                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           April, 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
                           APRIL, 1990

ANOTHER TWIST TO THE IOWA PEPPER MILL

POLITICAL TUSSLING IN TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND: 
THE 1990 UPDATE
  by Barbara Pierce

VICTORY IN THE CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES LITIGATION
by Donald C. Capps

WEEKLY READER MAKES CORRECT CHANGE

MEET A FELLOW FEDERATIONIST BILL ISAACS
by Deborah Kent Stein

LET THE FLAG SPEAK
  by Bill J. Isaacs

REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER RULES ON SCHOLARSHIP QUESTION
by Kenneth Jernigan

OPEN LETTER TO NEW CHAPTER PRESIDENTS
  by Barbara Pierce

MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE BLIND CHILD: 
WHAT IS THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY?

THE CHILD'S LAUGHTER AND THE ADULT'S RESPONSIBILITY: 
GROWTH IN THE FEDERATION'S PHILOSOPHY
  by Christopher J. Kuczynski

SAFETY AND AMTRAK: ANOTHER VARIATION ON A TIRED OLD THEMe
by Sharon Gold

JUSTIN DART COMMENTS ON THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

WHAT A DIFFERENCE 16 YEARS MAKES
  by Pattie Droppers

RECIPES

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1990
                                 
              ANOTHER TWIST TO THE IOWA PEPPER MILL

From the Editor: In both the January and February, 1990, issues
of the  Braille Monitor  we carried articles about the theft of
funds from the Iowa Department for the Blind (formerly the Iowa
Commission for the Blind) by its accountant, Terry Pepper. There
have now been further developments. For one thing, Iowa's
Governor (Terry Branstad) has made public statements to reassure
the citizens of Iowa that state government is really not as
sloppy and irresponsible as the Pepper episode would indicate. He
said that the whole unfortunate situation could be explained on
the basis that Pepper's boss was blind.  When I was in Iowa, I
got to know Branstad quite well. He was a young legislator at the
time, one who would hardly have been suspected of planning to run
for governor. At the dinner table and under other circumstances I
was exposed to the future governor's method of reasoning. 
Therefore, I cannot say that I was totally surprised by the
comments
which he allegedly made. I use the term  allegedly  with
deliberation because credulity (regardless of how well founded)
has its limits.  Be that as it may, Governor Branstad's remarks
were reported in the January 30, 1990, edition of the  Des Moines
Register . A response, which was straight to the point and should
cause the governor to do some reconsidering, appeared in the
February 13, 1990,  Des Moines Register . The response was made
by Dana Harr, a former student
of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. As will be observed, she
reminds the governor that Pepper's stealing began when the Iowa
Department for the Blind was administered by a sighted person.
Moreover, the theft went undetected by officials (all of them
sighted) in the state comptroller's office and the office of the
state auditor.
As a follow-up and almost as an anticlimax, Pepper's sentencing
was reported in the February 27, 1990,  Des Moines Register .
Hopefully this disgraceful episode can be seen in perspective.
The theft of the money was the least of the damage done to the
blind of Iowa and their programs. Not all of the members of the
public in Iowa will
be taken in by the foolishness that Pepper's theft was possible
because his boss was blind. Here are the relevant articles from
the  Des Moines Register :

  Branstad: Theft by Official Not Typical by Thomas A. Fogarty

The theft of nearly $103,000 of taxpayers' money by a former
state official is an aberration, and not a reflection of
inadequate financial safeguards in Iowa state government,
Governor Terry Branstad said Monday.
 This was a unique situation,  Branstad said of the case of Terry
Pepper, the number 2 administrator at the Iowa Department for the
Blind until his resignation last September.
Pepper pleaded guilty to theft charges January 12 in Polk County
District Court. Pepper admitted depositing $61,000 in checks
written to the agency into his personal bank account. In
addition, a report by the state auditor identified another
$41,598 in personal bills that Pepper managed to have paid off by
state-issued checks. No charges were filed in connection with the
theft identified in the auditor's report.  Much of the money was
used to lavishly decorate Pepper's West Des Moines condominium,
according to the auditor's report.
 I was shocked,  Branstad said of the theft.  We're taking action
to recover all the money that was taken. 
However, Branstad said financial controls in state agencies
generally are adequate. Pepper, who can see, was able to steal
over a period
of years by taking advantage of his boss, Creig Slayton, who is
blind, Branstad said.
 He took advantage of Slayton, who is director of the department,
by misleading him and not telling him the truth about what was on
certain vouchers and statements,  Branstad said.  The controls
were adequate, but this individual, because of his knowledge and
experience, was able to take money from that agency. 
Pepper, who is awaiting sentencing, has agreed to make
restitution.  Branstad declined to say whether he believes Pepper
deserves imprisonment for the theft.  That's a matter for the
courts to determine,  he said.

                 Stories Disclose Discrimination

To The Editor:
On January 13 and then again on January 30, the  Register  has
reported that Terry Pepper's ability to steal large amounts of
money from the Iowa Department for the Blind was in some way
contingent on the fact that Pepper's supervisor, Creig Slayton,
the director
of the department, is blind. In the second article, Governor
Branstad adopted this explanation to assure Iowans that other
agencies of state government are not so vulnerable. In light of
the fact that one of
the principal goals of the Department for the Blind is to remove
discriminatory barriers to the employment of blind persons, it
should be noted that Pepper's thieving from the blind agency
began when the director was a sighted individual and that it was
not detected in annual audits conducted by sighted auditors....
If the governor of Iowa and the readers of the  Des Moines
Register  buy this explanation of the theft which is based on the
stereotype of the vulnerability of blind persons to exploitation
by the rest of the community, then the money Terry Pepper stole
is no damage at all compared to the setback in positive attitudes
toward blindness that he has brought about.
 Dana K. Harr and Barclay Kuhn, 2905 S.E. 20th Street, Des
Moines.

                    Ex-Blind Agency Official 
Jailed for 10 Years
                        by Kellye Carter

Terry Pepper was sentenced Monday [February 26] to 10 years in
prison for stealing nearly $103,000 from the Iowa Department for
the Blind, where he was a top administrator.
Pepper, of 1100 50th Street, West Des Moines, showed no emotion
as Judge George Bergeson sentenced him. He was led away in
handcuffs by a sheriff's deputy.
Pepper also was ordered to pay back the money he took. Pepper
would not get probation, Bergeson said, because  I think it's
important to protect the public from people like you. 
Pepper will not appeal the sentence, said his lawyer, Robert
Kromminga.  Pepper has liquidated almost all his assets to pay
back nearly half of what he took, Kromminga said.
He said he wasn't surprised by the sentence.  The judge's
attitude was `When people embezzle $100,000, they need to find
out what jail is all about,'  Kromminga said.
Until he resigned last September when investigators discovered
the theft, Pepper was the number 2 administrator at the
Department for the Blind, where he worked for eight years.
A report by State Auditor Richard Johnson's office told of an
elaborate scheme in which Pepper arranged for the state to pay
for thousands of dollars in personal items such as home
furnishings, clothing, and stereo equipment.
Deputy State Auditor Kasey Kiplinger said Pepper's case is
perhaps
the largest misappropriation of public money in Iowa in his two
decades in the auditor's office.
Pepper stole money from the state by arranging for the issuance
of state checks to pay personal charge accounts and by depositing
checks written to the agency in his personal bank account,
according to the auditor's report.
POLITICAL TUSSLING IN TECHNOLOGY FOR THE BLIND:  THE 1990 UPDATE
                        by Barbara Pierce
In the March, 1989, edition of the  Braille Monitor  we published
a story entitled  Wheeling and Dealing in Technology for the
Blind.  The intervening months have witnessed no decrease in the
maneuvering for market share and power in this corner of the
technology field.  Lee Brown (one year ago the most visible and
apparently powerful man at both Enabling Technologies and TBS,
the former Triformation Braille Service) is now altogether out of
the leadership and serves only as
a TBS stockholder and signatory on promissory notes. Hans Thiel,
inventor and manufacturer of the Thiel Braille Embosser, came
very close to filing for bankruptcy and was rescued only when
O.N.C.E., the wealthy organization of the blind in Spain, bought
the German concern. And having swallowed up VTEK, TSI has not
remained altogether quiet on the West Coast. According to Lee
Brown, it toyed briefly with the idea of buying Enabling
Technologies in the early summer of 1989 but quickly lost
interest, according to sources close to Enabling, who presume
that the price was too high.
Stuart, Florida, is the home of two closely identified, but
legally separate corporations Enabling Technologies and TBS.
Enabling,
a for-profit company, is composed of two divisions (in December,
1989, the third component was sold outright to the Chairman of
Enabling's board of directors). The parent corporation, however,
produces Braille embossers of various kinds and some other
sophisticated devices to assist blind people. For almost exactly
four years, according to Lee Brown, he served as president and
chairman of the board first for Triformation Systems, as the
Braille division was known originally,
and then for all of Enabling Technologies after the merger. In
addition, Brown and two partners, Dan Eastwood and Bill Thomas,
jointly purchased TBS, a Braille publishing house which had
recently become a not-for-profit corporation but was originally
part of Triformation which, in turn, has undergone acquisitions,
divestments, and convolutions. Brown also served as president of
TBS, one third of which he owned.
Everyone agrees that on May 10, 1989, Lee Brown left both the
presidency of Enabling Technologies and the chairmanship of its
board of directors to move to TBS exclusively. He remained,
however, a member of the Enabling board for several more weeks.
Dan Eastwood explained to the  Braille Monitor  in an interview
in June of 1989 that the May 10 shifts had been only a normal
rotation in leadership nothing at all was amiss. He had assumed
the chairmanship of the Enabling Board, and Tony Schenk had
become president. Lee Brown had merely moved over to TBS to give
his full attention to the Braille publishing company, which had
been experiencing difficulties in meeting time deadlines in
producing Braille and otherwise showing signs of management
slippage.
Interviewed recently for this article, Tony Schenk admitted that
Enabling had suffered substantial losses during the first quarter
of 1989 and that the actions taken to remove Lee Brown were
actually stockholder and board responses to the poor financial
situation. Bill Thomas agrees.  He attributes Brown's ouster to 
strictly non-performance he just didn't do the job. 
Lee Brown's account differs markedly in both tone and substance.
He says that on the morning of May 10, 1989, he was told that
Enabling was being divided into its three divisions and that he
would have control over the Braille division only. In this
labyrinthine maze, one must be careful not to confuse the Braille
division of Enabling Technologies, which makes Braille-producing
machinery but not Braille, with TBS, which makes Braille but not
Braille-producing machinery.  One must further keep in mind that
TBS (just next door to Enabling and allegedly nonprofit) has as
its stockholders that same trio of Brown, Eastwood, and Thomas,
who are so prominently involved in the affairs of Enabling which,
before the splitting and maneuvering began, was (along with TBS)
part of Triformation. That was before Enabling acquired Quadratec
(a defense contracting firm) and a hearing aid division, which
has now been spun off to Eastwood. Does it make your head spin?
Who says the blindness field can't wheel and deal?  Brown says
that on that fateful May 10 of 1989 he was told that he could not
touch the other two parts of Enabling, and he could have nothing
to do with TBS.  Eastwood, he was told, would be assuming the
chairmanship of the Enabling board. (Brown does not say whether
he was offered an aspirin.) Brown says he responded that he would
prefer to get out of Enabling Technologies altogether (except for
his service on the board) and work exclusively with TBS. He was
allowed to make that change, and by 10 a.m. Tony Schenk had been
installed as president of Enabling Technologies. Brown reports
that in July of 1989 he was forced off the Enabling board and
told that he could not set foot inside the building. Schenk says
that he is not aware of such a prohibition and that he certainly
has not limited Brown's access to the premises.
When asked why he was forced out of Enabling, Brown sighs and
says that several charges were made charges which he understands
that
an outside auditor dismissed out of hand after a couple of hours
examination of the Enabling books. Brown says that Eastwood, with
whom he had been friends for many years, clearly wanted him out
and simply set out to cobble together excuses to drive him away.
Brown explains that both he and Eastwood believe in borrowing
money to do business, but their methods are different. He
considers that Eastwood began tampering
with some bank arrangements, an action within his rights but
counterproductive, and managed to turn the bank personnel against
Brown and cause problems where they had not previously existed.
According to Brown, Tom Storey, the head of Quadratec (Enabling's
defense-contracting subsidiary), told Brown that he had been
pushed out because he was  an iron-fisted manager.  Schenk agrees
with this description of Brown, saying that Brown does not
delegate responsibility well and keeps control tightly in his own
hands. But Schenk does not attribute Brown's ouster to anything
beyond the poor balance sheets at Enabling. Brown maintains that,
while he is a demanding manager, requiring hard work from his
subordinates, he does not keep watch over everyone's shoulder or
insist on making all crucial decisions.

