                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                            May, 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
                            MAY 1990

VICTORY IN THE COLORADO VENDING SUIT
  by Marc Maurer

A MOTHER OF BLIND CHILDREN ADDRESSES THE PROFESSIONALS
by Barbara Rooney

THE "REASONABLY PRUDENT" BLIND PERSON: 
REFLECTIONS ON THE TEACHING OF THE LAW AND PERCEPTIONS OF
BLINDNESS
by Christopher Kuczynski

MISSING THE POINT: BECOMING A WAY OF LIFE AT AMTRAK

BLIND MEN WITHOUT ELEPHANTS

RECORDING FOR THE BLIND NOT FOR STUDENTS ONLY
by Adrienne Asch

TAKING IT TO TALK SHOWS: NEW IDEAS ON AN OLD JOB
by Charles Biebl

TEACHING TEACHERS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS
  by Barbara Pierce

MY MOST UNUSUAL DAY
  by Zach Shore

WHO'S ABLE TO TEACH?
  by Gwen Nelson

I'D RATHER BE MUGGED
  by Michael Baillif

ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD: LETTER FROM LILLIAN SYKES CHANGING

PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT BLINDNESS: 
IOWA'S INFORMATION FAIR
  by Peggy Pinder

RECIPES

TO WHET YOUR APPETITE

MONITOR MINIATURES

Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1990

              VICTORY IN THE COLORADO VENDING SUIT
                         by Marc Maurer

One of the more disturbing trends evident in Business Enterprise
Programs in state rehabilitation agencies today is the growing
effort to restrict the earnings of blind food service operators.
Even in states in which there are too few trained vendors, agency
personnel are quick to divide profitable locations into two-,
three-, or four-person partnerships so that no one vendor will be
rewarded for hard work and creativity by making an income
comparable to that paid to the supervisory staff in the
rehabilitation agency's vending program.
The National Federation of the Blind has fought this trend
vigorously, and we have been able to reach a satisfactory
settlement in what is
perhaps the longest and one of the most disturbing cases of
income-splitting on record. The victory for vendors is important,
not only because
one lucrative location has been preserved, but also because the
rehabilitation agency in Colorado has capitulated rather than
face having the case heard before a Federal District Court. In
this case, the Randolph- Sheppard Act has been the vehicle for
protecting lucrative locations from being divided on the pretext
of increasing the opportunities available to blind vendors.
In May of 1986 the vendor who had been managing the facility at
the Postal Terminal Annex in Denver, Colorado, was due to retire.
The location, which included vending machines on each of four
floors, was quite lucrative; and the Colorado Department of
Social Services decided that in the future it would be divided so
that two vendors could each service two floors. Although the
income to each vendor would, of course, have been only about half
of what the vending stand had been producing for its previous
operator, the Colorado agency thought that the reduced amount
would be enough for the blind. The 1974 amendments to the
Randolph-Sheppard Act require that the state vendors' advisory
committee participate in the decision-making process when a state
agency is considering matters of policy. Dividing such a location
among operators is such a matter of policy. Later events
demonstrated clearly that the Colorado Department for Social
Services had already made its decision by the time the issue was
mentioned to the Blind Vendors Committee, which, not
surprisingly, opposed the action. The Department went ahead with
its plans regardless of vendor objections, so Don Hudson and
Richard Jack (both Colorado vendors with a great deal of
seniority and both active members of the National Federation of
the Blind of Colorado) decided to appeal this decision since both
of them were interested in bidding on the location.  The
Department of Social Services ruled that they had no right to
file appeals because its decision had nothing to do with their
current locations. Hudson and Jack had no choice but to turn to
the Federal Court to seek an injunction, preventing the Colorado
Department of Social Services from dividing the location until
the dispute was settled.  In April of 1986 the court issued an
order under which the Department of Social Services was required
to staff the location with a temporary vendor until final
resolution of the question could be achieved.  Hudson and Jack
won the right to appeal the Department's decision, and a full
evidentiary hearing was conducted in October, 1986. Not
surprisingly, the panel, all of whom were employees of the
Department of Social Services, ruled in favor of the Department,
so Hudson and Jack requested that the matter go to arbitration.
  Officials took a year to set up the arbitration procedure.
James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs for the National
Federation of the Blind and an expert on Randolph-Sheppard
matters, was named by Hudson and Jack to be one of the three
panelists appointed to hear the case. The Department of Social
Services appointed one member, and those two agreed upon a third
panelist. In January of 1988 the panel ruled against Hudson and
Jack in a two to one decision. Jim Gashel wrote a lengthy
dissenting opinion, arguing in part that the intent of the 1974
Randolph-Sheppard Amendments was to increase not
only the number but also the type and quality of food service
operations.  His memorandum, which may be useful to other vendors
fighting similar cases is reprinted here:

                           Memorandum


From: James Gashel



Re: In the matter of Donald Hudson and Richard Jack vs. The
Colorado Department of Social Services Case No. R-S/87-7 This
memorandum is prepared to provide analysis of the issues and the
requirements of the Randolph-Sheppard Act ( the Act )
as they apply in the above captioned matter. Throughout the
following discussion Donald Hudson and Richard Jack will be
referred to collectively as  the vendors.  The Colorado
Department of Social Services will be referred to as  the state. 


The Issue


 The vendors have brought this action to challenge a state
decision to split an existing vending facility at the Postal
Service's Denver Terminal Annex ( the Annex ). The Annex has
about 50 vending machines and provides the blind vendor with a
challenging and financially rewarding opportunity. In net income
to the vendor alone it is the best facility that the Colorado
blind vending program has to offer.

The vendors have argued that the state has violated the Act both
substantively and procedurally by attempting to split the Annex.
In general they claim that the Act does not permit the state to
take an action that would arbitrarily impose an income limit on a
blind vendor. They argue that the Act is intended to help each
blind vendor to achieve  maximum vocational potential.   Removing
the best facility from the program and dividing it into two
facilities (according to the vendors) defeats the purpose of the
Act.
The vendors' procedural challenge is that the state by-passed the
committee of blind vendors in deciding on its own to change the
policy of having only one facility at the Annex. They argue that
the vendors' committee was merely informed of the state's
decision after it was already made. By-passing the committee
violates the legal responsibility of the state to share such
decisions (and their making) with the elected vendors' committee.
Moreover, the vendors cite a no-forced-partnership policy, which
they say the state and the committee have agreed to follow. The
policy was intended to prevent partnerships of the type that
would have to exist at the Annex under the state's split vending
facility decision. Thus the committee's role was disregarded by
the state in not sharing the decision making with the committee
and by violating a prior policy that the state and the committee
had agreed to.
The state's position amounts to a denial of these charges. The
state claims that it has the administrative discretion to
establish one,
two, or more vending facilities at the Annex. According to this
reasoning, the vendors have no basis for challenging the state's
decision. It does not place any limit on their income or
otherwise affect either of them adversely.
On the other hand, the state claims that it is feasible to split
the Annex facility into two businesses, each of which will still
earn a blind vendor a  good income.  The state acknowledges not
having any particular income guidelines or limits, but the
decision to split the Annex was not based on the income level,
the state says.
So in general it is the state's basic contention that it had the
authority to make the decision to split the Annex and that the
decision complied with the Act and carried out its purposes.
This is the central question presented to the panel: Does the Act
permit the state substantially to reduce the size and income
potential of a vending facility to create an additional facility
of the same type at the same site?


Discussion


The Act became law in 1936. At that point it was a very general
statute providing a preference for the blind in setting up small
stands in federal buildings. There were amendments to the Act in
1954, but the most sweeping and substantive changes occurred in
1974. Those changes unmistakably established the policy and the
philosophy of the Act.  Therefore, the underlying legislative
history of the 1974 amendments is particularly relevant to this
discussion.


Policy Direction of the Act


The impetus for the 1974 amendments came from findings of the
Congress that the Randolph-Sheppard Program had not grown and had
not been sustained in the manner (or in the spirit) intended. In
his statement on the floor when the 1974 bill passed the Senate,
Senator Randolph identified the conditions that were inconsistent
with the policy and intent of the original Act. One condition was
the erosion of the program, including the number, type, and size
of vending facilities available for operation by the blind. A
related condition and concern expressed by Senator Randolph was
the erosion of income for blind vendors.  Senator Randolph:  It
was my belief in 1969 that amendments were needed to protect
blind vendors and improve the Randolph-Sheppard program. Today...
I am more convinced that action is urgently needed.  We must
prevent erosion of the program and erosion of blind vendors'
income, and improve and expand opportunities for meaningful
employment of blind individuals. This statement provides the
reasoning behind each and every provision in the pending measure
prevention of
the erosion of the program, prevention of the erosion of blind
vendors' income, and improvement of employment for blind people.
Today I am more convinced that action is presently needed. We
must prevent erosion of the program and improve and expand
opportunities for meaningful employment of blind individuals.
That reasoning, which I believe is sound, is written into each
and every provision of the measure before us. We need to prevent
the erosion of this effort and to prevent the erosion of the
blind vendors' income.
 We need, of course, to provide an opportunity for improvement,
and not only improvement in the program and the facilities, but
also improvement in the level of employment of our blind. 
Floor statements of the other Senators who spoke during the
Senate's debate on the 1974 amendments to the Act echoed Senator
Randolph's policy direction to expand opportunities for the blind
in the program, to prevent erosion of income for blind vendors,
and to increase the
level of employment provided to the blind in the program. These
statements reveal a deliberate policy direction for the Act that
Congress carefully described. It is written into  each and every
provision.  Accordingly, we must read and apply the provisions of
the Act in light of this clearly stated purpose.
At first glance it may appear that the state faces a situation of
competing policy directions. On the one hand the Act anticipates
that the number of vending facilities will be increased. On the
other hand the state must administer the program in a way that
protects the program and blind vendors against income-eroding
conditions. There is no question that both objectives must be
fulfilled. They are part of the Act's policy direction. However,
they are not necessarily incompatible.
Nor is it expected that one objective must be fulfilled at the
expense of another.
The Act clearly intends that one or more vending facilities are
to be established on all federal property. Senate Report 93-937
contains one reference to encourage the establishment of more
than one vending facility on federal property where this is
feasible (see Senate Report 93-937, 93rd Congress, Second
Session, The Randolph-Sheppard Act Amendments of 1974, June 17,
1974, p. 20). This does not mean, however, that the Act favors
multiple facilities at single sites when this would result in
reducing the size and income potential of an existing facility.
The policy of the Act is clearly for the state to do more than
simply increase the number of facilities. Otherwise the state
could place
5 or 6 vendors at a site and multiply its success rate
significantly.  Doing so would not actually show success as
expected by the Act, however.  There is particular concern that
the state is in conflict with the Act when the size and income
level of a vending facility are reduced solely for the purpose of
establishing another site. The Act expects that as many vending
facilities as possible will be established in such a way that
they do not substantially compete with each other, thereby
reducing the income potential of the vendors. This expectation
particularly applies when the establishment of a competing
vending facility would erode the income potential for a blind
vendor at an existing facility.
Reducing the size of a vending facility and reducing its income
potential are inconsistent with the predominant policy of the
Act. To reduce the size of a facility (even if the reduction is
made to open another facility) erodes the growth potential
available to some blind vendors.  The purpose of the Act is to
expand (not to erode) business opportunities for the blind. 
Expansion must occur both quantitatively and qualitatively.  A
conflict with this policy direction of the Act occurs whenever a
quantitative expansion of the program erodes the quality of an
existing business opportunity. Nowhere in the Act is there even
the slightest reference to accomplishing expansion of the program
by shrinking existing opportunities for blind vendors.
The Act's policy to expand opportunities, to improve income, and
to increase the level of employment for the blind was expressly
directed
by several of the 1974 substantive amendments. Not one of these
amendments even encourages expansion of the program by means of
reducing the
size and income potential of existing vending facilities. The
amendments in fact go precisely in the opposite direction. The
emphasis is on program expansion by way of opening more
facilities in more federal buildings (see Senate Report 93-937,
pp. 19 and 20). To do this the amendments include several
clear-cut initiatives.
Giving blind vendors a statutory priority was seen as one of the
most far-reaching provisions of the amendments. It was intended
particularly to curb or reduce competition that resulted in
eroding blind vendors' income. Congress was using the concept of
a priority for blind vendors to improve the quality of the
vending facilities for the blind as well as to increase the
number of such facilities. As Senator Randolph said:  We need, of
course, to provide an opportunity for improvement, and not only
improvement in the program and the facilities, but also
improvement in the level of employment of our blind. 
Speaking directly to this point, Senator Dole also said:  
Inevitably, competition has arisen for the vending business. And
as this competition has developed, the blind have faced an
erosion of their opportunities....  Basically, the bill (S. 2581)
establishes a clear-cut and specific priority not merely a
preference for blind vendors. It backs up that priority with
regulations to insure that the priority is given full force and
effect. 
The Act requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
(now the Secretary of Education) to  prescribe regulations
designed to assure that the priority under this subsection is
given to such licensed blind persons....  (20 USC Section
107(b)). The regulations are published at 34 CFR part 395.
Section 395.16 is designed to assure the priority for the blind
at federal sites by means of a  permit  including a detailed
description of the vending facility, the space
to be occupied, and the products to be sold. Section 395.33 (not
necessarily relevant here) is designed to assure priority for the
blind in operating cafeterias under  contracts.   The permit or
contract for each vending facility is applied for by the state
licensing agency and approved by the federal property- managing
agency involved.  These priority and permit requirements are
clearly intended to give threshold protection to the interests of
blind vendors. They are also designed to expand the blind vendor
program both in the number and size of sites available and in
their income potential for the blind.  As Senator Randolph said,
they are aimed at expanding the program, protecting blind vendors
against erosion of their income, and increasing the level of
their employment. But both the Act and the regulations also
contain other relevant provisions that are intended to fulfill
these policy directions.
For example:  Any limitation on the placement or operation of
a vending facility based on a finding that such placement or
operation would adversely affect the interests of the United
States shall be fully justified in writing to the Secretary, who
shall determine whether such limitation is justified  (see 20 USC
section 107(b)(2) and 34 CFR section 395.30(b)). This provision
clearly gives the Secretary the sole statutory responsibility to
evaluate and finally approve
any limitation that may be made to a vending facility that is
operated under the Act.
By contrast, section 107a(c) and 34 CFR section 395.31(c) and (d)
give authority to the state licensing agency (in consultation
with
the head of the affected federal agency) to determine that a
satisfactory site exists and to decide whether or not to
establish a vending facility.  Furthermore, the state licensing
agency then applies for the permit under section 395.16, and the
federal agency approves or disapproves the permit. These sections
do not call for or require the Secretary's involvement. They
pertain to the establishment of the vending facility and the
specification of the products it may sell. Once established,
however, the vending facility exists within the terms defined in
the permit or contract. If the permit or contract is to be
limited, it appears that the Secretary is to play a pre-eminent
role by application of 20 USC section 107(b)(2).
The statutory establishment of an elected state committee of
blind vendors was also included to prevent the erosion of the
blind vendors' income. The committee has a specified
policy-making role in the statute and regulations (see 20 USC
section 107b-1(2) and 34 CFR section 395.14).  Congress intended
that the committee should function to represent the vendors'
interests in matters such as the decision that the state made on
its own in this case. A decision to split the Annex would
certainly raise policy issues and affect changes in the state's
transfer and promotion system, especially for the most senior
vendors. The plain language of the statute says that such matters
may be resolved only with the participation of the blind vendors'
committee.
Training, retraining, and upward mobility requirements were also
placed in the Act to upgrade the level of employment for blind
vendors. Under the amendments of 1974 each blind vendor is
actually entitled to follow-up and follow-along services from the
state in order to achieve the maximum vocational potential (see
20 USC section 107d-4 and 34 CFR section 395.11). Program and
income expansion were also to be accomplished by providing a
broader definition of  vending facility  (discarding the concept
of a  vending stand ), by provisions for paying vending machine
income to blind vendors, and by arbitration and judicial review
safeguards.  These are among the many requirements that Congress
included to prevent the erosion of the program and the erosion of
blind vendors' income.  As with all of the other provisions aimed
at reversing these erosions that Congress found, these
requirements are more than procedural niceties.  This quick
review of the Act and its 1974 amendments shows the integral
relationship between each specific requirement and the overall
policy direction that Senator Randolph identified preventing the
erosion of the program, preventing the erosion of blind vendors'
income, and increasing the level of employment of blind people.
As he said:  This is written into each and every provision. 
Therefore anything that is done under the Act must not conflict
with the fulfillment of these objectives. Moreover, this policy
direction specifically excludes accomplishing these objectives by
reducing the size and income potential of existing vending
facilities to create additional facilities of the same type at
the same site.
 The state is required to pursue the programmatic objectives
without eroding the income available (or potentially available)
to blind vendors.  Congress considered the question of the types
of limits (if any) that could be placed on opportunities and
income to the blind, and a deliberate choice was made. The law,
therefore, permits income limits to occur under only two
conditions or circumstances. The first is by permitting  set
aside  charges against the net proceeds of a vendor in order to
achieve certain very specific programmatic objectives. These are
essentially for program maintenance and for vendor benefits (see
20 USC section 107b(3) and 34 CFR section 395.9). These
provisions are clearly not aimed at reducing the size of vending
facilities but rather are intended to support ongoing program
operations.
The second limitation is a ceiling that may be imposed on any
vendor's receipt of  vending machine income.  The income in
question is from vending machines that the vendor does not
operate, service,
or maintain. Payments of such income to a vendor are made to
compensate the vendor for competition from the vending machines.
But the Act specifically says that  no limitation shall be
imposed on income from vending machines, combined to create a
vending facility, which are maintained, serviced, or operated by
a blind licensee  (see 20 USC section 107d-3(a) and 34 CFR
section 395.8(a)).
These limitations on blind vendor income are very deliberate and
very carefully prescribed. The fact that they exist at all shows
that Congress considered the question of limiting vendor income
and chose only two methods or circumstances for doing it by means
of a set aside to support program operations and for vendor
benefits; and by way
of a ceiling on income from machines that the vendor does not
operate.  Neither limitation permits the actual reduction in size
of a vending facility in order to accommodate the placement of
another blind vendor.  That is the type of limit that Congress
did not legislate, although it could have done so. This review of
the Act shows that the failure was not accidental.


Analysis


The priority for the vending facility at the Annex is implemented
by a specific permit. The permit describes a single site. The
state's plan to split the site has included a request to the
Postal Service for issuance of two permits for separate vending
facilities at the Annex. The current permit expresses the value
of the priority for a blind vendor at the Annex. It describes the
size and scope of the operation. The permit was negotiated on
behalf of the blind vendors who are intended to become its
beneficiaries.
The Annex facility under the single permit is at the top of the
promotion ladder in the program. In splitting the facility the
state would be decreasing the income value of the promotion
potential for the vendors.  The Annex facilities created by
virtue of the split would no longer be the best. Therefore, the
income possibilities that either of the vendors could realize by
promotion would be eroded. Such an erosion is in conflict with
the Act's policy direction to prevent erosion of the program, to
expand opportunities for blind vendors, and to increase the level
of employment for the blind provided by the program.

