blindness and
SGA requirements, a blind person must have worked long enough
under Social Security-covered employment to be  fully insured. 
How much work depends upon a person's age at the onset of
blindness or at the time the individual ceases to perform SGA.
Two general rules can be stated: one applies to persons age 21 in
1950 or before, and the other applies to anyone younger than
this. A blind person in the former group must have enough
quarters of Social Security-covered employment to equal the
number of years beginning with 1951 up to and including the year
before the year of disability onset. For persons who became age
21 after 1950, begin counting the years starting with the year
after the year in which the person became 21. Count forward up to
and including the year before the year of disability onset. For a
blind person, the term  disability onset  may be defined as
the point at which both of the following conditions exist
simultaneously:
(1) the individual is statutorily blind; and (2) the individual
ceases
to engage in SGA. If both of these conditions do not begin
simultaneously, the year of disability onset will be the year in
which both conditions first exist. Six quarters of covered
employment is the minimum for
SSDI eligibility. However, most persons will need more quarters,
depending upon age and the year of disability onset. The
circumstances are strictly individual.
Recent Work Test: Blind persons are exempt from a  recent work 
requirement, which applies to individuals with other
disabilities.  For a blind applicant, this means that quarters of
covered employment will be counted no matter when they occurred.
The  recent work  rule for others (not the blind) requires
covered employment in five of the most recent ten years. Hence,
disabled persons who are not blind must be fully insured and have
recent work, but only the former requirement applies to the
blind.
Period of Disability: A  period of disability  may be established
for any blind person who works under Social Security-covered
employment.  The period of disability begins when both of the
following requirements are met: (1) the individual is statutorily
blind; and (2) the individual has worked long enough under Social
Security-covered employment to be fully insured. SSDI checks are
payable to a blind person who meets these  period of disability 
requirements and is not performing SGA. For blind persons who are
performing SGA, the period of disability continues even though
entitlement to cash benefit ceases.  Disability Freeze: A 
disability freeze  occurs for any blind person when a period of
disability is established. The freeze protects a blind person's
Social Security earnings record from the effects of low or no
earnings during the period of disability. If the disability
freeze is not applied, virtually all of a person's adult working
years (including years of no earnings) must be counted in
figuring the earnings' average used to establish a monthly
benefit amount. So the disability freeze for a blind person
exempts from the average all years within a period of disability
and is only used if exempting these years would result in a
higher benefit. Conversely, if applying the freeze would result
in a lower benefit amount, the exemption will be disregarded in
order to pay the highest benefit possible.
Trial Work and Extended Eligibility: A person who receives SSDI
checks after an initial five-month waiting period is also
entitled to one  trial work period.   This is a period of nine
months, used for evaluation of the work, plus three  adjustment 
months, during which benefits are automatically payable.
Entitlement to benefits continues uninterrupted during the  trial
work period.   The first nine months of trial work need not be
consecutive. A month is counted as a trial work month any time a
beneficiary earns at least $200.00.
After the first twelve months of trial work, a thirty-three-month 
extended eligibility period  begins. Re-entitlement to benefits
is automatic if work stops any time during this period. During
the first twelve months of the trial work period, earnings of any
amount are permitted. However, if during the first nine months of
trial work, the earnings are regularly above the amount
considered to be SGA, entitlement will be suspended after the
twelfth month of trial work.  On the other hand, if earnings are
less than SGA, checks will continue uninterrupted as long as the
blind person is not found to be performing SGA.
During the thirty-three month  extended eligibility period, 
entitlement to benefits may be suspended on a month-by-month
basis, depending upon earnings each month. Checks are payable for
months when SGA is not performed. Conversely, there is no
entitlement to a check for any month when earnings exceed the SGA
amount. If work with countable earnings above SGA continues at
the end of the entire forty-five-month trial work and extended
eligibility periods, eligibility is terminated, and a new
application must be approved to have disability benefits
reinstated at any point in the future. If, however, earnings from
work do not exceed SGA (or if there are not earnings at all),
entitlement to SSDI checks will continue indefinitely.
Working Blind Age 55 to 65: Blind persons age 55 but not yet age
65 may work while still having the assurance of receiving
disability benefits during any month when SGA is not performed.
This is the effect of a special rule which allows continuing
eligibility for blind persons in this age group who are unable to
perform work requiring skills
or abilities comparable to the work they did regularly before
reaching age 55 or becoming blind, whichever occurred later.
Under this rule, SGA is considered on a month-by-month basis just
as it is during the thirty-three month period of extended
eligibility for a blind person under age 55. In other words,
entitlement to benefits is suspended for any month of SGA and
reinstated for any other month.  Dependents' Benefits:
Eligibility for cash benefits from Social Security is also
extended to blind persons who have not worked but qualify as
dependents or survivors of others. For example, a blind person
may be a dependent of someone who is an SSDI beneficiary, a
retired person receiving Social Security retirement benefits, or
someone who died after becoming fully insured. Blind children,
blind adults, blind widows, and blind widowers may all be
entitled to regular Social Security checks as dependents.
Medicare: Blind SSDI beneficiaries automatically become entitled
to Medicare payments for covered medical expenses after
twenty-four months of eligibility for cash benefits. These months
of eligibility need not be consecutive. Medicare pays hospital
and doctor expenses under certain rules and limitations, which
apply equally to blind, disabled, and retired persons receiving
Social Security checks. If
a person works enough to become ineligible for cash benefits,
Medicare eligibility may continue for forty- eight months of
work. This includes the forty-five-month trial work and extended
eligibility periods.  If a beneficiary becomes ineligible for
SSDI checks, but eligibility resumes in the future for the same
or a related disability, Medicare eligibility should also resume
with the first month of entitlement to cash benefits.
  SOCIAL SECURITY: EMPHASIS ON VENDORS,  BUT FACTS EVERY BLIND
PERSON SHOULD KNOW
                         by James Gashel
The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program pays
monthly cash benefits to people under age sixty-five who have
worked a sufficient amount of time in Social Security-covered
employment or self-employment, provided they are blind or
disabled under the law. Licensed vendors in the Randolph-Sheppard
program are presumably blind under the Social
Security Act since the definition of blindness used in both laws
(Randolph-Sheppard and Social Security) is identical. However,
that does not mean that
every blind vendor automatically qualifies for an SSDI check.
This article is written to respond to the many questions which
continue to arise from vendors or persons assisting them in
determining their potential eligibility for SSDI checks. In many
respects the circumstances under which vendors operate and
receive their income are unique and have unique implications that
must be understood to deal effectively with Social Security
issues. Social Security personnel can apply the requirements of
the law correctly only if we are able to give them
the facts they need to evaluate income and earnings. This is
particularly important for vendors and their advocates. However,
many of the facts and concepts presented here apply to all blind
persons in dealing with Social Security. Nevertheless, we will
highlight the particular considerations that apply in the case of
vendors.

Being Fully Insured

For the blind there are three principal eligibility factors which
are necessary to entitle an individual to receive SSDI benefits:
blindness, being  fully insured,  and having stopped doing 
substantial work.   For those who are not blind, there is a
fourth requirement, being  recently insured.   You need to have
worked the required time under Social Security-covered employment
or self-employment.  The amount of past work required of any
blind person is a matter of individual determination, depending
on when the person became age twenty-one and the year in which
blindness began, or (if blind before or while working) the year
in which the person stopped doing substantial work. For blind
people who became age twenty-one in 1950 or later, quarters of
coverage are calculated as follows: one quarter is needed for
each year elapsing after the year age twenty-one was attained,
up to and including the year before the person became blind or
stopped doing substantial work, whichever occurred later. For
blind people who became age twenty-one before 1950, the years
that are counted to have enough quarters of coverage begin with
1951 up to the year before blindness or the loss of substantial
work occurred, whichever came later. It is not required that
quarters of coverage be earned
in any particular year. It is only that the number of quarters
(regardless of when earned) needs to total the number of years
required for each individual. Younger people who became blind or
stopped doing substantial work in their twenties, for example,
can qualify with as few as six quarters, but no less. Older
people will need substantially more quarters.

Any blind person who has enough quarters of coverage as described
here is called  fully insured.   The Social Security
Administration will tell you how many quarters of coverage you
have. During 1990 a quarter of coverage is credited for earnings
of $520.00 received during a calendar quarter. Four quarters are
credited with earnings of $2,080.00 for the calendar year 1990,
regardless of when the money
is earned during the year. The amount needed to earn quarters of
coverage increases annually beginning in January of each new
year.

Being Recently Insured

Being blind and being fully insured are the first two important
eligibility conditions for SSDI checks. Disabled people who are
not blind must
also meet a third condition, which is called  recently insured.  
They must have worked enough to earn quarters of coverage in at
least twenty of the most recent forty quarters. This means that a
substantial number of their quarters of coverage must have been
earned during at least
five out of the most recent ten years. Social Security personnel
sometimes erroneously apply this recent work requirement to blind
people. But remember, the blind need only be  fully insured,  not 
recently insured. 

Substantial Work

What does it mean when we say that a blind person has stopped
doing  substantial work?   In addition to blindness and being
fully insured, not doing substantial work is the third principal
condition of eligibility for SSDI if you are blind. Generally,
any blind person whose  countable income  is less than $780.00
per month in 1990 is (for purposes of the law) not doing
substantial work. The
amount of time spent at work and the amount of actual labor or
management work done does not count. Only income is evaluated in
the case of blind people applying for SSDI benefits. Seven
hundred eighty dollars is the monthly amount allowed for 
countable income  during 1990. Beginning in January of each new
year, the amount of  countable income  used to measure 
substantial gainful activity  for blind persons increases by law.

Countable Income

All income is not necessarily  countable income.   Your real
income before taxes may be much higher than the amount considered
to be  countable.   Deductions to reach  countable income  may
bring the income below the monthly amount allowed. If someone
helps out in a vending business but is not paid, the reasonable
value of the unpaid help should be deducted from the vendor's
income to reach  countable income.   The unpaid help is a bonus
that
must be subtracted to find the vendor's  countable income.   The
vending machine income that some vendors receive from machines
that they do not operate or service should also be subtracted to
reach  countable income.   This money does not reflect the level
of the vendor's work activity. The vending machine income is
entirely excluded because it is a subsidy. But that is not true
of income from vending machines that the blind vendor services.
It must be counted.