Meanwhile the sailing was far from smooth at TBS. According to
Brown, several people have told him that Bill Thomas (the third
partner in the purchase of TBS, the nonprofit Braille-production
company and a man whom Brown characterizes as  a good guy ) had
come to hate Brown and wanted him out of TBS. In the summer and
fall of 1989 Braille production deadlines were only irregularly
met (something
not new), and there was clearly unrest within the staff (also
something not new). Brown points to Judy McQuae (the person in
charge of Braille production at TBS) as one cause of problems,
but she was conferring regularly with Thomas, and Brown
apparently did not feel he had the authority to deal with her
decisively. Brown says that rumors began
to surface that he was having an affair with a member of the
staff an allegation which seems to amuse Brown, who points out
that as a married man and the father of eight he would seem to be
a less than attractive candidate for such stories.
One small indication of a decline in employee morale and
professionalism surfaced during the summer of 1989 and involved
the National Federation of the Blind. A packer or proofreader or
someone else at TBS with access to the finished copies of the 
Braille Monitor  slipped a nasty little bit of doggerel about an
article in the June issue into at least one magazine before it
was mailed. No one seemed to know how it could have happened or
who was responsible, but it was a straw in the wind, indicating
how far standards had crumbled.  Difficulties were mounting at
every level of TBS, and, as president, Brown was the obvious one
to take the responsibility. In mid-October, 1989, he was forced
out of TBS. He says that word was passed that
no one was to have anything to do with him. If one can judge by
production schedules, TBS has not noticeably benefited from
Brown's departure.  The Braille edition of the  Braille Monitor 
now seems to be
consistently rather than periodically late. But Bill Thomas says
optimistically that the production problems are now about licked.
He assured the  Braille Monitor  that TBS has now been turned
around, and Brown's mistakes reversed.
At a board meeting in December of 1989 Brown reports that he
indicated his interest in having the other two stockholders buy
his shares in TBS so that he could cut his ties with the
organization. Thomas said, according to Brown, that he would sell
his interest in TBS  at any time for any price.  Brown says he
pursued that comment with
a letter offering to put up some more money and eventually get
Thomas's name off the TBS promissory notes, but Thomas told the 
Braille Monitor  that Brown's offer was  totally unsatisfactory. 
When asked whether he would have difficulty stepping back into
TBS after all the unpleasantness, Brown said that he could win
back the trust and goodwill of the employees almost immediately. 
He said that
it would be easy to produce hard evidence disproving most of the
allegations made against him, and that with the removal of two or
three problem employees, he could have TBS working efficiently
again very quickly.  But for the moment negotiations appear to be
at a standstill or, more accurately, appear not yet seriously to
have begun. Tony Schenk speaks optimistically of Enabling
Technologies' future, and Bill Thomas, at least for now, is
actively running TBS despite his being nearly eighty years of
age. And Lee Brown is living on his investments, which he
characterizes as sufficient to his needs if not princely. He
would clearly enjoy becoming a player again, but where and
whether is anybody's guess.
It is not simply in Florida or the United States that a ferment
is occurring in work with the blind. One group that has entered
the technology arena so recently that its officials are not yet
ready to make statements for attribution is O.N.C.E., the Spanish
organization of the blind, which hosted the World Blind Union
General Assembly in September, 1988. Late in February, 1990,
O.N.C.E. conducted a buyout of Thiel Computer Products GmbH (the
company which produces the Thiel Braille embosser). The details
of the deal are not yet available, but several things can be
said. The Thiel manufacturing plant in County Kildare, Ireland,
is now in full production of the Thiel embossers which have
become popular in this country. The Irish staff is delighted with
the O.N.C.E. takeover, according to Theresa Delahante, Sales
Administration Manager. And well the Irish may, for in recent
times Hans Thiel has been unwell and strapped for cash, according
to American observers, and has not been able to provide Thiel
Ireland with the financial backing that the Irish would have
preferred. Now O.N.C.E., with its legendary deep pockets, is on
the scene; and the folks at Thiel say that this fact can mean
nothing but good for their customers and for what they describe
as their ongoing commitment  to provide excellent products and
excellent service at a competitive and reasonable price.  All
parties agree that developing the American market is very
important to both Thiel and O.N.C.E. Delahante would not comment
when asked if there were plans to produce more than the embosser
at the Irish plant, but the intention to return to the original
plan of producing a full range of Thiel products in Ireland was
clearly in the air.  The fact seems to be that O.N.C.E. simply
has not had time to make the necessary decisions and is
withholding comment until it has done so.
What can be said is that Deane Blazie, owner of Blazie
Engineering and creator and producer of the  Braille 'n Speak ,
is now the distributor for the Thiel Embosser in America. Two
units have recently been shipped to him, and through him Sighted
Electronics is now receiving a steady stream of replacement parts
for the repair of embossers in this country. Blazie is clearly
optimistic about the future of the Thiel and reports that he is
delighted to have the distributorship back again.
Jim Bliss, head of TeleSensory (the name recently settled upon by
the company composed of TSI and VTEK), says that he is relieved
to have severed his connections with Thiel from July, 1986, to
July, 1989, VTEK was the American distributor. Bliss reports that
he traveled to Ireland in July of 1989 to evaluate the situation
and concluded that Thiel was not going to improve in its delivery
of replacement parts, so he says that he severed the connection.
Deane Blazie, whose relationship with Hans Thiel has always been
close, says that Thiel was unhappy with the service VTEK and then
TSI was providing. Delahante refused to comment on the situation.
She did permit herself to sum
up matters with a statement that the TSI chapter was closed and 
Anything I say will only add to the speculation and
controversy.... The road that TSI had mapped out for themselves
was quite different from the way Thiel would wish to go.  The
participants in the July, 1989, negotiations in Ireland between
Thiel and Bliss did not wish to comment about the details of the
discussions, but those close to the situation suggest that the
American price of the Thiel embosser was the crux of the problem.
TSI was not prepared to continue to sell the Thiel
without including more profit for itself than Thiel believed was
appropriate.  Additionally, VTEK had never stocked many
replacement parts for repairs.  As these were needed, VTEK had
them shipped from Ireland a process that took three months. Then
when the production plant in Ireland started operations, there
was a further delay, a delay that observers believed would not
have become a problem if TSI/VTEK had been carrying the inventory
they should have been.
So there it is not the end of the story, but merely the latest
episode. And in true soap opera fashion we end with the action in
full swing. Tune in tomorrow, or at least to an up-coming issue
of the  Braille Monitor , to find out: Will Lee Brown find
himself a new niche in the world of technology for the blind? Can
TBS succeed in getting its Braille publications out on schedule?
Can O.N.C.E.  gold open the New World to Thiel? And what about
the marriage between VTEK and TSI? All these questions are of
more than passing interest to blind Americans. We will be
watching and waiting.
  VICTORY IN THE CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES LITIGATION by Donald C.
Capps
 In the August, 1989, issue of the  Braille Monitor  we printed
an article entitled  Litigation Filed Against Carnival Cruise
Lines.  It recounted the problems that Joe Urbanek had when he
tried to take a vacation on a Carnival Cruise Line ship. The
National Federation of the Blind assisted Joe Urbanek with a
lawsuit against Carnival, and the February edition of the 
Palmetto Blind , the publication of the National Federation of
the Blind of South Carolina, reports the outcome. Here is the
story as it appeared in the  Palmetto Blind . It is one more
answer to the question: Why the National Federation of the Blind?


In February, 1989, the National Federation of the Blind sponsored
litigation against Carnival Cruise Lines on behalf of Joe Urbanek
of Walterboro, South Carolina. In order for Mr. Urbanek to take
the cruise, Carnival Cruise Lines required that a special release
be executed by Mr. Urbanek which would have relieved Carnival
Cruise Lines of
any and all liability arising out of his cruise. Mr. Urbanek's
blindness was the sole cause of Carnival Cruise Line's insisting
upon the special release being executed. Mr. Urbanek
appropriately resisted and sought the assistance of the National
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina and the National
Federation of the Blind to fight the discriminatory policies of
Carnival Cruise Lines.
Upon the filing of the litigation, Carnival Cruise Lines took the
position that they were not doing business in South Carolina and
filed for a dismissal of the litigation on the grounds that South
Carolina lacked jurisdiction. The court held otherwise. Carnival
Cruise Lines appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of South
Carolina. Meanwhile, it obviously became increasingly clear to
Carnival Cruise Lines that their discriminatory policies against
the blind and the handicapped would not be upheld by the courts.
Thus, the strong position held by the Federation, coupled with
the fears of Carnival Cruise Lines that they would not win this
litigation, ultimately resulted in their abandoning their policy
of requiring blind persons to sign any special release. On
December 21, 1989, a Consent Decree filed in the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas was executed, ending the Carnival Cruise
Lines policy of discriminating against the blind.
Mr. Clifford O. Koon, Jr. (member of the law firm, Rogers,
Thomas, Cleveland, Koon, Waters, and Tally, which represents the
NFB of South Carolina) writes in part as follows:  I am pleased
that this matter was concluded favorably. I take particular pride
in the language on page 4 which gives any citizen of the State of
South Carolina the right to enforce this decree should Carnival
fail to abide by it.  This was a provision which we insisted be
part of the settlement.  Mr. Koon also writes,  I am happy to
tell you that we have settled
the case with Carnival.... Carnival has agreed to change its
discriminatory policies and to place handicapped persons on an
equal plane with others.  We are very happy with the victory in
this case. We will, however, be monitoring Carnival Cruise Lines
very closely to ensure that they give more than lip service to
their policy change. 
It is noteworthy that the Consent Order cites the Bill of Rights
for the Blind Law, sponsored by the National Federation of the
Blind of South Carolina in the early 1970s, in reaching this
settlement. This law is also referred to as the Model White Cane
Law. Section I of the Consent Order states,  that this action was
commenced by the plaintiff, Urbanek, on February 10, 1989,
alleging that the defendant, Carnival, had engaged in certain
discriminatory practices against Urbanek, a blind citizen of
South Carolina, and other persons similarly situated, by
requiring them to sign a special release form as a condition of
passage on its cruise ships, in violation of South Carolina's
`Bill of Rights for Handicapped Persons' Section 43-33-510  et
seq. , South Carolina's Code of Laws for 1976. 
Once again it is clear that legislation sponsored by the National
Federation of the Blind of South Carolina which became law is
very important because it protects blind citizens against
discriminatory practices based solely on blindness. It should
also be apparent to anyone that the Federation will enforce the
law through court action, if necessary, in the interest of blind
persons' being treated fairly and on a nondiscriminatory basis.
                                 
WEEKLY READER MAKES CORRECT CHANGE
 From the Associate Editor:  Braille Monitor  readers will
remember the story we printed in the December, 1989, issue
entitled,  Making the Correct Change: Weekly Reader Learns its
Lesson.  The piece included a letter from Maureen Toonkel, the
mother of a blind elementary-school-age son, directed to the
editor of the Weekly Reader Paperback Book Club. Mrs. Toonkel
objected to a set of exercises in the  Kids' Own Money Book 
which depicted a blind businessman who repeatedly gave incorrect
change to his customers because he could not distinguish one
denomination coin from another.   Elizabeth Zuraw, Sr. Editor,
Special Projects for Weekly Reader, wrote a response to Mrs.
Toonkel, which we also published. She assured Mrs. Toonkel that
neither the Weekly Reader staff nor the book's author had
intended the insult to blind business people which the degrading
portrayal of the shopkeeper conveyed. She said that the publisher
would revise the text of this book as soon as it was reprinted.  
We wondered in passing whether this promise would ever be
fulfilled, and now we know the answer.  Weekly Reader  has been
as good as its word. A copy of the revised edition of the  Kids'
Own Money Book  accompanied the letter reprinted here. The
changes outlined in this cover letter really have been made.  The
Kids' Own Money
Book  no longer teaches young children that blind people are
incompetent in handling money. The Weekly Reader Book Club is to
be commended for doing expeditiously what Elizabeth Zuraw said
the publisher would do. Here is the letter sent to Mrs. Toonkel,
a copy of which was also sent to the  Braille Monitor:

                                          Middletown, Connecticut
                                                 February 1, 1990

Dear Ms. Toonkel:
This is from the  small world  department!
An acquaintance of mine who has a blind friend just forwarded to
me an article from  The Braille Monitor , December, 1989, pages
786-788. The article is about  Weekly Reader's  inaccurate
portrayal of a visually handicapped man in the publication, 
Kids' Own Money Book. 
I just thought you might like to know that we did, in fact, make
a correction on the last reprint, completely deleting the
objectionable reference. The author of the  Monitor  article had
wondered whether we would follow through and revise the text. I'm
enclosing a revised edition of the book. We made the coin trader
on page 10 no more than
a busy man and, thus, needing help. The pages that follow, as a
result, allude only to his busyness, rather than any visual or
other impairment.  Thank you again for writing.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                               Elizabeth G. Zuraw
                                     Sr. Editor, Special Projects
                               Weekly Reader Paperback Book Clubs
             MEET A FELLOW FEDERATIONIST BILL ISAACS
                      by Deborah Kent Stein
 This article appears in the December-January, 1989-90 , Braille
Examiner,  the publication of the National Federation of the
Blind of Illinois. 