This is not to say that the establishment of more than one
vending facility at any particular site will always violate the
policy of the Act. In fact, the state already has one existing
site where more than one vending facility is operated. But these
facilities are not
of the same type one is a snack bar and the other is a dry stand. 
There is also evidence that the vendors and the state agree on
continuing to have a vending machine operation conducted by one
blind vendor
at the Annex and adding a separate cafeteria operation to be
conducted by another blind vendor. These situations are certainly
permissible under the Act. But when the state substantially
reduces the size and income potential of an existing vending
facility merely to create another facility, there is an
inevitable and impermissible erosion of the level of income that
either of the vendors can obtain.  Under the Act the state and
the Postal Service appear to have broad authority to determine
the exact size and scope of the vending facility at the Annex
(see 20 USC section 107a(c) and 34 CFR section 395.30).  That
authority was exercised when the permit was negotiated in 1981. 
Once established at a certain level, however, the vending
facility may not be reduced in size or income potential if the
reduction is within the control of the parties to the permit. The
Act does not allow them to erode the opportunity provided by the
vending facility.  The value of the priority to be given to the
blind under 20 USC section 107(b) is diminished if the vending
facility is eroded, and therefore the Act is violated.
Section 107(b) does anticipate that circumstances may arise which
justify placing a limitation on the vending facility. The
limitation can be approved if the placement or operation of a
vending facility adversely affects the interests of the United
States. A limitation that is merely the erosion of an existing
vending facility opportunity (as in the case of the Annex) would
presumably not be justifiable under 20 USC section 107(b)(2). In
any case the decision to approve
or disapprove the limitation does not rest with the state or the
Postal Service. Only the Secretary of Education can approve the
limitation.  This safeguard for the vendors was included in the
Act to protect them against erosion of opportunities and income
(see Senate Report 93-937, pp. 16 and 17). If the state
unilaterally attempts to impose a limitation on the placement or
operation of a vending facility (as
in the present instance), it has acted in violation of section
107(b)(2) and 34 CFR section 395.30(b).
By its actions in the past the state has acknowledged that the
vendors have an interest in the priority and the permit at the
Annex. In 1981 the state decided to negotiate a single permit for
the Annex rather than splitting the business among three vendors
to operate under three permits, as the Postal Service wanted. The
state's 1981 decision resulted from a deliberate policy choice,
including the fact that the state's Director of Business
Enterprises was  overruled.  But in 1986 the Director's original
position was adopted by the state prior to informing the vendors.
The Director of Business Enterprises acknowledged that the 1986
decision represented a change from the state's previous practice
of having a single vendor at the Annex.
The permit expresses the level and value of the priority for a
blind vendor that now exists at the Annex. It is undisputed that
one of the vendors in this action would be awarded the priority
to operate the vending machines at the Annex if the state
solicited bids for the promotion from all of the vendors in the
usual manner. But the state did not do this. The state instead
proceeded to implement its decision to split the priority. This
caused an erosion of income that one of the vendors would have
obtained under a promotion. Therefore, the state's action is a
clear contravention of the policy direction of the Act.
The state's action was also a contravention of its own site
selection policy. That policy with respect to the Annex is
specifically expressed in the existing permit for a single site.
The decision to have a single site at the Annex resulted from a
deliberative exercise, which involved the vendors' representative
committee. The Annex policy was not reached by accident. Once it
was established (especially with involvement of the vendors'
committee), everyone should be able to rely upon the
state to honor the policy or to seek a change through a similar
deliberative process involving the committee. In the case before
us, however, the state neither honored the policy in effect at
the Annex nor sought the committee's deliberative involvement in
approving a modification.  Thus, the state violated its own
policy expressed in the permit and
further violated the Act's requirement for vendors' committee
participation.



Findings And Conclusions


(1) The arbitration panel has jurisdiction to hear this matter
under 20 USC section 107d-1(a) and section 107d-2.
(2) The vendors have standing to bring this action as blind
licensees under the Act.
(3) The state and the Postal Service have established a single
vending facility to be operated by a single blind vendor at the
Postal Service's Denver Terminal Annex. The existence of the
vending facility and its size and scope are secured by and
described in a permit that was lawfully executed by the parties.
The permit was negotiated on behalf of the vendors who are
intended to be its beneficiaries.
(4) The permit establishes and describes the implementation of
the priority given to blind vendors under 20 USC section 107(b).
The state's decision to negotiate and agree to a single permit
for the Annex was a policy choice involving a resolution of
contending views of the Postal Service, the state's Director of
Business Enterprises, the vendors' committee, and other
supervising officials of the program.
(5) The Annex facility under the existing permit offers the
assigned blind vendor the best promotional opportunity in the
state. It is the largest business in the program, considering
both its size and income potential. The state's plan to split the
facility would erode both the size and the income potential that
now exist at this site.

(6) The clear policy direction of the Act is to prevent erosion
of the program, to expand opportunities for the blind (both
qualitatively and quantitatively), to prevent erosion of the
income of the blind, and to increase the level of employment of
the blind. This direction provides the rationale for giving a
priority to a blind vendor under the existing permit at the
Annex. Therefore, relinquishing the permit and dividing the
facility as desired by the state is an unlawful erosion of
opportunities and income and a violation of the priority
established in 20 USC section 107(b).
(7) The state and the Postal Service properly negotiated a permit
for the Annex and deliberately elected to develop this location
as
a single vendor site. 20 USC section 107(b)(2) is designed to
protect blind vendors against actions to reduce or limit the
priority given
to a vending facility. Such actions can only be justified if the
proposed placement or operation of a vending facility adversely
affects the interests of the United States. When it does, the
Secretary of Education is empowered to approve a limitation.
Neither the state nor the Postal Service can unilaterally
determine that a limitation on the placement or operation of the
existing vending facility at the Annex is justified.  Therefore,
the state's decision to split the existing vending facility was a
violation of 20 USC section 107(b)(2).
There was no finding that the interests of the United States were
or are adversely affected by the existing vending facility. Also
the question was never submitted to the Secretary, and the state
did not have the authority unilaterally to impose the limitation.
(8) By practice and design the agency has a policy of not
operating two vending facilities of the same type at the same
site. This policy was followed when the Annex facility was
established as a single vendor location. The state's plan to
split the facility would result in two roughly identical vending
machine operations serving customers in the same building. This
would cause at least some competition between the facilities and
the vendors. Having such an arrangement is a violation of the
state's policy with respect to the Annex (which policy is
expressed in the present permit) and a violation of the state's
overall programmatic policy not to establish two facilities of
the same type at the same site.
(9) The state decided to change its policy with respect to the
Annex facility prior to informing the vendors' committee of the
decision.  20 USC 107b-1(2) requires participation by the
committee in making such decisions. Therefore the state's
exclusion of the committee in this instance violated the Act.
____________________
That is what Jim Gashel filed with the chairman of the
arbitration panel to assist in establishing the record and to
create the best possible climate for appeal. In March, 1988,
therefore, Hudson and
Jack (in consultation with the National Federation of the Blind)
decided to take their case back to the same federal court which
had granted the injunction almost two years before. Briefs were
eventually written and submitted by both sides, and then there
was nothing to do but wait for a decision to be rendered.
Tragically, in September of 1989, while things were still hanging
fire, Richard Jack was struck by a car and killed. At the time of
his death, Richard was serving as president of the Vendors
Chapter of the NFB of Colorado. For some years he had also been
the treasurer of the Colorado affiliate, and he was always a
quiet but rock-solid leader of the movement. On the evening of
his death Don Hudson, his friend and colleague, summed up
everyone's feeling when he said that in Richard  we have lost a
warrior in the movement. 
The court case wound on for five more months. Then in February,
1990, the Department of Social Services decided it had had
enough. It seems a safe conclusion that officials feared that
they were going to lose the case. Apparently agency officials
thought they could do better with a settlement because it would
avoid a binding court decision that could be used in the future
by other vendors. On February 23, 1990, therefore, Judge James
Carrigan announced the settlement with prejudice, which means
that neither party may bring this matter before the court again.
The language of the settlement was worked out by
the lawyers for the two parties and approved by the court, which
incorporated it in a court order. Not only does the settlement
spell out the guidelines under which the agency can make
decisions to divide food service locations in the future, but it
also allows for payment of the NFB's legal fees out of the
profits of the Postal Annex location that have accrued since May
of 1986 when the temporary vendor took over the location.  The
Blind Vendors Committee and the vendors of Colorado have voted to
this agreement. Here is the text of the settlement:

                      IN THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLORADO


                                       Civil Action No. 86-C-754 
(Formerly 86-K-754) 


DON HUDSON, RICHARD JACK (deceased), and the 
COLORADO COMMITTEE OF BLIND VENDORS, Plaintiffs,
                               v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT  OF SOCIAL SERVICES and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT  OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.

                       ORDER AND JUDGMENT

THE COURT, having read the Stipulation for Settlement and being
fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS:
1. The claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice
against the Colorado Department of Social Services and United
States Department of Education.
2. This matter is herewith dismissed with prejudice, each party
to pay their costs and attorney fees as set forth herein.
3. That certain Arbitration Order entered on December 14, 1987,
and the matter referred to as Hudson v. Colorado Department of
Social Services, R-S/87-7, is herewith vacated.
4. The United States Postal Terminal Annex Blind Vendors
Facility, which is the subject of this litigation, shall not,
hereafter, be divided into separate vending facilities, except in
accordance with paragraph 7 below.
5. The United States Postal General Mail Facility (GMF) presently
under construction in Commerce City, Colorado, shall be operated
hereafter as a single vendor facility, unless divided pursuant to
paragraph 7 below.
6. A two-thirds majority of blind vendors, voting at a duly
noticed meeting, having approved the stipulation, the funds
escrowed by the State Licensing Agency (SLA) from the program
operation of the Terminal Annex vending facility on Wyncoop
Street shall be distributed pro
rata to the blind vendors less the attorney fees incurred by the
Plaintiffs and/or paid on their behalf by the National Federation
of the Blind, Headquarters, Baltimore, Maryland.
7. The SLA and the Blind Vendors Committee shall create new
binding Business Enterprise Program Guidelines for the
establishment of policies regarding the later division of blind
vendor facilities. Such regulations shall provide that:
 a. In the event the SLA or the Blind Vendors Committee desires
to change the  nature or level  of service of a vending facility,
an economic analysis shall be undertaken at the expense of the
SLA but under the joint participation of the Blind Vendors
Committee and the SLA which shall include consideration of, but
not be limited to:   

 
 (1) Architecture and physical structure;  
 (2) Profitability;  
 (3) Best utilization of agency resources;    (4) Opportunity for
advancement and rehabilitation;  (5) Demand for new locations for
trainees.   

 At the conclusion of said economic analysis, the SLA shall allow
sixty (60) days for notice and comment to the Blind Vendors
Committee and then to the body of blind vendors for further
input, to be taken into consideration in its final written
decision.  
  b. The income, to be generated by any proposed facility were it
to be operated as a single operator facility, shall not in and of
itself be a criterion for division of any proposed facility.    
c. A location operated by a single operator may not be divided
except upon the transfer or retirement of the single operator
under existing guidelines of the State Licensing Agency. 
____________________
There you have it. The settlement is a clear victory for blind
vendors in Colorado and a ray of hope for everyone working in
food service
across the country. The Terminal Annex in Denver will remain a
one-operator facility, and the new Postal Annex location in
Commerce City will not be split either. More to the point, the
state agency is unlikely to attempt to sidestep the
Randolph-Sheppard amendments in the same way. These were the
goals that Don Hudson and Richard Jack had in mind when they
challenged the system in 1986. But such efforts always exact a
cost.
The Colorado Business Enterprise Program recently awarded the
Postal Annex vending facility, and Don Hudson was not the
recipient. He is, of course, not the agency's favorite vendor,
but he is the one they turn to for training new people and the
man they send in when other locations are in trouble. There are
indications that the award was made in return for political
favors, but at this writing (mid-March)
it is too early to know what will happen. There may be another
appeal a second Hudson case.  Recriminations taken against one
vendor for exercising the statutory right of appeal cannot be
tolerated.  How often has
it been true that agency officials believe they can do as they
please without regard to the law, fairness, or decent standards
of behavior?  But what they have failed to consider is the
National Federation of the Blind. It is, as it has been for fifty
years, the National Federation of the Blind leading the fight as
we demand the right to work and earn on terms of equality. The
Colorado vending case is just one more indication of why the
National Federation of the Blind must and will continue to fight
for the rights of blind people.
                   A MOTHER OF BLIND CHILDREN 
ADDRESSES THE PROFESSIONALS
                        by Barbara Rooney
 In the February, 1990, issue of the  Braille Monitor,  we
reprinted Dr. Jernigan's remarks to the conference of the PenDel
Chapter of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of
the Blind and Visually Impaired, which took place on November 17,
1989. Following his remarks that day was a talk by a truly
remarkable woman, Barbara Rooney, a member of the Lancaster
County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Pennsylvania. She and her husband have twelve children, eleven of
whom are adopted. The twelfth is a foster child. Four of the
youngsters are blind and four have Down's Syndrome. Nine of the
children are disabled in some way. The Rooneys have had eighteen
years of experience dealing with professionals in the education,
social service, and medical fields. As a consumer of services her
assignment for this speech, according to the speaker who
introduced her, was to tell her audience where the problems are
in the system and what, from her perspective, is going wrong.
Here is what she had to say: 

After listening a little bit this morning, I think that the most
important thing I have to share with you is that blindness is
okay. I mean that, deep down, it is an okay way to be. And the
sooner those working with families who have children born blind
or have become blind begin to shift their emphasis to feeling
okay and to having positive attitudes about these people, the
better a world we are going to have.  Through the years my
husband and I have had some really difficult
times in relating to our family. You should know that we are an
adoptive family. That is important only in that we received our
children on a basis of joy and fulfillment. Therefore, their
blindness was not a problem for us. A majority of families that
you will work with, I am sure, have a different perspective. Most
have been shocked and have had to learn to adapt and overcome a
great sadness. But despite a lot of improvement over eighteen
years, the system still allows parents to grieve inwardly while
carrying the burden with head held high instead of giving them
permission to get on with their lives and feel good about having
produced a blind child. That is the basic problem in society.
Oftentimes we see professionals running about, trying to fix it
and make these children okay. Well, if making it okay means you
have to make them sighted, then we have a real problem.  In order
for integration to take place successfully in a community, it has
to take place first in the home.
Although the majority of you here work in rehabilitation of the
blind young adult, I have to say that there is just not enough
emphasis
on early intervention. When we as a society begin looking at
children who are born a little different as people who are okay,
people we can learn from, and when we help the family to reach
that feeling, successful integration will take place. A lot of
our arguments will cease, and we will have respect for one
another.
No two parents or children are alike. Hence the needs of any two
families cannot be identical. The history of each, their dreams,
their financial situation, and their expectations for their
children are unique. When a child is born blind, there is a
disruption in the nurturing system.  This occurs because the
parents are often in shock and pain. Their dreams of a normal
child and I have never met a normal person, so I'm not sure I
know what that means are shattered. They are in pain. And what
those of us who say we care need to do is to allow these families
to express their anger, their anxiety, their guilt,
and their sadness, so that a positive nurturing attitude can
re-emerge.  If it does not, you have what is often called a
mutual mal-adaption syndrome, in which the parents have failed to
overcome their helplessness and the infant becomes more and more
upset. Again, early intervention is the answer, but that
intervention must be by those who are qualified.  You know, as a
parent I'm not so much interested in an individual's credentials
as I am in his or her attitudes. I also think we need
a lot of left-brain thinkers in this area. I'm sure many of you
have read about right-brain versus left-brain thinking. Often
this society tries to solve all their problems with the academic
right-brain. Those we can't solve we just sit and argue about
continually. I think we must have creative people in our field.
When faced with blindness, parents often say that they feel lost,
as if they are on a foreign planet. You hear that often in
association with other disabilities. The more I've heard families
talk about feeling alienated, the more sure I am that they are
close to justifying segregation of their children. These feelings
allow them to keep their children apart from society, so that it
almost becomes an expectation. We will manage them somehow but
never let them fully adapt to society.
I do want to talk to you about a real positive thing. My first
baby was Michelle, and you know what, I couldn't find anything
wrong with her nothing at all. Michelle at three months of age
didn't know she was different from anyone else. But everybody and
their neighbor knew she was different, because I heard about it a
lot. I almost felt as if I had to adopt guilt by association that
if indeed I was the parent, I would have to feel bad about the
fact that this child was born with something called blindness or
a different way of seeing the world. Well you know, resolving
infertility issues and having the opportunity to become a parent
was a priority for me and for my husband. I have often joked with
Shellie that, if she had been green with purple spots, it
wouldn't have mattered, and I think that's true.  Again our
perspective, our approach, came from a feeling of joy and
fulfillment. So at three months of age Michelle came home doing
pretty much what any other three-month-old baby would do, except
using her eyes. Many of the books, the few that there were, were
negative. They spoke about how my Michelle would not learn to
smile at the normal time. She would not learn to walk or sit or
feed herself. Boy, it was so depressing. Even the doctors I went
to would say,  You haven't faced reality.  Now this child could
have had congenital brain problems, congenital heart, liver, or
kidney problems. There
was a feeling in the community that everyone should be depressed
because she was blind, but I just couldn't feel that way.
So Michelle learned to sit up at about five or six months of age,
and she learned to smile because, whenever I put her down in bed,
I let her feel my face, and she saw my smile with her hands. She
began to understand, and she began to smile back. You know, a
funny thing happened then. Instead of being depressed, society
said,  Look at her; how did she do that? She must be able to see. 
It became more perplexing for me that total inability just to let
her be who she was. I remember when she was about eight months
old and was crawling all around the house  something, again, that
she wasn't supposed to do but that she didn't know she wasn't
supposed to do and I remember that our then Executive Director of
the local Association for the Blind came to take pictures. That
child crawled with her hands
out in front of her and her head on the floor. It was sort of an
insect-like motion with the arms going out like antennae. Someone
from an early intervention program came also to see the child I
think that everyone was afraid that we were going to be all right
and worried that someone could really feel okay about a blind
baby. That individual said,  Don't let her do that. She must
crawl with her hands on the floor.  I said,  Why? She would run
her face into everything.  What she was doing made perfectly good
sense for her. She taught us about the coldness of the wall
compared to the door. Many of the things she did that looked
bizarre or unusual for a baby to be doing had reasons behind
them. She was exploring her own environment in her own way.
There was a big difference when Jennifer came home. She was born
the same year as Michelle, but she had not had as easy a go in
her first year or two of life. Jennifer is from Korea, and she
did not get a permanent family until she was two-and-a-half. It
took us nine months to bring her over because we kept getting
this stupid paper from the government. They kept saying,  Are you
sure you are aware that this child is blind? 
We kept saying,  Yes,  and then we would get the paper again.

