













                                 FUTURE REFLECTIONS





                        THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLInd
                       MAGAZINE FOR PARENTS OF BLIND CHILDREN




Barbara Cheadle, Editor



                                  Published by the
                          national Federation of the Blind
                                 1800 Johnson Street
                                Baltimore, MD  21230
                                   (410) 659-9314




ISSN 0883-3419
                                Future Reflections

                                    Winter, 1993

        NATIONAL PARENTS SEMINAR AND 1993 NFB CONVENTION:
                          TEXAS BECKONS
     
     It is once more time to begin planning to attend the most
exciting, stimulating, and informative Federation event of the
year--the Annual Convention of the National Federation of the
Blind. For parents and educators of blind children, this is an
unparalleled opportunity to see and meet more blind people in one
week (up to 2,500) than most parents, children, or teachers would
ever be able to meet otherwise in a lifetime.
     At convention you will have the chance to hear from national
experts in the education and rehabilitation of the blind; meet
other active, knowledgeable parents (and teachers) of blind
children; browse for hours in one of the year's largest exhibits
of
technology and aids for the blind; sit in on deliberations about
issues which will affect the education, employment, and civil
rights of the blind for generations to come; meet the top blind
college students from around the country; and socialize with
blind
persons of every age and from every segment of our society. It is
a unique opportunity to learn about blindness from the real
experts
on blindness--the blind themselves.
     In 1993 we will return to the Dallas-Fort Worth Hyatt
Regency,
where our spectacular fiftieth anniversary convention was held in
1990. Those who attended the 1990 convention will remember the
lively 1950's atmosphere of Sullivan O'Shaughnessy's Restaurant,
the tasty barbecue at Bear Creek, and the memorable Texas
hospitality. NFB of Texas president Glenn Crosby promises that
1990
was only an opener for the 1993 extravaganza.
     As usual, our hotel rates are the envy of all who know about
them. For the 1993 convention they are: singles, $31; doubles and
twins, $35; triples, $38; and quads, $40. In addition to the room
rates there will be a tax, which at present is twelve percent.
There will be no charge for children in the room with parents as
long as no extra bed is requested.
     In recent years we have sometimes taken hotel reservations
through the National Office, but for the 1993 convention you
should
write directly to: Hyatt-Regency DFW, Post Office Box 619014,
International Parkway, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, Texas 75261, or
call (214) 453-1234. Hyatt has a national toll-free number, but
do
not (we emphasize not) use it. Reservations made through this
national number will not be valid. They must be made directly
with
the hotel. The hotel will want a deposit of $40 or a credit card
number. If a credit card is used, the deposit will be charged
against your card immediately, just as would be the case with a
$40
check. If a reservation is canceled prior to June 20, 1993, $20
of
the $40 deposit will be returned. Otherwise, refunds will not be
made.
     The Hyatt Regency DFW is actually located on the property of
the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and the airport
people-mover train makes a stop at the hotel. The facility's
1,300
rooms are divided between two towers connected by a
quarter-mile-long corridor. Many of us found that walking between
the two towers provided welcome exercise, but if walking is a
problem, electric carts are always available to carry guests back
and forth. There are four excellent and very different
restaurants
within the hotel: Il Nonno's, an Italian trattoria, which
specializes in northern Italian cuisine and has servers who sing
to
diners; Sullivan O'Shaughnessy's, which has already been
mentioned;
and two other fine restaurants. In addition, the bar in the East
Tower serves sandwiches and snacks during most of the day.
     Convention activities this year begin on Saturday, July 3,
with an all-day seminar for parents of blind children. The theme
of
this year's seminar is: Meeting the Needs of the Blind Youngster.
Registration for the seminar will begin at 8:00 a.m.; and the
seminar will start at 9:00 a.m. A general session with speakers
and
panels will be scheduled in the morning, and small group
workshops
will be conducted in the afternoon after a two-hour lunch break.
The afternoon workshops will adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
     The afternoon workshop topics will include: Developing an
Appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP); Networking
Support for Parents and Professionals of the Blind Multiple
Handicapped Child; The Needs of the Deaf-Blind Child; Promoting
Good Travel Skills (Mobility); Integrating Braille into the
Classroom and Everyday Life; Teaching Daily Living Skills: Who,
When, and How?; Alternative Techniques for the Junior, Middle,
and
High School Blind Student; Teaching Responsibility: When and How
Should Blind Children Take Charge of Their Own Education and
Daily
Living Needs?
     Another workshop option in the afternoon is the Job
Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) workshop. The JOB workshop is
designed to inform, educate, and encourage blind job seekers and