 For me the best thing about the NFB is a kind of family spirit, 
Bill Isaacs explains.  You really have a sense of fellowship,
people pulling together to help each other. 
Bill Isaacs ought to be an expert on family spirit he was ninth
in a lively crowd of sixteen children. Through much of his
childhood his stepfather was an itinerant farm worker in Central
Indiana. The family moved so often that Bill had attended twelve
different schools by the time he graduated from high school.  It
was hard to make friends all over again each time we started in a
new place,  he
remembers.  But we had each other to play with. We all stuck
together.  When Bill was a child his parents noticed that he had
poor vision, but he was never singled out for special treatment.
He was expected to do the same chores as the other children, and
he always attended regular classes, using ordinary print. After
high school he took a twelve-month business course. He worked as
a billing clerk and later took a job with the Federal Treasury
Office in Indianapolis. During this period he became increasingly
aware of his visual problem. When
he began consulting specialists, he learned that he had a rare,
progressive, genetic condition called choroideremia, which also
affected two of his siblings.
While working at the Treasury Office, Bill became active in the
Church of the Nazarene and decided that he wanted to do more with
his life than process tax refunds. He enrolled at Olivet Nazarene
College (now a full-fledged university) in Kankakee, Illinois,
where he majored in history. He could still handle some reading
assignments in print but also used a lot of recorded books, which
at that time (the late 1950s) were on phonograph records. During
his sophomore year a doctor told him he would probably lose most
of his remaining sight by the time he graduated. After that he
drove himself to accomplish as much as he could while he could
still see. One semester he took a course load of twenty-two
credit hours.
Bill married his wife Ruth shortly before graduating from college
and entered a Ph.D. program in history at the University of
Illinois at Urbana. He earned a master's degree and, though he
never completed his doctoral dissertation, was hired to teach
history at his alma mater, Olivet Nazarene.
 There was no real issue about whether I could handle the job, 
he says, looking back.  The dean had an aunt who was blind, and
I think that helped. Besides, he and the head of the history
department knew me and knew my work. The school's enrollment was
way up, and they needed teachers. 
Unfortunately, however, problems arose seven years later after
the
dean and the head of the department retired. Their replacements
expressed doubts about Bill's capacity to be an effective
teacher.  They tried to shame me into resigning,  he recalls. 
They acted like I ought to leave so I wouldn't be a burden on the
school.  Finally Bill shared his concerns with the university
president. It turned out that blindness was not really the issue
at all. The new dean and department head were actually trying to
stage a sort of coup to unseat the  old guard  (including the
president himself) and bring in their own friends. The
troublemakers were fired, and Bill kept his job.
Bill attended his first national NFB convention in Chicago in
1975.  He found it a little overwhelming and didn't become
actively involved until 1980. He had belonged to a small local
organization called Visions Unlimited, which was eventually
absorbed by the Federation. Visions Unlimited had offered
fellowship, but the NFB gave Bill a new sense of direction. He
was inspired to learn of so many people who were overcoming
difficulties and living full, rewarding lives. Today he is
president of the Kankakee Heartland Chapter and heads the
Illinois state scholarship committee. Over the past several years
he has been among the top recruiters of members at large in the
Associates program and in 1988 recruited more members at large
than anyone else in the Federation.
When Bill and Ruth were in their forties, they adopted four  hard
to place  children two Chippewa Indian youngsters, a mulatto
girl, and a boy who was seven years old when he came to them.
Raising this  international family  has had its challenges, but
Bill regards it as one of the richest experiences of his life. In
creating a home for his children, he has tried to build the bonds
of family life which sustained him through his own turbulent
years of growing up.

                       LET THE FLAG SPEAK
                        by Bill J. Isaacs
                 Associate Professor of History
                   Olivet Nazarene University

 This article was written for publication in a local newspaper
in June of 1989, but it is as timely today as then. So here it
is: 

It is rather ironic that on the same day the Supreme Court, in
defense of freedom of expression, struck down a state law
protecting the flag from desecration that a lower magistrate
fined a fellow for noise pollution because his boisterous,
vibrating flag annoyed his neighbors.  As it were, in the latter
instance, it was illegal for the rippling flag to speak to the
breezes. Allowing the flag to speak for itself brings back
nostalgic memories.
Except for three years of graduate study at the University of
Illinois, I have been part of the Olivet Nazarene University
academic community as a student or faculty member since 1954. Up
until about five years ago there was an ever-waving flag
positioned on the highest knoll on campus about 150 feet in front
of the Administration Building, where my office and classroom are
located on the third floor. Whether in the office or walking
across campus, I could nearly always hear
the flag bracing itself against the wind. I most certainly never
considered it to be an annoyance but very much a friendly
chatter. If I strayed too much with my white cane or gave my
guide dog wrong directions because of a blanket of snow, a
welcome ripple of the flag always gave me the feeling that I was
not completely lost and could always work my way back toward it.
This dependable flag communicated with me. It spoke to me in
countless ways. Its musical rhythm sang to me:  The Star-
Spangled Banner,   America the Beautiful,   This Land is Your
Land, This Land is My Land,  etc. Oftentimes I found myself
marching to its rhythm. In some ways the messages the flag shared
with me remind me of the unspoken body language that my dog and I
daily share with each other. In the case of the flag, however, it
was perhaps more a one way signal rather than a reciprocal one.
You can understand, I think, why after thirty years I miss this
compass point,  Old Glory  when she was hauled down in deference
to the much lower, multi-flag display arranged at the new
entrance of University Avenue (old Olivet Street). I am sure the
new display is beautiful, but beauty lies in the eye of the
beholder. The beholding, for some like myself, lies in the
hearing of the ear, the taste of the tongue, or the touch of the
hand. According to the English poet Keats,  A thing of beauty is
a joy forever.  Beauty can be experienced through all the senses.
Furthermore, I had to replace my first guide dog about the same
time the flag was removed. It was a lot like losing two close
companions simultaneously. I was reminded then of Rachel Carson's 
The Silent Spring.  That certain joy, that rhythmic feeling had
been muzzled. When I began to make inquiry from my colleagues who
were as ill-informed as I about the flag's removal, they had to
take a look to see if it were truly gone.  It was then I began to
realize that the flag probably meant more to me than to any other
person. Probably, like Thoreau, I was marching to the beat of a
different drummer. Supposedly one glimpse of the American flag by
the light of an exploding bomb inspired Francis Scott Key to pour
forth the words of the National Anthem as he viewed it from a
British prison ship. I still find myself, five years later,
listening for the sound of the musical flag.
About a year ago the old flag pole was sawed to pieces and the
cement base was broken up and carried away. Grave-like sod now
covers the ground where my messenger friend stood. Though
dismantled, muted, and uprooted, in my heart and in my mind's eye
I still hear the faint echoes of the speaking flag!
                  REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER 
RULES ON SCHOLARSHIP QUESTION
                      by Kenneth Jernigan 

In the past few years the National Federation of the Blind has
been awarding substantial scholarships to blind persons
throughout the country. These scholarships (the biggest being
$10,000, and the smallest being $2,000) are given solely on the
basis of merit and are not restricted as to use by the recipient.
Including expenses to attend the national convention for the
winners, the Federation's scholarship program currently amounts
to approximately $100,000 per year.
There is a section in the federal Rehabilitation Act which
provides that what are called  similar benefits  must be taken
into account in deciding what costs a rehabilitation agency will
pay. Put simply, this means that rehabilitation will not pay a
given cost if somebody else can be persuaded or compelled to do
it. As rehabilitation clients know, this provision of the law has
been a continuing source of controversy and friction. A few years
ago, the state of Illinois took note of the NFB's scholarship
program and decided that it would reduce its rehabilitation
assistance to a blind college student in
an amount equal to the scholarship he had just received from the
Federation.  This led to a spirited battle, which the Federation
and the college student won. But it sent a shock of concern
through the blind student population all over the country. What
was the point in receiving a grant in recognition of merit if
rehabilitation assistance would be reduced by an equal amount?
The Federation took steps to try to protect this program and the
students.
We provided a letter to each scholarship recipient saying that
the grant we were making to him or her could not be used as a 
similar benefit  for purposes of rehabilitation and that in the
event
of such use of the funds, the grant would be withdrawn. This, of
course, could conceivably have put the scholarship winners in
double jeopardy.
If the rehabilitation agency treated the scholarship grant as a 
similar benefit  and reduced its assistance to the recipient in
an amount equal to the grant and if we then withdrew the grant,
the unfortunate student would undoubtedly hope to win the
smallest possible scholarship.  One can only do so much for the
honor of it all. Mostly our plan to defend the integrity of the
scholarship program has worked, but the ground has been shaky and
the truce with rehabilitation uneasy.  Then enters newly
appointed Rehabilitation Commissioner Nell Carney.  Under date of
March 6, 1990, she issued a ruling which is positive, thoroughly
in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the Rehabilitation
Act, and right on target with respect to our program. The ruling
makes it clear that scholarships of the kind we give are not
included in the  similar benefits  concept. Although this ruling
is simply made to carry out the provisions of the law and,
therefore, presumably required by the statute, Commissioner
Carney still deserves commendation and a vote of thanks. As we
all know, laws can sometimes be interpreted in more than one way
sometimes to the detriment of the very purposes they were enacted
to achieve. Here is the Commissioner's ruling:

March 6, 1990
U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services
Rehabilitation Services Administration
Washington, D.C.
                                      Program Assistance Circular
                                                       RSA-PAC-90

TO: State Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies (General)
State Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies (Blind)
 RSA Regional Commissioners
(Regions I-X)
RSA Senior Staff

SUBJECT: Monetary Merit Gifts from
Private Organizations

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CITATIONS:
(1) Section 101(a)(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended
(2) Section 103(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended
(3) 34 CFR 361.47(b)
(4) 34 CFR 361.42(a)

SUPPORTIVE GUIDELINES:
Based upon the kinds of questions that are arising, there appears
to be a need to differentiate between the treatment afforded a
monetary merit award provided directly to a vocational
rehabilitation (VR) client by a civic, professional, or social
organization and a comparable benefit or grant provided by a
governmental, institutional, or public entity.
Some of the confusion in the treatment of merit awards from
private sources arises from the terms used by such groups in
making their awards. For example, the term scholarship is
frequently used. That term connotes the use of the gift for
educational purposes and, while it may have been awarded on the
basis of academic achievement, it may have been awarded by the
donor without restrictions as to its use by the client.
Such monetary awards, if unrestricted by the donor as to use by
the client, would not be considered either grant assistance
within the meaning of Section 103(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, or a comparable benefit or service within
the meaning of Section 101(a)(8). If, on the other hand, the
award was restricted for a particular purpose, the nature of the
restriction would have to be examined to determine whether
Sections 103(a)(3) and 101(a)(8)
were applicable. For example, if the award was earmarked for 
educational purposes,  that qualification might be too broad to
require the client to use it for any needed VR service. The gift
might be used for travel abroad or some other enriching
experience not otherwise affordable by the client. However, if
the award was earmarked for use for college tuition costs or
general college expenses, it would be considered an available
comparable benefit or service that must be used, and thus would
reduce the extent of the client's need for that service or
services from the VR agency.
I believe it is highly desirable to encourage philanthropic
groups to contribute toward the betterment of students with
disabilities.  These organizations frequently solicit from their
membership to enable them to make merit gifts available to
deserving students. A practice
to require that unrestricted gifts be used to pay for a service
included under an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program
(IWRP) effectively denies the student the help intended by the
organization and, in essence, defeats the purpose intended by the
philanthropic group in making its award. It further denies the
student the recognition intended by the organization.