 Unincurred business expenses  are another form of subsidy
that must be excluded from real income to reach  countable
income.   Although space for the vending facility is provided
without charge in most
instances, the value of the space is an  unincurred business
expense.   Without the contribution of the space, the vendor
would have to pay the cost;
so the free space artificially inflates the vendor's income. Its
value should then be subtracted from the vendor's real (before
taxes) income.  The building management should be able to provide
an estimate of the charge per square foot if the space had to be
rented. Free utilities are also an  unincurred business expense.  
Their value can be determined. It is the amount of the utility
costs (even though
the vendor does not pay them) that should be subtracted from the
vendor's income.
 Impairment-related work expenses  should also be considered
and subtracted from the vendor's income. Paid help for clerical
assistance, reading, driving, and other services of a work- and
impairment-related nature can be deducted to determine  countable
income.   Buying devices that are blindness-related and used in
part (or entirely) for work is another form of impairment-related
work expense. Monthly installment payments on accounts for
equipment purchases can be subtracted to reach  countable income. 
 So can care of a dog guide or the purchase of some medications.
Special transportation services, such as taxi fares when public
transit is not available or cannot be used, are also deductible.
Impairment-related work expenses can actually be any costs
resulting from blindness and necessary (at least in part) for
work.
In sum, real (before taxes) income is not necessarily  countable
income,  especially in the case of blind vendors. The Social
Security Administration is only interested in identifying 
countable income  and will exclude other income that is not an
accurate measurement of work. The exclusions include any
subsidies, the reasonable value of unpaid help, unincurred
business expenses, and impairment-related
work expenses. Once these standard deductions have been made, 
countable income  that is below the amount allowed will not be
called substantial gainful work. If  countable income  is above
the monthly amount allowed after all of the deductions have been
made, substantial gainful work has been achieved, and eligibility
for SSDI checks will stop after a trial work period is over. The
trial work period will normally be over if there have been
earnings of $200.00 in any month for nine months, not necessarily
consecutive months.
Social Security Disability Insurance is  in  surance , not 
welfare . You have to earn entitlement by working and paying in
during enough calendar quarters. Once you meet the eligibility
conditions, benefits can then be paid. Being poor is not one of
the conditions.  Rich people also qualify for Social Security.
The question of whether one agrees or disagrees is not really
relevant. The law is the law.  While the Social Security Act is
not everything that it might be, the work incentives we have won
give blind people the opportunity
to get a foothold and begin to support themselves without abrupt
termination of their Social Security benefits. Whatever one may
think of the law, it is certainly better for the blind than it
used to be. And the blind are not now lumped with other groups of
the disabled, something which resulted from NFB efforts. Most
disabled people who are not blind
can only earn $490.00 per month before their SSDI checks are
terminated.  Moreover, they have a much harder time than the
blind in establishing initial eligibility for benefits.
In numbers there is strength, but numbers alone are not enough.
Knowledge and concerted action are also required. The National
Federation of the Blind is a force to be reckoned with. It grows
stronger each day.  What would life for the blind of this nation
be like if the National Federation of the Blind did not exist,
and never had existed?   A WARNING FOR 
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM RECIPIENTS
From the Associate Editor: Most people are unaware that the
Social Security Administration conducts random reviews of its
program recipients in order to confirm their eligibility for
receiving Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. The
Program Review and Integrity Division is charged with randomly
selecting people for these reviews and conducting them. All this
is, as I say, little known and absolutely legal.
The form letter sent to program recipients who have been selected
for review, however, fails to point out that the interview may be
conducted in a location other than the recipient's home if he or
she prefers. The letter informs the individual of the impending
review
and announces that the official will appear at the recipient's
residence to conduct it.
Sharon Gold, President of the National Federation of the Blind of
California, learned about this policy recently, when a
Federationist called the California affiliate's office to inquire
whether or not the review had to take place in her home. The
following letter is the result of Sharon's investigation. We
would all do well to take note of the facts. Such investigations
are legal, but they need not take place in the recipient's home.
Requesting that the interview take place on neutral ground is
psychologically supportive to the recipient being reviewed.
Better yet, the Social Security Administration might consider
mentioning this possibility in the text of its notification
letter. Here is what Sharon Gold wrote to the Program and
Integrity Review Division:

                                           Sacramento, California
                                                 January 24, 1990


Mr. Joseph Gribbin 
Associate Commissioner
Program and Integrity Review
Social Security Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
Baltimore, Maryland


Dear Mr. Gribbin:
This letter is written concerning Social Security Form SSA-
L8550-U3 (7-89), which is used by Quality Review Analysts in the
Program Review and Integrity Division when setting appointments
for random reviews
of any Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
recipients.

I was recently contacted by a local resident who is blind and a
Supplemental Security Income recipient, concerning a letter she
received from the Department of Health and Human Services, Social
Security Administration, Region IX, in San Francisco. The letter
was from Larry Kukan, Quality Review Analyst of the Program
Review and Integrity Division. It explained that the lady's name
had been  picked ... by chance  for this special review to
determine if the amount she receives  is correct.  Through the
form letter Mr. Kukan requested  to visit you AT YOUR HOME... 
and explained that the Social Security law  allows me to visit
and ask you questions. 
The only telephone number provided on this form letter is a
number in San Francisco a long distance call from Sacramento. The
letter specifically says  that  collect calls cannot be accepted 
an extreme hardship on persons with very limited fixed incomes
such as Social Security Program and Supplemental Security Income
recipients.

The reverse side of this form letter sets forth sections from the
Social Security Act which authorize the Social Security
Administration to collect the information requested in the
review.
Anyone reading this form would think that the Social Security
Administration can make a home visit and that such a request is
supported by law.  This gives rise to the implied threat that, if
the Social Security or Supplemental Security Income recipient
does not allow the in-home visit, the benefits may be reduced or
eliminated altogether. This makes the approach by the Social
Security Administration threatening and intimidating.
Absent a properly executed search warrant, the United States
Constitution protects the right of a person to keep his home safe
from unwanted intruders. In other words, a person is free to
invite whom he wishes into his home and leave on the doorstep
those persons whom he does not wish to admit. Although the Social
Security Administration knows that it cannot enforce the  in-home 
visit requested by the
form letter SSA-L8550-U3, the letter does not provide for the
information being requested to be supplied to the Social Security
Administration in a setting other than the recipient's home.
In this day of high crime rates and understandable suspicion,
many people do not want to have strangers in their homes.
Similarly, it seems unusual that the Social Security
Administration would put its employees in the position of being
the stranger in the home. Whether or not the Social Security
Administration chooses to continue the practice, the recipient of
benefits should not be led to believe that he or she  must 
submit to an in-home visit by a stranger rather than have the
evaluation done in a public setting.
The National Federation of the Blind respectfully requests that
the Social Security Administration revise Form SSA- L8550-U3 to
include language which clearly advises the Social Security or SSI
recipient that an in-home visit is optional and which also offers
alternative settings in which the review might take place. In the
case herein discussed, the lady had a means of investigating her
rights, but many recipients do not have this opportunity or are
intimidated by the content of the form letter into believing that
there is no choice.  Upon learning her rights, this lady chose to
have the review held at the office of the National Federation of
the Blind of California, and a telephone call was made to the
Program and Integrity Review Office to request the change in
location.

                                                Very truly yours,
                                           Sharon Gold, President
                                National Federation of the Blind 
of California

P. S. As an added note, I might tell you that I was present
during the meeting. Mr. Kukan was most pleasant, and he was able
to obtain all of the information that he required even though the
meeting was not held in the recipient's home.

cc: J. Kenneth McGill
Office of Disability
Social Security Administration

Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
                                 
BLIND IS BEAUTIFUL
                          by Eric Duffy
 The following article is reprinted from the Winter, 1990 issue
of the  Buckeye Bulletin,  the newsletter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Ohio. Eric Duffy is the First Vice
President of the Ohio affiliate and a 1987 National Federation of
the Blind scholarship winner. Here is what he has to say :

Early in life I concluded that I was an expert when it came to
blindness.  After all, it seemed to me that one who had always
lived as a blind person ought to be able to discuss blindness
without perpetuating the stereotypes and misconceptions that I
already knew existed. I
also believed that, despite attitudinal barriers, I was living a
pretty full life. It seemed to me that I was certainly doing
better than most of my classmates at the Ohio State School for
the Blind. As I grew up, the staff at the school only reinforced
my beliefs. I was told that I was not like most blind people.
They said,  In many ways you really do act sighted. You have a
lot of potential, and you're really going to go far. 
Given this background, it is no wonder that I graduated from high
school believing that I was an exceptional blind person. After
all, I was planning to attend a small private college, which
meant that
I was going to do it without the financial support of the state
rehabilitation agency. Once I got there I joined the marching
band. I was recruited by several of the fraternities on campus,
and I was elected to the Student Senate. There were times when I
was foolish enough to walk around campus without a cane, and I
considered it a compliment when my friends said,  I almost forget
you're blind. 
I never dreamed that applying for a scholarship would teach me
how much I didn't know about blindness. But of course it did, for
the scholarship program to which I am referring was that of the
National Federation of the Blind. Each applicant is required to
submit a letter of recommendation written by an officer of his or
her NFB affiliate in addition to the application for a
scholarship. In order to get this letter, I met with Bob
Eschbach, then president of the National Federation of the Blind
of Ohio. Although I didn't know it at the time, that was a
meeting that would change my life forever.
After becoming active in the Federation, I began to hear people
say things like  it really is okay to be blind.  I also heard
people contend, even more surprisingly, that it is respectable to
be blind. I suppose to some extent these statements of conviction
parallel the strategy within the Black freedom movement when the
phrase  black is beautiful  was a clarion call in their struggle
for equality.
I recently read about a study suggesting that the general public
does not believe that  black is beautiful.   Young children were
given pictures of several women (both Black and White) and asked
to point to the prettiest. The Black women were seldom selected.
The same thing occurred when the children were asked to select
the person whom they believed to be the most intelligent.
I suspect that blind people would fare even worse than Blacks did
if a similar study were done involving us. This conviction is
strengthened when I hear people say things like,  She's
beautiful. It's too bad she's blind   or  She's really quite
bright, but she's blind.  Obviously most people do not believe
that  blind is beautiful.  However, that may soon be changing.
Kimberly Bundy (newly-elected secretary of the National
Federation of the Blind of the Miami Valley) may be responsible
for some of this change. Kim who is blind has competed for
several years in the Miss Miamisburg Pageant, the first stage in
the Miss America competition.  In previous years the judges have
let their attitudes about blindness interfere in their assessment
of Kim's beauty, talent, and other abilities.  Several of them
even asked her,  If you did win, how would you get around during
the Miss Ohio Pageant?   Of course, Kim was able to answer this
question. However, for many years her answers were not good
enough. In fact, I believe that in spite of winning
the most recent pageant, her answers to such questions are (when
taken independently) still not good enough. Our history teaches
us that
none of us makes it alone. It is possible for us to make the
individual progress that we do as blind people only because of
what we are able to accomplish collectively. Those who came
before us opened doors which we are now able to walk through. In
the same way we will open doors for the next generation of the
blind. However, just as Kim Bundy (like the rest of us) has
benefited from the work of the National Federation of the Blind,
all blind people will benefit from the efforts of Miss Bundy. For
as I said, Kim was a winner in the most recent Miss Miamisburg
Pageant. She is now preparing for competition in the Miss Ohio
Pageant in June. If Kim can walk down the runway using her white
cane and win this pageant, we will all be one step closer to
freedom.
Whether or not Kim wins the pageant, what she is doing is
important
to all of us. Kim is demanding that she be seen as a competent,
independent, blind person. If she is to have a chance of winning,
she must convey to others her belief that it is respectable to be
blind. She must convince the world that she believes it is okay
to be blind. However, if Kim walks down the runway without either
her dog guide or a white cane, people will assume that she is
trying to hide her blindness.  Kim has several good reasons for
not using her dog guide in these pageants. However, the only
reason she does not use a cane today is that she was not given
proper instruction in the use of the cane as a student at the
State School for the Blind, where she enrolled in order to
develop the skills of blindness. However, Kim is now learning to
use the cane with the help of her blind brothers and sisters. By
June she will be able to walk down that runway cane in hand,
telling the world that she is content being who she is; that it
is respectable to be blind; and, yes, that  blind is beautiful. 
                                 