blind students in transition from school to work. The JOB
workshop
can help answer general questions about jobs and careers, as well
as specific blindness-related concerns, such as how you handle
telling a prospective employer that you are blind or how one gets
the adaptive equipment needed for a particular job. Blind
teenagers
and their parents should seriously consider attending the JOB
workshop Saturday afternoon.
     There is no registration fee this year for the Parents
Seminar. A packet of literature and materials will be available
for
those who want it for a fee of $5.00.
     Also on the day of the Parent Seminar (Saturday, July 3) the
Parents of Blind Children Division will sponsor a program of
organized fun and learning experiences for children ages 5 to 12.
(We encourage older youth to attend the seminar with their
parents
or other NFB workshops on that day--such as the half-day Job
Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) Seminar.) This year the
children's program will be organized and led by Mrs. Carla
McQuillan. President of the Oregon affiliate of the National
Federation of the Blind, Carla is an experienced educator with
extensive experience as a teacher, administrator, and independent
day care provider.
     This year's program will be a day trip to a nearby dude
ranch
which features, among other things, a huge petting zoo, a
playground, hiking areas, and, for the older children,
opportunities for horseback riding and learning about how to
groom
and care for horses. The grooming portion of the program will be
conducted by volunteer members of the NFB Agriculture/Equestrian
Group who work with horses either professionally or as a hobby.
Since the number of children who can be accommodated for this
trip
is limited by space available on the bus, and by the ratio of
volunteer workers to children, we urge you to use the form at the
end of this article and pre-register your children for the
Saturday, July 3, day-trip. Children will be accepted on a
first-come, first-served basis. Please contact Carla McQuillan if
you have any questions about the day-trip, or if you have a child
with special needs. The fee for the trip is $12 for the 5 - 8 age
group and $16 for the 9 - 12 age group. This fee includes the
cost
of transportation, fees for the dude ranch activities, and lunch.
     Child care for infants, toddlers, and those who choose not
to
participate in the Saturday, July 3, children's day-trip
activity,
will also be available. The volunteer director of child care
services is Mary Willows. Mrs. Willows is an experienced
educator,
the mother of two children, and a long-time blind leader in the
Federation in her home state of California. This volunteer job is
a major undertaking! It takes a tremendous amount of volunteer
time
from many Federation parents who care deeply about making the NFB
Convention an enjoyable and enriching experience for every member
of the family who attends.
     Child care is not only provided during the parent seminar on
Saturday, July 3, 1993, but during the convention sessions, the
banquet, and other special meeting times as resources will allow.
Parents are asked to make these donations for child care: $50 for
the week (including the banquet) for the first child and $25 for
each additional child; or $10 per child per day, and $10 per
child
for the banquet night if you do not need the full week of day
care.
(Parents who cannot contribute the suggested donation should
contact Mary Willows to discuss what donation they wish to make.
Mary will be available in the child care room before and after
sessions, or you may contact her in advance at: 3934 Kern Court,
Pleasanton, California 94588; (510) 462-8575. Since the suggested
donation does not cover all expenses, other donations from
individuals and groups are much appreciated.)
     But the Parent seminar on Saturday is not the only activity
of
interest to parents or the only chance to meet other parents.
Saturday evening, from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., the NFB Parent and
Student Divisions will co-sponsor a Hospitality Night for
parents.
Everyone is invited, including children, to this informal event.
Toys will be available for the young children to play with, and
older youth will have a chance to mingle with each other and with
slightly older college students who are members of the NFB
Student
Division.
     The NFB Parents of Blind Children Division Annual Meeting is
held on Monday afternoon of the convention (July 5). At this
meeting we get an opportunity to meet and hear from our parent
groups from all over the country. We discuss local and national
projects (such as our annual Braille Readers Are Leaders
Contest),
elect officers, listen to a presentation from the 1993 Educator
of
Blind Children award winner, accept committee reports, and
discuss
activities of our state and regional parent divisions and
chapters.
     The following day, Tuesday, July 6, Claudell Stocker will
once
again conduct a special three-hour Introductory Braille Workshop
for parents who want to learn Braille. She conducted this
workshop
at our convention last year, and it was one of the most
sought-after, successful seminars of the convention! If you have
been considering learning Braille or struggling to learn it on
your
own but not making much progress, you will not want to miss this
workshop! It will be an intensive hands-on learning experience.
The
goal is for everyone to leave the workshop able to read and write
some Braille. Space will be limited to 25 persons, so be sure to