                                                   Nell C. Carney
                          Commissioner of Rehabilitation Services

INQUIRIES TO: Regional Commissioners
              OPEN LETTER TO NEW CHAPTER PRESIDENTS
                        by Barbara Pierce
 Recently the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio had
occasion to organize a new chapter. The young woman who was
elected president had no past experience as a Federation officer,
so I wrote her a long letter setting forth ideas, projects, and
principles that we in the organized blind movement have found
useful in building our local chapters.  Lots of good ideas are
not mentioned here, but perhaps it is useful for new chapter
presidents, and for us all from time to time, to spend a few
minutes thinking about the fundamentals of chapter-building. 
Here, in significant part, is the letter I wrote: 

Dear New President:
Sometimes in a burst of democratic zeal new chapters and their
officers make the error of believing that every decision made for
the organization must be considered (too often exhaustively) by
the entire membership.  Remember that the chapter as a whole does
not need to make all the decisions that clamor for attention in
the early weeks of the chapter's existence. There are some
organizational matters that you or the board should decide
without bothering the general membership. These are things that
individuals can and should express opinions about but on which
chapter meeting time should not be wasted. I am thinking of
transportation arrangements and meeting location, for example. 
Such discussions will always expand to fill the available time,
and when you are finished, the decisions are likely to be less
satisfactory and more divisive than they would have been if a
smaller group had been responsible for making the arrangements.
Generally speaking the meeting location should be central, free
or inexpensive, and accessible by public transportation. If you
are paying more than a few dollars a month rent, you are pouring
money down the drain money that we need desperately for
Federation projects.
I would discourage efforts to look for a place with kitchen
facilities in order to serve elaborate refreshments. We do not
gather in Federation meetings to eat and drink together, pleasant
as that is. We have work to do, and every way that we can find to
communicate this message to members should be taken.
Transportation problems must be worked out with an eye to the
particular complications in a given situation. Obviously, getting
someone who is already coming to the meeting to pick up people
more or less on the way is the best solution. Service or church
organizations may be able to find volunteers who would be willing
to drive for you, or neighbors, family, or friends of one of the
members in the area affected might do so. If necessary the people
getting the ride could share the cost of the transportation, or
the chapter could reimburse the driver for mileage, assuming
there are funds available. You should work these arrangements out
as rapidly and efficiently as possible
so that they do not drag on, consuming meeting time and energy.
Chapter members will find it instructive to observe such problems
being resolved quietly and efficiently. The important thing is to
be seen to be taking the complications in stride. Too many blind
people see such matters
as constituting major problems in their lives instead of the
logistical annoyances that they truly are. You can begin to teach
them something about blindness as a nuisance by the way in which
the Board handles these matters.
It is important to spend time at the beginning working with your
officers and eventually your committee chairs on ways of making
meetings run smoothly and interestingly. An inexperienced
secretary may begin by writing minutes that are either too
detailed or too brief. Minutes should record all decisions made
by the organization and list all matters discussed. It is not
advisable to expect the minutes to record what was said in the
course of the discussion. The chapter needs a record of the
substantive actions of the organization. This record must be in
print whether or not it is also maintained in Braille or on
cassette tape. Auditors frequently wish to see minutes, and they
mean print. For this reason also, the treasurer must maintain
records in print. And your written order to the treasurer to pay
expenses must also be in print and must have the appropriate
receipts attached to it for the treasurer's records. The
secretary's and the treasurer's reports at each meeting should be
relatively brief and as lively as they are capable of making
them.
One ongoing responsibility, usually assumed by the chapter
secretary, is notifying the National Office of the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of new members whose names should be
added to the  Braille Monitor  mailing list. It is critically
important to mark such correspondence clearly as being
information for the  Monitor  list.  Each name should also have
the magazine format clearly marked. The choices are
print, Braille, disc, and cassette. Each member should have the 
Monitor  available in a format which he or she will use. A
sighted member should not necessarily be expected to read his or
her spouse's recorded magazine just to save expense. On the other
hand, a blind couple does not usually need two recorded editions.
Remember that the disc is less expensive to produce than the
cassette, and the Braille edition is much more expensive than any
of the others. People who will make good use of the Braille
should not hesitate to request it, but we should all work
to make our resources go as far as possible. Individuals who are
inclined to pay for their subscriptions should be encouraged to
do so, but your aim should be to have every member of the chapter
reading the entire magazine every month whether or not the family
can afford the subscription cost.
Many chapters make a practice of presenting to each new member an
NFB pin when he or she joins the Federation. Then when the roll
is called at the beginning of each meeting, everyone who is not
wearing a pin or other NFB insignia (jewelry, tie clasp, etc.)
must pay a small fine. This kitty is then used for some special
purpose for the whole group. Some chapters do a split-the-pot
raffle at each meeting.  People throw in their loose change or
buy tickets for some nominal amount, and at the end of the
meeting one name is pulled, and the proceeds in the pot are split
between the chapter treasury and the winner. Sometimes members
take turns in providing an object for an auction to be conducted
during the meeting at a moment when a little lively activity
would lift the spirits of the group. Again, the proceeds go to
the treasury or to some special project fund.
Before you arrive at the meeting, you should have planned your
agenda.  This of course should include old and new business so
that other people can bring up things that they would like to
discuss. You should run through the agenda at the beginning of
the meeting so that people
know what to expect. This may help them to refrain from some
time-consuming discussion early in a meeting that they can see
will be packed with agenda items.
The first thing on your agenda, after the roll call, the reading
of the minutes of the previous meeting, and the treasurer's
report should be playing the presidential release if you have
one. As the chapter president your name has been placed on the
presidential release list, so you should receive each one as it
is mailed from the National Office.  If you do not receive one
within a month or so, call the National Office to inquire about
whether or not your name is on the list. You
should listen to the tape before the meeting so that if there is
information that you need to know more about, you can get a
briefing from a state officer before people begin asking you
questions you can't answer.  The release is very important
because the chapter must feel itself to be an integral part of
the whole tightly knit organization that reaches across the
nation. Part of your job as president is to help every member of
the Federation in your area understand that Mr. Maurer is a real
friend. Everyone should recognize his voice and understand
that the issues that affect the organization as a whole must be
recognized as important in your city.
I must say a word here to you about finances. It is important
that
the chapter get started early raising money, but it is equally
important that the habit be formed of passing the funds through
the books so that it can do the most good. There is a strong
temptation among us mortals to hang on to what we earn, but the
Bible is right when it says,  Where your treasure is, there will
your heart be also.  More than one chapter has contracted a
terminal illness by acquiring
a fat savings account. In my view a local chapter, if it is very
active, can spend five to ten thousand dollars a year without
trying very hard. But I mean that this much money can pass
through its books.  A chapter that has established this kind of
record will be working
hard at fundraising and supporting state and national programs
liberally in addition to contributing to the Washington Seminar
and the national and state convention efforts and assisting local
members to attend these events. The chapter will also be
conducting various programs
in the community: distributing literature; educating the public,
including providing Braille cards to each child in the classes
addressed; organizing seminars of various types for chapter
members and the community; etc.

You will notice that I emphasized that such funds should be
passing through the books. Pools of money at the local or state
levels are not likely to encourage health in the Federation.
People are less likely to scramble to make money if the savings
account is significant and there are certificates of deposit
squirreled away in the bank.  They will be inclined to see
efforts to vote contributions to the state or national
organizations as attempts to  get our money
away from us.  Though it is certainly true to say that our
organization, like most others, is only as strong as its local
chapters, it is equally true that a dollar spent at the national
level will do tenfold the good that the same dollar can do at the
state level and one hundredfold the good that it can do at the
local. Money must, of course, be spent at the chapter level, and
there are many programs that cannot work except at the
grassroots, but if we want to change the climate of public
opinion and the quality of life for blind people anywhere, we
must work nationally. If we ever hope to improve services to the
state's blind, we must work at that level, and such efforts must
be undertaken by entities beyond the local chapter.
There are a couple of very useful projects that local chapters
can undertake that provide good outlets for chapter funds and
assist the organization in the most efficient way possible. The
first is to have the chapter enroll on the Pre-Authorized Check
(PAC) Plan. This project must be undertaken very carefully
because it must not dissuade individual members from becoming PAC
members personally. The PAC Program allows an individual or
organization to have a specified amount automatically deducted
from a checking account each month. The chapter should provide
this service for members who wish to contribute on PAC but who do
not have checking accounts. Individual PAC members should not be
discouraged from contributing to the chapter PAC collection if
they wish to, but it should be made clear that their personal PAC
commitment is their primary focus. The chapter can decide how
much money to contribute monthly to PAC, and then those who wish
to do so can contribute at the meeting to cover the PAC
contribution each month.
The other very useful program that chapters can ideally
participate in is the Deferred Insurance Giving (DIG) Program.
This plan allows an individual or a chapter to purchase an
insurance policy on the life of a member or someone in his or her
family. The policy is then presented to the Federation so that
when the insured individual eventually dies, the Federation will
receive the face amount of the policy in that person's memory.
The chapter can get more specific information about the DIG
Program by contacting the National Center for the Blind.

One of your first tasks as president will be to appoint
committees.  Some of these should be standing committees, and
some should be ad hoc. An ad hoc committee might look into
notifying the appropriate state offices of the chapter's
existence and preparing and filing
the appropriate forms and documents. They might also take
responsibility for notifying the libraries, social service
organizations, and telephone company of the chapter and its
services to the community. You might consider devising a small
flyer informing them of the existence of the group and of its
ability to help blind people and their families.

Typical standing committees include Ways and Means, to do
fundraising; Nominating, to recruit a slate of board and officer
candidates when appropriate; Legislative, to work with the state
organization on educating your local representatives in the
Legislature and the Congress; Public Relations, to do local PR
and to help with state and national projects; Associates, to
encourage chapter members to recruit family, friends, and
acquaintances as members-at-large who will become Associates of
the NFB; and Membership, to build the organization by recruiting
new members. (The chapter may need to establish standing
committees to deal with local causes or organizations that
involve the blind.)  For example, my chapter has a committee
composed of those members who
sit on the board of the local service delivery agency. If you
establish permanent fund-raising projects, you may wish to
appoint standing committees to work with each of those rather
than doing it all through the Ways and Means Committee.
I would not try to appoint all committees immediately. Like a
juggler, you must get them launched one at a time and learn to
keep the ones already appointed working well before starting
another project. Your aim is to make everyone feel that he or she
is playing an important part in the ongoing functioning of the
chapter. Some will be more effective committee members than
others. You must decide how to divide the chapter talent among
the committees so that no group has too much weight to carry and
too few people to carry it. Some people will be able to give good
service on more than one committee; others will be happiest
putting all their effort into one kind of activity. You must
balance the needs and the preferences as best you can. This task
will get easier as you get to know the people with whom you are
working.  Try to establish the kind of relationship with your
committee chairs that will enable them to turn to you with their
problems for advice and encouragement. Your job as president is
not to do everything but to enable others to get it done.
The question naturally arises of what kinds of projects would be
best to begin right away. There are lots of things that cry out
to be done everywhere. Your job again is to strike a balance for
your chapter.  Some projects at the beginning should be chosen
because they are easy to do or because the starting point is
obvious. Literature distribution is a good example. We have
several pieces of literature that are ideal for distribution in
local areas. You should have a rubber stamp made including the
name of the organization, the chapter phone number, and an
address so that these pieces of literature can be stamped (a good
job for someone with some sight at a chapter meeting) and then
distributed. The pieces I am thinking of are  What is the
National Federation of the Blind?   Do You know a Blind Person? 
and  The Voice of the Diabetic . The first two are available from
the National Center for the Blind, Materials Center, 1800 Johnson
Street, Baltimore, Maryland  21230. Sample copies of the third
can be obtained from Ed Bryant,  The Voice of the Diabetic , 811
Cherry Street, Suite 306, Columbia, Missouri 65201. Doctors'
offices, libraries, and public places of any kind where
literature is available are good places to leave stacks of these
pieces.
Other projects that pop to mind include the following:
* Notifying the blind students at local institutions of higher
education about the Federation's scholarship program and perhaps
conducting a seminar for them in the application-writing process.
They will be inclined to come because it is to their financial
advantage to do so, and you will have a chance to educate them
about the Federation
and what we can do for people. You will then have names of blind
students for your own chapter and for the student division.
* Chapter education. Members can take it in turn to lead a group
discussion of one piece of Federation literature like a banquet
address or an article from a recent  Braille Monitor . Everyone
should know beforehand what is to be discussed at the next
meeting and, if necessary, copies should be made and distributed
so that they
have a chance to read or reread it. This is an excellent way of
encouraging people to read our information with attention and of
familiarizing members with the reservoir of useful NFB
literature.
* Fundraising. It almost doesn't matter what you do here as long
as you are doing something. You may have trouble persuading
people to jump into this one. The chapter will need money
immediately, but some of us instinctively feel that we are above
such mundane things.  Others are so conditioned as blind people
to steer clear of anything that smacks of begging that they balk
at pitching in to participate in projects that they would help
with happily if it were for a church or community service club
like the Lions. Try making the point that nothing is more
important in helping blind people everywhere than the work of the
National Federation of the Blind. We are experts in this field,
and the fact that we are committed to helping blind people
through the Federation is merely an indication of how justifiable
our fundraising is. It may be advisable to set a special goal for
some of the funds raised, like sending chapter members to the
national convention next summer. The group as a whole had better
discuss what they are most willing to do in fundraising. Some
chapters would rather sell tickets themselves than staff a booth
to sell a product. Some like raffles, and others would rather
tackle a big project like a hike-a-thon. Some groups buy blocks
of tickets for a community theater production and sell the
tickets at a profit. But the principle must be established early
on that money must come into the organization if it is going to
go out again, and you must do everything you can to teach each
member to expect that the money will go out.  * Distributing our
television and radio spot announcements to local stations. It is
important for those folks to know who we
are and what we stand for. Someone should go to visit the Public
Affairs or Public Service Director to discuss the organization
and to hand
him or her the announcements and several small pieces of our
literature.  The person in charge of this project or the chair of
the committee should maintain accurate records of each station's
personnel, the spots they have taken, whether or when the spot
announcements were aired, and what affirmative response the
chapter has made to the station.  A full discussion of this and
many other important public relations responsibilities appears in
the Federation's public relations handbook,  The Media and the
Message , available in print or Braille from our National Office
for $6.00.
* Assisting chapter members with their personal problems.  As
people come to know and trust one another, they will volunteer
their troubles. The newly blind have many issues to grapple with. 
Others will have problems with the state rehabilitation agency,
Social Security, employers, schools, and over-protective family
and friends.  You may want to form a Human Rights Committee to
work intensively with these people, or you may wish to use a
general discussion of one person's dilemma (having previously
checked with the individual to insure that he or she is happy to
discuss it) to educate everyone
about these issues and to bring the group together in a caring
relationship with each other. This is tricky to achieve but
valuable when it works.