WASHINGTON SEMINAR: 1990


 The National Federation of the Blind's 1990 Washington Seminar
(conducted from Sunday, February 3 to Wednesday, February 7) was
one of the best we have ever held. The preceding Friday more than
one hundred early-bird Federationists from around the country,
most of them students, gathered for an all-day Saturday seminar
sponsored by the Student Division.  The day was packed with
informative and thought-provoking agenda items and was climaxed
by a banquet Saturday evening with an address delivered by James
Gashel, the Federation's Director of Governmental Affairs.  Scott
Labarre, a student at St. John's College in Minnesota and a
member of the Student Division Board of Directors, emceed the
banquet, and his considerable skills in chairing were required to
control the exuberant audience. Everyone had a marvelous time
that evening, and with renewed enthusiasm and determination,
participants promised one another to invite even more students
next year to this exciting and educational event.
On Sunday evening, February 3, 1990, nearly four hundred people
gathered for the first event of the Washington Seminar, a
two-hour briefing.  The crowd heard from Dr. Jernigan, President
Maurer, and James Gashel about issues of current importance to
the organization and about the details of the seminar. Dr.
Jernigan announced that Lynn Cutler, Vice Chair of the Democratic
National Committee, would address the group the following evening
during the briefing. More discussion was devoted to a press
conference planned for Tuesday, February 6, during which
President Maurer and Congressman James Traficant, primary sponsor
of the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals bill, along with
several co-sponsors were to call for stepped-up efforts to pass
this legislation now that the Department of Transportation has
agreed to publish its final regulations implementing the Air
Carrier Access Act before March 30, 1990.
A dozen or so news organizations attended the press conference on
Tuesday and produced stories about the issue in the days
following the press conference. Room 2220 in the Rayburn House
Office Building, scene of the press conference, was fairly small,
so the more than two hundred and fifty Federationists who
gathered for the event stood patiently in the hall, demonstrating
their determination to end airline discrimination. President
Maurer reported to the group at the close of the meeting, and the
crowd responded with a mighty cheer and a spontaneous rendering
of our song,  Let's go out to the Airport.  It was clear that
neither the news media nor the occupants of near-by offices were
used to such enthusiasm and such discipline in the halls of
Congress. This is a reaction that we encounter often. It is this
commitment and energy focused on achieving our goals that
explains why we accomplish so much in our efforts to improve the
lives of blind Americans. Here is the legislative agenda of the
organized blind movement for 1990:

For more information please contact:
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
(301) 659-9314


                     LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 1990 



From: Members of the National Federation of the Blind
To: Members of the 101st Congress
Re: The Blind: Legislative Priorities for the Second Session
of the 101st Congress

Blindness has a dramatic impact on the lives of millions of U.S.
citizens.  One-half million people in this country are blind, and
fifty thousand Americans become blind each year. The lives of
millions of others friends, neighbors, family members, business
associates, and co-workers (although not blind themselves) are
nonetheless affected by blindness and its social and economic
consequences. As a result, public policies and laws concerning
the blind have a profound impact throughout our society.
The blind themselves are best able to understand and explain the
personal and social impact of blindness. Loss of eyesight is a
unique condition.  It is not debilitating in a general sense.
Most blind people (and
those who know them) do not regard the blind as disabled. Still,
misclassification of the blind as disabled has become the
greatest social limitation
we face.
If a blind person has proper training and opportunity, the
physical loss of eyesight itself can be reduced to the level of a
mere nuisance.  Misconceptions about blindness, coupled with lack
of good training
and limited opportunities, are the real handicaps. Although most
sighted people have had some contact with blindness, it is still
largely misunderstood, and it continues to be more a problem of
public attitudes than physical disability.
Public policies and laws that result from misconceptions about
blindness or lack of information are often more handicapping to
the blind than
loss of eyesight itself. This is why we have formed the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB). We are the blind speaking for
ourselves, and the NFB is our vehicle of self-expression. We join
the NFB through local chapters and statewide organizations which
are located everywhere in the United States.
The blind are well organized at the grass-roots level throughout
the United States. Our policy positions are developed and
determined by vote of the blind themselves. This is why lawmakers
and the public at large now recognize the NFB as the voice of the
nation's blind.  Our priorities for the second session of the
101st Congress express our assessment of current issues requiring
action by Congress on behalf of blind persons of all ages.
(1) Congress should enact the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act. This request seeks approval of legislation to
make unmistakably clear the Congressional intent that persons who
are blind may not
be subjected to unfair and discriminatory restrictive seating
practices of airlines. The  Air Carrier Access Act  (Pub. L.
99-435) already prohibits discrimination against  the handicapped

in air travel, but the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Department of Transportation are preparing to issue restrictive
seating rules requested by the airlines. The rules are expected
to give commercial flight crew members a choice in classifying
passengers as those who may have direct access to emergency exits
and those who may only have secondary access. Blind persons would
by regulation always have secondary access to the exits.
The airlines and federal authorities appear to have little regard
for the law or the will of Congress. It is outrageous that blind
people are still subjected to arrests when they take seats
assigned to them by the airlines. Law-abiding blind citizens have
been hauled off to jail for not accepting discriminatory orders
by airline personnel.  Yet DOT enforcement authorities refuse to
intervene to protect the personal liberties and safety of blind
passengers. The fact sheet entitled  Air Travel Rights for the
Blind  gives more details and suggests specific legislation that
the 101st Congress should enact.  There would be no cost to
anyone, including the government and the airlines.
(2) Congress should approve the  Right to Participate Without
Modification  amendment during further consideration of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This request seeks to prevent
future use of
the Americans with Disabilities Act as a source of legalized
discrimination against the blind. Our common experience is that
laws which prohibit discrimination against the disabled as a
general class tend to have distorted and unintended effects which
may be detrimental in specific disability cases. The  Right to
Participate Without Modification  amendment would establish
clear-cut requirements that must be met
in order for modified services or benefits to be provided in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
It is harmful to us when accommodations are made that falsely
imply limitations caused by blindness. From the moment it is
signed into law, the Americans with Disabilities Act will affect
blind persons and millions of others in almost every activity of
our lives. Even the small gains made in passing equal rights laws
for the blind and disabled in many states will be threatened or
could be lost forever.  The right of access for some should not
also become the right to cause discrimination against others
those of us who already have access.  The fact sheet entitled 
Preventing Legalized Discrimination Against the Blind: Changes
Needed in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
gives more details on the  Right to Participate Without
Modification  amendment. If The Americans with Disabilities Act
becomes law, it must include this amendment.
(3) Congress should amend the Social Security Act to give blind
persons the flexibility they need in choosing acceptable and
desirable sources of post-secondary training and employment
services. This request
seeks enactment of legislation to allow blind persons to select,
design, and pursue the assistance required to become employed and
self-supporting.  Under existing law beneficiaries of Social
Security programs (and all other blind people seeking training
and employment services) are blocked in most cases from obtaining
this help through any agency other than the one designated to
provide rehabilitation services to the blind in each state.
Existing law authorizes Social Security to reimburse the state
agencies when a beneficiary achieves employment, but states are
reluctant to participate substantially in this results-oriented
program. Funding participants (rather than programs) would be a
better option. That can be done by letting each beneficiary
choose the agency or training source that will be most
responsive. The beneficiary (not a government agency) is often in
the best position to know which training sources can best meet
the need. Under a plan which gives blind beneficiaries greater
freedom to choose among providers for their training and
employment programs, cost-effective reimbursement for services
could be made
to private agencies and training sources as well as to state
rehabilitation agencies. The fact sheet entitled  Breaking the
Monopoly: Expanding Choices in Rehabilitation for Blind Adults 
gives more details and an outline of the specific legislative
changes that the 101st Congress should enact.
Blind people are asking for your help in securing positive action
by Congress in the areas outlined here. Legislative proposals are
now pending to achieve each of our objectives. Many priorities
confront this session of Congress, but the needs of the nation's
blind must not be neglected in the legislative agenda this year.
We of the National Federation of the Blind stand ready to assist
our Representatives and Senators to understand our needs and to
take meaningful action to address them. In partnership with the
National Federation of the Blind, each member of Congress can
help build better lives for the blind both today and in the years
ahead.
____________________
For further information contact:
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland  21230
(301) 659-9314


                           Fact Sheet
                 Air Travel Rights for the Blind


S. 341 (S. Rept. 101-45), H.R. 563
Short title: A bill to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to
prohibit discrimination against blind individuals in air travel. 



Senators to cosponsor: contact Senator Hollings. 
Staff contact: Steve Palmer, Majority Staff, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, (phone) 4-9350.

House members to cosponsor: contact Congressman Traficant.  Staff
contact: Dan Blair (phone) 5-5261.


The Problem: Arbitrary restrictions on seating of blind
passengers are a most common form of degrading discrimination
against the blind in air travel. Airline personnel routinely
humiliate and bully blind
people for sitting in their assigned seats near emergency exits.
Law-abiding blind passengers are even arrested and hauled off to
jail for taking seats assigned to them by the airlines.
Lengthy flight delays are common in these incidents. Airline
personnel create the delays and use them as a tactic to humiliate
blind passengers publicly. As a result other passengers are
encouraged to side with the airlines and are incited to express
anger against the blind. In
these situations blind persons are trapped and subjected to
discriminatory treatment which cannot be resolved merely by
moving from seats near exits.
Existing Law and Regulations: Section 404(c) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (enacted by Pub. L. 99-435) prohibits
discrimination against qualified handicapped individuals in air
travel. Citing this law as a reason, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is preparing to issue a rule requiring
secondary access to exits for all blind passengers on all
flights. Other passengers, chosen by airline personnel, would
have primary access to exits. In a related rulemaking, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) has also proposed a rule to
give the FAA a
free hand in imposing seating restrictions, regardless of their
discriminatory impact.
The combined effect of the FAA and DOT rules would be to nullify
the nondiscrimination mandate of Pub. L. 99-435. The regulatory
scheme
of using two rules to reach a single discriminatory result was
devised by the airlines and the government to circumvent the
clear intent
of the law. Officials have said that the rules will  not
discriminate against the blind,  but  sight will be required  for
any passenger to be seated near an exit. The FAA has never had a
regulation to limit seat assignments of the blind. Citing
evidence gathered in 1973, the FAA concluded in 1977 that a
seating restriction rule was  not in the public interest.  There
is no factual basis for a contrary position today. However, the
final, discriminatory rules are expected to be issued shortly.
Proposed Legislation: Congress should enact the Air Travel Rights
for Blind Individuals Act. Identical Senate and House bills are
pending with sizable bipartisan groups of cosponsors in each
chamber. The Senate bill has been favorably reported from
committee and is ready for floor action. Hearings have not been
held in the House.
The bill calls for adding the following sentence to section 404
(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:  An air carrier shall
not restrict seating in aircraft on the basis of the visual
acuity of a passenger or the use by a passenger of a white cane,
dog guide, or other such means of assistance. 
This measure would maintain the FAA's responsibility to regulate
safe air travel. Criteria that have a safety-based justification
could be used to support policies that exclude passengers from
seats near emergency exits. Restrictions based on blindness or
visual impairment have no safety basis and would therefore be
prohibited.
Need for Legislation: According to the Senate Commerce
Committee's report:  In passing the Air Carrier Access Act,
Congress clearly intended that blind persons not be subjected to
discrimination in any form in their use of air transportation.
Restrictions, imposed in the name of safety, but lacking any
legitimate safety basis, that
exceed those imposed on other passengers are one such form of
discrimination....The mere presence or absence of a handicapping
condition, as in the case of blindness, should not in and of
itself suggest the need for seating restrictions. Congress did
not intend for the FAA to impose discriminatory seating
restrictions on blind individuals, especially when such
restrictions had been found earlier by the FAA to be unnecessary. 
(See S.  Rept. 101-45.)
Approval of this legislation is necessary now to pre-empt the
expected regulations. Safety is a matter of serious concern to
proponents of
this bill. Arbitrary assumptions about passengers' abilities
excluding all blind persons from all seats with direct access to
exits will compromise safety for the blind and others on all
flights. Backers
of this seating ban at the FAA and the airlines are simply
emotionally committed to beating down the blind in hopes of being
praised for promoting safety. At the same time they are
permitting airports and airways to become so crowded as to create
a very real public danger.  Reports have shown that the FAA's
maintenance standards have actually contributed to the loss of
lives.
Not one life has ever been lost because a blind person was seated
near an aircraft emergency exit. Lives have been lost when
sighted persons have improperly opened the exits. Still, no one
would seriously propose banning all sighted persons from seats
near exits. Similarly, the bill now pending is a serious solution
to a real problem. The commitment to safety and civil rights for
the blind was made in good faith by Congress and President
Reagan. It must not now be subverted by administrative action.
____________________
For further information contact:
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(301) 659-9314