 Are you aware that nothing can be done about the fact that this
child is blind? 
And we kept saying,  Yes.  The fact that she was blind was not
the total reason for our adopting her, but it certainly was part
of the reason. We liked Shellie. We liked her as a blind baby,
and the thought of adopting and adding to our family a sister
close in age who could share experiences with her seemed to make
pretty good sense. So Jennifer finally came home at age
two-and-a-half. I guess the government finally figured that we
meant business and that we wanted her.
Jennifer had been blinded due to vitamin A deficiency. When she
began going blind, people in her country of birth still did very
primitive things to differences, such as burning the eyes to get
the bad spirits out. So Jennifer had undergone some scarring of
the eyes. Often such children are drowned in Korea. Jennifer was
left in a sewer gutter, actually, and was found by a passer-by.
She received no early intervention, so when she came to us at
two-and-a-half, boy were we surprised! This was very different
from Michelle's story. This was a child who had experienced
blindness sometime during that first two-and-a-half years and had
not had anyone to help her understand anything.  Developmentally,
she was at a five or six month level. We had a lot of work to do.
Do you know who did most of the work? Michelle. Yes,
the sister who was eight months younger, but that is the truth.
Michelle's abilities and the fact that she had been constantly
habilitated and
had positive self-esteem, running around as a very confident
two-year-old herself, secure in her family, feeling okay about
all that she was.  Jennifer came in this screaming, clawing,
biting child. Jennifer really did not know who she was, where she
was, or what she was. We needed to start all over. There were
many days when I can remember leading her, by first pushing
against her back and holding her hand.  Then she began to hold
her own hand and walk while leading herself.  She had no internal
security at all. I don't think she knew very well that she was a
human being. She ate whatever she could find on the floor. She
had been living like an animal. Fortunately, that isn't what it
is like in this country. However, when early intervention
fails, which I think we would all agree it still does sometimes,
children never quite adjust, and families never quite adjust.
Then, unless the child can feel okay about who he or she is,
unless the youngster can feel that he or she is a respected
member of society, everything we are talking about seems to be
irrelevant.
 Our daughters have gone to public school. Between the ages of
two-and-a-half and five, Jennifer was able to overcome her
deficits and walk into
a regular kindergarten classroom with sighted children. Michelle
followed her the next year. They are both now juniors in high
school. They
earn honor roll grades, sometimes, like everybody else. They are
involved in social events, like everybody else. They have fallen
down the steps, like everybody else.
One of my favorite stories about Michelle happened when she
reached junior high. Kids are curious, you know. They have
learned to adjust to the novelty of being  those blind girls in
my school.  But one of the first things that happened in junior
high was that the kids thought it was real funny to jump over
their canes as they tapped from left to right down the hall. Then
one day a child came down right smack dab in the middle of
Michelle's cane and broke it.
Then she took it to the gym teacher and said,  I've got a
handicapped cane. Can we tape it? 
Their life has really been more children experiences teenager
experiences rather than blind experiences. I think of them as
seventeen- and sixteen-year-old teenagers who happen to be blind.
I don't see them working in a sheltered workshop because they're
blind.  I think that rehabilitation needs to move out of the
sheltered workshop and into the community.
I am very concerned, though, about how that is going to happen
because I also have a multiply impaired daughter who is eleven.
There was
a gentleman here earlier who said  Nowhere in the state of
Pennsylvania do they refuse to teach children who are blind to
read Braille.  Well, let me tell you a little different. When a
baby is born with some vision, that seems to be a real up to
those who are working with the child. A tremendous effort is
expended, trying to maintain the little bit of remaining vision,
even if that vision is not really practical, even if it is only
going to be used a little bit, watching television. These
children might be able to see a leaf flying by,
or they might be able to see some color, but it is not something
that they are going to be able to learn to read with. With
Michelle and Jenny, who were totally blind, there was no problem.
Everyone knew that Braille would be the way that they were going
to learn to read, and it was. But with a child who is legally
blind and I don't care what numbers anybody uses each individual
child with those numbers is different. I think that there is a
time in education when you evaluate the practicality of using
large print. How is that going to pay off in the job world? Is
the child going to be able to use that skill for employability?
Or would it be better to teach that child Braille because it is
faster? If there is a stigma attached to Braille, that is another
thing we really have to work on.
I would hope that anyone working with my children and my young
adults would have a positive attitude about their blindness not
one that says,  I'm sorry for you because you can't see,  but one
that says,  Hi, I'm glad to meet you. Teach me about yourself. 
Truly, what I have learned, I learned from my kids. I sense a
real need when I am in parent groups; sometimes it becomes very
painful because I am surrounded by parents who are still
suffering twenty-five years after the birth of their child. They
simply haven't been given permission to be okay. Until we do
that, I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.
It is important that early intervention for blind children take
place in the home. I'll give you an idea of what I am talking
about. With the young retarded child you can get along pretty
well with having an early intervention program two or three days
a week, where the
child goes off to school and then comes home. Remember that this
retarded child is seeing the world he lives in. Never mind how
slowly his mind may work, he is still seeing the world. The young
blind child, on
the other hand, needs intervention in his home his first
environment.  He should not be shifted from one place to another
when he hasn't yet established what the floor is. I recently
heard about a mother who had a child whom she pretty much left
lying in a crib because
she wasn't sure of what to do. As each month went by, that child
looked more and more retarded. That youngster probably functions
like a retarded child and will be labeled that way. That is where
your statistics are. I heard a gentleman saying earlier,  Where
are the blind children?  They are in other placements. They are
labeled retarded, learning disabled, physically handicapped; and
that is a shame. Unless they are totally blind and completely
normal mentally, they don't have a really good chance at
integration.
Another thing that has to be addressed for young families is the
medical orientation. As a parent I have often said that I feel
betwixt and between. There is a medical orientation to your
child, and then there is the educational one. I have felt over
the past eighteen years as
a parent that somehow responsibility for having these two
orientations meet and work for the child is on my shoulders. When
you have a child who is legally blind, such as our
eleven-year-old, and you have a doctor saying,  This child is
myopic, this child has severe optic atrophy, this child has
wandering nystagmus [what you see in a child who does not focus
on any object], and this child has damage in the vision centers
of the brain,  it is pretty futile to teach her to read. But you
know what happens in the system. Because the child's visual
acuity falls within the range of legal blindness instead of total
blindness, she has not been given Braille. This has happened
to my eleven-year-old, who does not yet read, who is still just
listening to tapes.
So there are successes, and there are areas where we still need
to work. But now I would like to know if you have any specific
questions.   A listener asked what one thing in early
intervention besides the importance of helping the child and the
family feel okay would she point to as critical. 
 Mrs. Rooney : Today I am glad to say that there are infant and
toddler programs, but I question the experience of the teachers.
One
of my concerns is that someone with an orientation toward mental
retardation who has no certification at all in Braille and has no
experience basically in blindness should not be teaching young
blind children. When Shellie was little and there was no program
those were the days when you
still went to Overbrook [the nearest residential school for the
blind] we chose not to do that. The one thing I had was
encouragement from the Executive Director of the local
Association for the Blind. Although
I'm sure she was worried at times she said  Go ahead. Why not? 
that was enough for me. It may not have been enough for another
family.
Today there are early intervention programs. I think they are
more successful, however, with the low vision child than they are
with the totally blind. That is my own personal feeling.
 Questioner : As a parent, why don't you push for your
eleven-year-old to receive Braille?
 Mrs. Rooney : We are doing that now. You know, there are some
differences being an adoptive parent, and then there are things
that are similar. Jessica, our eleven-year-old, was originally
diagnosed as hydro-cephalic and totally blind. She had left
cerebral palsy, scoliosis, and a very rare and complex seizure
disorder because her birth mother took Quaaludes and amphetamines
through the nine months of her pregnancy. Jessica's problems are
a little harder to swallow
in that what she is coping with could have been prevented. In my
opinion blindness is the very least of her problems. The seizures
are the
most serious because she constantly has to start over. That has
probably been a challenge to everyone who has worked with her I
know it has been a challenge to me as a parent. But at eleven it
is not too late to say that the vision is simply not consistent
enough. She tests, by the way, at a normal IQ, and we are really
proud of that because with all those things wrong we were told
that she would be severely and profoundly retarded. She attends a
learning disabled classroom because they have no other place for
her. She doesn't fit anywhere else, so they just stuck her there.
But she attends regular fifth grade for social studies and
science, and earns average grades. So it can be done even with a
multiply impaired child. It's not easy; it takes a lot of working
together.
We feel that the Individual Educational Plan process has been one
of the most wonderful innovations in the education of handicapped
children. We never blame anyone. When something goes wrong, it is
not the fault of the Instructional Unit or the vision consultant
or the mobility instructor. It is not the fault of the school
district or the state. It's not my fault, and it is  never  the
fault
of the child. What is at fault is our IEP. It is a neutral for
planning and sharing. Unless parents have the professionals'
respect, and unless those parents feel good about their child,
that is not going to happen; and you as the educator are going to
be trying to carry the ball yourself, which is an unfair
expectation for us to have of you. Moreover, it is never going to
be completely right for the child. The parents,
no matter what problems they are having in coping or adjusting,
truly do know their child. They just simply want to be assured
that it is all right to feel okay about their child. They want to
have some hope of seeing that child in the community as a
secretary or a doctor or whatever he or she aspires to be. It
doesn't mean that we can't learn at the same time about
limitations, and it doesn't mean that we don't have permission to
fail. One of my sermons in our IEP process is that my daughter
has the right to fail. It is through failures, not by being
over-protected, that we learn our own limitations. 
THE  REASONABLY PRUDENT  BLIND PERSON:  REFLECTIONS ON THE
TEACHING OF THE LAW 
AND PERCEPTIONS OF BLINDNESS
                    by Christopher Kuczynski
 Christopher Kuczynski is the first vice president of the
National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania and a practicing
attorney with Dechert, Price, and Rhoads, a prestigious
Philadelphia law firm.  Here are his thoughts about some of the
many misconceptions about blindness. This article first appeared
in the February edition of  The Blind Activist,  the newsletter
of the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania 
The law of torts says, among other things, that all people have a
legal duty to act in such a way as to avoid creating an
unreasonable risk of harm to others. The benchmark for
determining whether a person has conformed to this duty is the
so-called  reasonably prudent person.  This standard suggests
that, given a particular activity, people are required to act as
the average person (not the extraordinarily careful or the
excessively daring; not the most intelligent or least perceptive)
would under the same or similar circumstances. The prudent blind
person is required to take into account his or her lack of
eyesight when carrying on daily activities that could present a
risk of harm to others, but still must act reasonably in all
circumstances. This standard is not surprising. Since blindness
can be defined functionally, it stands to reason that blind
people should and do employ alternative techniques to do that
which others do by sight. Using a white cane is a simple example
of how an individual acts as a  reasonably prudent blind person 
when traveling on the streets.
All of this would seem to suggest that blind persons, like
anybody else, ought to be required to act reasonably. If our
failure to do
so causes injuries to another, we ought to be liable for them.
Similarly, if our failure to employ reasonable care contributes
to our own injuries, our damages in a law suit ought to be
reduced accordingly, regardless
of our blindness. As people who realize that freedom means
responsibility, we would not have it any other way.
Most of the blind people I know, like most of the sighted,
perform the functions of daily life in a way that is reasonable.
When blind people act unreasonably (or negligently) it is because
they fail to pay attention, attempt to do things quickly and
carelessly, or simply have no regard for the safety of others.
The blind are no more likely to be negligent than the sighted,
and in no circumstance is negligence a function of eyesight. Yet
the blind are a favorite class of negligent actors in torts law
hypothetical situations.
This summer I took a nationally recognized bar review course. The
blind individuals I met in the torts lectures did not resemble
any of the people I know. They were often being run down by
automobiles
because they could not see whether the traffic light was red or
green never mind that the blind have developed alternative
techniques by which to cross streets safely without looking at
the traffic lights. When a sighted person crossed against a light
in the examples presented, it was because he or she was in a
hurry or was paying attention to something else. When a blind
person crossed against the light, it was because he or she could
not see. These same hypothetical blind people repeatedly fell
into holes because apparently they were not perceptive enough to
realize that they needed to carry white canes while traveling.
But are these examples really harmful to the blind? After all,
aren't they just teaching tools? I don't know to what extent
lawyers' perception of blindness may be shaped by these teaching
tools; however, the comments of one professor from a prominent
law school in Washington, D.C.,
cause me to wonder whether these teaching tools are completely
harmless.  The professor was illustrating the idea of
contributory negligence.  The example he presented in front of
about 300 law students was as follows: A pedestrian, suffering
injuries caused by an incident at an intersection, sues the
driver of the car involved, claiming that
he was exceeding the speed limit. The driver claims that the
pedestrian, who is blind, acted negligently by crossing against
the light.
To demonstrate that the pedestrian's conduct was negligent (or
unreasonable) the professor asked:  Now, would a reasonably
prudent blind person have crossed that intersection without
assistance?  With a real sense of confidence and believing that
the answer to his question was obvious, he responded,  I don't
think so.  The professor obviously never considered the
possibility that the pedestrian was
not paying attention or was in a hurry for a late appointment or
simply thought he could get across the street before the light
turned red.  He automatically assumed that the negligent conduct
was a failure to obtain assistance and that the average blind
person would have certainly done so.
Am I making too much of a casual remark? With the same confidence
as that law professor, I respond,  I don't think so.  Remember
that the  reasonably prudent blind person  is the average blind
person. The blind people I know regularly cross busy streets
without assistance, utilizing appropriate techniques. But the
professor's question and answer suggest that blind people who
perform the routine act of crossing a street without assistance
are either noteworthy exceptions to a general rule of diminished
competence (the super-blind) or are hazards to themselves and
society.
If a law professor, working in a major metropolitan center,
(where the opportunity to observe independently functioning blind
people presents itself frequently) does not believe that the
average blind person can cross a street without assistance, is it
surprising that the United States Congress and the Federal
Aviation Administration
have taken so long to recognize that the blind are competent air
travelers?  If blind people are depicted in torts classes and in
nationally administered bar review courses as persons whose
negligence is a function of blindness rather than simply a part
of what it means to be human, is it any wonder that the State
Department assumes that blind people will be inherently more
vulnerable to attacks while serving as Foreign Service Officers?
If negligent blind people are seen engaging in the kind
of conduct that simply does not conform with reality, is it
difficult
to understand why legislation concerning the blind has long been
custodial seeking to protect us from our alleged inability to
make judgments about what
is good for us? The existence of the erroneous perceptions about
blindness, though it can be understood, must not be permitted to
continue.  The National Federation of the Blind will persist in
its efforts to attain equality, opportunity, and security for
blind people everywhere.  The law professor may have believed
that his comments about the blind man crossing the street made no
impression or, worse yet, that they were accepted by all who
heard them. The reaction of the people around me demonstrates,
however, that public perceptions about blindness
are changing. Several of my friends turned to me and were
incredulous.  They have seen me travel independently and asked
me, already knowing my response, if I believed what the professor
had said. I found, in fact, that I was somewhat more forgiving
than they. I tried to account for the professor's misconceptions,
but my friends were offended.
This outrage, this belief that something was wrong with the
professor's statement about blindness and blind people,
represents the changes in public sentiment that have been brought
about by the work of the National Federation of the Blind.
                                 
MISSING THE POINT: 
BECOMING A WAY OF LIFE AT AMTRAK 

 From the Associate Editor:  In the April, 1990, issue of the 
Braille Monitor,  we printed a disturbing story about an Amtrak
ticket agent who was so intent on providing special and intrusive
service to a blind customer that he refused to sell her a ticket
at all when she wouldn't divulge personal information. The
repercussions of his action were distressing and might have been
dangerous to the passenger. Now we have received evidence of an
infuriating variation on that same theme. 
 This time Amtrak sought to explain away an overtly dangerous
action on the part of one of its employees by pointing out that
if the blind passenger had only been content to allow Amtrak to
smother her in unnecessary special attention, the accident could
not have taken place.  It is the same old tiresome and outrageous
situation we find ourselves in in dealing with the airlines. When
blind passengers ask to be treated like everyone else, we are
willfully misunderstood or written off as social misfits and
worse. Yet it is not unreasonable to demand that blind passengers
receive the same safe treatment accorded sighted passengers, and
when we do not, it is not irrational to insist on reparation and
evidence that those responsible have been reprimanded.   What
follows is an exchange of correspondence between Becky Skinner, a
blind Kansan, and Amtrak officials. The outcome of her complaint
is far from clear. We must all be vigilant when traveling on
public transportation. As the general awareness of the disabled
increases, it seems clear that the danger to competent blind
travelers increases as well. Here is the correspondence: 

                                              Garden City, Kansas
                                                 January 13, 1990

Dennis Wiedman, Manager
Department of Transportation
Amtrak
Kansas City, Missouri