* Establishing a Calling Committee. This is or can be different
from the Membership Committee, which seeks to build the chapter
by finding new members. The Calling Committee builds the chapter
from within. Its members call everyone with a reminder about the
coming meeting. The members keep tabs on who is ill, who is
bereaved, who is just having a hard time for some other reason.
Cards and calls can help at times like these. It is also nice to
celebrate together graduations, births, marriages, and the other
happy milestones in people's lives. We say we are a family
because we really are one and because we care about one another.
The Calling Committee makes sure that we don't let things slip
between the cracks.
It is also a good idea from time to time to plan for
presentations at chapter meetings. Talking with state or national
legislators about matters of concern to the blind is a very good
use of chapter time.  Having a presentation by a teacher of
visually impaired children and then talking about our concerns is
also important. If members are unsure about the services of local
agencies that purport to serve the blind, invite someone from the
agency in to explain the programs and answer questions. Anytime a
member has trouble with being denied service because he or she is
blind, you have an excellent opportunity for a program devoted to
that problem.
Arranging for exchange visits between the chapter and other
Federation chapters is both fun and instructive. There are any
number of program ideas floating around out there. But don't fall
into the trap of thinking that you have to have a program item at
every meeting. We have lots of internal business to conduct month
in and month out, and if the chapter spends all its time dealing
with outside issues, we will have trouble keeping the ongoing
work moving along. The committees of a chapter are usually the
hands and feet of the outfit. The chapter meeting is the time
when everyone learns what people have been doing since the last
meeting. The board is charged with working out the details that
will make everything move along smoothly, and the president has
the day-to-day responsibility for seeing that glitches do not
occur or are corrected as soon as possible and that people are
working
well together. You set the tone, listen with an open mind and a
compassionate heart, and guide as wisely as you know how to. You
should also make a point of keeping in touch with others in the
state who can help and encourage you.
I am afraid that you may be feeling panic at the scope of what
you have taken on. Spelled out it takes a lot of paper, but much
of this you probably already know. Much, too, you will have to
initiate as you have time, energy, and bodies to do it. The most
important part is always to take the next step. You can almost
always see what that one step is, even if you don't know clearly
what you should do after that. We are all here to help each
other. Our goal is the full integration of the blind into society
on terms of equality. To do this we must support each other, the
newly blinded, the parents and families of blind children, and
the public, which knows next to nothing about the capacity of
blind people. If you stop to think about it, you know quite a lot
about this whole subject. You will make a wonderful president. 
Everyone in the state and national leadership is here to help
you.  Good luck.

                                                       Cordially,
                                                   Barbara Pierce
                                                        President
                         National Federation of the Blind of Ohio
             MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE BLIND CHILD: 
WHAT IS THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY?
 From the Associate Editor:  Surrounded by a landscape littered
with federal and state regulations for providing services and
education to blind children, and battered by the jargon and
expertise of the professionals, parents of today's blind
youngsters can hardly be faulted for seeking as much help as
possible without expense to themselves.  After all, they have
been assured that their children require special intervention
intervention which would be very expensive indeed if it were
contracted for independently. Persuaded over the years that
because they could not provide the vast amount of instruction
necessary to make up the child's sensory and experiential
deficits, parents have been brainwashed into depending on the
professionals to decide what is best at every turn. Parents often
feel that, since they have had to give up their right to make
decisions, at least they should be excused from paying for the
course of action chosen.   It is not surprising, then, that we
find blind children tucked
away in programs that have space for them, whether or not the
curriculum meets the child's true needs. When the parent who
senses dimly that something is wrong protests, he or she is
usually made to feel that
the complexities of the child's needs are beyond his or her
comprehension.  Furthermore, it is hinted that if the parent
doesn't like the course of action chosen by the professionals, he
or she can find another placement and pay for it, too. 
 Recently the parents of a gifted blind three-year-old wrote to
Barbara Cheadle, president of the Parents of Blind Children
Division of the National Federation of the Blind. Fortunately,
they were at
the beginning of this carrot-and-stick spiral of domination by
professionals.  They are bright, sensible, and deeply committed
to providing their daughter with an education worthy of her
abilities. But they were confused, so they turned to those with
the most experience in working with professionals to meet the
real needs of blind children. The exchange of letters is
instructive to everyone who is sometimes tempted to relinquish
personal responsibility for self or child to those whose
expertise is merely professional. Here is the exchange of letters
between these parents and Barbara Cheadle: 

                                                December 18, 1989

Dear Barbara:
My wife and I had the pleasure of meeting you in May, 1989, at a
seminar for parents of blind children. We told you about our
blind daughter Laura and our concern that her preschool education
could be affected by State funding cutbacks for the 1989-90
school year. I am writing now to ask your opinion and advice
regarding what the law entitles Laura to have in terms of her
preschool education.
Laura turned three years old in November, 1989. She is performing
very well as indicated in the attached Psychological Report,
which was completed by the agency here. Her overall diagnosis is
that she is totally blind but also gifted. All of this is great
news, but we still have remaining concerns about the quality of
the education being provided by the educational facility.
The agency has provided the assistance of both a pre-Braille
skills instructor and a mobility/orientation instructor during
the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years. This aspect of Laura's
education has not
been affected by any reduced funding. We are very happy with her
progress in these areas. Also, both of the instructors are strong
advocates of Laura's right to an equal and proper education.
The area that we are unhappy with is the general classroom in
which Laura has been placed. During the 1988-89 school year Laura
attended the local United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) classroom. She
interacted a great deal with the other children. Due to reduced
funding, Laura
has been placed for the 1989-90 school year in a local Project
CONNECT classroom that otherwise consists of speech and hearing
impaired children.  These children provide very little audible
stimulation for Laura.  Also, Laura is functioning at a much
higher level than the rest of the children. The attached
psychological report notes that Laura is performing at the 97th
percentile compared with sighted children of her age whereas the
other children in the classroom are performing at the 4th
percentile. In fact, the attached report concludes that Laura
would more appropriately be placed in a preschool setting that
serves children with average or above average verbal and
cognitive skills.
We met with the agency staff in October, 1989, to review Laura's
situation.  At this meeting the responsibility for (1) finding a
suitable preschool classroom for Laura and (2) funding the
preschool tuition was placed with us. We have recently heard that
there is a possibility that the agency may terminate Laura's
eligibility for the Project CONNECT classroom she is now
attending because there are children with greater needs for the
facility. In any case the provision of Laura's pre-Braille skills
and mobility/orientation instructors seems secure.
We want our daughter to be as prepared as possible for elementary
school. We are very pleased that she is doing so well but also
realize that she will need continuing special education to
maintain her high performance. We look at her needs as absolute
rather than what her needs are relative to other children. The
agency view on this matter appears to be greatly influenced by
its funding constraint. You can help us by answering the
following questions:
1. What type of education is the State required to provide for
Laura by law?
2. Does the Project CONNECT classroom setting described above
meet these requirements? Please take into account the disparity
between Laura's functional level and that of her classmates.
3. Would it be within the law to deny Laura the right to attend
the Project CONNECT classroom even if such denial is for the
purpose of providing room for a child with greater needs?
4. Whereas the agency's evaluation concludes that Laura should be
placed in a normal preschool, is it within the law to place the
responsibility of finding and funding the appropriate preschool
on the parents?
5. How does the law address Laura's situation? Does the law place
primary and fundamental emphasis on her needs as a totally blind
child, or does it also account for her high functional verbal and
cognitive skills?
6. What can we do to insure that our daughter's rights to a
proper education are fulfilled?
Please note that I have certain information concerning the
federal and state laws on this subject. I am seeking an
interpretation of the laws as they might apply to Laura's case. I
am hoping that you
can help me understand the law and that I can therefore be more
influential when I deal with the agency in support of Laura.
Regretfully, we were unable to attend the recent parents of blind
children seminar in our state. We realize that we could have
discussed this subject in person at that time. Therefore, we will
especially appreciate your assistance in responding to this
letter. You may also call me at my work telephone number if it
would be more convenient.  I could call you back so that I incur
the telephone charges.
Thank you very much for your support. We hope that you and your
family have a happy holiday season.

                                                       Sincerely,
____________________
                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                 January 31, 1990

Dear Mr. and Mrs.   :
I have read and re-read your letter many times and have given
your situation much thought. You raise some important questions,
and you deserve the best answers I can give you.
First of all, I don't think the primary issue here is what the
law does or does not provide. Sure, you want to know how it
applies to your situation, but the fundamental question you have
to deal with is that of your daughter's needs. Only then are you
ready to deal with how to meet those needs. If the law can be
used to support your position, then you'll want to have it
enforced vigorously!  If the law is silent on the matter or,
worse, has provisions you don't want
enforced, then you will have to use other means to get what you
need negotiation, compromise, pulling strings, using publicity,
etc. Of course, if the
provision (or omission) in the law is serious enough, you will
also
want to get together with others of like mind and work to get it
changed.  In short, you will want to interpret and use (or not
use) the law in a way that will most benefit your daughter. I
believe, from the
tone and sense of your letter, that you have the capacity and
determination to do this.
This brings us back to the fundamental question: what does your
daughter need? Specifically (and I believe I am accurately
reflecting the situation as you have described it in your letter)
should your daughter, who is normal in every way except that she
is blind and intellectually gifted, remain in a preschool setting
with children who are functioning at a level far beneath her? And
should the agency which has been paying for this special
preschool program find and pay for a regular preschool program
(or maybe even a program for gifted preschoolers, if one exists)
for your daughter?
I do not think from what you have told me that anyone involved
believes that your daughter should stay in her current preschool
setting. I certainly don't. It is clear that, not only is there
no benefit in it for her, but there is a real danger that her
current abilities and skills will begin to deteriorate as she
unconsciously begins to imitate the children around her. She
needs to be with peers who will challenge and stimulate her.
The preschool is only muddying the waters by telling you that
your daughter should leave the program to make room for a child
who needs it more. You are absolutely right that the question of
other children's needs should have nothing to do with making a
decision about what your daughter needs including whether the
program is right for her.
So why did they bring it up? Wouldn't the assessment stand by
itself?  If it was a strategy to get you to agree to the
assessment, it obviously backfired as it would with just about
any parent I know. I think they brought it up for the same reason
that in the old fable the scorpion stung the fox. The scorpion
had convinced the fox to carry him over the river. Right in the
middle he stung the fox. As they both sank
to their death the fox asked why he had done it. The scorpion
replied,  I couldn't help it. It's in my nature.  It seems to be
the nature of institutions to be primarily concerned with what's
best for the institution.
What do you suppose the agency would recommend if the program
your daughter is in were in danger of closing its doors for lack
of students?  Let's suppose that nothing else had changed your
daughter had the same abilities and the same needs the only
difference was the level of demand for the program. Don't you
suppose they would find compelling reasons why your daughter
should stay in the program for a few more months or maybe even
another year?
Given the nature of institutions, my question to you is this: Do
you really want to give an agency, which has demonstrated that
your daughter's needs and welfare are secondary to its own, the
power to select a preschool program for her?   Think about it.
Who cares more about your daughter, you the parents or the
professionals? True, you will
not always know what is best for her, but neither will the
professionals.  That's why you should always be in charge. Very
often parents of blind children, out of ignorance or insecurity,
allow professionals to take over and make decisions that are both
the right and the responsibility of the parents.
Another way to think about the situation is to ask yourself,  If
my daughter were sighted, would I want a governmental agency to
have the right, regardless of my desires and best judgment, to
select a
preschool program for her?  This question is based on the
presumption or philosophy if you will that the average blind
person can live and compete on an equal basis with the sighted,
exercising the same rights and responsibilities.
If the parents of the average sighted preschooler are expected to
select and pay for a preschool program in your state, then so
should
the parents of an average blind child. If state or federal funds
subsidize preschool programs for low-income families, then the
blind preschooler of a low-income family has the same right to
attend that program as any sighted child who qualifies. (The
Headstart program, by the way, has a mandate to serve disabled
children. I have known of several low-income blind children who
attended Headstart programs successfully.) If a school has a
program for gifted and talented children, then the gifted and
talented blind child has the same right to participate
as his or her sighted peers. The same rule applies for any other
public or community program you can think of YMCA swimming
lessons, scouting, school field trips, church choir, and so
forth. Blind adults or children should not be excluded just
because they are blind, but neither should they expect special
favors.
I understand that this philosophy is not as simple to implement
as I have perhaps made it sound. First of all blind children do
have unique needs which require special services. Blind people
(for the
most part) cannot read print or cannot read it efficiently and
therefore need an alternative system for reading and writing.
Braille is the answer to that need. But because Braille is not
used by the public at large, it requires special instruction from
a teacher trained in
the method. The same is true for independent travel. Again, the
alternative technique (use of the long white cane) should be
taught by someone who knows how to travel independently with the
cane. There are many other alternative techniques which a blind
child needs to learn, such as methods for cooking, shopping for
clothes, putting on make-up, doing research in a library,
cleaning house, doing the laundry, or fixing a leaking faucet. A
few of those skills, such as Braille and, to a lesser extent,
cane travel, require specialized instruction.  Most are a matter
of common sense and will be taught at home just as they are to
any other child.
The question then is whether the use of alternative techniques
changes our expectations of blind people. Does it alter our
philosophy regarding the normality and equality of the blind?
History has demonstrated that it does not. This philosophy, as
articulated by the National Federation of the Blind, has been
tested by thousands of blind people over several decades now, and
it works. The blind have found that the means by which a blind
child or adult accomplishes something may be different, but the
end result should measure up to what we would expect from the
sighted.
 The Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment for the Blind,  by
Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, is one of the best articles I have ever
read on the subject of the rights, responsibilities, and special
needs of the blind. Although this article was written some years
ago and much has changed in the meantime, the principles he laid
down then are as relevant today as they were at the time of their
writing. With this letter, I am enclosing that article as well as
a speech by Dr.  Kenneth Jernigan,  Blindness The Pattern of
Freedom.  Dr. tenBroek was the founder of the National Federation
of the Blind, and Dr. Jernigan is the current Executive Director
of our organization.