                           Fact Sheet
     Preventing Legalized Discrimination Against the Blind:
Changes Needed 
in the Americans With Disabilities Act


BACKGROUND: The Americans with Disabilities Act has passed the
Senate as S. 933 and is pending in the House of Representatives
as H.R. 2273. This measure is being proposed to prohibit
discrimination against persons with disabilities. Under the bill
it would be discriminatory to deny disabled persons access to (1)
employment; (2) services, programs, and benefits of state and
local governments (including public transportation);
(3) public accommodations and transportation provided by private
entities; and (4) telecommunications services.
 The bill identifies physical barriers to the disabled as
discriminatory.
Its premise is that limits on physical access lead to restricted
participation or outright denial of opportunity. Under the bill
opportunities are
to be barrier free. A legal standard of  accommodated
participation  is used as the rule of thumb for
nondiscrimination. This standard differs from the  equal
participation  standard adopted by
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Physical accessibility requires
modifications to architectural design features. Changes in
programs in order to accommodate them to the physical limitations
of the disabled are also required by the bill.
The Problem: The accommodated participation standard is
appropriate
in some instances but not appropriate in most. The focus on
accommodations in the case of the blind reinforces the false
presumption that blind people are denied access unless special
modifications can be made for them. This misconception about the
blind is harmful and leads
to discrimination. While blind people are vitally concerned that
federal laws must be passed and enforced to prohibit
discrimination, Congress must act carefully in setting the civil
rights standard. Otherwise, the law intended to prohibit
discrimination could actually promote new forms of prejudicial
treatment. This will happen if blind people are required to use
legally mandated accommodations that they do not want or need.
A 1986 law requiring airlines to make services accessible to
disabled persons is proof that blind persons can face serious
harm from a general nondiscrimination law aimed at removing
physical barriers. Seating restrictions, never before required to
be imposed upon the blind under federal law, are now being
planned by the Federal Aviation Administration.  The law did not
contemplate the occurrence of such a result in the name of
nondiscrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act could
have the same damaging impact on civil rights in other areas by
restricting the blind to use of accessible hotel rooms and
through seating restrictions for the blind on public buses.
Policies such as these are predictable unless clearly prohibited
by the plain language of the law.  Proposed Amendment:
Congressman C. Christopher Cox of California
is preparing to offer an amendment to give disabled people the
right to reject any physical or programmatic accommodations that
they do
not want or need. The  Right To Participate Without Modification 
amendment would establish clear-cut requirements that must be met
in order for modified services or benefits to be provided in a
nondiscriminatory manner.
The guidelines for nondiscriminatory accommodations would be
placed in a revised portion of section 302(b) of the bill and in
a proposed new section 514, to be added to title V at the end of
the existing
text. These sections prohibit policies requiring the use of
accommodations for all disabled persons. Forcing the blind to
accept or use unwanted accommodations would be discriminatory.
Services or benefits provided to disabled persons could not be
different or separate from the services or benefits provided to
others unless each disabled person also has the opportunity to
receive exactly the same services or benefits that are provided
to nondisabled persons.
Need for the Right To Participate Without Modification Amendment: 
The accommodated participation standard is no doubt very
appropriate for many disabled people. This standard should help
to make their participation possible. For blind persons, however,
the accommodation standard incorrectly assumes a degree of
inability and directs unwanted and even harmful changes. The
individual's true abilities are overshadowed by accommodated
participation, and the changes made become the focus of
everyone's attention. It is assumed that the individual could not
participate were it not for the accommodation.
It is harmful to us when accommodations are made that falsely
imply limitations caused by blindness. Opportunities necessarily
depend on public understanding and social acceptance. This will
be the case with or without the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Blind people want to be accepted on terms of equality with the
sighted. This is a proper and realistically achievable objective.
Our equality will be blocked, however, if we are faced with a
federal law that implies a degree of permanent inequality.
From the moment it is signed into law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act will affect blind persons and millions of others
in almost every activity of our lives. If the Act sets
accommodation as the standard for using most facilities and
services, many thousands of us will be forced to endure
discriminatory practices in almost everything
we do. Even the small gains made by the adoption of equal rights
laws for the blind and disabled in many states will be threatened
or could be lost forever. The right of access for some should not
also be the right to cause discrimination against others those of
us who already have access. There must be a balance. The  Right
to Participate Without Modification  amendment will help to
strike that balance.  The Americans with Disabilities Act must
not be approved without it.  ____________________
For further information contact:
James Gashel
Director of Governmental Affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland  21230
(301) 659-9314


                           Fact Sheet
                     Breaking the Monopoly: 
Expanding Choices in Rehabilitation 
for Blind Adults


H.R. 855: A Bill:  To amend titles XVI and II of the Social
Security Act to promote the rehabilitation of blind beneficiaries
under the SSI and OASDI programs, and to assure that the blind
receive the most appropriate employment and training services
which are available by permitting them to select the agencies to
which they will be referred for such services. 
Background: Federal support for rehabilitation of the disabled
began in 1920, but programs for the blind did not receive federal
assistance until 1943. Current rehabilitation services include
various forms of medical, social, recreational, vocational,
educational, and research-oriented programs that are intended to
improve the living conditions and lifestyles of all disabled
persons in America.  Employment was once the principal goal of
the law, but the emphasis has shifted to serving the diverse
social and independent living needs
of the entire disabled population. The employment goal is now
subordinate.  However, recreation, social services, and even
medical care needs will almost all be met for the vast majority
of blind people if they get suitable jobs with pay and
responsibilities commensurate with their individual abilities.
Existing Law: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112),
as amended, authorizes most of the current federally supported
rehabilitation programs. Almost 1.5 billion dollars in federal
financial assistance is distributed to the states under Title I
of the Rehabilitation Act.  The designation of a specific state
agency to serve the disabled and blind is a prerequisite for
receipt by any state of its share of the federal funds.
Titles XVI and II of the Social Security Act also authorize the
use of separate funds to pay for the costs of rehabilitation
services
for disabled and blind people who receive Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
benefits. The beneficiary rehabilitation funds provided by the
Social Security Administration are in addition to direct
appropriations for rehabilitation services approved annually by
Congress. For largely historic reasons the Social Security Act
allows beneficiaries to obtain rehabilitation services only from
the state agency designated for them under the Rehabilitation
Act.
Under these arrangements options for most blind people to choose
among training sources are realistically nonexistent. This lack
of a free choice, a major deterrent to effective, responsive
training and employment services, leaves almost 80 percent of
employable blind people largely outside of our nation's
workforce.
Proposed Legislation: Congress should amend the Social Security
Act to give blind SSI and SSDI beneficiaries greater freedom to
develop individualized training and employment programs. A bill
to accomplish this objective has been introduced in the House by
Congressman Harold Ford. It presents a natural alternative to the
present Social Security funding arrangement by allowing
recipients of SSDI or SSI benefits to designate for themselves
individually selected agencies, public or private.
The Bush administration has sent Congress a similar legislative
proposal, included as title V of the Administration's proposed
Social Security Amendments of 1989. Under the bill SSI and SSDI
beneficiaries would receive rehabilitation services provided by
public or private agencies.  State rehabilitation agencies would
become one of several potential sources of service. Referrals for
service would be made directly by the Social Security
Administration and not by the state rehabilitation agencies.
Need for Legislation: Expansion of the Rehabilitation Act to
support
a broader range of services (including social, recreational, and
independent living services) has substantially increased demands
upon state rehabilitation agencies to provide a wider variety of
services to growing numbers of disabled persons. As a result of
this trend, state rehabilitation agencies are less able to
respond to the training and employment needs of blind persons
seeking service. The training and employment aspirations of
the blind have also changed dramatically, further stretching the
Rehabilitation Act's single state agency system beyond its
limits. The needs and potentials of the blind in the 1990's are
simply not the same as they were in the 1940's, yet services are
supposed to be provided to the blind through essentially the same
state-federal administrative structure as has been in place for
over fifty years.
Changes in law are needed to respond to these evolving service
demands.  The legislation seeks authority for the Social Security
Administration to contract for rehabilitation services on behalf
of its beneficiaries.  This is the next logical step in the
evolution of rehabilitation services for the blind. The
legislation would leave the existing Rehabilitation Act structure
and funding arrangements intact and reduce demands on
overburdened rehabilitation agencies. Blind beneficiaries would
have greater flexibility in choosing among existing or new
service providers.  State boundaries and limits on out-of-state
spending would no longer be road-blocks for blind persons in
finding the best program to meet individual needs. Agency
accountability would be increased by giving the blind the
flexibility to choose programs that work. In addition, Social
Security funds paid to achieve training and employment goals
would reduce demands for continuing cash outlays from the SSI and
SSDI programs. This is a cost-effective approach that Congress
should now enact.
                                 