Dear Mr. Wiedman:
I am writing you this letter in reference to my phone call to you
on Wednesday, January 3, 1990, at 3:00 p.m. I write as a
concerned citizen and former passenger of Amtrak. My purpose is
to register a complaint about an Amtrak train which started up
and left me as I was on the platform attempting to board.
I feel that you need to be fully informed about the events which
occurred on the morning of December 21, 1989, on Train #3 of the
Southwest Chief. I am confident that, after you have heard my
story in full, you will agree that some serious action must be
taken to prevent the same type of careless, irresponsible, and
dangerous situation from happening to future passengers.
My nightmare began, as I said, on December 21, a Thursday morning
at 9:45 as the Southwest Chief made its regular (but somewhat
late that morning) stop in Garden City, Kansas. Weather
conditions that morning were extremely cold with a reported
wind-chill reading of
thirty degrees below zero. My family of four (my husband Jim, my
eleven-year-old son Nate, my 21-month-old daughter Kari, and I)
were boarding the
train for Los Angeles for the holidays. We arrived


at the station shortly before the train arrived and checked
several pieces of luggage.
The instant the train pulled in, my husband and son, their  hands
full of carry-on luggage, scurried to inquire which car to board. 
Weeks before, we had made reservations for lower level seating
because we have a young child and I am totally blind.
After a short delay, it was established that we would need to
move a few cars further down from where others were boarding. I,
holding my young daughter and white cane, remained standing in
the boarding area while the shuffle and loading were taking
place. My son boarded; then my husband boarded within an arm's
length in front of me. The car attendant was standing in the
doorway while my husband unloaded his carry-on bags well inside 
the entrance area. I was in the process of stepping onto the
boarding stool. Just at the instant my husband turned around to
give us a helping hand onto the train, it began to move down the
tracks.
Very fortunately for my daughter and me, Kathy Juarez, the Garden
City ticket clerk, was not far from us. Before my senses had
caught up with reality, she quickly grabbed me and pulled me away
from that moment of impending disaster. She then informed me of
what my ears were refusing to register or my mind to believe.
Kathy screamed and waved frantically as the train built up
momentum and went on its merry way. It finally came to a halt
about one mile down the track (as my husband and I have
estimated). By this time my little girl, whom I had been holding,
was crying and convulsing in terror and pain. Her little hands
were freezing since I had dressed her for a warm train car.
Once the train had taken off without me, my husband began to
confer with the attendant, who had also seen what had happened.
Conductor
R. P. Colleyer, having caught wind of a problem, joined them at
the open boarding door. The conductor asked what the trouble was.
The attendant proceeded to explain that they had left two
passengers behind.  As the train continued to accelerate, the
conductor attempted to brush the matter off with such comments
as, he had not seen passengers out there and assumed they must
have been inside the station. Not until the attendant urgently
insisted that they must stop the train and
get the boarding stool, did Conductor Colleyer finally give the
signal to halt.
By some means the ticket clerk learned that the engineer would
not back up the train, but rather that we would have to walk. Was
a blind mother, carrying a crying and freezing 25-pound child,
really going to have to walk that long distance to board her
train car? Yes, that was what the conductor ordered. Kathy, the
ticket clerk, would have driven us down in her car had we not
been offered a ride by one very concerned and upset local
onlooker. Of course, Kathy had little choice but to leave her
point of duty at the station and escort us to the train.
Even once we got to the train, Conductor Colleyer did nothing to
acknowledge my presence. He did not even show us the courtesy of
relieving Kathy, who was still assisting us. More preoccupied
with the still missing train stool, he ordered the ticket clerk
and kindhearted gentleman to go back after it.
Once aboard the train, our daughter continued crying and shaking
uncontrollably from the cold and the shock of her experience. My
husband found it necessary to take her up to the observation car
to comfort, calm, and warm her. On his rounds to collect tickets,
Conductor Colleyer found my husband there, took our tickets, and
apologized. Some time later an official who did not identify
himself approached me with a simple apology. I presume it was
Conductor Colleyer.
This concludes my adventure boarding Amtrak on that cold December
morning. Does this leave you with questions in your mind as it
does me? The obvious and foremost question is: Will Conductor
Colleyer be allowed to continue in his very responsible position,
behaving
in this very irresponsible manner? If he is, then is the next
person's story going to be covered in the obituary column? Where
was Conductor Colleyer, anyway, when he decided to give the
engineer orders to move?  I do know where I was, and I thank God
that the all-important boarding stool was left behind. Otherwise,
there is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried squirming
out of the proof of his own negligence; he would no doubt have
blamed my blindness for my allegedly not being at the right place
at the right time. But in this case blindness is clearly not the
issue at least, not my blindness. Another puzzling question to
which there is surely an answer is why was Conductor Colleyer
unwilling to reverse the train in order to pick up my child and
me or, for that matter, to retrieve the boarding stool?
My final question is this: What sort of action is going to be
taken
to prevent this type of uncalled-for, totally unprofessional
disservice from happening again on Amtrak? I know that Amtrak has
rules and policies for employees to follow. As for me and my
concern for other potential passengers, I am determined to pursue
my complaint as far as necessary to see that these rules are
enforced.
A full refund of our ticket cost is the very least I am
requesting.
I am also asking for the assurance that, if I should ever again
decide to use Amtrak, I will not have to fear for my life when
boarding.  Public transportation is extremely important to the
blind. This fact is just one more reason why I cannot take my
recent experience lightly.  Please inform me about what action
you intend to take. After thirty days, if I do not feel that
appropriate action has been taken, I shall find it necessary to
seek legal counsel. Another option that I may consider is to send
this letter or a similar statement to U.S. Senators and
Representatives, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Kansas Attorney General, and the  Kansas City Star  and other
media.  Thank you, Mr. Wiedman, for the positive consideration
and concern
which you expressed on the phone in this matter. I am willing to
cooperate and participate in any way necessary to insure that
safety is a part of everyone's Amtrak experience.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Becky Skinner
____________________
                                                 Washington, D.C.
                                                 January 26, 1990

Dear Ms. Skinner:
Thank you for your recent letter to Mr. Dennis Wiedman and the
copy
you provided our Office of Labor Relations.
We certainly apologize for the unfortunate incident which
occurred
at the time you were boarding our train at Garden City for your
recent travel on Amtrak. Amtrak has a program for assistance to
handicapped passengers to ensure that all station personnel and
train crew members are aware that a passenger will be traveling
who needs added consideration and can see that all needs are met.
We ask that those making reservations inform us and cite any
special needs in order that our manifests, which are distributed
to station and train personnel, will alert all concerned. We are
sorry that you did not know of this arrangement, which is covered
in timetables and in our travel planner or which will be
described verbally by our reservation agents upon notification
that a passenger possesses a handicap which impairs one or more
physical or mental capabilities. Should you travel with us again,
provision
of such advance notice should eliminate the possibility of any
repetition of the incident you described.
At the same time, the conductor should have viewed the entire
length of the train before giving the engineer a signal to
proceed. We will have our Assistant Vice President,
Transportation, to whom all conductors report, investigate this
incident, determine what went wrong, and establish procedures to
see that it does not happen again. Please accept our apologies
for any apprehension and inconvenience.
As for backing the train, Amtrak does not have complete freedom
to
do this. Amtrak in that area travels over track belonging to the
Santa Fe Railroad and is under their train control. Backing a
train on mainline track without authorization from a Santa Fe
dispatcher would be grounds for dismissal of the crew members
involved. This is for the safety
of all passengers, for no one, other than Santa Fe train control
personnel, are aware of other traffic on that track. We are glad
that others interceded, that the train was stopped, and that you
were able to travel. We are sorry if the conductor did not
explain properly and offer his own apologies immediately. We are
glad that he did so later.  All of these matters will be covered
in the investigation, and any appropriate action will be taken.
We will also see that Kathy Juarez is properly commended for her
actions.
As you and your family did travel as ticketed, we will not be
able to make the refund of your fare as you suggested. This would
not be consistent with Amtrak's governing legislation, which
establishes rigid financial goals and constraints. However, as
evidence of our concern, if you will send us the original
passenger receipts from your tickets, we will provide you with a
Transportation Credit toward future travel on Amtrak for a
portion of what was paid as our way of making an additional
apology and to demonstrate our deep concern for the care and well
being of our passengers. This will enable you to travel at least
partially as our guests at a time of your choosing.  A brief
notification to our reservation personnel, as covered above, will
ensure special assistance by all. Thank you for your
understanding.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                            Alex T. Langston, Jr.
                                      Manager, Customer Relations
                                                           Amtrak
____________________
                                              Garden City, Kansas
                                                 February 6, 1990

Dear Mr. Langston:
In response to your letter of January 26, 1990, I was quite
distressed over our lack of communication. First of all, at the
bottom of my letter to Mr. Weidman dated January 13, 1990, you
will note that I mailed out two copies of the letter; one went to
the Labor Relations Office, and the other went to your Customer
Relations Office. Both copies included appropriate cover letters.
I am enclosing a copy of the cover letter which was mailed to
Customer Relations.
The original Amtrak ticket stubs for the trip in question were
enclosed in the letter to the Office of Customer Relations.
According to my telephone inquiry on January 30, 1990, with your
Customer Relations representative Louis White, the file showed
that only the copy to your Labor Relations Office was received.
Then it was passed on to Customer Relations from which you
responded. Hopefully, you have received or found the ticket stubs
by now. Also, I am enclosing a copy of the ticket stubs and a
copy of our VISA credit card billing.  Furthermore, Mr. Langston,
I find it necessary to make some corrections to your
misinterpretations of my letter to Mr. Weidman. As I stated in
the fourth paragraph of my letter, we made reservations for lower
level seating weeks before the trip in fact, when the tickets
were purchased on November 18, 1989. If you need a copy of the
reservation for lower level seating, it can be supplied.
For years I have had full knowledge of Amtrak's handicapped
services; otherwise, how would I have known to request lower
level seating?  Furthermore, my request for that seating by no
means meant that I needed anything more than that. Let me make it
clear: I am not multiply handicapped, or even a senior citizen,
but a mobile and properly trained blind person. I was carrying my
daughter and my long white travel cane as I do every day in cars,
busses, taxis, planes, or even on horses. So far no other form of
transportation has departed while I was boarding.
Lower level seating was not absolutely necessary. My reason for
taking advantage of this provision was not solely because I am
blind but because I am a responsible blind mother traveling with
a toddler.
For instance, I wished to avoid the child's easy access to a
descending staircase, as well as other potential dangers for her.
The point I really want to make is this: you must not use my
blindness as an excuse for this incident! You must not say,  We
are sorry that you did not know of this arrangement...(to) inform
us, and cite any special needs...!  Pure baloney! Mr. Langston, I
cannot allow you to hide behind that flimsy and absurd response.
That is evading
the issue. I am sorry, but that will not work with me. I did not
require any  special assistance ; all I needed was a stationary
train that I could board safely. I think that you, Mr. Langston 
assuming you are sighted, and even if you are not would desire
nothing less for yourself. In other words, the only way in which
my blindness is relevant to this incident is that it qualified me
to reserve lower level seating.
As long as I am expressing myself on this matter, allow me to
paint another, perfectly possible picture. Suppose I had been a
sighted passenger who was about to step into the train and it
commenced to move down the tracks. What would I have done? What
would you have done? This is what my husband, who is sighted,
said that he would probably have done under the same conditions
having family already on board. He said that he would have
probably jumped on board since they gather speed so slowly. Yes,
but on that cold and icy morning, mightn't he have slipped? If he
had been holding our little girl, as I was, would they have made
it? I doubt that you would recommend such dangerous boarding
procedures to any of your passengers. It is conceivable that the
fact that I am blind and did not attempt to jump onto a moving
train may have spared my life and my child's. Thus, it may have
spared Amtrak some very serious repercussions.
At any rate, for your sake as well as mine, I hope that my points
will be well considered. I had understood that your department's
job
in cases like mine is that of issuing refunds to show that you
guarantee satisfactory service. As for my request for improved
procedures, I am trusting Mr. Weidman to handle that aspect at
this time.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Becky Skinner
                   BLIND MEN WITHOUT ELEPHANTS
 From the Editor:  In the February, 1990, issue of the  Braille
Monitor  we printed an article entitled  Blind Men and Elephants 
by Hisham Ahmed. The body of the article was a letter from Dr.
Ahmed taking the author of a college textbook to task for using
the old fable of the blind men and the elephant as an
illustration to make one of his points. The fact that our efforts
produce positive results is nowhere better shown than in the
following letter: 

                                             North Miami, Florida
                                                February 13, 1990

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1990, regarding the
printing of my letter to Professor Rourke in the  Braille Monitor
.  I am writing to let you know that our determined struggle for
the cause of the blind, once again, has borne fruit. In early
January I received a phone call from Ms. Darylle Steiner, Sales
Manager at Dushkin Publishing, the tone of which was positive and
reflected an understanding of the issues raised in my letter. She
stated that the allegorical tale regarding the blind men and the
elephant will be removed from the next edition of the book. About
two weeks later I received another call, this one from Professor
Rourke himself. The thrust of what he said was also that the tale
will not be reprinted in the forthcoming edition of the book.
This problem seems to be taken care of, but I assure you that I
will carefully monitor the contents of the next edition of 
Taking Sides .

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                  Hisham H. Ahmed
                                     Political Science Department
                                 Florida International University
                    RECORDING FOR THE BLIND  
NOT FOR STUDENTS ONLY
                        by Adrienne Asch
 Adrienne Asch is a member of the National Federation of the
Blind
of New York and a noted scholar in the field of bioethics and
disability.  She is also a dedicated user of the services
provided by Recording for the Blind. We asked her to write an
article about RFB since not everyone knows how its program
operates. Here is what she wrote: 

In the December, 1989, edition of the  Braille Monitor  I noticed
the announcement of Doris Willoughby and Sharon Duffy's book: 
Handbook for Itinerant and Resource Teachers of Blind and
Visually Impaired Students . It appeared that the impressive,
information-packed volume had been produced neither in Braille
nor on cassette, but only in print. Knowing that I would surely
want to read it, I called to ask if it had been sent to Recording
for the Blind (RFB) by anyone of
the National Center staff who was a registered borrower. To my
surprise, a very knowledgeable person about resources and
services for blind people did not know that RFB would record a
book sent by a registered borrower to be available forevermore on
cassette to any registered patron requesting the title from its
more than 75,000-book library.

If one such knowledgeable person didn't know this fact, probably
many others didn't either. So, although those who are recent
college students probably know all about RFB, many others may not
realize that it can be an excellent library resource, not merely
for students, but for anyone. I suspect that many  Monitor 
readers have never used RFB's services. Others, after years of
suffering through its scratchy, low-fidelity sound-scribers of
the '60s, have probably vowed they
would never use them again. But RFB books are now available on
four-track cassettes, usable on any machine that plays Library of
Congress tapes.  The sound quality is almost always well above
adequate, and readers are generally quite clear and
understandable even if they are not the professionals used by the
NLS for its Talking Book Program.  Tapes are tone-indexed; they
contain tables of contents, footnotes,
references, descriptions of graphs, charts, tables, and
photographs everything in the book except indices. Boxes have
Braille and print labels on
the covers that tell you what is inside. There are Braille and
print listings of the pages on each track of each cassette, and
they can
be returned easily without sighted help by simply using the
pre-addressed return labels and putting them in any corner
mailbox no need to trek to your local post office.
But the main thing to know is that the library's 75,000 books
cover an enormous variety of subjects and represent titles of
academic, professional, and general interest that you won't find
in the NLS Library. People who moan that they can't get the
classics, current literature, or esoteric or controversial books
through NLS should
not give up until they have checked RFB's catalog or called its
toll-free number to see if the book they want has already been
recorded. How does RFB decide what its volunteer readers will
record? In general,
it doesn't decide; its borrowers decide. Although its Collection
Development staff will select some books expected to be of broad
interest, more than ninety-five percent of what is available and
always being expanded depends on the books its borrowers send in
to be recorded.
If you discover that a book you want is not in the library, you
can change that state of affairs simply by buying and sending two
copies, then waiting for it to be recorded. Once it is finished,
which may take from two to ten months depending upon its length
and complexity, the book stays in the library and is available to
you and others.

Why two copies? Because RFB tries to get accurate reading by
having someone follow along with the person who is recording to
make sure that errors are caught and corrected. At the time you
send the books, you should indicate whether you want either or
both copies returned,
or whether you wish to be reimbursed for one copy. You can be
reimbursed for only one copy, but after all, you wind up getting
the books you want for no more than your sighted friends pay for
the same edition.  And the tapes from the library of
already-existing books are available to you free, once you
register as a borrower. New borrowers, or those who haven't used
RFB in several years, pay a one-time registration fee of
twenty-five dollars and must prove that they are legally blind.

Other facts may please patrons who sometimes find that NLS sends
you what it thinks you want and not what you ordered. RFB sends
nothing to you that you don't request directly. Moreover, you
receive what you do request within a week of submitting your
order. You can order by using forms provided with its ink print
catalog or by calling the toll-free number: 1-800-221-4792. At
busy seasons, such as the beginnings of semesters, be prepared to
wait on hold before having your order taken. Priority for
recording new books is given to students needing material for
courses and to professionals needing books for work,
but RFB will record borrower submissions that do not fit either
category, as long as volunteer readers are available.
Last, if you know you want to find books on a particular subject
but don't know specific titles, you can contact RFB at (609)
452-0606 and ask the reference librarians to do a search of the
RFB catalog.  They'll send you a computer print-out with a
listing of everything RFB has that fits the key words you supply
to the reference librarian.  The bibliographies I've requested in
the last two years, for example, have been on adoption, abortion,
genetics, and AIDS. I'm sure that listings for categories of
politics, religion, women's studies, history, philosophy,
psychology, literature, or computers would give you more books
than you could read in a year.
RFB will not fill all your reading requirements. It needs more
volunteers to handle the deluge of technical books being sent by
students and professionals. It does not record portions of books;
nor will it do magazines, journals, or books that don't have a
copyright. Sometimes it's frustrating to wait several months for
a book you're eager to devour, and sometimes you'd rather read it
in Braille than on tape anyway.
As a service organization, it certainly could improve some of its
policies and practices. Its one-time   borrower advisory
committee has been defunct for several years, and even when it
existed, it did not seek representatives from consumer
organizations of the blind.  Although it employs blind people,
they are not present at all levels of the staff, and I'm sure
that services could be even better if the organization were more
committed to hiring qualified blind people and to establishing
formal liaison with consumer groups.
It would be very good for RFB to make these changes and probably
others that users could suggest. We can work for such
improvements. (Patrons of NLS may wish that the Books for the
Blind program could do it all, and ardent Braille users would no
doubt read Braille if material were available.) But meanwhile,
discover or re-discover the wealth of reading treasure stored at
RFB headquarters.
                    TAKING IT TO TALK SHOWS: 
NEW IDEAS ON AN OLD JOB
                        by Charles Biebl
 Charles Biebl is the Chairman of the Public Relations Committee
for the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind
of Maryland. He takes his job seriously and works hard at it. No
one in the entire organized blind movement is more successful at
getting our point of view aired on radio programs than Charles
Biebl. He is thorough, conscientious, and tenacious. He reminds
me of the widow
in the Biblical parable of the judge who eventually granted her
request rather than continue to listen to her importunity. The
National Federation of the Blind could use Charles Biebl in every
state affiliate and chapter. Since there is no practical way of
achieving that objective, we must all take a leaf out of his
book. His media advice is sound and is based on personal
experience. Here is what he has to say: 

Several years ago I wrote an article for the  Braille Monitor 
entitled  Taking It to the Media.  I would like to enlarge on
what I wrote then. If you are in an area in which you are the
only Federationist working on press contacts or if your chapter
or state president has told you to do what you can to get media
coverage for the Federation, you should jump in to the job by
beginning to make talk show contacts for yourself.
In my opinion the way in which talk show producers plan their
programs has changed for the worse in recent years. The days of
being able to go into a radio or TV station and talking about
blindness without having a specific, timely issue are for all
practical purposes gone.