Let me now go back for a moment to the question you raise in your
letter about who should find and pay for a regular preschool for
your daughter the agency or the parents. Basically I believe that
parents of blind children should do whatever is expected of other
parents.  For most regular preschool programs that means digging
into our own pockets. I have three children, two sighted and one
blind. We selected and paid the fees for preschool programs for
all three of them. Our blind son attended a private Montessori
program because we thought it would be more challenging for him.
(He is also considered gifted and currently takes special classes
offered to all gifted sixth graders at the public school he now
attends.)
By the way, I do concede that there may be situations in which an
agency should pay for the average blind child to attend a regular
preschool. Even so, parents should always carefully weigh the
costs, and I don't just mean dollars and cents. We have all heard
the adages about purse strings and power and how nothing in life
is free. That doesn't mean we should never accept services and
materials for our children that are needed and are available
especially if they are from public programs supported by our tax
dollars only that we should always be aware of the full price we
are paying.
I have one more comment to make about blindness and the education
of blind children. In your letter you say that  [we] realize that
[Laura] will need continuing special education to maintain her
high performance.  If you mean by this that your daughter needs
instruction in the alternative techniques of blindness and the
means of getting materials in a form she can use (such as Braille
and taped textbooks), that is certainly true but only up to a
point. Eventually she will no longer need Braille instruction or
orientation and mobility.  At least by the time she enters
college, she will no longer need anyone else to order her Braille
and taped books or run interference with a skeptical teacher or
professor. She will do it herself. She will know how to find and
train her own readers and get wherever she needs to go without
the help of parents or professionals. She will do her own
laundry, cook her own meals, manage her own career, pay her own
taxes, and probably raise some grandchildren for you.
There are those, however, who believe that the disability of
blindness is so profound and pervasive that a blind person must
rely upon life-long assistance from professionals in order to
achieve maximum independence.  A great many professionals believe
this; members of the public believe it; and, though their numbers
are decreasing, there are blind people
who believe it. Parents of young blind children are especially
vulnerable to this false philosophy. It is easy for us to become
dependent upon the professionals who are there when we most need
someone to provide us with help, hope, and guidance. Not only do
we become dependent upon them, but we develop a distorted
perspective about how and why our children learn. We often
discount the role we play as the child's natural teacher and
overlook the part played by his or her own innate will and drive
to learn. Instead, we begin to believe that only the
professionals can hold the key to the blind child's success in
life, but that just isn't the way it works!
I think most people fall somewhere between these two philosophies
of blindness. I know I do. But since everything in the world is
constantly changing, parents will not stay in one place on that
spectrum. We will be moving toward either one view or the other.
We will either come to believe more and more in the normality and
equality of the blind, or we will become more convinced that
blindness is a profound limitation.
As I look again at your letter, I realize that I have probably
not answered your questions in the way that you expected, but I
have given you, as I promised, the best answers I could. Please
get in touch with me if you have questions or want to discuss any
part of this letter. You can call me at home or at the National
Federation of the Blind office, (301) 659-9314.

                                                 Cordially yours,
                                          Barbara Cheadle, Editor
                                              Future Reflections 
                                 National Federation of the Blind
      THE CHILD'S LAUGHTER AND THE ADULT'S RESPONSIBILITY: 
GROWTH IN THE FEDERATION'S PHILOSOPHY
                   by Christopher J. Kuczynski
 As  Monitor  readers know, Chris Kuczynski is a young attorney
in a prestigious Philadelphia law firm. He also serves as first
vice president of the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania.  Since his introduction to the Federation as a
scholarship winner in
1985, his commitment to the organized blind movement and the
sophistication of his understanding of the true issues of
blindness have been steadily growing. Chris is a thoughtful
reader of the  Braille Monitor.  His reflections on a recent
article demonstrate how much we all can benefit from a dialogue
with each other about the issues and actions that shape our lives
as blind people. Here is what he has to say: 

There was much in Bill Isaacs' article  Educate the Educated The
Bland Use of Blind  ( Braille Monitor , December, 1989), with
which I, as a young professional, could identify. I frequently
find that my colleagues in the legal profession, as educated as
one might suppose them to be, are sorely in need of knowledge
about the issues of blindness. Even some of those who have worked
with me, now these four or five months, have much to learn about
my abilities and about the abilities of blind people in general.
For me, each day is like that conference was for Mr. Isaacs
another opportunity to educate the educated.
Blind lawyers working in private firms throughout this country
are
rare. When a qualified blind person manages to get past the
misconceptions of would-be employers and obtains work in such an
environment, both
the blind person and the employer are likely to believe that the
problem of discrimination has been overcome. On the contrary,
discrimination is no less real simply because it pays a higher
salary and carries
with it some prestige. If discrimination is to be defined as
differential treatment of a person or class of persons, based on
some unfounded belief about that person or class, then
discrimination can certainly be said to exist even where all
parties involved are highly educated.
But when even one of us lives the Federation's philosophy in the
workplace, demonstrating that with the proper training and
opportunity we can compete on terms of equality with our sighted
peers, slowly but steadily
we begin to destroy centuries of myths and misconceptions. Any
conscientious Federationist cannot help being an educator; anyone
who has had contact with a conscientious Federationist cannot
help learning from
the experience. Bill Isaacs is obviously one such conscientious
Federationist, who can do nothing other than respond to anything
that perpetuates baseless stereotypes.
Despite the truths communicated in the article by Mr. Isaacs,
however, my attention was captured by a passage with which I take
issue and which seems to contradict the article's overriding
theme. Despite
Mr. Isaacs' warning that we (the blind) should not tolerate the
careless and demeaning use of the word  blind  by the sighted
community, he has this to say about how members of the blind
community sometimes act among themselves:
 We the blind can laugh and joke about our difficulties, but it's
quite another thing for the sighted public to create such false
imagery.  Theodore Roosevelt could say that President William
McKinley did not have the backbone of a chocolate eclair, but for
the Spanish minister Dupy de Lome to say essentially the same
thing as a foreign visitor
led to his dismissal and helped to pave the way for the
Spanish-American War. We can politely talk to our relatives about
the foibles of one of the members of the family; but it hurts a
bit to hear an outsider talk about your brother or your sister in
a derogatory way.  Mr.  Isaacs then continues by illustrating
some  funny things we do which are laughable.  The question with
which I am left, after reading the article is this: Is it really
possible for us to laugh among ourselves about our difficulties
while expecting the sighted community to treat us as first-class
citizens?
Looking back on my high school years and on some of my
experiences in the first two years of my college education, I
think that, even though I did not recognize it at the time, I
considered myself inferior to my classmates. Academically I
always did better than most of them, but I think I regarded my
intelligence as the bookishness of someone who had no other life,
and I sometimes felt uncomfortable in social situations. I'm sure
that I attributed this discomfort to blindness, even though I
always appeared to deal well with my difficulties.  I was known,
as so many adolescent blind people no doubt are still known, for
my good sense of humor. Once, as a high school freshman,
I played Homer (who was blind), in a commercial set in ancient
Greece.  This was a social studies project in a class that
focused on the history of ancient Greece and Rome. I was Apollo's
assistant chariot salesman, and the commercial that a schoolmate
and I created involved my pointing to various articles in the
room, proclaiming what a handsome chariot each one was. Apollo
always whispered to me that the object to which I was pointing
was, not a chariot at all, but a desk, or chair, or table, or
nothing at all. When I finally found the chariot, I bumped into
it, causing it to fall apart, demonstrating not only the bad
manufacturing of the vehicle but my own ridiculousness. Twelve
years later this skit remains in my memory a grimly distant
recollection that could never be repeated. But at the time my
handling of the skit did much to gain the approval of my
classmates. Ironically, it was only by making myself inferior
that I could raise myself in the esteem of many of my classmates.
It was only by laughing at my difficulties and by confirming
every myth and misconception about blindness that I was able, in
my own mind at least, to be treated as an equal.
I know that this experience does not exactly illustrate Mr.
Isaacs' comments. My jokes about blindness were directed toward
my sighted peers. In high school I did not know any other blind
students. There were a few in college, but they were not within
my circle of friends.  Had I known blind people, however, I would
have joked just as vigorously with them as I did with my sighted
peers, and the results would have been just as damaging to my
self-esteem and to the image others had of me and of all other
blind persons. After all, we must be convinced of our right to
first-class citizenship before we can begin to convince others of
it. The blind person who finds it necessary to laugh at the
difficulties of blindness or the funny things blind people do,
even within the community of the blind, reinforces in his or her
own mind the stereotypes that have for centuries been imposed
upon us.  A recent experience brought home to me precisely the
way in which our image is damaged when we create, by comments to
sighted persons
or among ourselves, the image of the for want of a better phrase
jolly blind person. In the presence of three or four other
lawyers at the firm for which I work, a third-year attorney on
staff, who, I had noticed from previous encounters, was not
altogether comfortable dealing with blind people, made what I
think is a familiar comment. I was holding some Braille notes
that I had just written. The lawyer remarked, so that he might
draw approbation from his colleagues, how humorous it would be to 
rub out all the dots on those pages  in order
to confuse me. I evaluated the range of responses that might be
appropriate.  From among various alternatives I chose the turn-
about-is-fair-play response in an attempt to reveal his ignorance
about blindness to both himself and the other lawyers present. I
smiled and said:  It would be about as funny as my taking a black
magic marker or a bottle of white-out to a pile of papers on your
desk.  An uneasy silence prevailed for a few seconds. He was
obviously embarrassed, and those present seemed to sense my point
exactly. We are not more foolish and confused simply because we
use an alternative method of reading.  Sheepishly he responded, 
Yes, but somehow that [my example] doesn't seem to be as funny. 
Humiliated as he must have been, he still tried to salvage his
joke and, with it, his pride. I believe he thought me
ill-humored, and, although I do not know that this particular
event changed his attitude toward me, he seems somewhat more
reticent in my presence now than prior to the incident and has
passed me in the hall at times without exchanging a word.
Thoughts come to mind when I recall this event of two months ago. 
The first is that my response to it is profoundly different today
from what it would have been a few years ago, due in large part
to the philosophical nurturing I have received as a part of the
National Federation of the Blind. The event also raises several
questions about my educated colleague. Does he and will he ever
be able to regard me as an equal? Probably not, even though he
knows my grades were among the best in my law school class and
that I live independently, managing my own apartment and
traveling wherever I please. Yet he will probably never regard me
as his equal if he does not even believe that my method of
handling notes can be as efficient as his own. Why did he feel
the need to attempt to diminish me in the presence of other
colleagues? This probably involves a great deal of insecurity on
his part and possibly several other psychological factors. Most
important, why did he think it was acceptable to make this kind
of remark? Didn't he realize I would mind? There are
approximately five black attorneys out of perhaps 275 to 300 in
the Philadelphia office, and it is doubtful that he would have
felt comfortable making a joke to one of them about what it's
like to be one of the very few black attorneys in the firm.
The answer to this last question suggests the reason that I
believe we cannot afford to laugh at ourselves, even before an
audience of blind people. I do not know whether my colleague has
ever before dealt with a blind person. But at some point he got
the idea that it was all right to make jokes about blindness to a
blind person, who should bear the jokes cheerfully. Indeed the
blind person might even join
in the fun. He must have thought that I was just being overly
sensitive in turning his joke on him. Maybe he got this idea from
the media or from books he had read. Maybe he has known blind
people who fit the stereotype. If people like my fellow attorney
are to get mistaken ideas about blindness from someone, let it
not be from the blind.  Let others attempt to impose stereotypes
on us; we will challenge and debunk the myths and misconceptions.
Let us not, among ourselves or in the presence of the sighted,
make blindness the source of a momentary chuckle. In doing so, we
ratify the popular misconception that blind people will settle
for a momentary pleasantry in a life of utter tragedy, rather
than seek first-class citizenship.
From the premise that it is respectable to be blind, we in the
National Federation of the Blind have built a philosophy on which
to act and according to which we live our daily lives. There is
no force on earth that can divert us armed as we are with the
philosophy that emboldens us to act from our path to first-class
citizenship. But we cannot say that it is respectable to be
blind, while proclaiming among ourselves that it is acceptable to
laugh about blindness and the funny things
we sometimes do as blind people. Blindness is certainly not the
tragedy that some would have us believe; nor is it an occasion
for laughter that expresses uneasiness. Even if the conversations
we hold among ourselves are not overheard by our sighted peers
(and indeed they might be), what message do we reinforce in our
own minds every time we feel the need to make a joke about
blindness? Do we not say in some way that we are not entirely at
ease with ourselves as capable blind people? Do we not echo the
blind child's or blind adolescent's belief that the only way to
gain some kind of equality is to lower
our self-esteem and lose our identity by becoming what our peers
expect us to be?
Today, I do not find it acceptable for blind people to laugh at
their difficulties, even when among other blind people. I know
why I once did so myself and why all blind people have probably
done so at one time or another. The growth of our philosophy is
like our physical maturation. In the childhood and adolescence of
our beliefs about blindness, we accept what others have told us;
we sometimes pander to the stereotypes; we desperately want to
fit in at any cost. Our freedom of action is limited by what
others tell us we can and cannot do. Our goals are short-term.
But the Federation's philosophy is mature.  It tells us that we
make our own choices, that our goals need be limited only by our
willingness to harness our full potential, and that we should
prefer equality and first-class citizenship to the momentary
approbation of those who otherwise regard us as inferiors. We
will achieve this birthright of first-class citizenship, but we
cannot do so unless we treat each other no less respectfully than
we would have our sighted peers treat us. If we are
philosophically mature, then we know that ultimate responsibility
for shaping the world for the blind rests squarely upon us. That
responsibility is great; let us not laugh it off.
                       SAFETY AND AMTRAK: 
ANOTHER VARIATION ON A TIRED OLD THEME
                         by Sharon Gold
 As  Monitor  readers know, Sharon Gold is the president of the
National Federation of the Blind of California. She works hard to
protect the rights of blind Californians and of us all. She is
disturbed by what happened to a Federationist just before
Thanksgiving of 1989 and even more concerned about what might
have happened. No one meant any harm. In fact, the official
involved intended to be considerate, but his actions placed a
blind woman in a very difficult, if not dangerous, position. Here
is the story as Sharon Gold tells it: 