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS JOIN ORGANIZED BLIND 
IN PRESSING FOR ACTION 
ON AIRLINES' DISCRIMINATION
                         By Marc Maurer
Arrogance without power may be either pathetic or amusing, but if
it is coupled with force, it is neither pitiable nor funny. It
becomes probably the single most important factor in the
destruction of personal liberty. For over a decade the blind have
been battling for the right
of equal treatment with the sighted in air travel. Our principal
opponents have been most of the airlines and (through their
influence and scare tactics) the media and government officials,
such as some of those in the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Department of Transportation. Their weapons have
not been fact and reason but prejudice, misunderstanding, and
fear.
But not all government officials have adopted the emotionalism of
the airlines. A substantial number have listened carefully to the
arguments we have made and responded with understanding and
judgment.  Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the announced
position of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Department of Transportation is that the blind are second rate
and not deserving of equal rights in air travel. Despite the lack
of evidence to support this arbitrary point of view, FAA and DOT
officials persistently engage in a game of  Let's Suppose.  The
fantastic scenarios dreamed up for this game always place the
blind in the worst possible circumstances.  Occasionally, blind
people have been tempted to counter with suppositions of their
own. It is quite conceivable that circumstances would be
favorable to the blind in airline emergencies. In fact, it is
virtually certain that scenarios favoring blind travelers are
statistically more likely than the ones which put the blind at a
disadvantage. But prejudice, misunderstanding, and fear rarely
change because of logical argument. Since they have been created
by insecurity and ignorance,
they tend to generate the usual products of those qualities
presumption and arrogance. In the case of the airline battle the
arrogance might be relatively harmless if it were not sanctioned
and supported by governmental power.
For over a decade the blind have been treated like children and
wards by airline personnel. When we complained about the
discrimination, we expected prompt and decisive action from the
government officials charged with regulating airline behavior.
Equal treatment for the handicapped was the law of the land. The
Department of Transportation did not react as we thought it
should and the law required. In the early stages of the struggle
the airlines were surreptitiously informed by Department of
Transportation officials that the Department would take no action
to prohibit their discriminatory behavior. This brought a
clamorous reaction from the blind. Thousands of letters were
written, and hundreds of articles were printed in newspapers.
There were also numerous congressional inquiries. The Department
of Transportation (reacting to all of this public pressure) made
symbolic gestures toward what it called gathering information.
Finally, Congress adopted the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986.
Although
the Department of Transportation made a number of self-serving
protestations that the rights of the handicapped would be
protected, its behavior did not change at all. An avalanche of
letters of complaint continued to be written by the blind.
Members of Congress introduced the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act. If it is adopted, this act would settle
conclusively the question of seating for the blind. Airlines
could not adopt discriminatory seating policies. The Department
of Transportation could not authorize segregated seating for the
blind.  The Federal Aviation Administration would not be
permitted to assert that separate but equal for the blind is
necessary for safety.  On February 6, 1990, at a press conference
called by the National Federation of the Blind, several members
of Congress were present (along with hundreds of blind people
from throughout the United States) to call for hearings on the
Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act in the House of
Representatives.
Jim Gashel, the Director of Governmental Affairs of the National
Federation of the Blind, brought the press conference to order,
welcomed members of Congress and the press, and introduced me for
a statement from the organized blind. The character of our
movement as a crusade for the rights of blind people everywhere
is shown by the language used in the conference, by the support
of those who came to help us win equality, and by the spirit of
the blind who were there. Here is the statement which I made:
___________________
There is a famous and dramatic story in which a member of the
Gestapo insists that a Jewish father pick which of his two
children will be permitted to live and which will be sent to the
gas chamber. The author focuses on the agony of the father and
the children. There is much less emphasis on the awesome and
irresponsible use of power.
Our situation today is not as straightforward. However, the
Department of Transportation (our government) has announced that
it intends to use its power to choose which people are to be
permitted to have the best chance to survive in an airline
emergency. The blind have been selected for the unenviable
position of greater risk of death. According to proposed rules to
be adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a
subdivision of the Department of Transportation, the blind may
not sit near emergency exits on planes. The FAA does not require
us to be last in evacuations, but it will never let us be first
and it is an accepted fact that those who are first out in an
airplane crash have the greatest chance for survival.
In 1986 the Air Carrier Access Act was adopted by the Congress
and signed by the President. These events should have brought an
end to a pattern of discrimination against blind air travelers
that had been intensifying for years. However, this is not how it
was. The Air Carrier Access Act, Public Law 99-435, stated that
there should be no discrimination against the handicapped in the
provision of air transportation. Before the Act was adopted,
blind air travelers were very often met with hostility and
intimidation when they insisted on the right to fly on the same
terms and conditions as others. After the adoption of the Act,
blind air travelers met with hostility and intimidation when they
insisted on the right to fly on the same terms and conditions as
others. There was a new law on the statute books of the United
States, but nothing else changed. The question is why?  The
answer
is perfectly evident. The FAA was persuaded by the airlines to
nullify the will of Congress with administrative rules. The
proposed language of these rules states that although the Air
Carrier Access Act prohibits discrimination against the
handicapped, blind people will not be permitted to board the
planes and travel the airways on equal terms with the sighted. In
a two-step administrative rule-making process the Department of
Transportation and its subdivision the FAA are proposing to adopt
language which can only be described as a deliberate effort to
deceive the public. The DOT rules say that there shall be no
discrimination against the blind. The FAA rules parrot this
phrase. However, these rules will (as they put it)  clarify 
safety requirements for handicapped   passengers. This
clarification will establish, for the very first time,
restrictions on seating for blind passengers.  The proposed FAA
rules say that there is no discrimination against blind persons
and that there are no restrictions for blind travelers.  However,
in order to be permitted to sit in certain parts of an aircraft,
passengers must be able to see. The machinations of the authors
of this labyrinthine artifice simply boggle the mind.  The
authority being used for this clarification is the Air Carrier
Access Act, the
law which prohibits discrimination against the handicapped.
Consequently, because Congress adopted new civil rights
legislation to secure the right of handicapped passengers to
equal treatment by the airlines, there are proposed government
sanctions restricting seating in air travel.
The FAA says that the blind are less safe than others. If this is
true, the proposed restrictions may be justified. If it is not
true, the restrictions should not be allowed. The National
Federation of the Blind is the largest organization of blind
people in America.  We have searched our records and our
memories. We have been unable to find a single incident in which
a blind person contributed to an injury. We have asked the
National Transportation Safety Board for records in which a blind
person caused difficulty or contributed to circumstances that
were not safe. No record has ever been discovered.  We have
sought information from the records of the Civil Aeronautics
Board. There is nothing which demonstrates that blindness is a
factor causing increased risk. The FAA cannot point to a single
episode in the entire history of aviation which suggests that
blind people are a greater safety hazard than others. On the
other hand, we who are blind have flown millions of miles and
have handled ourselves with as much competence as the rest of the
flying public.
It is quite possible to conjure up circumstances in which blind
people might conceivably be at a disadvantage in an emergency.
The airlines sometimes say something like this:  Let us suppose
that the airplane had crashed and was teetering on the edge of a
cliff. Would a blind person know that it wasn't safe to jump off
the edge of the wing?   I kid you not. I heard a safety expert
for one of the major American air carriers say exactly that. It
is equally conceivable to imagine circumstances in which the
blind are at an advantage. Perhaps it is dark with the lights out
or there is smoke in the cabin. Blind people are accustomed to
handling themselves without sight. The absence of light would not
matter. More to the point, there has never been an instance where
a plane has teetered on the edge of a cliff, but there has been
an instance when a blind person led others out of a darkened
airplane cabin in an emergency.
It is important that we in America make it rock-bound clear that
artificial barriers and prejudicial distinctions will not be
tolerated. We must find a way to show the FAA and the airlines
that they may not team
up to twist the will of Congress expressed in civil rights
legislation into a weapon that will decrease freedom of movement
and travel for the blind. The Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act has been reported out of committee in the Senate.
It is being scheduled for floor action. So far, Congressman James
L. Oberstar of Minnesota has
not scheduled a hearing on this bill in the House. We call upon
Congressman Oberstar to give this piece of legislation a public
review. Let those with the facts come before the committee to be
heard. One of the most sacred traditions of our democratic form
of government is that there shall be an opportunity to express
differing points of view. We believe an unbiased examination of
the facts will demonstrate the justice
of our cause. We believe that the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act is an important step in the process of bringing
fairness and equality to the blind. We call for hearings to be
scheduled on this bill.  ____________________
At the conclusion of this statement the prime sponsor of the Air
Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act in the House of
Representatives, Congressman James A. Traficant of Ohio, was
introduced. He said:

 I want to commend the Federation of the Blind. I became aware of
the problem when Barbara Pierce, a beautiful woman here in this
room, had an incident on an air carrier that developed into a
real brouhaha. I couldn't believe that. I started to look into
the matter.  There are really grave concerns that everybody has,
certainly in the Congress. One is safety. There have been no
studies or tests that could document the fact that a blind
passenger would, in fact, prevent safety opportunities for
sighted passengers or others on the craft.

 I have witnessed myself, at least on several occasions,
individuals seated in the emergency exit rows and near windows,
who were children seven and eight years old who did not have the
physical capability
of opening up the door. I think that this is more than what is
referred to as a safety issue because no one can document safety
factors which would, in fact, support the theory that sighted air
passengers are threatened by blind passengers seated in such
rows. I think it is more of a civil rights issue.
 When individuals buy airplane tickets, they are part of a
lottery in seating. And those individuals close to exit rows and
seats in the event of an emergency, not all may make it certainly
should have that chance. But a blind passenger, subject to the
interpretation now currently in the government, is regarded as a
second rate citizen and pushed to the back of the bus. They do
not have the same opportunity for their own welfare and for
saving their own lives in the event of a tragedy. I believe
that's wrong. And unless anybody can come forward and document
the fact that there's clearly a safety issue
here and a risk to sighted passengers, then, this administrative
policy and direction of the Federal Aviation Administration and
Department
of Transportation should be struck down, and struck down with
legislation.

 I am glad to see that the Senate has reported out this bill.  I
am hoping, with 160 cosponsors in the House of Representatives,
that a fair and honest hearing will take place and that these
issues that concern safety as well as rights will be addressed.
If you buy
a ticket, you should be entitled to the same rights as any other
passenger.  The lottery that is available for all, supposedly,
shouldn't exclude a certain few. That's the issue at stake.
 Again, I commend the Federation for their outstanding effort.  I
apologize, to a degree, for what some construe to be a
callousness of our government in this regard. Hopefully, as with
many other cases
of controversy concerning an issue, there will be deliberation,
communication, dialogue, and results. I think it is a good piece
of legislation, and one that deserves to have a hearing.
Hopefully, it will be passed by the Senate, as it was reported
out of the Committee. That will move us toward some specific
action in the House, which hopefully will resolve the issue. 

Congressman Traficant was asked how the airlines reacted to the
Bill.  He said:

 Basically, the airlines' position has been what Federation
members have expressed. They [the airlines] do not support the
legislation.  They continue to cite certain safety issues that
seem to be somewhat taken out of Disney World at this point.
That's not to make light of it. We're very concerned about the
safety factors. And in looking at the safety factors I, today,
challenge the FAA to cite one specific incident where a blind
passenger has caused the loss of life or a tragedy on an airline.


A member of the press asked what information had been produced by
the FAA to support its position, and Congressman Traficant
responded:


  I think that like many sighted people in their review and
analysis of the world of those who can't see, they are
frightened. They fear the unknown. They suspect, and they
document. They conjure up scenarios that, in this instance, seem
to be very dangerous. And I think that
is the greatest problem that we have. I think that it is this
particular feeling and this emotional response that has taken
hold here, and
we haven't really analyzed the data. I am asking for the data. I
would be the first to admit that we would not want to (and I
firmly believe that the National Federation of the Blind does not
want to) endanger anybody's life or risk safety on an airline.
But then again, on the other hand, I think that we're remiss and
that we will have abandoned our responsibility by letting blind
passengers be second rate passengers who do not have the same
safety opportunities that sighted passengers have. 

A member of the press asked this question:  If the FAA does not
have an incident where a blind person might have hindered an
emergency situation, then, aren't they making a judgment on whose
life is more important, a blind person's or a sighted person's? 
Congressman Traficant replied:

 Well, I think that is absolutely the case at this point. They
are saying so for whatever reasons. I am not going to impugn the
integrity of the FAA and those people making decisions, but
that's specifically the stand they have taken. What we are saying
is: show us the facts.  We do not believe they have those facts.
In fact, we think that we can counter those with the truth and
that we will prevail. 

Another member of the press spoke:  Congressman, I heard of a
number of instances where blind people have actually been
arrested
for not giving up their seats. Is that true?  Congressman
Traficant replied:

 Yes, that has happened, and I believe that members of the blind
community have taken great abuse with some of the actions that
have come down. And they have stood up for their rights. It's
unfortunate to see a beautiful young American, who happens not to
have sight,
be bullied and taken off an airplane while most of the sighted
passengers, because of the dynamics that ensued, sided with the
airlines because they did not know the true elements of this
case. So what we are saying is,  Yes, that did happen, but it
shouldn't happen.   If the FAA is to continue to perpetrate this
policy, they are going to have to give hard facts. One way or
another we must resolve the issue and answer the question.
Whether or not they agree with me, with the Federation of the
Blind, or with 160 cosponsors, they must make the decision
predicated upon facts have an open and fair hearing, and tell us
what the facts are. Show us what the facts are. We haven't seen
them. They are not in existence. And I don't think anybody should
decide who can live and who cannot live without the facts. I
think your question is right to the issue. 