Most talk show hosts would like to zero in on one particular
topic:  the airline issue, a blind person in the news, or some
other issue with current news interest. In 1983, for example,  I
was able to get President Maurer, who was then General Counsel to
the Federation, and a local blind teacher on a talk show just
because the teacher was in the news.
I'm not saying that you will never be invited to do a talk show
or discussion program if you don't have a specific topic ready,
but your chances are reduced. So please, be armed with a topic to
suggest if the question is asked. If you just say blindness, you
may not get on.
Here is a strategy that I have used successfully to get Dr.
Jernigan, President Maurer, and other Federation leaders on talk
shows. When considering an appearance by Federationists on a
particular talk show, listen to it first. Find out if it is a
show worth bothering with.  You wouldn't ask the host of an
automobile program to interview a guest from the Federation to
discuss blindness even though there are blind auto mechanics
because the topic has nothing to do with the repair or
maintenance of cars.
When you have found a good prospective program, try contacting
the talk show host or producer directly. This could be done by
letter or phone, but if you are in the local dialing area, phone
contact is better because it is more effective. When talking to
the host or producer, it would be a good idea to start like this:
I enjoy your
show very much, and I think it would be a good idea if you could
interview someone from the National Federation of the Blind
about....  If you say  blindness,  He may say,  fine,  or he may
say,  we need to narrow it down. What issue or issues would you
like to talk about?  You could say,  I know of a blind mother who
had her kids taken away just because the judge felt she could not
take care of them. Or I know of a blind person who was not given
a fair chance on his job, and I'm sure you remember reading about
it recently in the newspaper.  References to specific instances
of discrimination will spark his interest more than the word 
blindness.  You might try using psychology as I did in writing to
the program,
 Focus on Issues.  I pointed out that they had interviewed
members of other minority groups but not the blind, and as a
result they invited us to appear.
If you find that a station carries a likely program but that the
host is not employed by the station, you might try calling and
asking for his name and address in order to write to him. You
should include a copy of the brochure,  What is the National
Federation of the Blind  or fact sheets on issues you are
suggesting as topics or (if the program is an important national
broadcast like the  Larry King Show ), President Maurer's resume.
Remember that the best time for calling a station to make
arrangements for talk show appearances is during normal business
hours. Sometimes it is possible to call the producer of a
particular show and talk
to him as he is screening the calls. But this is rare. He will
probably tell you to write a letter to the manager, program
director, talk show host, or himself. In all cases ask for the
exact name and correct spelling of the person to whom you should
be writing. To say  Dear Station Manager  is never as effective
as using the correct name.  When the program host or producer
assigns you an interview date, and particularly if he requests
background literature, be sure to send it immediately. Do this
anyway, even if the host does not request it.
Occasionally you will be told that someone will get back to you
with a date, but no one does. I have experienced this myself. A
talk show host once told me that he would let me know by the
following week when a Federation representative could appear on
his show, but he never called. The only thing to do in this case
is to call back and pretend that you have been hard to reach so
that you must have missed the call.
If you or the person you have arranged to have appear on the
program cannot keep the appointment for any reason, try hard to
find another representative. If you cannot find a replacement or
if the producer does not want a substitute, see if you can
reschedule the appearance.  I once had a station reschedule an
interview with Dr. Jernigan because it was broadcasting a
Baltimore Orioles game at that time. Remember that the whole
purpose of your effort is to tell our story and to educate the
public. After you have appeared on the show, you should write a
letter of thanks to the talk show host. You want to leave him
with the impression that he has played a role in giving blind
people the chance for equality that we deserve. If he thinks well
of us, he may be more willing to have someone appear on his show
again when something important happens that affects blind people.
 If you are the head of a committee doing PR, as I am, you will
have to do things differently. Before calling the station or
making any arrangements for appearances, ask the president of
your chapter or state affiliate for the names of leaders whose
names and telephone numbers can be given to program personnel as
possible guests. Then proceed as I have already described with
your efforts to persuade show hosts or producers that devoting a
program to a discussion of the real issues of blindness would be
a valuable and interesting idea.

State conventions present a different challenge since the news
value of an appearance by a Federation leader already is obvious.
Most radio stations will think the fact that a number of blind
people are going
to get together in the city is news-worthy. Whether or not it is
important enough to devote time to is a question which you should
help the staff answer yes to. Begin early with writing letters.
For example, if your state convention is in November, start
contacting stations in August.  Try writing all the stations in a
given area.
One year the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland had its
state convention in Ocean City, which is located on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland. So I wrote to every station that I knew on the
Eastern Shore. I must have written close to two dozen letters to
both TV and radio stations. I wrote to the program directors of
each one. How did I find their names and correct addresses?  I
called my public library with my Braille-writing equipment and
paper handy and took down the information the librarians gave me.
Most public libraries have reference desks or departments, where
phone books, media lists, and other references are stored.
Don't expect that every station will respond to your letter. Only
four came to the Ocean City convention, but even that was very
useful.  When I came home from the convention, I wrote thank-you
notes to each reporter who did a story. This is not necessary,
but the reporter will remember you and the National Federation of
the Blind if you do. The note gives you one last chance to remind
the media person of just how important it is that people
understand the real problems of blindness.
As the person making the press contacts, you should make every
effort to attend the state convention. But if you are unable to
do so, ask the state president or the person assigned to work
with the press during the convention to keep track of which
stations covered the event and make a point of thanking the
reporters. Keep an address
file in the medium most convenient for you, so when it comes to
writing those thank-you letters, you can do it without having to
call the library again.
Don't be surprised if the library sometimes gives you out-of-date
information. Radio and TV people change jobs constantly, and the
books and lists that libraries use are printed only once a year.
Often smaller libraries don't even get the books every year.
Don't let wrong information discourage you. Just keep writing
your letters and making your calls.  That way you will know when
new people come to the stations you work with, and they will know
you and the National Federation of the Blind.  There is a lot of
apathy among the public, the uncommitted blind,
and maybe some of us. Only you can judge for yourself where you
stand.  It is not my job to judge other people, but when I think
about all the work there is to do in the Federation, I remember
that if I don't
do as much as I can, it won't get done. Educating the public by
contacting talk shows is something we all can do.
              TEACHING TEACHERS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS
                        by Barbara Pierce
What does one do when one's child is facing a violation of his
civil rights? Most of us in the National Federation of the Blind
are used to standing up for our own rights and taking the
repercussions of our actions, whatever they may be. It gives a
parent pause, however, when the one reaping the consequences is a
child, one's own child.  This was the dilemma that faced John and
Susan Ford, leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of
Missouri, in January, 1990, when their son Brent's teacher called
to say that he would not be allowed to participate in a school
field trip the next day because the teachers supervising the
expedition did not want the responsibility of having a blind
youngster in the group. Considering that Brent is receiving
cane travel instruction and has never given any indication of
constituting a danger to himself or any other student, this
decision struck the
Fords as a clear violation of Brent's right to participate in an
interesting class activity. He was being punished because the
teachers involved had preconceived and misinformed notions of the
abilities of this blind student. The irony of the situation (the
field trip was to attend a presentation about the life and work
of Martin Luther King, Jr.) was heightened by the fact that both
the teachers were themselves African American. Here is the letter
that the Fords wrote to the school's principal:

                                              Maplewood, Missouri
                                                  January 9, 1990


Mark Englehart, Principal
Valley School
Maplewood, Missouri


Dear Mr. Englehart:
Today I received a telephone call from Terri Bascom. She
explained
to me that she was sending permission slips home with the eighth
graders in preparation for a field trip on Friday. She further
explained that the field trip would be to Keil Auditorium, where
the youngsters would see a film and read some materials prepared
by a coordinating committee regarding Martin Luther King, Jr.,
and his contribution to the civil rights of blacks. Ms. Bascom
then explained that she was not sending a permission slip home
with Brent. She said she and Ms. Stevens were taking about
seventy-five young people and they didn't want the responsibility
of taking Brent. She said there were lots
of stairs and she didn't want the responsibility. I asked her if
Brent had fallen down stairs often at school. She replied that
she did not know but that she didn't want the responsibility. I
said that she would know if he had fallen and that so would I. I
then said that
I knew she understood about discrimination and that if she could
not demonstrate that Brent was unsafe, we would permit him to go.
I pointed out that Brent takes mobility twice weekly and that he
travels throughout Valley School, but she reiterated that she did
not want the responsibility.  Now Mr. Englehart, here are two of
your teachers both of whom are black themselves and should,
therefore, understand about civil rights and about how demeaning
discrimination can be. They propose to take a group of young
people and teach them about Martin Luther King, Jr. How on earth
can one teach about Martin Luther King without teaching about
discrimination? Yet these same teachers propose to
deprive a blind child (who participates daily in a public school
classroom) of his right to go on this very field trip. How
ludicrous!
I realize that these teachers are trying to protect Brent from
possible injury. However, discrimination is still discrimination,
whether it is founded on hate (black civil rights) or upon love
(blind civil rights).
Brent has indicated that he would like to go on this field trip,
so I am sending a note giving him our permission to do so. You
will note that we are giving this letter some publicity. If Brent
is not permitted to go on this trip and other students do go,
then on January 16 we will be contacting the Regional Office of
Human Rights Enforcement for the Department of Education in
Kansas City to file a 504 complaint against Maplewood-Richmond
Heights School district and these teachers in particular. This
situation is intolerable to us as blind people; and, frankly, it
would have been seen as intolerable by Martin Luther King, Jr.,
as well.


                                                        Sincerely
                                                    Susan I. Ford
                                                     John D. Ford


cc: Terri Bascom, Teacher
Anita Stevens, Teacher
Dr. Jerry Elliot, Superintendent

Jackie Ess, Special School District, 
Vision Coordinator
Susan Knecht, Itinerant Teacher
Laura Zabalov, Mobility Specialist
Gary Wunder, President, National Federation of the Blind
of Missouri
Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director, National Federation
of the Blind
Mary Tessereau, School Board Member
Ann Clark, School Board Member
Patricia Morrow, Editor,  Blind Missourian 
Barbara Cheadle, President, Parents of Blind Children Division,
National Federation of the Blind
____________________

That is what the Fords had to say, and it wasn't long before
there were results. Mr. Englehart, the school principal, was
predictably displeased to find that copies of the correspondence
had been sent to so many of the people to whom he reported. He
assured the Fords that if they had come to him with the problem
earlier, he could have resolved it amicably. The Fords pointed
out that they had not known about the teachers' decision until
the last moment and that they had done the only thing they could
see to do to protect their son's right to attend the school
event.
The Superintendent of Schools, who is himself African American,
received his copy of the letter on the Thursday before the Friday
field trip.  He immediately called the Fords to inquire whether
or not the problem had been resolved. It had not, and the Fords
said so. He assured them that it would be before the day was
over.
The solution agreed upon by the administrators was, as most such
resolutions are, not all the Fords would have liked. The school
principal asked that another member of the teaching staff
volunteer to accompany Brent on the field trip. The resource
teacher did so, and she and Brent both joined the Maplewood
students at Keil Auditorium. Most of the eighth grade sat close
to the stage, but Brent, who the teachers had feared would fall
on the stairs, chose to sit at the top of the auditorium.  The
resource teacher followed along behind, and, of course, there
were no misadventures as he climbed the innumerable steps.
Did the classroom teachers learn anything about civil rights from
this experience? It is hard to say. They did learn that, like our
African American brothers and sisters a generation ago, blind
people today will no longer settle for being passed over and
dismissed as incompetent and of no account. They probably enjoyed
the learning of this fact about as little as white Americans did
and still do.  But perhaps they will learn to look at Brent as
the real human being
he is, not as the bundle of myths and misconceptions they have
projected onto him. If so, they will have grown, and their future
students will all benefit.
But the story does not stop here. At fourteen, Brent Ford has
until now never experienced discrimination in a form that he
could clearly recognize. When his teacher denied him the right to
join the field trip, he realized for the first time that all the
things for which his parents and their Federation friends have
been fighting are of desperate importance to him and his
generation, too.
The National Federation of the Blind of Missouri had scheduled a
legislative day in Jefferson City shortly after Brent's school
adventure. He expressed interest in attending the event with his
parents, so they took him out of school for the day.
One of the bills about which the Federationists were to be
talking
with legislators was the Missouri Braille Bill, which had been
incorporated in a Children At Risk bill, which was before a
Senate committee on the day of the trip to the capital.
Brent, who has never been very excited about using his slate and
stylus, was encouraged to write some remarks during the ride to
Jefferson City. He did so, using the slate, and when the group
arrived, he began talking with legislators about the issue of the
availability of Braille to blind school students. They were
impressed so impressed that Brent was asked to address the
committee which was hearing testimony that day. He was the only
Federationist allowed to speak, but he did his work well. The
bill passed the Senate and is on its way to the House with a good
chance of passage.
This story is a salutary reminder to us all that we never know
what effect our work will have on those around us. Sometimes,
when we consider the vastness of the sea of ignorance about
blindness that surrounds
us, we feel as if we are all alone bailing out that ocean with a
teaspoon.  But there are well over fifty thousand of us,
attacking the problem at every point, and we are making progress.
                       MY MOST UNUSUAL DAY
                          by Zach Shore
 Zach Shore is the editor of  The Blind Activist,  the newsletter
of the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania.  He is
also a senior at the University of Pennsylvania. The following
article appeared in the February, 1990, edition of  The Blind
Activist.  It reminds us that the fruition of our dearest dreams
most often is manifest in the simple and apparently
insignificant.  Here is what he has to say: 

 Life is like a mountain climb,  my friend's grandmother used to
tell him.  Some people scramble quickly to the top while others
wander and lose themselves along the way.  As my friend related
his grandmother's philosophy to me, I was intrigued. I waited for
him to finish, but he said no more.
 Well?  I prodded him.
 Well, what?  he asked, obviously confused.
 Tell me the rest of the metaphor,  I insisted.  If life is like
a mountain climb, then what's at the top? 
There was silence. It seemed inconceivable to me that he had
never asked his grandmother this question. He admitted that he
had always been so enraptured by the romantic imagery of the
metaphor that he had never considered what might be at the top.
That moment was an epiphany for me. For the first time I realized
just how often we all are hypnotized by language, forgetting to
ask the key questions.  As we approach the fiftieth anniversary
of our movement, I want to ask not just what lies at the top of
our mountain or toward what we are climbing, but also how we will
know when we finally reach the peak.
But before I can talk specifically about our mountain, I must
first tell you about the most unusual day I ever spent. It
occurred about a year ago right in my own home town of
Philadelphia.
It started out like any other Monday. I had errands to run and
business to take care of. At 9:00 a.m. I left my apartment for
the post office.
On my way to mail some letters, I had to cross several busy
intersections, which I traverse nearly every day. When I reached
the first street, I waited and listened to the traffic. As soon
as the cars parallel to me began to move, I crossed, and nothing
happened. At the post office I found the mail box with my cane,
dropped in the envelopes, and headed for the grocery store.
At the Shop 'n Save I found the service counter and asked for
someone to help me pick out some items. A friendly employee
obliged, I waited in line with everyone else, paid for my
groceries; and nothing happened.

Nothing continued to happen for the rest of the day. When I at
last returned to my apartment, it hit me. Seeing my expression of
stunned incredulity, my roommate asked me what had happened. For
the first time since I began carrying a cane I could honestly say
that absolutely nothing had happened. That was the single most
unusual day I have ever spent, before or since. It was the day
that nothing happened, and it was so unusual because every other
day something does happen.

On any other day crossing a busy street means having an old woman
grab my arm and try to help me. On any other day using my cane to
find a mail box means having strangers shout,  The sidewalk is to
your left! You're by the mail box! Turn around!  On any other day
asking for assistance at the service counter might mean hearing a
disembodied voice proclaim over the P.A. system,  Someone to the
service counter to help the blind man. 
Of course, rarely is a whole day like this, but almost never does
a day pass without incident. The public, though well-meaning and
good-natured, still does not fully understand or accept us. It is
not to be blamed or judged. Our task is to teach society.
What should we make of my most unusual day? Was it simply a rare
series
of coincidences, a strange chain of non-events, or was it more
significant?  Perhaps my most unusual day was a faint
foreshadowing of a change which is slowly emerging in the public
mind. I firmly believe that these unusual days will become more
and more frequent for all of us as the years progress. The public
is coming to accept us as equals, but change which is lasting
takes generations to produce.
In another fifty or one hundred years, when the airline issue is
just
a vague, unsettling memory, when NAC has gone the way of so many
archaic tools, and when good training is accessible to all blind
people, our work will still not be done. Our task as a movement
will be complete only when the blind of this nation can travel to
their places of business and perform their daily routines
unencumbered by incident or episode, just like everyone else. In
short, when our most unusual days become commonplace and mundane,
then we will truly have reached the top of our mountain.
That is what we are climbing for, and that is what we will
achieve!  My friends, take an active part in this movement, and
together we will turn our most unusual days into well-deserved
commonplace.          WHO'S ABLE TO TEACH?
                         by Gwen Nelson
 Gwen Nelson is an active member of the Richmond Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Virginia. She is efficient
and competent, and she does not suffer fools gladly. Small
wonder, then, that she should notice the contrast between
effective blind travelers and an inept orientation instructor
provided by her rehabilitation agency. This article appeared in
the Winter, 1990, edition of  The NFBVigilant , the newsletter of
the National Federation of the Blind of Virginia. 