With the growing popularity of travel in America, automobiles,
busses, trains, and airplanes have become a significant part of
our lives.  Everyone seems to be thinking of or planning for that
special trip, whether it be immediate or a dream for the future.
As the holiday season approaches each year, most of us make plans
for trips to visit friends and family. Where once blind people
were content only to dream of such travel, today we use public
transportation, going independently as part of the general
public.
When traveling, blind people expect to be treated equally, with
the courtesy and respect shown to sighted passengers. We expect
to associate or dissociate with whomever we choose. We also
expect to travel free from unwanted and unnecessary assistance
and free from the imposition
of prejudice or discriminatory behavior by other passengers and
transportation personnel.
Jana Littrell of the San Francisco East Bay Area finished work at
her usual time on Friday, November 17, 1989. She briskly walked
the two blocks to the AMTRAK Travel Center, where train tickets
are sold
as a convenience to the Oakland public. Jana was planning a
Thanksgiving holiday with her family. Like the others entering
the Travel Center, she was looking forward to a visit with her
family and old friends and the traditional fun-filled holiday
with its turkey and dressing.  Planning ahead, Jana had chosen to
buy her ticket after work on Friday in order to avoid the long
ticket lines on the Wednesday afternoon just before Thanksgiving,
which could result in her missing her train.  Jana waited her
turn in line and then stepped to the counter to purchase a
round-trip ticket to Bakersfield, California. The agent began to
prepare the ticket while he engaged in what seemed to be a
friendly conversation with her. How would she get to the train?
She patiently explained that she would take the bus. Was anyone
traveling with her?
No, she was traveling alone. Who would meet her at the train in
Bakersfield?

By this time the realization began to creep over Jana that the
agent was typing her answers into a computer. She stopped short
of answering these question about who was to meet her and
inquired why the agent was asking her all the questions. He
replied that it was his duty.
Jana then asked whether he requested such information from other
customers.

By this time the exchange between the two had drawn the attention
of the other people in the travel center, so that when Jana
demanded if he was asking her these questions because she was
blind, the entire area fell silent waiting for the agent's reply.
Jana's refusal to discuss her travel plans further with the agent
or to give him the name and address of a person who would be
picking her up in Bakersfield angered the ticket agent, who
loudly proclaimed that she would give him the information or he
would not sell her the ticket.
If Jana wished to pre-purchase her ticket to Bakersfield, she had
no choice but to rearrange her plans for the evening and travel
to the AMTRAK train depot to purchase it. She left the AMTRAK
Travel Center and started down the street toward the bus. She was
aware of footsteps behind her, which soon moved along-side. A
man's voice then spoke to her, but she did not respond.
When Jana boarded the bus, the footsteps followed her. Then the
man began telling her how lonely he was and how he wanted to take
care of her. Again, silently hoping that he would go away, she
did not respond to him. When it was time to transfer busses, she
got off, only to discover that her pursuer had disembarked as
well. He followed her onto the second bus and again spoke to her
in broken English.  Jana, despite feeling mounting terror, tried
to put the man off by explaining to him that in this country men
do not approach women in this way. The man would not be put off.
He kept repeating how lonely he was and how he could take care of
her.
When the bus arrived at the AMTRAK depot, Jana hurried inside and
bought a ticket from Oakland to Bakersfield. There were no
questions about how she would get to the train depot, who would
accompany her, or who would meet her at her destination.
By this time Jana presumed that the man would be gone, but when
she boarded the bus to go home, there he was. She now knew that
she had a serious problem on her hands. She could not let this
man follow her home.
As she rode along, Jana reflected about how easily she had bought
the ticket at the AMTRAK depot. She thought about the man who was
on the bus with her, and she thought about the ticket agent at
the AMTRAK Travel Center: how he had refused to sell her a ticket
in the matter-of-fact way in which he sold tickets to other
passengers. She remembered how his questions had focused general
attention on her.  The man on the bus with her had no doubt been
loitering around the Travel Center and had been attracted to her
by the agent's custodial behavior. After all, if the AMTRAK agent
thought she needed to be taken care of, why shouldn't the
aggressive loiterer be the one to do it?
Knowing that she would have to take drastic measures to separate
herself from the man, Jana began to raise her voice when speaking
to him.  She began telling him that he could not get off the bus
with her, that he could not continue to follow her, and that he
was to remain
on the bus when she got off. She focused the attention of every
passenger on the bus as well as the driver on the man harassing
her. In this way she was able to disembark alone and catch her
final bus home.

Jana telephoned me to discuss the need for the National
Federation of the Blind of California to investigate AMTRAK's
policy concerning passengers. She explained that she had been
buying tickets and traveling on AMTRAK for years and that this
was the first time she had been asked such personal questions by
an agent or had been refused a ticket.

When I telephoned Arthur Lloyd, Director of Public Affairs West
at the National Railroad Passenger Corporation offices in San
Francisco, Mr. Lloyd endorsed the behavior and attitude of the
ticket agent and confirmed that AMTRAK had special rules for
handling blind passengers.  He explained that it was for the
blind person's safety that AMTRAK needed to know how she was
getting to the train, where she would be traveling and with whom,
and who was going to pick her up at her destination.  After some
discussion Mr. Lloyd agreed that perhaps he was remembering an
antiquated policy and that maybe he should consult AMTRAK's
current regulations concerning blind people. The following letter
is the result of his research:

                                        San Francisco, California
                                                November 22, 1989

Ms. Sharon Gold, President
National Federation of the Blind 
of California
Sacramento, California

Dear Ms. Gold:

Thank you for your call yesterday and for calling attention to a
problem encountered by one of your members at our Travel Center
in Oakland.
We do apologize to you and the person subjected to a wrong
interpretation of our rules.
Ray Thurston, our agent at the ticket office location, did not
intend any depreciation of the blind lady who wished a ticket to
Bakersfield and only had the best interest of her in his mind.
He, like I, was relying on a former regulation which, for the
protection of the passenger, asked for some information as to
someone picking up the customer at the final destination. This
has since been rescinded and neither of us picked up on the
change.
By copy I am asking the district supervisor for the ticket
offices to indicate the information is no longer required so as
to obviate a similar situation occurring in the future.
If you would like to provide me with the name and address of the
lady who had the unfortunate experience, I will be pleased to
write her and offer a future trip to Bakersfield as our guest.
You have helped us by calling this to our attention.  

                                                       Sincerely,
                                        Arthur L. Lloyd, Director
                                              Public Affairs West


cc: Gary Rose
     Ray Thurston
___________________
That's what the Amtrak official had to say after he had reread
his company's current policy concerning blind passengers. Jana
Littrell is lucky that the ticket agent's ignorance did not cost
her more than inconvenience and a nerve-wracking experience. We
in the National Federation of the Blind have often said that our
road to hell is paved with other people's good intentions. We
must all be vigilant in order to see that incidents like this one
occur less and less frequently.  
JUSTIN DART COMMENTS ON THE 
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
 From the Editor:  Justin Dart, former commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration, is the Chairman of the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.
As a part of the Associates program, he is also a member of the
National Federation of the Blind.  He says that he is proud of
that membership, and we are also proud of it. Recently Mr. Dart
wrote to Congressman Gerry Sikorski about the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Here is what he had to say: 

                                                 Washington, D.C.
                                                February 16, 1990

The Honorable Gerry Sikorski
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Sikorski:
As you know, I strongly support the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which will extend to people with disabilities
the same civil rights protection that has been enjoyed by other
minorities for more than two decades. This historic mandate for
equal opportunity is an absolutely essential foundation for the
elimination of the massive discrimination which has made our
forty-three million citizens with disabilities this nation's most
isolated, unemployed, impoverished, and welfare-dependent
minority.
ADA as passed by the Senate and endorsed by President Bush is an
excellent piece of legislation. However, I believe that it will
be strengthened by an amendment emphasizing that people with
disabilities have a clear choice to accept or reject special
arrangements and accommodations, while at the same time retaining
all of their rights to seek remedies in cases of negligence by
providers. I see such an amendment as a wholly desirable
clarification of existing, negotiated agreements already in the
bill.
This issue is important to me and to many. For example, my job
requires
constant travel. As a wheelchair user I am almost always offered 
handicapped rooms  by hotels. While the special accommodations in
these rooms are ideal for many colleagues, one particular
commonly-provided facility is dangerous for me to use. I always
ask for an ordinary room. I would not want to be forced to use
the special room, nor would I want to lose my equal liability
rights by choosing the ordinary room.  While one might assume
that in all common sense no one would ever be forced to use a
special arrangement, this can indeed occur. One time after an
exhausting marathon flight to London I was forced to wait on the
aircraft one and a half hours after all other passengers
had deboarded, so that I could be taken off into a special,
ambulance-like vehicle. When I protested that I deboard just like
everyone else in every other nation, I was told that this was the
law, and that if
I did not comply, I would be required to stay on the plane and
return to America.
I would like to emphasize that in writing this letter I speak as
an individual, and not representing the U.S. government or any
other organization or group with which I am affiliated. While I
do speak only for myself, I am aware that a very large number of
my colleagues with disabilities agree with me on this issue.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                      Justin Dart
                WHAT A DIFFERENCE 16 YEARS MAKES
                       by Pattie Droppers
 This article appeared in the February, 1990,  NFB Vigilant,
 the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Virginia. 