send in your registration form (see page 5 in this issue) right
away!
     In regard to other activities, there are so many special
interest committees and divisions that you are bound to find
something up your alley. Here is a partial list: Parental
Concerns
Committee, Committee on Concerns of the Deaf-Blind, Music
Division,
National Association to Promote the Use of Braille, Diabetic
Division, Writers Division, National Association of Blind
Lawyers,
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, and the
Student Division.
     The general convention sessions, which begin Tuesday
morning,
always feature speakers of interest to parents--from blind adults
talking about their interesting or unique careers (one year we
had
a blind horse trader, another year a blind pharmacist) to people
of
power and influence in the political and governmental arena as
well
as in the field of education and rehabilitation for the blind.
Other events and meetings parents are invited--and encouraged--to
attend are the Monday morning National Board meeting (the
scholarship winners are introduced at this meeting, and other
exciting announcements and reports are made at this time as
well);
the resolutions committee meetings, and the Thursday evening
banquet--considered by many to be the highlight of the
convention.
     To wrap up this convention article, here are some answers to
questions parents often have about convention. If you have other
questions or concerns about the convention, please contact:
Barbara
Cheadle, President, Parents of Blind Children Division of the
NFB,
1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230; POBC number:
(410)
747-3358; or NFB National Office: (410) 659-9314.
     Q.: You mentioned an exhibit hall. Where and when will that
be
available at the convention?
     A.: The exhibit hall will be open all day on Sunday, July 4,
and at various other times throughout the convention. Location of
the exhibits and a complete schedule of hours will be listed in
your convention agenda, which you will get when you register for
the convention.
     Q.: Speaking of registration, when and how do I register for
the National Federation of the Blind convention, how much will it
cost, and what do I get for my registration fee?
     A.: Registration for the NFB convention will begin the
morning
of Sunday, July 4. The fee is $5.00 per person. You may also
purchase banquet tickets at the same time. (The banquet is an
exciting and lively affair at NFB conventions, and is considered
by
many to be the highlight of the convention.) The banquet is on
Friday evening, July 3. The cost of a banquet ticket will be in
the
neighborhood of $22 to $24. The convention agenda (in print or
Braille) is given out at the time of registration.
     Those who register are eligible for hundreds of great door
prizes which are given away throughout the convention general
sessions and the banquet. All door prizes are worth at least $25,
and many are straight cash. But, most importantly, registration
entitles you to receive our unbelievably low convention room
rates.
Those who attend but do not register for the convention will be
asked to pay the considerably higher regular room rates.
     Q.: Our family would like to meet some compatible blind
adults
and students. How can we do that at the convention?
     A.: About the only way you can avoid meeting blind people at
the convention is if you come and hole up in your hotel room for
the week. Step onto the elevator and say "hello." Chat with your
neighbor in the convention or hotel registration line. Talk to
the
blind parents you see as you drop off or pick up your child from
child care (child care, by the way, is a great place for your
children to meet other children and adults--both sighted and
blind). Attend division and committee meetings, ask a question or
introduce yourself to the group or to the person next to you.
There
are so many different types of divisions and committees to choose
between that you are bound to find at least one that interests
you.
Attend the general convention sessions and sit with your NFB
state
affiliate (each state has a seating section clearly marked with a
large state sign). Blind people from your state will be
particularly pleased to meet you, answer your questions, and
introduce you to others. There are also many social functions at
the convention where you can meet others. For example, at our New
Orleans Convention we had a concert by Pete Fountain, a dance, a
fashion show, a music contest sponsored by the Music Division, a
reception for NFB scholarship winners, a casino night fund raiser
sponsored by the Student Division, and numerous tours on the
half-day set aside for this activity. There will be numerous
similar social activities at the 1993 convention!
     So, whether it be in the elevator, in a meeting room, in
child
care, in a line, over a meal, or over a beer, there is no lack of
opportunity for meeting interesting, cordial, and compatible
blind
people at an NFB National Convention.
     The National Federation of the Blind National Convention is
truly an educational experience in blindness. Nowhere else will
you
see so many blind people from so many different walks of life.
Nowhere else will you hear the same kind of debates and
discussions
regarding crucial issues affecting the blind. And nowhere else
will
you find the same mix of knowledge about blindness, an upbeat
spirit, a warm camaraderie, and a fierce dedication to achieving
the goal of equality and equal opportunity for the blind. Come,
join us in Dallas for our 1993 National Convention!