 It's perfect,  I thought as I took one last look at the
condominium I was planning to purchase. As I signed the contract,
I began thinking of the things I would have to learn. One of the
most important would be use of the shuttle bus and the city bus
to and from my place of employment.
About a month before I moved, my rehabilitation counselor
contacted
me to see if I would like orientation services from the Virginia
Department for the Visually Handicapped (VDVH). I accepted the
service after being assured that it would be given immediately
rather than after the general two-to-three-month waiting period.
I did receive immediate service, but the quality was severely
lacking.
At our first meeting my sighted, credentialed instructor
surprised me by asking me to show her the shuttle bus stop since
she had not located it, and I did so.
The following day we set out to ride the city bus. The transit
information service had told me to take a Robinson bus, but the
driver of that bus told me to take another line because it would
be closer to my home. I asked the instructor to show me that
route. She responded by telling me that I should ride the
Robinson bus since, as she put it, there are more quiet
crossings. Since I insisted on learning to use the stops closest
to my home, she agreed to come back the following day.
The next afternoon we waited a long time at the bus stop for the
bus that came closer to my home. When it didn't arrive, I asked
the driver of a passing bus when it would arrive. He directed us
to the correct stop. By this time the instructor had been with me
most of the afternoon.  She suggested that I continue using the
Robinson bus (even though the trip is longer).
I contrast this fiasco of wasted time, dealing with someone whom
VDVH deemed qualified to teach travel, to my experience with
blind Federationists at our Washington Seminars. We did not wait
at incorrect bus stops, and we did not always take the more quiet
crossings. We used the most efficient means to make our way about
Capitol Hill. We traveled on the Washington metro rapid rail
system and traversed the myriad of connecting tunnels throughout
the Capitol Hill area. We had no sighted, credentialed
instructors to teach us the way. In my comparison of the VDVH
instructor with my blind colleagues, my Federation friends win
hands down. Yet the VDVH will not hire blind people as mobility
instructors because its policy follows that of the National
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped and the Association for Education and Rehabilitation
of the Blind and Visually Impaired. That policy states that one
must have sight to teach blind people to travel safely. How many
accidents have you heard of that involved blind mobility
instructors or their students? Aren't we facing yet one more
myth?
                      I'D RATHER BE MUGGED
                       by Michael Baillif
 As  Monitor  readers know, Michael Baillif is the President of
the Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind. He
is also a first-year student at the Yale University School of
Law.
This article is reprinted from the Winter/Spring edition of the 
Student Slate,  the newsletter of the Student Division. On the
face of it, not many of us would express a preference for being
mugged, but Michael argues his case persuasively. Here is what he
has to say: 

The city of New Haven, Connecticut, is a bad place. Street crime
is all too common, and only the unwary, innocent, or foolish run
errands without the illumination of daylight or the protection
offered by large groups.
Exercising blissful disregard of this fact of life, a friend and
I
recently strolled out after dark in search of a bank auto-teller
machine.  As we rounded a corner, moving away from the main
thoroughfare, we encountered another friend who was walking
toward her car. The three of us talked cheerfully as we strolled
further down the block. After a time we stopped to continue our
conversation before saying goodbye. Without warning we were
accosted by a man who was obviously quite intoxicated.  As he
grew increasingly belligerent, it became all too apparent that
his motives for engaging us in conversation were less than
benign.  This surmise was confirmed when a second, very large,
man (evidently a friend of his) approached us from the opposite
direction. Needless to say, things looked very grim. All of a
sudden, the first man looked at me and asked,  What's that? 
gesturing toward my cane.
I ignored him as I busily calculated the extent of my emergency
medical coverage. Addressing a similar question to my friend, he
challenged,  Why's he got that? What is it, a hockey stick? 
In a matter-of-fact tone, my friend responded,  No man, that's a
white cane; he's blind. 
The man was immediately mortified.  Ohhh gee! I'm so sorry!  We
shook hands and introduced ourselves. I was Michael; he was
Tyrone.  After several more apologies, I reassured him that I was
not offended and that everything was cool.  Look,  he told me, 
you remember, my name is Tyrone. I'm around these streets all the
time, and if you ever need anything, you got it!  I thanked him
for his offer. As he moved away, still contrite, he called out as
his final comment,  Hey, I'm black. 
Concluding our errand and turning toward home, my friend and I
laughed about the incident. But the more I played it through in
my mind, the more depressed I became. My friend perceived only
the short-term benefit of Tyrone's reaction to my blindness; we
were not mugged. This was a good thing to be sure, but I was
greatly distressed by the larger implications. As a blind person
I was thought to be so pitiable, inferior, and removed from
reality that I could not be afforded equal treatment, even where
street crime was concerned!  I'd rather be mugged,  I brooded to
myself. It is absolutely necessary for me to be perceived and
treated as an equal if I am to achieve in life those things for
which I strive. If this insistence upon equality carries its
price, assessed in a renunciation of preferential treatment, and
an abdication of seemingly beneficial immunities, I'll pay it. I
would rather be physically mugged as an equal than spiritually
brutalized as an inferior.  As I mulled over the encounter with
Tyrone, however, it occurred to me that perhaps Tyrone himself
had unconsciously identified the means by which blind people will
eventually make the transition from inferior wards to equal
citizens. Tyrone had intuitively grasped the reality of which so
many service providers, social workers, psychologists,
and so-called professionals seem to be unaware to be a blind
person is to be a member of a minority group. The struggle of
blind people to achieve social respectability is synonymous with
that of any other minority group battling to attain first-class
citizenship. When Tyrone said,  Hey, I'm black,  he was
implicitly saying  I can relate to you; I understand what it
means to be demeaned and insulted.  I know how it feels to be
treated like an object rather than a person.
I understand, and I'm sorry.  Perhaps it was empathy and
identification rather than pity and condescension which spared me
from being mugged.  I hope so. Tyrone's departing comment
certainly evidenced a muddle
of pity and understanding. Yet somehow, because of our shared
minority experience (his blackness and my blindness), he was
nevertheless closer
to perceiving and treating me as an equal than the larger, more
respectable social establishment has ever been. Just as in the
case of Tyrone, however, the way to reach this establishment is
to instill in them the recognition that blind people (as surely
as those who are black or Jewish or female) are part of a
minority group. We are striving, not for paternalism and
custodial care, but for liberation and equal treatment. This is
the banner we must carry. It is also the battle we must fight.
As we are successful in our endeavors, some members of our group
will inevitably face the negative ramifications of equality. Some
of us will be mugged. Nevertheless, the short-term evil is
acceptable, and even preferable, to the insidious and pernicious
violence done to our dignity, our will, and our humanity when we
accept the convenient compromise which results in second-class
citizenship. Certainly I prefer to be accorded equal treatment
without being mugged in the process; nevertheless, if a choice
must be made, I'd rather be mugged.
                                 
ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD: 
LETTER FROM LILLIAN SYKES
From the Editor: There can be no doubt that we have made great
progress in changing public attitudes about blindness and,
moreover, that the pace is accelerating. How are we doing this?
Is it being done through the work of national, state, and local
leaders? Yes. Is it being done by our radio and television public
service announcements? Again, the answer is yes. Is it being done
because of learned articles and seminars and conferences? Once
more the answer is yes.
But there is something else, something which undoubtedly results
from the things I have listed but which is ultimately the
catalyst to the final goal the goal of full participation by the
blind in society on terms of equality and first-class status. I
refer to the vigilance and determination of rank and file blind
people and their sighted family members, friends, and associates.
In short, to the heightened level of conscience on the part of
the tens of thousands of members of the National Federation of
the Blind. If today in this country
a book or a magazine makes a disparaging remark about the blind,
the publisher can expect to hear about it. If a TV program shows
the blind in a false light, somebody will unerringly zero in on
the matter and object.
All of this comes to mind because of a letter I have just read
from Lillian Sykes of North Carolina to the NBC producers and
writers of the show  Golden Girls . I gather that this program
(which I confess I had never heard of) has wide national
popularity. Here is Lillian Sykes's letter:

                                      Summerfield, North Carolina
                                                February 25, 1990
NBC
Writers and Producers
New York, New York

Dear Sirs:
I have been a  Golden Girls  fan since its inception. You have
through the dialogue of your characters dealt with many issues
which should be brought to the attention of the public. However,
on the
program which aired on February 24, 1990, you really showed your
prejudice about blindness. One of your characters (Buzz) was
dressed in an outfit befitting a clown. Another of the characters
(Ma) said,  I have never seen a sighted person dressed like that. 
I doubt that you
would have used the words  white person  or  black person.  This
shows me that you are very much uninformed about blindness. It
saddens me to know that anyone as intelligent as producers and
writers can be so ignorant about blindness.
No self-respecting blind person would dress like that. Blind
persons are just as particular about their attire as any one
else. There are Braille tags (one is attached) which can be sewn
into the inside of clothing to enable a blind person to match
clothing.
I have never seen a blind person dressed in such a manner, and I
know a lot of blind people. I am a sighted woman married to a
blind man.  We belong to an organization, the National Federation
of the Blind, which is fifty years old this year and is more than
fifty thousand members strong. We go to the state and national
conventions each year.  Therefore, I am in a position to know how
blind persons dress.  There are other things about blindness
which you do not know. There are blind doctors, blind lawyers,
blind scientists, blind teachers, blind bankers, and blind people
in all walks of life. It is only the prejudice of people like you
which holds them back.
Blind persons keep house, cook, bake, do needle work, and raise
families; they ski, climb mountains, play baseball, bowl, garden,
go to movies, and  watch  TV. Some of the ones I know can also
use a chain saw. (You should have used one on this segment.)
Instead of putting blind people down as you did on this show, why
not have one showing a blind person leading a normal life, as
most of them do. If you are in doubt, why not come to one of our
national conventions as Paul Harvey did. This year's convention
is at the Hyatt Regency DFW Airport in Dallas, Texas, June
30-July 7.
For more information or a positive attitude about blindness,
contact:  Marc Maurer, President, National Federation of the
Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; (301) 659-
9314.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                    Lillian Sykes

cc: Marc Maurer, President, NFB
Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director, NFB

Barbara Pierce, Chairman, Public 
Relations Committee, NFB
Hazel Staley, President, NFB of 
North Carolina
WXLL, Channel 12

           CHANGING PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT BLINDNESS: 
IOWA'S INFORMATION FAIR
                         by Peggy Pinder

 As  Monitor  readers know, Peggy Pinder is the Second Vice
President of the National Federation of the Blind and President
of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa. The information
fair she describes here is the product of a long evolution.
Several state affiliates conduct such events (Maryland for one,
from whom Iowa first took the idea). It can be adapted to fit any
state's talents and staffing capacity. Here is the way that Iowa
does it: 

How do we inform parents about the capabilities of blind people
so that they learn to expect performance and participation from
their
blind youngsters?  How do we inform elected officials about the
capabilities of the blind so that they will understand our basic
philosophy when we discuss specific bills or policies with them? 
Is there a good way for blind people to demonstrate our
alternative techniques to the sighted so that, by watching their
reactions, we can really come to believe ourselves that our
techniques are as effective as theirs?  In answer to all these
questions and, because it is just plain fun, the National
Federation of the Blind of Iowa holds a public information fair
every year in early January at the beautiful Des Moines Botanical
Center building on the Des Moines River near the center of Iowa's
capital. This year one of our members who has a camera took about
twenty minutes from other assignments to snap a picture record of
the information fair. Here are pictures and accompanying
descriptions of our 1990 information fair, the place to be
between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 10, 1990.
Invited guests will be described using their titles, so the
others mentioned will be Federation members.

Our information fairs are famous for bringing severe weather
(once a blizzard that closed the northern third of the state).
But this year's weather was balmy, helping to bring our largest
attendance
ever. Parents, kids, and invited officials first stopped at the
registration table to get their twin-vision name tags, already
printed and charmingly (because she is always charming) Brailled
before their eyes by Ruth Schroeder using a slate and stylus.
State First Vice President Bob Ray and I as State President
helped to greet guests as they entered.  Here I am handing
complimentary drink tickets to Representative Bill Harbor (R -
Henderson).
Guests were shown to the first of the Botanical Center's two
large function rooms by the children of several members,
including Boy Scout Marc Ray, son of Bob and Jan Ray. In the
first room, NFBI members had set up displays around the outer
walls, leaving the center free for a new attraction organized by
Deb Smith: a demonstration of martial arts by a blind Iowa State
University student, Clay Gurganus, and two of his friends. The
three martial artists offered to show guests some simple
techniques, an offer which several legislators and children
eagerly accepted. Here one of the blind elementary-school-age
children in attendance practices the widely-known martial arts
high leg kick while one of the Iowa State students reacts in the
accepted defensive posture.
In one corner, Federation members had set up a small woodworking
shop.  Here, Dewey Cummings leans into his work on the lathe as
Senator Leonard Boswell (D - Davis City), Mrs. Boswell, and
Representatives Halvorson and Harbor watch.
Next to Dewey, Howard Craig operates a drill press while
Representative Joan L. Hester (R - Honey Creek) observes.
Iowa is moving very slowly toward implementation of roadside
vending, and Rocky Smith decided that the information fair would
be a good
time to talk about both roadside vending and legislative
foot-dragging.  He and Joe Van Lent, both pictured here in front
of the display, made a large sign describing roadside vending and
then lined up a number
of vending machines, donated by Coke and Greater American
Distributing, to show elected officials how the project is
intended to work. As guests entered the function room, they saw
activity all around and martial arts in the center but always,
always at the far end the huge sign and large display of vending
machines.
All were drawn to the vending area where numerous discussions,
like the one pictured here, took place between Van Lent and the
guests.  Here he is joined by his wife, Lora, as well as
Representative Mark Shearer (D - Columbus Junction) and Karen
Kearney, wife of a prominent Republican activist.
At public information functions we never have enough copies of
the  Voice of the Diabetic , which we find to be as popular as
the Braille alphabet cards. Ron Johnson staffed a display about
health, including literature about diabetes, in which he showed
our guests how to take blood pressure, using a talking blood
pressure device.  Here Ron takes the blood pressure of
Representative Shearer, who has been relaxing and chatting with
blind constituents.
A large display taught guests about Braille, its comparison to
print, and its versatility. As a part of this display, we set up
games such as Monopoly which are available in Braille. Here Ron
Greene shows one of our guests how to play Monopoly with a board
having raised lines and Braille markings. On the other hand, he
may be whipping her in a quickie game of sudden-death Donald
Trump Property Swapping.  After guests made the rounds in the
first function room, they crossed
the hall to the second room or took the longer route through the
botanical area with winding paths, a small stream and wooden
bridge, and the brand new display of spring flowers. Arriving in
our second exhibit space, they found another relaxed atmosphere
with displays around the walls and Curtis Willoughby in the
center, showing interested
guests how informative a white cane can be. Two years ago a
gubernatorial candidate decided that the cane was so informative
when used properly that he donned sleep shades and raced up and
down the cane enclosure with a nine-year-old Federation member,
calling to me as I stood on the side lines that he was, by golly, 
going to beat that kid this time.  The kid, much more agile and
practiced, did not allow this prophecy to become a reality.
My own legislator, Representative Phil Tyrrell (R - North
English), picked up his strong sense of confidence in the value
of a white cane from seeing me use one. When he attended his
first information fair
in 1987, he was one of the first in the cane enclosure, where he
picked up a cane and calmly started walking around. Now every
year he practices his skill (or maybe shows off a little) as
others watch. Here, Curtis listens carefully to Representative
Tyrrell's cane technique as Tyrrell strides confidently down the
cane course toward the camera. Debbie Smith and the parents of a
blind child watch as Representative Halvorson unaccountably walks
behind Tyrrell and away from the cookies.  Guests, both elected
officials and parents of blind children, were delighted and
impressed to learn about Doris Willoughby and Sharon Duffy's new
book, a comprehensive reference guide for teachers of blind
children, which received its first public introduction at the
fair. As Curtis says of it, it is priced at $7 a pound and well
worth every penny, as those who have examined it can attest.
Here, Doris Willoughby and Debbie Smith have a friendly chat with
a mother and
her two sons, one of whom is blind. This chance to talk to blind
adults and to see them in action is one of the important reasons
why we invite parents and their families to our information fair.
Secretary of Agriculture Dale Cochran, a long-time friend of many
blind people in the state, enjoys attending our fair to greet old
friends and to meet new ones. Here he shakes hands with Joel
Jeffries, who is demonstrating efficient computer use by a blind
person, a skill he knows well since he recently began employment
in this very field.  We were also joined by Secretary of State
Elaine Baxter and by several assistant majority and minority
leaders in both the House and Senate.
Among her many talents, Verla Kirsch is a skilled seamstress.
Federationists teased her for years because she half-finished the
same half-finished pair of pajamas for her husband at fair after
fair. We all wanted to know if he had any completed sets at home.
She finally finished them, to the joy of her husband, who liked
them immensely and promptly left them in a motel while out of
town. Here, Verla works on a new project, housecoats for her two
youngest grandchildren, who are now wearing their new apparel.
Sitting behind her sewing machine, Verla lifts a housecoat to
show its seam to an aide from U.S. Senator Charles Grassley's Des
Moines office. While making a complete garment, Verla uses her
sewing machine and alternative techniques as she explains their
usefulness to our guests. Although not pictured here, Margaret
Warren, one of our deaf-blind members, was seated nearby, talking
with guests and demonstrating the capabilities of deaf-blind
persons.
Of course, we show the use of Braille wherever we can, and Wally
Schroeder stands here behind a wide variety of Braille cookbooks,
explaining their use (and probably the excellence of the cookies
baking nearby) to Representative Jane Teasford (D - Cedar Falls),
who is obviously interested, but like most other guests, she is
probably equally interested in the end product.
People of both sexes are always interested in food and its
preparation.  Here Representative Pat Murphy (D - Dubuque) and
Representative Dave Hibbard (D - Booneville) listen intently as
Revanne Duckett explains various alternatives used by blind
persons in the kitchen. She stands behind a table which is
groaning not with food but with the simple, useful alternative
tools used by blind cooks. The two representatives have worked
themselves round to the corner of the room off which the actual
kitchen opens and from which the smell of baking cookies is
wafting.
We deliberately set a relaxed atmosphere and design the display
areas to encourage interaction between guests and Federationists.
We want to talk, to explain our ways of doing things, and to show
our guests that we are capable of holding our own in our
communities when given the simple courtesy of a chance. The
guests always respond, chattering with Federationists about
whatever is in the news and about blindness, eating the cookies
(as Speaker of the House Pro Tempore John Connors does here while
chatting with one of our volunteer helpers), and leaving with a
wave and a smile.
Blind children and their parents get a chance to talk in a
relaxed setting with a wide variety of blind persons from
throughout the state.  Families often come as a group, with the
blind child and sighted siblings diving in together. One family
with several children under the age
of ten came through the door, and a sighted sister saw people
everywhere
with white canes. She turned to her blind brother and said in a
half-accusatory tone (as children do):  Well, where's your cane?  
For the first time both brother and sister were in a setting
where it was normal to carry a cane, and the brother answered
sheepishly that it
was home behind the door. Both children left with an altered
appreciation of the white cane and the people who carry it.
After circulating through the displays and meeting
Federationists, the guests gather at the refreshment table to
chat and to dispatch the food. As they leave, Federationists hand
them a small gift a simple wooden object like the ones on which
the lathe and drill press operators are working. Some years we
have given wooden candle holders; some years it has been a gavel
and gavel rest; some years, like this one, we have presented a
flag stand holding Iowa and U.S. flags. All the gifts proudly
bear the Federation's name. We also take these small gifts along
with us when we visit Congressional offices during the Washington
Seminar, and we see them year after year when we return,
displayed on desks and shelves on Capitol Hill.
We also hand every departing guest some Federation literature,
including the most recent National Convention banquet address and
Presidential Report, as well as material about any bills on which
we are currently working. Some years, like this one, there are no
burning issues, but we continue to hold the fair as part of our
ongoing work to change what it means to be blind. We like it, and
our guests seem to like it, too.