Several other members of Congress appeared at the press
conference to support passage of the Air Travel Rights for Blind
Individuals Act. Congresswoman Lindy Boggs of Louisiana spoke of
the eloquence of the Federation, and urged that there be hearings
on the Air Travel Rights Bill.
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder of Colorado next spoke. She
said:

 Thank you to the National Federation of the Blind for pushing
this. And thank you, Congressman Traficant, who have really moved
this forward. What you have heard described is clearly a wrong.
There is no question: It is a wrong. And the way we remedy that
wrong is with Congressman Traficant's bill. I think the time has
come to move it front and center. The reason half our colleagues
can't get through here [to the press conference] is that you've
got so many people out in the hall lobbying this bill which is
great. We're grateful
to see that enthusiasm. I think it shows how very important the
right to travel is. It's a very essential part of people's
freedom today, and you the blind want to travel as normal
citizens and not as members of a lower status. It's absolutely
wrong.
 So, you have heard the very eloquent pleas. You've heard the
testimony, as we all have. And now, we want to get on to the work
of getting this bill passed. And I think we will, don't you, with
all these people here?  I tell you. It's great!  Thanks for all
being here. 

Congressman Benjamin Gilman of New York addressed the press
conference with these words:

 I want to commend our good colleague from Ohio, Mr. Traficant,
for bringing this measure before us in the Congress and moving it
forward toward the floor for consideration. We hope we are going
to see early consideration of the bill in this session, and many
of us are going to do whatever we can to help Congressman
Traficant bring that about. I, too, want to commend the National
Federation of the Blind for your eloquent remarks pointing out
how the discrimination process has been working in many of our
airlines despite the fact that we have a measure on the books,
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which prohibits discrimination
against qualified handicapped individuals in air travel. I think
it's long overdue that we address the problem.  And it is
certainly a national problem. It is certainly appropriate that it
be before the Congress, and I am hoping that we can attack it
early in the session. Congressman Traficant, we are here to help. 
Thank You. 

 Then, Congressman Larry Craig of Idaho said:

 It's my tremendous pleasure to join with my colleague here, Jim
Traficant, in sponsoring H.R. 563. I must also recognize the
representative from the Idaho Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind, Ramona Walhof, who is here today in the audience. I
don't know if there is a great deal more I can say that hasn't
already been said about this important piece of legislation. We
are simply talking about equal rights. We are talking about an
opportunity to be treated like everyone else. Most importantly,
we are talking about an opportunity for people who have
tremendous capability to cope under the circumstances that many
of the airlines suggest that they cannot handle. In many
instances the blind know their surroundings better because they
work hard at understanding the sighted. I am tremendously pleased
to have been a cosponsor and now again be a cosponsor of this
legislation, and I'll certainly work hand in glove with my
colleague to assure that
we can move this in a timely fashion through Mr. Oberstar's
committee.  I serve on Public Works and Transportation, and we
are going to move this along at a rate of speed that we hope will
get it to the floor during the balance of this session so that we
can have a vote on it, and get it to the President for his
signature. I am convinced that if Congress acts in a responsible
manner, our President too will do the same by signing this into
law. Thank you for your persistence and your tenacity in pushing
this issue forward. I look forward with a lot of encouragement to
seeing it as a part of our law. 

The foregoing are representative excerpts from the statements of
support for the rights of blind people to travel as equals on the
airlines.  Several hundred blind people were present at the press
conference.  The room was much too small to hold us. After
participating in the formal activities, I stepped into the hall
to speak with Federationists.  I said that the pledges of support
had been strong and that twelve news outlets had covered the
conference. I reiterated briefly the expressions of encouragement
that had been made. The hallway we were in was almost a block
long, and we filled it from end to end. In true Federation
spirit, a number of people began singing the airline song. 
Photographers and reporters had been packing their equipment to
leave.  However, when they heard the roar of the crowd, they
grabbed their cameras. They said to me,  Can they sing it again?  
We could, and we did. The halls of the Rayburn building rang with
the vibrant spirit of the Federation:

 Let's go out to the airport. 
 We're just part of the crowd. 
 If you insist on preboarding us,   the NFB will raise a national
fuss...                NFB OF CONNECTICUT 
INFORMS MOTORISTS AND EDUCATES PUBLIC
John J. Hadlow is an active member of the National Federation of
the Blind of Connecticut. He is also a man with drive and
persistence.  When he became blind in 1986, he began to use a
white cane and found that motorists seemed unaware of the
provisions of the state White Cane Law.  At least,  says Hadlow, 
they seemed unaware of the provisions of the law since they
consistently failed to stop or give me the right of way when I
crossed the highway in front of my home near Danbury to catch a
bus to go into town. 
Hadlow and Jacquilyn Billey, President of the NFB of Connecticut,
decided that something needed to be done to educate the motoring
public.  Here is how Hadlow tells it:  After giving the matter
thought,
we decided to prepare a card to be mailed out by the state Motor
Vehicle Department with all driver's license renewal
applications. These would be sent to all drivers in the state. I
discussed the matter with the people at the Motor Vehicle
Department, and they were enthusiastic and helpful.
 Next, I went to the art department of the Grolier Corporation,
printers of  Encyclopedia Americana  and  Book of Knowledge . 
They translated my rough sketch into camera-ready copy for the
printer.  After more than six months of negotiation, the Motor
Vehicle Department agreed to use our inserts for the next four
years, but at this stage Jacquilyn and I hit a roadblock. The
Motor Vehicle Department did not have the money to pay for the
printing. They estimated we would need 500,000 per year.
 Here in Danbury we have one of the largest printing
establishments in the United States, Danbury Printing and
Lithography. They agreed to donate the printing if we would
supply the paper, which we did at a cost of $2,500 for the first
year's supply of 500,000 copies.  We have now bought an
additional two-year supply (one million copies) on the same terms
except that it cost us $7,200 because of the increased cost of
paper.
 The program has been operating for over two years, and we feel
there are noticeable effects. Here in Danbury and in all parts of
the state we have had additional distribution through high school
driver education programs, AARP, and fraternal organizations. I
have also had these inserts put into the pay envelopes of the
members of the Danbury Police Department. After all, they are the
ones who must enforce the law, so they ought to know what it
says.
 At the Denver convention last year I distributed quite a number
of these inserts to NFB members from various states, and there
was widespread interest in the program. Not only is this a good
way of promoting safety but also of getting the name of the
National Federation of the Blind before the public. I think other
states should consider adopting similar projects. Here is what
the insert says :  

                          OBEY THE LAW
                  When You See Pedestrians With
                 A White Cane Or A Guide Dog...
                             Stop...
                   They Have The Right Of Way!


AND REMEMBER... By law you MUST STOP for pedestrians in
crosswalks.
For further information contact:


              The National Federation of the Blind
                       135 Burnside Avenue
                     East Hartford, CT 06108
                         (203) 289-1971


 Sponsored by the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Department. 
____________________
                     CONN. GENERAL STATUTES
                     TITLE 53, 1987 REVISION

Sec. 53-211. Use of white canes by others than blind persons
prohibited.  Vehicles to reduce speed, grant right of way.
(a) No person, except one wholly or partially blind, shall carry
or use on any street or highway, or in any other public place, a
cane or walking stick which is white in color or white tipped
with red.
(b) Any driver of a vehicle who approaches or comes into the
immediate vicinity of a person wholly or partially blind,
carrying a white cane or a white cane tipped with red, or a
person being guided by a guide dog, shall reduce speed or stop if
necessary to grant the right of way to such person.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall
be fined not more than one hundred dollars.
 (1949 Rev., S. 8543; February, 1965, P.A. 448, S. 43.)  History:
1965 act amended Subsec. (b) to include persons with guide dogs
and to change duty of driver from taking  such precautions before
proceeding as may be necessary to avoid accident or injury  to
reducing speed or stopping as necessary to grant right-of-way to
blind or partially blind persons and amended Subsec. (c) to
increase maximum fine from twenty-five to one hundred dollars.
                                 
THIEF TO PAY BLIND VENDOR
 From the Editor:  The following article by Margaret O'Shea
appeared in the January 24, 1990, issue of  The State,  South
Carolina's largest newspaper. We received it from Donald Capps,
NFB of South Carolina President. Here is the article: 

Bacon cheeseburgers and candy bars can be pretty expensive for
people who try to get them for nothing.
A customer caught cheating blind vendor Norman F. Hood has agreed
in an out-of-court settlement to pay $625 for passing off small
bills as $20 bills. If the money's not paid by March 15, the man
will be sued in magistrate's court under terms of the settlement.
Hood, who operates the concession stand at the Solomon Blatt
state office building, spent more than $400 in legal fees to file
a complaint after discovering that a regular customer was robbing
him. The man would order food at the Blatt canteen and pay for it
with a $1 or a $5 bill, but he would tell Hood that he was
handing him $20.  Twice Hood accepted the man's money, only to
find his cash drawer short at the end of the day.
The third time, Hood asked an assistant to look at the bill he
had been offered. It was a five.
In all, Hood lost $17.53, but he asked for more  commensurate
with the defendant's contemptible conduct. 
The settlement calls for a $200 payment plus legal fees.
Hood pressed the claim with the help of the National Federation
of the Blind of South Carolina, which has lobbied for and
monitored state laws giving blind vendors dibs on concessions in
public buildings.  Federation President Donald Capps said the
case should  send a message, loud and clear, that we cannot and
will not tolerate this type of conduct. We believe blind vendors
have as much right as anyone else to make an honest living.
 To deliberately cheat a blind vendor out of his profits, simply
because he can't see, is a low and petty crime. 
Neither Hood nor the Federation would identify the man involved
in the complaint.
Columbia attorney V. Jean Burkins said the settlement provides
that the name not be disclosed unless the man doesn't honor the
agreement.  If that happens, he'll face a jury trial in open
court, and his name will be a matter of public record, Ms.
Burkins said.
                        GROOMING FOR GOLD
Do you want to try something different and exciting at the NFB's
fiftieth anniversary convention in Dallas? The Mary Kay Cosmetic
Corporation is sponsoring a seminar on color coordination,
clothing selection, make-up application, hair and nail care, and
much more in other words, all aspects of good grooming and
personal appearance. Each person attending the seminar will also
have at a separate time a private session with a trained
consultant. At that appointment there will
be a complete facial, help with application of make-up, and
personalized color coordination, including color swatches to use
in clothing selection.  Wait this is not just for ladies! Men can
get color-coordinated too! It never hurts to learn all we can
about looking our best.  What: Personal appearance and grooming
seminar
Where: Hyatt Regency DFW in Dallas (Check your pre-convention
agenda.) When: Sunday evening, July 1, at 6:00 p.m.
Cost: $15.00 (Everyone who pre-registers for the seminar will
receive a $10 gift certificate toward the purchase of Mary Kay
products.)
The NFB Treasury will receive $10 of every registration fee and
twenty percent of all sales at the Mary Kay table in the exhibit
hall. Mary Kay has everything from women's perfumes and men's
cologne to hair care products, skin care systems, and all types
of make-up.
To pre-register, send name, address, and check made payable to
Molly White for $15 to: Marie Cobb, 202 South Augusta Avenue,
Baltimore, Maryland 21229. If you have questions, you may call
(301) 644-6352.           R E C I P E S 