Sixteen years ago I was a student in the Washington Semester
Program at American University in Washington, D.C. The purpose of
this program was to take students majoring in public
administration out of the classroom and put them to work to learn
how our government operates.  We were required to attend seminars
all over the Washington area.  Students served internships on
Capitol Hill.
I never went to seminars or traveled Capitol Hill alone. I was
the only Washington Seminar student who did not intern in a
congressional office. In 1974 I did not know what I could do as a
blind person.
And, more tragically, it never occurred to me to question the
decisions university officials made concerning my participation
(or lack of participation) in the program. I never asked for help
or directions.  Then, in the fall of 1986, I joined the Potomac
Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind.
Since I joined the Federation, my experience as a blind person
has
been changing. It took me two years to gain enough confidence to
participate in the Washington Seminar, but in January of 1990 I
stepped out and took my place.
There were a number of different feelings I experienced
throughout the week:
Importance: It was important that I take a stand on the issues
affecting the blind of this country. It was time I put my body
where it counted.  Pride and Self-Confidence: I had a wonderful
time walking through the underground tunnels and riding the
subway on Capitol Hill. I was
where I needed to be when I needed to be there. It was a great
confidence-builder.  I asked for directions several times. And,
when asking directions
on the way to one appointment, I had the opportunity to explain
our issues. This filled me with pride. The person I was talking
with was genuinely interested in what I had to say.
Belonging: Other NFB members were a great source of encouragement
to me, particularly in the early going when I was especially
nervous.  I appreciated their support and understanding most. The
most valuable lesson of belonging came to me on my first
appointment, when I inadvertently knocked an open can of peanuts
from a low coffee table. I wanted to
go home, except the appointment was about to begin. Fellow
Federationists picked them up, and fortunately the can was almost
empty. The meeting with the congressman took place in a cordial
and professional manner.  Later a colleague told me that he
almost sat on an ashtray. The point here is that I learned that
it is okay that I will not do everything perfectly no one will.
But we continue on.
I learned more about my capabilities in four days than I had in
an entire semester at American University. I hope next year that
even more of you will join us for the Washington Seminar. And if
tramping around the House or Senate office buildings seems
intimidating, remember that  You don't have to go alone.  I am
told that the atmosphere is that of a mini convention. See you
next year.
                          R E C I P E S 
  From the Associate Editor:  This spring we are all thinking a
good bit about our fiftieth anniversary convention and about
things Texan. If you are like me, you have never spent much time
in Texas I did change planes in Houston on my way home from the
1987 convention, but I don't count that. I have always heard a
great deal about Texas cooking and the need to develop the
organic equivalent of an asbestos lining for the mouth. 
 So I asked Norma Crosby, whose husband Glenn is the president of
the National Federation of the Blind of Texas, to send me some
taste-tested Texas recipes. I said we wanted the real thing none
of this taming down the product for the weak constitutions of
cowardly easterners. On the other hand, I told her that I saw no
point in losing the inside of my mouth to something that Texans
were not prepared to vouch for as honest-to-goodness Lone Star
quality. The following recipes contributed by Jeff and Zena
Pearcy are the ones she sent me. The Pearcys are leaders in the
National Federation of the Blind of Texas. They are also fine
cooks. 

                     SOUTH TEXAS SPICY SALSA
                         by Jeff Pearcy

 Ingredients: 
5 medium tomatoes
1 large onion
4-6 hot jalapeo peppers
1 teaspoon salt (garlic salt optional)
1 teaspoon cumin

 Method:  Run all ingredients through a food processor until you
get desired consistency. Yields one quart of sauce. Serve with
crispy tostados and butter.

                 TEXAS STYLE CHICKEN FRIED STEAK
                         by Zena Pearcy

 Ingredients: 
2 round steaks
3 eggs
3 tablespoons milk
4 cups flour
1 tablespoon salt
black pepper to taste
A pot, skillet, or deep fat fryer 
about half full of oil

 Method:  Trim all fat from steaks (any remaining fat makes the
meat tough). Cut into portions of desired size. Beat eggs and
milk together in a shallow dish. Mix flour, pepper, and salt in a
shallow dish. Roll each piece of meat first in the flour mixture,
then in the egg mixture, then in the flour again. Put each piece
directly into the hot oil. Do not let battered meat sit around
waiting to be cooked. Deep fry on high heat 4 to 5 minutes on
each side. Drain on paper towels. In Texas this entree is served
with or without cream style or red-eye gravy. I prefer it
unembelished. Yield:  Serves eight Yankees or two Texans.

                     NATIONAL CHILI OF TEXAS
                         by Jeff Pearcy

 Ingredients: 

6 round steaks, trimmed and cut into 
bite-sized pieces
3 pounds ground chuck
2 onions, chopped
4-6 chopped jalapeos
8 tablespoons chile powder
4 tablespoons cumin
1 tablespoon cayenne (red) pepper
2 tablespoons paprika
4 tablespoons salt (garlic salt optional)
1/2 gallon water
2 Lone Star or Shiner beers
1 cup flour
 Method:  In an extremely large pot, brown the meat and onions. 
Push meat to one side of pot and dump the cup of flour into the
cleared area. Stir the flour until browned. Stir meat and browned
flour together.  Add all other ingredients to the pot. Cover and
cook 3 to 4 hours on medium to low heat, stirring often. Serves
15-20.  

                        STUFFED JALAPEOS
                         by Zena Pearcy

 Ingredients: 
1 8-ounce block of cream cheese
1 cup chopped Texas pecans
8-10 pickled jalapeos, 
halved and deseeded

 Method:  Let cream cheese soften either by leaving at room
temperature for a couple of hours or by microwaving on low for
one minute. Mix nuts with cheese. Stuff jalapeos with cheese and
nut mixture. Serve with tequila chasers or water for the weak-of-
heart.

                   * * MONITOR MINIATURES * *  

**High Tech Birth Announced:
We received the following birth announcement from Clayton
Hutchinson of Computer Conversations, who added that purchasers
who mentioned that they read about this pocket voice synthesizer
in the  Braille Monitor  would receive a $25 discount. The
announcement reads:

Computer Conversations takes great pride in announcing the
arrival of a Battery Powered/AC Pocket Voice Synthesizer

Father: R. Clayton Hutchinson
Mother: Necessity
Name: Verbette Mark II
Sex: Male
Date: 2-1-90
Weight: 8 oz.
Size: 3-3/4 X 2-1/4 X 3/4 inches

For additional information you are invited to contact the parents
at Computer Conversations, 6297 Worthington Road, S. W.,
Alexandria, Ohio 43001; (614) 924-2885.

**Mixing Dogs and Schools:
Senator Paul Kehoe of the New York State Senate recently wrote to
the  Monitor  Editor to report that, although New York law is
clear on the matter, there is evidence that at least one blind
parent was refused entrance to her children's school because of
the presence of her dog guide. In an effort to remind New York
State school officials that dog guide users have the right of
access to all public buildings, the New York Department of
Education published the following notice
in the January, 1990, edition of the  School Executive's Bulletin
:

 Although dog guides are permitted in most places of public
accommodations, including school buildings, incidents of parents
who are blind being prevented from entering school with a dog
guide have occurred. In order for parents who are blind to be
able to fully participate in their children's education, they
must be able to access the school building. Although there may be
reasonable limitations to the use
of a dog guide in certain environments, such as food preparation
areas, parents must have the opportunity to attend such important
school events as parent-teacher conferences, award programs,
sporting events, and graduation ceremonies. 
Senator Kehoe's letter concluded with the following sentence,  If
you are aware of any similar problems, please do not hesitate to
bring them to my attention. 

**Congratulations:
Dennis Ranker, one of the leaders of the National Federation of
the
Blind of West Virginia, has recently been presented with several
noteworthy awards. Three times in the past two years, he has been
given superior performance awards by his employer, the Social
Security Administration.  In addition, on September 26, 1989, Mr.
Ranker received the Certificate of Appreciation for volunteer
services at a special awards ceremony in Washington, D.C. The
Volunteer Service for which Dennis Ranker was recognized was his
dedicated participation in the programs of the National
Federation of the Blind. We add our congratulations to those of
the Social Security Administration.

**Braille in a New Light:
Frank Kurt Cylke, Director, National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped, called our attention to an
advertisement appearing in the February, 1990, edition of the 
Publishing News .  In a full-page ad World Color Press, a
consumer- magazine printing company, included a life-size picture
of two hands reading Braille.  The ad copy accompanying the
photograph begins as follows:   Louis Braille was a teacher at
the National Institute of the Blind in Paris when he realized
that by adapting a system that was used for writing messages at
night in battle, he could give the blind access to literature,
music, and science. Braille has since been translated into almost
every tongue and developed into a tool that can manipulate the
highest forms of mathematics. Braille's vision, to adapt an
existing system to meet a need, is a characteristic that World
Color Press admires and promotes. 
As Mr. Cylke points out in his letter, World Color Press 
certainly puts Braille in a positive perspective. 

**Organized:
Jacquilyn Billey, president of the National Federation of the
Blind of Connecticut reports that on January 27, 1990, the New
Britain Area Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Connecticut came into being. Officers elected were: James
Nicholson, President; James Foxworth, Vice President; James
Sikrowitz, Treasurer; and Dorri Rickey, Secretary. Board Members
elected were: Frances Sikrowitz, William Talbot, and Anna Ribes.
The energetic chapter has already conducted a bake sale. Keep up
the good work.

**Wedding Bells:
We recently received the following announcement:  Mr. and Mrs.
V. Price LeBlanc request the honor of your presence at the
marriage of their daughter Lori Lynn to Mr. Russell Wayne
Anderson on Saturday, the twenty-third of December, Nineteen
hundred and eighty-nine, at
two o'clock in the afternoon at St. Gabriel Catholic Church, St.
Gabriel, Louisiana. Reception immediately following at the home
of the bride's parents.  Congratulations to Russ and Lori.

**Born:
Paul and Mary Ellen Gabias report with much joy the birth of
Joanne Kathleen at 3:25 a.m. on February 28th. Joanne weighed in
at 7 lbs.  1 oz. and was 20-1/2 inches long. After giving
everyone a thorough scare at the beginning, she is now excelling,
her parents report, at everything babies are supposed to do. As 
Monitor  readers know, Mary Ellen Gabias worked for a number of
years as Assistant Director of the Job Opportunities for the
Blind Program at the National Center. Paul Gabias is a Professor
of Psychology at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New
Brunswick. We share the Gabias' delight in the birth of their
daughter and look forward to meeting her in Dallas.

**Candle In The Window, Fifth Annual Conference:  Jonathan Ice, a
member of the NFB of Minnesota, has asked that we carry the
following announcement:
Candle In The Window announces our fifth annual seminar,
Wednesday through Sunday, August 15 through 19. The 1990 program
is entitled  Life Choices: Or What To Do When You Really Don't
Develop A Sixth Sense.  The conference will focus on: history and
culture, blindness as a lifestyle choice, and relationship
issues. The setting for this event is Wilder Forest, Marine On
St. Croix, Minnesota, a rustic yet classy conference center of
1,100 acres near the Twin Cities. Enjoy the lush hiking trails,
sparkling lakes, and our famous Minnesota blue skies. The
facility is comfortable, the food is excellent, and this
conference promises to be our most interesting and exciting ever. 
For further information contact: Lolly Lijewski, (612) 562-9243;
or write: Candle In The Window, 6925 Humboldt Avenue, North,
Number 202-B, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430.

**Clocks:
Eric Foss, president of the Kern County Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of California, writes as follows: The
Kern County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
California has available
for a donation of $20 or more large digit L.C.D. clocks with the
Federation logo on their stand. To get one, send your donation of
$20 or more
to: Kern County Chapter, National Federation of the Blind of
California, Post Office Box 1445, Bakersfield, California
93302-1445; phone (805) 861-6542.

**New Family Member:
Colleen Roth is one of the leaders of the National Federation of
the Blind of Ohio. We recently received the following
communication: Dudley and Colleen Roth take pleasure in
announcing the adoption of a daughter, Karen Elizabeth Roth, on
Monday, February 5, 1990. Karen's date of birth is May 14, 1971.

**For Sale:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement: I have
for sale one Epson SmallTalk computer with adapter and battery
recharger.  It is three years old and barely used. I will take
the best offer.  Contact: Alicia Taylor (209) 952-9316.

**Under the Wire:
Chris and Doug Boone (long-time active members and leaders in the
National Federation of the Blind, now living and working in New
Mexico) announce the birth of Katherine Elizabeth on December 31,
1989, weighing seven pounds and measuring twenty-one and a
quarter inches. Everyone, including big brother Edward, is doing
well. Congratulations to the Boones.

**Taped Version Available:
Adrienne Asch, who works for the New Jersey Bioethics Commission
and is an active member of the Human Rights Division of the
National Federation of the Blind, has asked that we print the
following: The  Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ),  a newsletter
full of information of interest to people studying disability
from any perspective, is now available on cassette tape.
Published by Irving Kenneth Zola at the Department of Sociology,
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254, the  DSQ 
contains reviews of classic and recent books; information about
recent films and new research; and much more. The taped edition
comes out at the same time as the print edition and, like the
print, costs $15 a year. Interested subscribers should contact
Dr. Zola at the above address or should call him at (617)
736-2644.