RECIPES 

 From the Associate Editor:  May is the month in most parts of
the country when fresh strawberries begin appearing in grocery
stores at more-or-less reasonable prices, and by June we have hit
the peak of the season. It seems to me that strawberries just
don't
taste the way they did when as children my brother and I slipped
stealthily down the hill and into the strawberry patch. There we
helped ourselves to as many berries as we could gather before the
fear of snakes (Mother had once seen a garter snake curled around
a strawberry plant) drove us away or the appearance of Mother
herself, carrying baskets for us to use to pick enough for
dinner, chained us to the drudgery of serious work. Those berries
dead ripe, still warm from the sunshine, and a little sandy were
as good as anything I have ever tasted.   Except for the
unfortunate souls who are allergic to strawberries, most people
must have some memory equivalent to my early romance with the
ill-gotten berries. How else can one explain the nearly universal
enthusiasm for home-made strawberry treats. Here are several
time-tested favorites. Brighten your early summer with one or
more of these delicious recipes. 

                   FRESH STRAWBERRY ICE CREAM
                         by Marc Maurer

 President Maurer, whose prowess in the kitchen is widely known,
maintains that this is the only way to make strawberry ice cream. 
The pattern may be adapted quite satisfactorily to make other
fruit ice creams, but listening to President Maurer, one gathers
that strawberry is the best. 

 Ingredients: 
up to one half gallon half and half
6 eggs, beaten
one quart washed, hulled, and pureed 
strawberries
one cup sugar
one tablespoon vanilla
a pinch of salt

 Method:    In a large bowl combine one quart half and half,
beaten eggs, strawberries, sugar, vanilla, and salt.  Mix well. 
Transfer mixture to the can of a five-quart ice cream freezer. 
Add up to a quart of half and half. The mixture should fit
comfortably into the
can and will make one gallon of strawberry ice cream.  Follow
manufacturer's instructions for packing the ice cream freezer
with ice and rock salt and begin cranking.  This ice cream is
delicious whether you store
it for at least one hour in a conventional freezer as the
manufacturer recommends or lick it off the dasher as soon as the
ice cream freezer can is opened.

                      STRAWBERRY DREAM CAKE
                       by Patricia Maurer

 Mrs. Maurer's spectacular strawberry cake recipe appeared many
years ago in the  Braille Monitor,  but a compilation of favorite
strawberry recipes would seem incomplete without mention of it.
And since many of us missed it the first time around, we decided
to reprint it here. 

 Cake Ingredients: 
1 package white cake mix
4 eggs
2 tablespoons flour
1/2 cup water
1 small package strawberry gelatin
3/4 cup oil
1 package (10 oz.) frozen strawberries or 
1 pint fresh strawberries, cleaned and pureed

 Frosting Ingredients: 
1/2 cup butter or margarine
3 cups confectionery sugar
1/2 teaspoon vanilla

 Method:  Combine the cake mix, eggs, flour, water, and gelatin,
and beat for two minutes. Add 1/2 of the strawberries (save the
rest for the frosting). Beat cake batter for an additional
minute. Add the oil and beat for one minute more. Bake the cake
in a greased and floured jelly roll pan (15-1/2 x 10-1/2 inches)
for 35 to 40 minutes at 350 degrees. To make frosting, combine
the butter or margarine
with the confectionery sugar and vanilla and beat well. Add the
reserved strawberries and frost the cake.


                     FRENCH STRAWBERRY TART
                        by Barbara Pierce

 This is a recipe to remember when you want to impress someone
special without spending much time in preparation. 

 Ingredients: 
1 10-inch baked tart shell
2 8-ounce packages cream cheese, softened
1/4 cup sugar
1 to 2 teaspoons grated lemon peel
4 tablespoons lemon juice
1/2 teaspoon grated fresh nutmeg
quart fresh strawberries, washed, hulled, and sliced
2 tablespoons corn starch
1/4 cup cold water
1 12-ounce jar strawberry or  raspberry preserves

 Method : Make the tart shell by mixing 1/2 cup softened butter
or margarine with 1/4 cup sugar and 1/4 teaspoon salt. Add 1
unbeaten egg and mix well. Then add 1-1/2 cups flour and gently
mix well. Chill slightly and roll out on well floured surface or,
better yet, waxed paper. This dough is very short and very hard
to handle. Roll a 12-inch circle about 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick and
transfer, using the waxed paper or the rolling pin, to the
outside of an inverted 9-inch cake pan placed on a cookie sheet.
Mold the crust to the bottom and side of
the pan, making sure that there are no thin places in the crust,
particularly where the bottom joins the side. Trim away any extra
dough so that the shell reaches to the point where the rim of the
pan begins. Bake the crust (dough side up) in a 450 degree oven
for 8 to 10 minutes or until the crust is lightly browned. Allow
to cool a little before transferring to a serving plate and
removing the cake pan.
Beat together the cream cheese, sugar, lemon peel, 2 tablespoons
lemon juice, and nutmeg. Spread this mixture evenly across the
bottom of the crust. Pile the strawberries on top of the cream
cheese and chill.

Stir the corn starch into the water until smooth. Add preserves
and cook stirring constantly until mixture comes to a boil and is
thickened.  Add 2 tablespoons lemon juice and allow to cool to
room temperature.  Then pour the mixture evenly over the tart.
Allow to chill through.  You may garnish with whipped cream, but
this dessert does not need the help.

                 GRANDMA'S STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE
                      by Catherine Randall

 Cathy Randall is the First Vice President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Illinois. She also loves strawberries
and strawberry shortcake. 

 Ingredients: 
2 cups flour
2 tablespoons sugar
1 tablespoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 stick butter or margarine
1 egg
2/3 cup light cream
strawberries, as many as you can  fit in the serving bowls
vanilla ice cream or whipped cream,  as you prefer


 Method : Mix the dry ingredients and cut in the butter or
margarine, using a pastry blender or 2 knives held
scissors-fashion. Combine the egg and cream and add to the other
mixture, gently mixing with a fork until the flour is just
moistened. Then either scrape into a generously greased 8-inch
round cake pan (building up the dough
at the edges so the cake will rise evenly) or knead slightly on
floured surface and cut into 6 2-inch biscuits. Arrange these on
an ungreased sheet and bake both biscuits and cake versions in a
450-degree oven until done about 10 minutes for biscuits and 16
to 18 minutes for cake.
To serve, split a biscuit or wedge of cake and arrange in a large
dessert dish. Crush some of the berries and stir in a little
sugar if the berries are not dead ripe. Spoon crushed berries
over each serving and top with ice cream or whipped cream and as
many whole or halved berries as possible.

                    FANTASTIC STRAWBERRY SOUP
                         by Bill Tormey

 Bill Tormey, whose wife directs the Materials Center at the
National Center for the Blind, is a professional chef in
Baltimore, Maryland.  Both the Tormeys testify to the excellence
of this summer first-course specialty. 

 Ingredients: 
1 generous quart fresh strawberries
5-6 tablespoons sugar
3 cups plain yogurt
1 cup sweet cream
22 mint leaves
1 cup Kirsch liqueur or strawberry Schnapps or your favorite
liqueur (optional)

 Method:   Clean the strawberries.  Pick six of the best looking
berries out of the batch and set aside.  Remove the tops from the
rest of the berries and puree them in a food processor.  Add the
sugar before slowly pouring in the sweet cream.  Then add the
yogurt.  Finish with liqueur if desired.  Garnish each serving
with a half strawberry and two mint leaves; chill well before
serving.

                     STRAWBERRY RHUBARB PIE
                         by Betty Bowman

 While we were collecting these recipes, I promised several
people that a strawberry rhubarb pie would be included. Someone
even promised to send me a favorite recipe for one, but, of
course, I have forgotten who that kind soul was, and no recipe
appeared. I do not make this pie because my husband does not care
for rhubarb, but I love it. This is my mother's version, and I
can attest to its excellence. As a child I considered that the
risk of encountering snakes was well worth the anxiety when
strawberry rhubarb pie was the reward.  

 Ingredients: 
pastry for a 9-inch double crust pie
2 cups of washed, hulled, and sliced  strawberries
2 cups of sliced rhubarb stalks
1-1/3 cups sugar
6 tablespoons flour
1/2 teaspoon grated orange peel
1-1/3 tablespoons butter or margarine

 Method:  In a large bowl combine sugar, flour, cinnamon, and
orange peel. Stir well to spread the flour through the sugar. Add
the fruit and stir to coat rhubarb and strawberries with the dry
ingredients.  Line a 9-inch pie plate with rolled pastry and fill
with the fruit.  Dot the top with butter or margarine. Then roll
the top crust and slash the center several times so that the
steam can escape. Carefully lay the crust across the top of the
pie and seal the edges. Bake for 40 to 50 minutes at 425 degrees.

                      TO WHET YOUR APPETITE

 From the Associate Editor:  Our fiftieth annual convention, June
30 through July 7, 1990, promises to be the biggest and best
gathering of the blind in history. Some activities and events
will take place for the first time, and some things will happen
in connection with our Golden Anniversary celebration that are
never likely to take place again. But some activities, though new
in content, are old convention favorites. Here is a sampling of
what you have in store as prepared by Federation divisions and
committees. In many ways an NFB convention is a smorgasbord of
events. Plan to come early and stay busy. 

                       Job Opportunities 
for the Blind Seminar

Lorraine Rovig, Director of the Job Opportunities for the Blind
program, says:
Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB), will hold its national
seminar
on Saturday, July 7, 1990, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the
Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt Regency Hotel. Several program items are
already lined up: a presentation on reasonable accommodation, a
panel on secretarial and medical transcription work how to learn
it and how to get hired to do it; a panel on how to get hired by
a federal agency which includes the Selective Placement Program
Manager from the U.S. Department of Justice; a presentation by a
professor of music, and another by a woman who turned her
volunteer job into a full-time professional position. Other
program items are being planned.
JOB is a free program of the NFB and the U.S. Department of Labor
available to anyone who is blind and looking for work in the
United States. Some services are also available for employers,
service providers, parents, and other interested parties.
The national JOB seminar is free. Walk in the door, take a seat.
For further information, call 1-800-638-7518 (in Maryland, call
(301) 659-9314).

                      National Association 
of Dog Guide Users

Bob Eschbach (Member of the Board of Directors of the National
Federation of the Blind and President of the National Association
of Dog Guide Users) reports that even the dog guides will love
this year's National Convention. There are a number of relief
areas for the dogs near the hotel. Arrangements are being made to
provide written suggestions about where to take them.
As has been our tradition, the division will meet on the first
Sunday of the convention (July 1 this year), and it looks like a
good program is emerging.
After months of searching, the Division has located an editor for
our newsletter,  Harness Up.  Bill Isaacs has agreed to handle
these responsibilities and is looking for good articles and news
items from everywhere. Please send any material to Bill Isaacs,
Box 332, Bourbonnais, Illinois 60914. Because of the recent
inactivity of the newsletter, those who paid five dollars this
past year will not need to pay for another year's subscription. 
The next  Harness Up 
will be published in June and will include all pre-convention
information.  In addition, those desiring specific convention
information may send requests to Priscilla Ferris, 55 Delaware
Avenue, Sommerset, Massachusetts 02726. Be sure to include your
address.

                        Student Division

Michael Baillif, President of the National Federation of the
Blind Student Division, writes: At this year's National
Convention the Student Division will sponsor two events, which
present opportunities for enrichment. On Sunday, July 1, from
7:00 to 10:00 p.m., the Student Division will hold its annual
Student Seminar. We will consider issues of concern to blind
students in a way which is both instructive and entertaining. 
Everyone is invited.
While the Seminar offers opportunity for philosophical
enrichment, on Wednesday evening, July 4, from eight p.m. to
midnight the Student Division will host a Monte Carlo night,
providing the possibility of material gain as well.  This
memorable event will feature a cash bar, provide a wonderful
environment for socializing, and allow those
card sharks attending the convention to display their prowess at
poker.  Both of these events will be fun and worthwhile for all. 
We hope to see you there.

                      National Association 
of Blind Educators

Pat Munson, President of the National Association of Blind
Educators (NABE), writes to say that the division will hold its
annual meeting Monday, July 2, at 1:00 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency
Dallas-Fort Worth Hotel.  All educators and other interested
persons are welcome.  We will discuss such topics as eliminating
archaic attitudes about blindness harbored by many in special
education departments, preparing for and finding a good job,
passing those required standardized tests, motivation, focusing
one's energies on obtaining salable job skills, blind educators
from pre-school to university and their job techniques, and the
formatting of graphic material in Braille texts.  The meeting
will conclude with the presentation of the fourth annual Blind
Educator of the Year award.
Through NABE we are changing what it means to be blind. Come and
share in our success!

                    Public Relations Workshop

The Public Relations Committee will conduct a workshop from 9:00
a.m.  to 12:00 noon on Sunday, July 1, for all those interested
in sharpening their public education skills. Attendees will be
expected to take
an active part in the morning's program. Planning, organizing,
writing, and speaking are all PR skills that will be addressed.
You don't have to have past experience or current PR
responsibility to take part
in this workshop. The committee is looking for people who are
interested in this aspect of the Federation's work and who
believe that they have some skills to offer.

                       Associates Workshop

The Committee on Associates will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
July
2. Final results of the 1990 recruiting year will be available on
tape and in print. Ribbons will be available during registration
on Sunday and Monday in the registration area, as well as on
Monday evening at the Committee meeting. Those who do not pick up
their ribbons will receive them by mail. The Committee will
conduct an Associate-recruiting workshop from noon to 1:15 p.m.
on Tuesday, July 3. Check the agenda for location. Nationally
prominent Associate recruiter and 1988 champ Bill Isaacs will
coordinate the workshop. Snacks and drinks will be available.

                       Attention Writers 
and Newsletter Editors

Tom Stevens, President of the National Federation of the Blind
Writers Division, informs us that it will sponsor a grant-writing
workshop from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday, July 30. The
coordinator will
be Suzanne Bridges of Louisiana, herself an accomplished
grant-writer.  The registration fee will be $5, to cover the cost
of materials provided.  Taping will be permitted. Check the
pre-convention agenda for the location.
During Saturday afternoon, June 30, the Writers' Division and the
Correspondence Committee will co-sponsor a workshop on the
preparation of newsletters. Patricia Munson of California and
other experienced state newsletter editors will assist in the
workshop. Discussions will include formatting, layout and design,
recruiting of writers, copyright, and an extensive question and
answer session. The location will be announced in the
pre-convention agenda.

                   Parents of Blind Children 
Division Seminar

Barbara Cheadle, President of the Parents of Blind Children
Division, reminds everyone that a day-long seminar entitled  Who
Are the Professionals and What Should They Do? A Seminar for
Parents and Teachers of Blind Children  will take place in our
convention hotel on Saturday, June 30. The seminar is free, but
special educational packets will be available at a cost of $30.
Both parents and teachers will find these extremely valuable, so
bring along some extra cash or your check book.
Child care for infants and preschoolers and organized activities
for older children will also be available during the seminar. 
This year Lori Anderson (formerly LeBlanc) and Johnnie Burns will
be in charge of the children ages 5 and up. (Depending  on the
number of children we have, they will be divided into two or
three different age groups, and appropriate activities or field
trips will be planned for each group.)
There is a $5.00 minimum fee for each child who participates in
our organized child-care program and activities. If there is
sufficient interest, one of the activities for children ages 9
and up may be
a trip to the Six-Flags Amusement Park. The fee for this trip,
which would include cost of transportation, a box lunch, and
admission to an unlimited number of rides at the park, would be
$25 per child.  Please let us know on the preregistration form if
you are interested in this activity for your child/children. Fill
out and return the preregistration form along with your check or
money order as soon
as possible, but no later than June 1, 1990. Although
preregistration is not required, it is strongly recommended for
children ages 5 and
up, for whom special tours or activities have been planned. The
preregistration figures will help us plan for adequate volunteer
counselors, bus space for trips, sack lunches, etc. We will NOT
take more children on an activity than transportation or the
number of adult supervisors will allow, so please assure your
child's spot by pre-registering.

                    Public Employees Division

John Halverson, President of the National Federation of the Blind
Public Employees Division, reports:  The Division will meet at
1:00 p.m. Monday, July 2. A representative from the U.S.
Department
of Justice will speak about employment opportunities in her
department, and another speaker will discuss the outcomes of the
contract let
by the Social Security Administration to provide computers and
training to blind employees. See you in Dallas. 

                     Computers, Computers, 
and More Computers

The 1990 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in
Computer Science (NFBCS) will be held at the 1990 National
Federation of the Blind convention in Dallas, Texas, on Monday,
July 2, from 1:00 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Program items this year include: a  technical
interchange,  which will help people who want to discuss computer
problems with
each other; a discussion of computer technical support, including
considerations of the role played by the rehabilitation system;
and
a discussion of Grade 2 Braille translation: hardware versus
software.  These items and many, many more computer-related
topics will be considered at the NFBCS meeting. Past attendees
are familiar with the crush of people that inevitably occurs at
the registration line as folks try to pay their NFBCS dues. This
year, in an effort to alleviate the problem, we are encouraging
people to pre-register. That's right, if you send us a check for
$5 (including your name, address, phone number, and occupation),
your membership in NFBCS will be renewed
for another year. Send your $5 dues to: Susie Stanzel,
Secretary-Treasurer, NFB in Computer Science, 11905 Mohawk Lane,
Leawood, Kansas 66209.

                  Ideas for Blind Job Hunters 
at the 1990 Convention

Wonder how going to convention can benefit your job search? Here
are some ideas from the Director of Job Opportunities for the
Blind:  * Bring Copies of Your Resume With You. A number of blind
people have made contacts at the National Convention that led to
full-time jobs.
* Attend the Division and Committee Meetings (held mostly on July
1 and 2). These are national meetings of blind teachers, lawyers,
factory workers, secretaries and transcribers, vendors, and so
on.  Introduce yourself to the speakers (platform or audience)
who interest you, ask them to talk with you later in the coffee
shop or the lobby.

* Talk to Everyone You Meet at Convention. If you are standing in
line, if you are resting in the lobby with other folks next to
you, if you find yourself walking down the corridors in step with
a stranger, introduce yourself. As time permits, find out what
jobs others are doing, how they found them, what techniques they
use, and whether they know of job openings in their fields. When
you meet blind people who are searching for work as you are,
share ideas on job hunting.  Ask members of NFB chapters in other
states whether they know anyone who is working in the field that
interests you. If they do and that individual is at convention,
arrange an introduction through this
mutual acquaintance. (The chance-met person may have no useful
information for your personal situation but may know someone else
who is wonderfully helpful.)  Good luck works better if you work
at making it happen.