                             NFB TEA
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

Somewhere around 1970, when the National Office of the Federation
was at the Randolph Hotel Building in Des Moines, I began making
a concoction which I called NFB Tea. I served it to the first
seminar, which occurred in the fall of 1973, and I served it in
the presidential suite at national conventions. Some admired it;
others couldn't tolerate it; but everybody knew about it.
Then, as the seventies passed into history and the eighties came
and went, the custom of serving NFB Tea at conventions and
seminars faded.  However, there are those who pine  for the good
old days  and long to see a revival of the soothing brew. They
continue to ask that the recipe for NFB Tea appear in the 
Monitor. 
When I remind them that I put it into the  Monitor  some time
early in the seventies, they simply respond with annoyance,
saying
that they don't remember it, don't have that edition of the 
Monitor,  or don't want to be bothered with irrelevancies. Since
the recipe
is now quite different from what it was when it appeared in the 
Monitor  a decade and a half ago and since the requests continue,
it seems worthwhile to print it again. So here it is as revised:
You can make as much or as little NFB Tea as you want by
increasing or decreasing the quantity of the three basic
ingredients. Just keep the proportions the same. Pour equal parts
of pineapple juice, orange juice, and cranberry juice or
cranberry cocktail into a large container.  If you don't intend
to use at least as much as a forty-six-ounce can of each of these
juices, it hardly seems worth the bother, not to mention which it
will be difficult not to overflavor. After you mix these three
basic juices, the fun begins. I usually add about one-third as
much peach or apricot nectar and one-third as much apple juice
as I have used of each of the three basic ingredients. Sometimes
(but not always) I also add a small amount of pear nectar if I
have it, about half as much as I have used of the apple or peach.
Then I begin to sweeten the mixture with either sugar or sugar
substitute
and add flavors, tasting as I go. I regard certain flavorings as
indispensable, but NFB Tea is a highly flexible brew, which
should be crafted to the taste of the brewer. I always use
vanilla, cinnamon, and nutmeg.  I use liquid cinnamon and nutmeg,
and if I don't have the liquid, I make it by heating the ground
spice in water as strong as I can and straining it.
Next I add small amounts of a large variety of other flavorings.
I emphasize that you should begin with only dribs and drabs.
Remember that you can always put more in, but once it's there,
you can't take it out. The mixture of flavors will depend on the
whim of the moment and what I have handy. But I will always use
at least eight or nine in addition to the cinnamon, vanilla, and
nutmeg. Here are some of the ones I use: almond, Angustora
bitters, anise, apple pie spice, arrack flavoring, banana,
blackberry, blackcurrant, blueberry, brandy flavor, butternut,
butterscotch, butter rum, caramel, cherry, peach, chocolate,
clove, coconut, coffee flavor, English toffee, a tiny amount of
ginger, hickory nut, lemon, pineapple, lime, maple, orange,
orange bitters, pear, pecan, pistachio, pumpkin pie spice, root
beer, rose, rum flavor, sassafras, violet, sherry flavor,
strawberry, tangerine, walnut, and most anything else I can find.
I don't use mint, eucalyptus oil, or wintergreen. It will also be
observed that NFB Tea contains no tea. When I first started
making the brew in the early seventies, I used Lipton tea, but I
abandoned the practice before the end of the decade. It had to do
with some of my Mormon friends and also with my evolving taste. I
like it better without the tea.
When the mixture has been thoroughly concocted and tasted, a good
deal of ice should be added and stirred in. All that remains is
to enjoy the product and try different proportions next time, but
not different proportions among the three basic ingredients
pineapple juice, orange juice, and cranberry juice or cocktail.
And no omission
of the three basic flavorings vanilla, cinnamon, and nutmeg.
Anything else goes.

                        PEANUT BUTTER PIE
                        by Barbara Pierce

Those who attend the annual Washington Seminar each February know
that the Capitol Holiday Inn, our headquarters hotel, used to
have peanut butter pie on its menu. This dessert was
extraordinarily delicious, and Federationists asked hopefully for
it for years after the restaurant had ceased to carry it. We have
been returning to this facility now for so long that the sales
staff considers us to be valued customers, so for several years
now, the hotel has made special arrangements to have peanut
butter pie on the menu for our members during the Washington
Seminar.
I tried to get the hotel staff to give me the name of the bakery
that makes this pie so that I could attempt to print the recipe
in these pages, but so far, at least, I have failed. I will keep
trying, but in the meantime, here is the recipe that I have
developed for my family and friends. It is as near the real thing
as I can create. I freely admit that it is not exact, but my
family, who have not, of course, tasted the original have voted
it a favorite. Because of their enthusiasm, I usually make it in
a 13 by 9 inch pan rather than a pie plate. Cutting these
proportions in half should fill a 9-inch pie plate nicely. The
graham cracker crust directions, however, remain the same for
both versions.

 Ingredients 
1 packet (12) graham crackers
1/4 cup butter or margarine, melted
1 12-ounce bag chocolate chips
1 can sweetened condensed milk
1 cup creamy peanut butter
4 cups milk
1 cup sugar
7 tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 cup real cocoa
a dash salt
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 large container Cool Whip, use the small container for one pie
(a pint of whipping cream may be substituted)

 Method : Crush crackers and pour melted butter or margarine over
the crumbs in the 13- by 9-inch baking dish or 9-inch pie plate. 
Press the crumbs firmly across the bottom of either dish and up
the sides of the pie plate. You can chill this crust, but you
will have better results if you bake it at 400 degrees for about
10 minutes, until the crust is nicely browned and smells done.
Carefully melt the chocolate chips together with the condensed
milk and spread evenly over the crust. Chill the dish thoroughly.
Heat the peanut butter slightly  so that it will pour easily. A
microwave is ideal for this job. Pour the peanut butter evenly
over the chocolate layer and return the dish to the refrigerator
while you prepare the filling.
In a large sauce pan combine sugar, cocoa, cornstarch, and salt,
stirring well to break up the lumps of cornstarch and cocoa.
Slowly add all the milk, stirring constantly. Do not begin
heating until the mixture is free of lumps. Cook over medium low
heat, stirring constantly,
until mixture thickens and comes to a boil. Continue cooking and
stirring for 2 to 3 minutes more. Remove from heat and add
vanilla, stirring gently to cool the mixture slightly then cover
with plastic wrap touching the surface of the filling and
refrigerate until well chilled. With a mixer at high speed beat
the chilled filling until it is fluffy and then fold in the Cool
Whip or whipped cream. Spread the filling evenly over the peanut
butter layer of the dessert and chill thoroughly.  You may
garnish with whipped cream. Serve in small slices; this dessert
is very rich.

                 * * * MONITOR MINIATURES * * *  

**Jury Forewoman:
The following item appeared in the January 11, 1990,  Fresno 
(California)  Bee :

                  Jury Forewoman Says Blindness
                      No Bar to Civil Duty
                        by Jim Steinberg

Don't say extraordinary, heroic, astounding, or anything like
that, instructed Toni Eames of Fresno, jury forewoman in a
Superior Court cocaine possession trial. There is nothing amazing
about her being a juror who is blind.
She is not the first, but blind jurors are rare. She says that is
unfair. To Eames, a Fresno State University adjunct professor of
sociology,
her jury duty is not a case of the miraculous, but one of simple
non-discrimination.  True, she said during a break in jury
deliberation Wednesday, she
has extra chores in getting to court, absorbing evidence,
understanding physical exhibits. But she has what she needs to
get that job done.  She is a blind person who copes, and Eames
said that all anybody needs to know about any blind person facing
any task: Can the person cope?  Eames and her husband, Ed, both
teach at Fresno State as well as at the California School of
Professional Psychology.
All she needs is her guide dog, Ivy, and spoken explanation of
physical exhibits in court.

**Salt Lake City:
President Maurer recently received a letter from Milton Taylor of
Utah, which said in part:
 There have been some recent leadership changes in the Salt Lake
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Utah. Milton
Taylor was elected President, with Premo Foianini as Treasurer,
Gloria Taylor as Secretary, and Michelle Foulger as Board Member.
We're excited about the possibilities of reaching out to more
blind persons in the Salt Lake area, blind persons especially who
are not fully aware of what is possible for them. We know that at
the grass roots level is where it counts. One of my chief goals
is to establish a greater sense of responsibility for unity and
brotherly love. We win people by truly caring and letting them
know that we really want their life to be the best it can be. 

**Catalog:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
LS&S Group's latest catalog contains descriptions of more than
1,000 products many of them new of particular interest to
visually impaired and blind people. For a free print 1990/91
catalog call LS&S Group, Inc., toll-free: 1-(800) 468-4789.
Illinois residents call:  (708) 498-9777. If you prefer a
voice-indexed cassette catalog, please send $3 to LS&S Group,
Inc., Post Office Box 673, Northbrook, Illinois 60065. Your $3
will be refunded with your first purchase.

**Dies:
We are informed by national board member the Reverend Frank Lee
of Alabama, of the death of Solomon Greene on Friday, January 19,
1990.  Mr. Greene died of cancer, which he had been battling for
the last year. At the time of his death he was first vice
president of the Huntsville Chapter of the NFB of Alabama and was
a former state board member. Shortly before his death Solomon
Greene married Louise Greene, the President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Alabama.

**Medical Transcription Reference Books:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:  I have
the following medical transcription books available:  AAMT
Notebook 1981 , one Braille volume, free;  Pathology Words and
Phrases:
A Quick Reference Guide: 1988 , three Braille volumes, $25; 
Stylebook, Editorial Manual of the AMA, 1987 , five Braille
volumes and two supplements, $35. Please inquire by phone or
cassette or Braille correspondence to confirm availability:
Janell Peterson, 303 Harvard Avenue, East, Apartment 302,
Seattle, Washington 98102-5487; (206) 328-4778. 

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
For sale, low cost print and Braille system: For IBM compatible
computers.  Hardware and software. System consists of the Brother
HR40 Daisy Wheel Printer with 15-inch wide carriage, tractor, and
friction feed. Easy to operate with print and Braille manuals.
Special soft roller for producing draft quality Braille. Braille
translation software for Grade 1, 2, and computer Braille. Two
text formatter programs for
ASCII and Word Perfect files. Print and Braille and disc based
documentation for all. Tractor feed 60-weight Braille paper
included and ink ribbons.  Original cost one year ago to me,
$1,700. Will sell for $800 plus shipping. More information
contact Mr. Tandy Way, 8909 Peppermill Court, Tampa, Florida
33634; (813) 885-7182.

**Call If Interested:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
I am a 34-year-old blind man. I have a successful career, and I
am now working very hard at establishing my own business. I live
in New York City, but I consider myself a country boy. I am
looking for that special woman to play guitar for, to go for long
walks with, and who understands the unique circumstances of being
blind. I am a fitness freak and would appreciate a woman who
keeps herself fit. My name is Peter, and you may call me collect
at (718) 507- 7207.

**Books Available:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
Pamphlets on menstruation, childbirth, menopause, and even an
introductory book on sexuality for children are now part of our
list of publications in Braille or large print. We have also
recently transcribed a 690-page (in 7 volumes) spelling
dictionary of oncologic terms for medical transcribers and a
195-page dictionary of commonly misused words, which contains
correct usage, definitions, and examples. For a Braille or large
print catalog, contact TFB Publications, 238 75th Street, North
Bergen, New Jersey 07047; (201) 662-0956. All orders must
be prepaid and must include an additional $.25 for orders under
$1.

**Recovering:
Fred Schroeder, who ought to know, writes as follows: On January
5, 1990, Cathy Schroeder, President of the Albuquerque Chapter of
the National Federation of the Blind of New Mexico, underwent
surgery to remove her gall bladder. She has subsequently returned
home and is recovering speedily.