* Be Ready to Take Notes. Carry a slate and stylus with
notecards,
a small cassette recorder, or a notebook. Jot down the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of people you meet or hear about who
might help your job search. Write down job hunting ideas, names
of companies and agencies, titles of positions  anything you mean
to follow up on once you are back home.
* Find the JOB Table in the Exhibit Hall. Make an appointment to
meet with the director or the assistant director of JOB. We'll
help
you brainstorm about your job search and can often arrange
introductions to helpful contacts among the conventioneers.
* Try out the Aids and Appliances in the Exhibit Hall. Learn
their strengths, weaknesses, and costs. Ask the vendors for
introductions to blind individuals who use the machines that
interest you. Very often such folks will cheerfully sit down with
you in the nearest coffee shop and answer your questions. Add
their opinions to the data gleaned from the vendors in order to
come to some conclusions about
the equipment you wish to have to be job-ready in your chosen
profession.  Gather up ideas from folks at convention on the many
ways other people have gotten their equipment costs covered.
* And, of course, Attend the 1990 JOB National Seminar. July 7,
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the convention hotel.

                       Diabetics Division

Karen Mayry, President of the National Federation of the Blind
Diabetics Division, writes to say that the Division will meet
this year at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 2. The group will discuss
new trends in diabetes management and nutrition. Everyone with an
interest in diabetes is welcome.
During the convention kidney dialysis will be available at two
locations near the hotel (see next announcement). Those
interested in making arrangements for this service should contact
the facilities personally.


                   Kidney Dialysis Available 
at  Convention

During this year's National Convention in Dallas, Texas, dialysis
will be available. Individuals requiring dialysis must have a
transient-patient packet and a physician's statement filled out
prior to treatment.  Patients should have their dialysis units
contact the desired location in Dallas for instruction on what
must be done. There is a mandatory prepayment of twenty percent
(approximately $25-$27) which must be paid before each dialysis
treatment. This is the amount not covered by Medicare.
Following are two dialysis locations which are close to the
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Hyatt Regency:
1. Irving Dialysis Center, c/o Irving Community Hospital, 2845
West Airport Freeway, Suite 120, Irving, Texas 75062; phone:
(214) 258-0880.  For scheduling contact: Dwight Stevenson,
Director of Nursing. This dialysis location is open six days a
week (Monday-Saturday) and is about ten minutes from the hotel,
right off the south entrance of the airport.
2. Dialysis Center HEB, 2700 Tibbets Drive, Suite 203, Bedford,
Texas 76021; phone: (817) 354-8811. For scheduling contact:
Louise, Head
Nurse. This dialysis location is open three days a week (Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday) and is about fifteen minutes from the
hotel, right off the south entrance of the airport.
Please schedule your dialysis treatments early, as space may be
limited.  If your dialysis unit cannot confirm a space for you,
contact Ed Bryant for assistance at: 811 Cherry Street, Suite
306, Columbia, Missouri 65201; phone: (314) 875-8911.

                       Attention Musicians

Mary Brunoli, President of the National Federation of the Blind's
Music Division, writes: By popular demand the Music Division of
the NFB is again sponsoring the Musical Talent Showcase. This
will take place on Tuesday, July 3, 1990, at 8:00 p.m. Prizes
will be $25, $50, $75, and $100. Entry fees will be $2 for Music
Division members and
$5 for non-members. Judging will be done on originality, stage
presence, musical talent, and interpretation. We would welcome
assistance from anyone who knows about recording.
How about a special song in honor of our Federation's fiftieth
anniversary year? The Music Division is also sponsoring a song-
writing contest.  The  write  combination will win you a $50
prize. The song must have a positive philosophy and be about
twenty-four lines in length and set to a familiar, easily-
learnable tune. Deadline will
be June 16. Send cassettes or material to: Miss Mary Brunoli,
President, NFB Music Division, 171 Washington Street, Hartford,
Connecticut 06106.  Songs will be judged at the convention. We
are hoping that the winning entry can be performed before the
entire convention.

                  Human Services Division News

Betsy Zaborowski, President of the National Federation of the
Blind Human Services Division, reports as follows:
The Human Services Division will meet from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. on
Monday, July 2. In the past we have dealt with a wide spectrum of
relevant topics, including most recently: blind professionals
dealing with violent clients, involvement in professional
organizations, and specific questions students in the professions
have for their blind senior colleagues. The topics for this
year's convention will include speakers and panels dealing with
employment issues and strategies for professional advancement. As
usual, we will highlight occupations which offer unique and
challenging opportunities for blind human service workers.  The
National Directory of Blind Human Services Professionals will
also be available for new members who did not get a copy at last
year's convention. The Directory will be revised again this year.
Forms to update or add your career information will be available
at the divisional meeting or by writing: Dr. Betsy Zaborowski,
1308 36th Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218. The Directory
includes short biographies of over fifty blind human services
professionals from throughout the country, representing fields
including social work, psychology, medicine, counseling,
advocacy, and rehabilitation. It is a good resource for
professionals throughout the country who share similar problems.
By being in touch with blind people doing various jobs, we have
been able to assist students and fellow professionals who have
been facing job discrimination. We hope to continue to expand the
Directory. So if you are employed either
on a part-time or full-time basis, please complete one of the
Directory information forms and return it to me.
The division has distributed one issue of its newsletter and
hopes
to increase the frequency of its publication in the coming year.
Informative articles, letters, announcements, and other material
are welcome.  Newsletters are a very important way for us to stay
informed between conventions. Submit material in either print or
Braille to Betsy Zaborowski.

The Division is open to all Federation members but is especially
designed to assist blind human services workers and students in
related fields.  If you would like to become a member and will
not be at this year's convention, you can send your dues ($10 for
regular members and $5 for student members) to: Ms. Julie Deden,
1259 South Clayton, Denver, Colorado 80210.
Hope to see you at convention. It should be a wonderful fiftieth
birthday for us all!

                 * * * MONITOR MINIATURES * * *  

**Elected:
In a recent letter Janet Caron from Pompano Beach, Florida, said: 
On Saturday, January 13, 1990, the South Palm Beach Chapter of
the National Federation of the Blind of Florida elected the
following officers: Joseph B. Naulty, President; Janet Caron,
Vice President; Pamela Gregory, Secretary-Treasurer, Joan
Gregory, Board Member; David Evans, Board Member; Richard
Giombetti, Board Member; and Marion Jackson, Board Member.

**For Those Who Ride:
Under date of January 31, 1990, we received the following letter:

Dear Dr. Jernigan,
I would greatly appreciate it if the following item could could
appear in the  Monitor Miniatures  section. I am recovering from
the succesful removal of my left eye, and the process of
obtaining a prosthesis will begin in mid or late February. I will
soon be able to resume horseback riding lessons (English style),
and I would like to hear from other blind people who ride (either
English or Western) who also have artificial eyes.
I am targeting this specific population for two reasons. First, I
would like to hear about the experiences of other blind riders.
The stable where I take lessons has a very positive attitude
about people who are blind. A young boy in my class is blind and
partially deaf, and a man whom I have not yet met has advanced to
the point that he is competing in shows.
Second, I would like to know if there are safety concerns that I
should be aware of when riding which might have a bearing on the
prosthesis.  Can the eye be worn when riding, and if so should a
patch be worn over it? Should the eye be removed when riding? I
want to take proper care of the eye, so while these questions may
seem odd, I am asking them with sincerity.
I may be contacted in Braille, on tape, or in print (typed) at:
Post Office Box 45, Phoenix, Maryland 21131. I may be also be
called in the evenings and on weekends at (301) 592-9175.

                                                   Vanessa Lowery

**Long-Time Federationist Dies:
Under date of January 19, 1990, President Maurer received the
following
letter from Ed McDonald of West Virginia:

Dear President Maurer:
I am writing to notify you of the recent death of long-time
Federationist Joe Smith of Parkersburg, West Virginia. Joe was a
charter member of the National Federation of the Blind of West
Virginia, and at the time of his death he represented the
Parkersburg (Wood County) Chapter on the organization's board of
directors. For a number of years Joe operated a vending facility
in the Parkersburg Post Office building.  At one stage in his
life, however, he worked as a coal miner at a
time when the union movement was beginning to take hold in West
Virginia.  Thus, he understood the importance of organization and
collective action in solving common problems like low wages and
poor working conditions. Later he applied these same principles
to the problems of the blind when he became actively involved in
the creation of the Federation's West Virginia affiliate. He was
also involved in organizing both the Parkersburg and Morgantown
chapters.
Joe attended several National Conventions, and despite failing
health in recent years, he continued to participate as much as
possible in state conventions and board meetings. He died on
December 24, 1989, at the age of eighty-three. West Virginia
Federationists are proud of the legacy and the integrity of Joe
Smith. He was our colleague and friend, and we will miss him.

**Continuous Form Braille Labels:
We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
American Thermoform Corporation Now Offers Continuous Form
Braille Labels ATC has recently developed  EMBOSSABLES  for
exclusive use in any standard Braille embosser. This brand new
item, first of its kind, is made of specially formulated plastic
and unique adhesive backing. It is available in 8-1/2 x 11-inch
size. EMBOSSABLES are
packed fifty sheets to a box for $23.95. They can be ordered by
contacting:  American Thermoform Corporation, 2311 Travers
Avenue, Commerce, California 90040.

**Opportunity to Serve:
Bruce Gardner is a Senior Attorney at the Arizona Public Service
Company.  He is also an active Federationist. As evidenced by the
following letter, he now has an opportunity to make an increased
impact on programs for the blind in his state:

                                           Office of the Governor
                                                 Phoenix, Arizona
                                                 February 9, 1990

Dear Bruce:
Arizona State Government and I are both grateful that you have
agreed to serve as a member of the Arizona State School for the
Deaf and Blind Board of Directors. One of the satisfactions of
holding office is the opportunity to recognize outstanding
citizens by naming them to positions of leadership within our
state government....  

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                     Rose Mofford
                                                         Governor


**Masons Take Notice:
Fred Flowers, one of the officials of the Masons in Maryland,
writes:  Come and join the William A. Jones Square Club of Blind
Masons of
the National Federation of the Blind. All Master Masons in good
standing who would like to join our Square Club please send your
name, address, name of lodge, and lodge number to: Fred Flowers,
3525 Woodstock Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21213.

**Elected:
Ernest Robbins and Tyrone Palmer write: On Saturday, January 20,
1990, during our first busines meeting the National Federation of
the Blind of Chatham County, Georgia, elected officers to serve
for the next two years. They are as follows: President, Ernest L.
Robbins; First Vice President, Isaac Heyward; Second Vice
President, Ellen Parker; Secretary, Tyrone Palmer; Treasurer,
Bertha Robbins; and Clarence
M. Green and Louise Phillips, Board Members.

**Right on Pitch:
We have been notified that Allen Schaefer (President of the
Prairie State Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
Illinois and Treasurer of the National Association of Blind
Educators), who teaches vocal and instrumental music in grades
kindergarten through eight, has earned a signal honor. For the
second year in a row all
of his junior high school music contestants received Division I
ratings in the Illinois Elementary School Association's State
Music Contest held February 24, 1990. Fifteen soloists and
ensemble groups from Mazon-Verona-Kinsman Junior High School
posted perfect scores, to set a new school record. This is also
the first time that any school
in IESA competition has earned completely perfect ratings in two
successive years. This triumph caps a long history of excellent
performance on the part of Schaefer's students. Since 1972 they
have brought home 434 Division I, 103 Division II, and 3 Division
III ratings in state
music competition. Congratulations to Allen Schaefer for a truly
extraordinary accomplishment.

**Gala Opening:
Peggy Chong of BLIND, Inc., the rehabilitation center run by the
National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota, reports that the
grand opening of the remodeled space of BLIND, Inc., on the first
floor of the Skyway News Building in Minneapolis took place on
January 24, 1990. Rick Hokenson, Director of State Services for
the Blind of Minnesota, was on hand to cut the ribbon, and
television station KMSP did a story
on the event during the evening news with positive coverage of
BLIND's work and of the capacities of blind people. Students
served as tour guides, and everyone pitched in to make the day a
glorious success.

**Talking VCR Available:
President Maurer says: During the past two or three years I have
been asked several times if anyone makes a VCR (video cassette
recorder)
that a blind person can operate. Of course, some of the standard
controls are simple play, stop, fast forward, and rewind.
However, the programming functions are more complex. The
recorders provide on-screen assistance what you have done so far
shows on the television screen, together with possible options
for your next choice. Seeing the screen is obviously helpful in
deciding what to do.
Not long ago I received a brochure describing two VCR's with
talking
remote control units. The advertisement said that these machines
(manufactured by Optonica, a division of the Sharp Corporation)
were fitted with  Voice Coach.  Because I had received a number
of inquiries about such a feature, I asked the representatives to
bring a machine to the National Center for the Blind. Although I
do not personally watch television more than two or three times a
year, I know many, many blind people who do. I examined the VCR
and tried the talking remote control (Voice Coach). It appeared
to work.
There are two models of this VCR. One is stereo, and the other is
not. I am told that both have four video heads, so if there is a
descriptive video service in your community, the stereo VCR makes
it possible to record this service.
Company representatives selling the VCR asked me if the
Federation would be interested in marketing the product. The
stereo unit sells for $600, and the non-stereo for $400. They
said we could buy them for a small discount. However, they also
told me that these VCR's are available from Boston Information
Technology (BIT), a company operated by Mohymen Saddeek. Because
the Federation's principal focus and purpose is not the sale of
technology, I have serious reservations about whether we should
tie up major amounts of capital in such machines.  BIT is in the
technology business. Why not simply tell people that the machines
are available and let those in the business sell them to
interested buyers? So, for your information, the toll-free number
for BIT is 1 (800) 333-2481.

**Reminder:
Remember that while prospects look good in the Senate of the
United States for the Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals Act
(S. 341), there is still much work to be done on its companion
bill, H.R. 563.  Continue writing and calling your members of
Congress to discuss with them issues of importance to the blind
of America. Your ongoing interest in these pieces of legislation
will convince our legislators of our commitment to change what it
means to be blind.

**Trivia:
The Sacramento Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
California distributes a monthly newsletter. One of its features
is a set of trivia questions about the NFB. The answers are given
at the next chapter meeting. If you want to know, you have to
come. Here are samples from the March, 1990, newsletter:
 Who was our Washington Representative before Mr. Gashel?   In
the 1970s where in Washington, D.C., was our Washington Office
located? 
 Who was the first NFB Treasurer? 
 When did we adopt our motto  The NFB is not an organization
speaking for the blind it is the blind speaking for themselves ? 

**Dies:
Under date of January 22, 1990, Kathleen Owens writes:

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
A number of years ago Bob Owens from Trenton, New Jersey, used to
attend the NFB conventions. Although he hasn't attended
conventions for a number of years, there are still people he knew
that do attend them. Bob died on January 1, 1990, of coronary
artery disease and diabetes. He was sixty-three years old, and we
were living in Morrisville, Pennsylvania (across the river from
Trenton). We were still receiving the  Braille Monitor .

**Jefferson Award:
Colleen Roth sent to President Maurer a press release which said
in
part:

WTVG, TV 13
Toledo, Ohio
Information
For Immediate Release

                      Area Winners of 1990 
Jefferson Award Selected

WTVG is pleased to announce that five Toledo area individuals
have
been selected to receive the prestigious Jefferson Award for
Outstanding Public Service.  These five were chosen from a field
of sixty nominations submitted by members of the community at
large....
4. Colleen Roth serves in a number of organizations supporting
those with disabilities.  Blind since birth, she has demonstrated
that insight and vision come not from the eyes, but from the
heart.  She is, along with her many activities, a licensed
Respite Care Provider, surrogate parent for children with
disabilities, and reads as a lector at her church....
The five will be honored at a luncheon on March 23rd at The
Inverness Club of Toledo.  Each will be presented with a bronze
Jefferson Award medallion.

**Suspicion Confirmed:
When President Maurer received a study regarding the performance
of children with low vision, he had this to say:  For many years
I have held the opinion that blind people who do not use Braille
but read and write only with print are at a disadvantage. A ten-
page scholarly paper copyrighted in 1990 by the American Academy
of Optometry entitled,  Visual Characteristics of Low Vision
Children  reinforces my belief. It says in part:  A classroom
evaluation of these [low vision] children showed that overall,
the clinically determined visual acuity corresponded with
classroom performance. A high rate of use of prescribed low
vision aids was found, and a reading evaluation
on a standardized test showed poor performance with respect to
reading speed and comprehension, but almost all the children had
adequate reading accuracy.   It is nice to know that the
professionals
have begun to reach the conclusion that if you are blind, it is
difficult to read print. It is a sad commentary that the study
does not (so far as can be determined) recommend that these low
vision children begin to read Braille. In fact, I have not found
a single reference to Braille in the entire ten page paper.
However, even though this synthesis of esoteric, scientific
research appears to reach the not
so profound conclusion that visual performance deteriorates with
vision loss, it recommends increased emphasis on teaching with
visual aids.  Visual aids don't work very well, they say. So,
they recommend that more of them be used. If this were a
government survey, one would expect its conclusion to look like
this:   The bureaucracy is causing trouble. Let us establish a
bureau to study the difficulty caused by bureaucracy. 

**Savings Increase:
Clayton Hutchinson of Computer Conversations has contacted the 
Monitor  to say that initial sales of the Verbette, the new
pocket-size speech synthesizer, have gone so well that until
August 1, 1990, he is increasing the savings to  Monitor  readers
from $25, as announced in the April  Monitor Miniatures,  to
$150. He added that this decision reflects his company's
commitment to providing blind people with the technology they
need at the lowest prices possible. For more information about
the Verbette, call Computer Conversations at (614) 263-7574.


**Beans:
President Maurer says:  Once in a while there are unusual
occurrences at the National Center for the Blind. Recently a man
called and asked if we had any connection with a vending
business. Of course, we are substantially involved with blind
vendors in the Randolph-Sheppard Program, and we have tens of
thousands of public service messages on vending machines
throughout the United States. Consequently, the man's question
was answered in the affirmative. Then, he asked if
we wanted to buy jelly beans. It seems that he is in the salvage
business.  A train wreck occurred not long ago. One product
retrieved from the wreckage was a quantity of black jelly beans
specifically, 26,400 pounds of black jelly beans. The man wanted
to sell these to the National Federation of the Blind at a
reduced rate, of course.
Did we buy them?  No. Sometimes we buy things that are offered at
a good price. We try to make items available that are useful to
the blind and might otherwise be hard to get. Most people know
that we sell canes and talking clocks. But we also have other
things available.  One of my favorites is our rice cooker. You
can put water, rice, and such flavorings as you want into this
device; and it will cook the
rice and turn itself off when the rice is done. We also have the
Audio-Technica Compact Disc Player available to individuals at
the discounted rate of $200.00. The rice cooker is a nifty
device. The compact disc player has both a good reputation and a
low price. We are able to make these available because we have
found a way to obtain them at favorable rates. Nevertheless, even
though the jelly beans could be had for a very low cost, I didn't
think we could reasonably find a use for over 26,000 pounds of
them.