**Sell:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
I have a seven-year-old Visual-Tek Voyager VR1 for sale. This is
a
device for magnifying print. I am asking best offer. I will take
inquiries on cassette or in Braille. My address is: Kerry Smith,
890 Country Club Road, Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014; and my phone
number is (815) 459-1551.

**Dies:
We are informed of the death of one of the leaders of our Alaska
affiliate, Gwen Canham. She died December 5, 1989, in Anchorage.
She was a former treasurer and then later second vice president
of the NFB of Alaska.  Gwen Canham was a woman of great principle
and strength and will be missed as a member of our organization.

**Organized:
Barbara Pierce, President of the National Federation of the Blind
of Ohio, reports that on Saturday, January 13, 1990, the National
Federation of the Blind of the Miami Valley came into being. A
number of loyal Federationists from the old Dayton Federation of
the Blind
as well as many new faces were on hand for the great event. The
members of the Board of Directors of the newest Ohio chapter are
President, Jana Schroeder; Vice President, Jeannette Huskey;
Secretary, Kim Bundy; Treasurer, Larry Ward; and Board Member,
Myers Bost. We expect much from this lively new chapter.

**Christmas Party:
Diane Felice of Ohio writes: The Capital Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Ohio coordinated and hosted a
Christmas party for the students of the Ohio State School for the
Blind on December 18, 1989. A fun-filled evening was had by all
as local Federationists intermingled with the festivity-oriented
teen-agers during the pizza party, door prize, and gift-giving
segments but bowed out graciously while students cut the rug
during the high-spirited dance contest.

**A Model Mayor:
The National Federation of the Blind of Wyoming held its annual
convention September 30, 1989, in Casper. Peggy Pinder, Second
Vice President
of the National Federation of the Blind was the national
representative, and the day was filled with interesting and
important activities.  Mayor Shamley of Casper was on hand to
welcome the convention, and his remarks were a model of what it
would be helpful to have public officials understand about
blindness and the National Federation of the Blind. Whether Mayor
Shamley wrote his remarks after reviewing some of our literature
or Tammy Kearney, the energetic president of the affiliate wrote
them for him, they are worth reprinting as a useful example to us
all as we contact community leaders. Here is what Mayor Shamley
had to say:
 I am pleased to welcome you to our community. On behalf of the
Casper City Council, city staff, and the citizens of Casper, I
extend our best wishes for a successful and productive
conference.
 The National Federation of the Blind is the largest organization
of the blind in America. Its ultimate purpose is the complete
integration of the blind into society on the basis of equality,
which involves
the removal of legal, economic, and social discriminations; the
education of the public to new concepts concerning blindness; and
the achievement by all blind people of the right to exercise to
the fullest their individual talents and capacities. It means the
right of the blind to work along with their sighted neighbors in
the professions, common callings, skilled trades, and regular
occupations.
 One thing I think we all have to remember is that the real
problem of blindness is the misunderstanding and lack of
information which exist. If a blind person has proper training
and opportunity, blindness is only a physical nuisance.
 Again, I am pleased to be here this morning. If there is ever
anything I or the City of Casper government can do for you,
please do not hesitate to let us know. 

**Elected:
Laurie Eckery writes: On January 6, 1990, the following persons
were elected to office in the National Federation of the Blind of
Nebraska, Omaha Chapter: President, Larry Streeter; First Vice
President, Lonnie Merritt; Second Vice President, Gary Thompson;
Secretary, Laurie Eckery; Treasurer, Carol Thompson; and four
board positions: Sandy Streeter, Alan Kopetzky, Jerry Eckery, and
Kathy Brahmer.

**Invisible Man:
Tom Bickford, who works at the National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped, submits the following:
Just by living and successfully using the alternative methods
that
we do, blind people show the world, including some authors, how
practical and sensible these methods are. As an example: If you
are searching for an invisible object, you can feel for it. To
extend the reach of your arm, you can use a long white cane.
In H. F. Saint,  Memoirs of an Invisible Man , RC 25986, a man
becomes invisible through an accident at a scientific laboratory.
An un-named government agency takes an interest in the case and
tries to capture him, but he repeatedly escapes. The search
methods evolve
as the story goes along. Late in the book the agency corners the
invisible man in the lobby of an apartment house. Some of the
agents, all of whom are sighted, have long canes, the kind blind
people use, sweeping them back and forth to search for someone
they cannot see.
It appears that blind people are not the only ones to recognize
the value of the long cane.

**Dies:
Allen Schaefer, President of the Prairie State Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Illinois, writes as follows:
With deep sadness we report the death of Mrs. Virginia Kemp of
Dwight. She was a long-time member of our NFBI Prairie State
Chapter. She gave much happiness to and shared much kindness with
all who knew her.

**T-Shirts:
Donna Posont of Michigan submits the following: The NFB of
Michigan Parents Division is selling sweatshirts and t-shirts
with print and Braille lettering  Braille Readers are Leaders. 
The shirts are royal blue with white raised Braille dots and
yellow lettering
with the NFB logo and the words  National Federation of the
Blind.  The sweatshirts are available in children's sizes small,
medium, and large for $15; and adult sizes small, medium, large,
and extra large for $18 and extra, extra large for $20. The
t-shirts are available in the same sizes for $8 for children, $10
for adults, and $12 for adult extra, extra large. To order,
please make check or money order payable to the NFBM Parents
Division. Be sure to include $2 for shipping and handling for
each shirt ordered. Please remit to: Donna Posont, 4539 Rosalie,
Dearborn, Michigan 48126.

**Tangible Proof:
Here is how the Federation works:


                                       Family Empowerment Project
                                               Tacoma, Washington
                                                 January 29, 1990


Dear Mrs. Maurer:
On January 26, 1990, I called your office and spoke to you
concerning a call we had received from the parent of a visually
impaired child.  A local theater had refused the parent's request
for seating near the stage so that the child could also see and
enjoy the show.
You assured me that you would put the parent in touch with your
contact person here in the state of Washington to help resolve
the situation.
I was advised by the parent today that your contact person was
effective in helping theater personnel to a better understanding
of the needs of the visually impaired youngster. As a result of
this intervention the theater provided four seats near the front
of the theater for the family, and the child enjoyed the show
along with everyone else.  Thank you for your swift and
outstanding intervention on behalf of this family. It was timely
and impressive. And the family was just delighted.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Mary Anderson
                                             Resource Coordinator
**Statement from a Chapter President:
We recently received the following letter from Tami Dodd Jones:
On January 15, 1990, the Lansing Chapter, National Federation of
the Blind of Michigan, held elections. The new officers are: Tami
Jones, President; Joe Sontag, Vice President; Margaret Conry,
Secretary; Vickie Chapman, Treasurer; Cathy Parker, Ombudsman;
Dorothy Eagle, Chapter Representative; and Joy Osmar, Board
Member. Our chapter has several important goals for 1990. We plan
to work with our state legislative committee to get our Braille
literacy bill passed. We will work on membership-building and
increase our fund-raising efforts to keep our chapter strong and
growing. And we will find new and better ways to educate the
public about blindness and the goals of the Federation.  Together
we hope to accomplish these major goals. And I, as president,
pledge to work to make it so.

**Organized:
Jacquilyn Billey, President of the National Federation of the
Blind
of Connecticut, reports that on January 13, 1990, the Greater
Waterbury Chapter of the NFB of Connecticut became the
affiliate's seventh chapter.  The officers elected were
President, Esther Levegnale; Vice President, Mary Terrell; and
Treasurer, John Casolo. If the name Casolo sounds familiar to
you, it is probably because John's daughter Jennifer made recent
headlines as a result of an incident in El Salvador. The new
chapter shows every sign of being active and energetic. Already a
news story about it has appeared in the  Waterbury Republican ,
and flyers listing the organization's projects have been
circulated in the community. Good luck to the newest member of
our family in Connecticut.

**Tenth Anniversary Election:
Lola Pace (President of the National Federation of the Blind of
Wichita Falls, Texas, almost since its beginning) writes to
report that in January, 1990, the chapter celebrated its tenth
anniversary and elected the following members to serve as
officers: Lola Pace, President; Mary Barker, Vice President; and
Darlene Holcomb, Secretary-Treasurer.  Evelyn Stephens was
re-elected to the board, and Dale Pierce, who has been a member
of the Federation for just over a year, was also elected to the
board. Congratulations, Wichita Falls; we'll see you in Dallas.

**A Small Pot of Gold:
Julie Vogt is a thoughtful and active member of the NFB of
Minnesota.  She also takes seriously her responsibility as a
citizen. On October 15, 1989, she attended the first annual
convention of the Rainbow Coalition in Minnesota. Thanks to her
articulate presentation concerning the importance of the Air
Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act
(H.R. 563), the Rainbow Coalition passed a resolution urging
Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota to schedule a hearing for
the bill. In our ongoing struggle for passage of this bill, we
need all the friends we can persuade to help us. Julie Vogt has
provided us all with a fine example. Here are the letter and
resolution sent to Congressman Oberstar by the Rainbow Coalition:


                                                      Julie Quinn
                                                  Minneapolis, MN
                                                 November 8, 1989


Congressman James Oberstar
2209 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, D.C.


Congressman:
The Minnesota Rainbow Coalition passed a resolution at its recent
statewide convention endorsing the right of blind people to
travel freely on our nation's airlines and supporting the passage
of the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act (H.R. 563). It
has been brought to my attention that this bill is currently
stalled at the committee level, and that you, as head of the
subcommittee on aviation, are the man with the power to get it
moving.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of the Minnesota Rainbow
Coalition,
I strongly urge you to convene hearings on H.R. 563 as soon as
possible.  According to Mrs. Joyce Scanlon, President of the
National Federation of the Blind in Minnesota, there are between
nine and ten thousand blind Minnesotans who will be affected by
this bill. These people
do not deserve to be left in limbo on an issue which so vitally
affects their mobility in this country. I hope that you, as a
responsible representative of the people, will do all that you
can to ensure the speedy passage of this bill.
I thank you for your attention in this matter and ask that you
keep me informed as to your actions in regard to it.

                                                 Sincerely yours,
                                               Julie Quinn, Chair
                                      Platform & Issues Committee

RESOLVED:
The Minnesota Rainbow Coalition acknowledges the right of the
blind to travel freely on our nation's airlines and therefore
endorses the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act (H.R.
563). In addition, the Minnesota Rainbow Coalition supports the
National Federation of the Blind, headquartered at 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland, in its legislative efforts to secure
travel rights for the blind.

Passed 10/15/1989 at the Minnesota Rainbow Coalition's first
statewide convention.

**An Entrepreneurial Enterprise:
Many of us know Bee Hodgkiss, a member of our Minnesota
affiliate,
as one of the regular volunteers who helps unload and load the
truck-full of materials which we take to our National Convention
each year. Recently, Bee established a business to produce
engraved, tactile signs, awards, and maps on clear acrylic. With
sophisticated computer and related equipment, Bee can provide
made-to-order items, which can have Braille and/or print
lettering. The system Bee uses digitizes photographs, logos,
other graphics, and lettering and transfers the image onto either
1/8 inch thick or 1/4 inch thick acrylic. Items can be produced
on a piece as small as 2 x 2 inches and on up to 6 x 6 inches for
portraits and most graphics and 8-1/2 x 11 inches for some other
applications.  Wedding invitations, marriage licenses, birth
certificates, graduation announcements, and certificates of
appreciation can be photographed by the system, digitized, and
reproduced in acrylic. Portrait style photographs can be
reproduced with this process. For further information you may
contact Bee at: Suite 2604, 1117 Marquett Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403; phone (612) 333-3100.