              PRE-REGISTRATION: CHILDREN'S DAY TRIP
                     Saturday, July 3, 1993
     
Parent(s) Name(s):
Address:
City:                        State:      Zip:
Home/Work Phone:

     As you fill out the following information, please include
the child's
last
name if it is different from parents' last name. Also include a
description
of
any characteristics which may require medical or other
considerations on the
trip. Please note that although we will keep the ratio of
volunteer adult
workers
to children low, we do not have the capacity to assign one adult
to one
child.
The fees for the day trip are: $12 for children ages 5--8; $16
for children
ages
9--12.

CHILDREN:
     
1. Name                          Age     Grade    
Blind or sighted
2.Name                       Age    Grade
Blind or sighted
3. Name                      Age    Grade
Blind or sighted
     
Total Fee Enclosed: $_________

Please make checks payable to: NFB Parents of Blind Children.
     
Mail by June 1, 1993, to: Carla McQuillan, P.O. Box 020,
Thurston, OR 97482

For more information call Mrs. McQuillan at: NFB of Oregon: (503)
726-6924


 DISTINGUISHED EDUCATOR OF BLIND CHILDREN AWARD 1993 APPLICATION
     
Name:
Home address:
City:                     State:      Zip:
Day phone:            Evening phone:
School:
Address:
City:                     State:      Zip:

List your degrees, the institutions from which they were
received, and your
major
area or areas of study.

How long and in what programs have you taught blind children?

In what setting do you teach?
     Itinerant program
     Residential school classroom
     Special education classroom
     Other, Please explain

How many students do you teach regularly this year?

What subjects do you teach?

How many of your students read and write primarily using:
     Braille
     large print
     closed circuit television
     recorded materials
     small print

Please complete this application and attach your letter of
nomination; one
additional recommendation, written by someone who knows your work
and
philosophy of teaching; and a personal letter discussing your
beliefs and
approach to teaching blind students. You may wish to include such
topics as
the following:

     * What are your views on the importance to your students of
Braille,
large print, and magnification devices, and what issues do you
consider when
making recommendations about learning media for your students?
     
     * When do you recommend that your students begin the
following: reading
Braille, writing with a slate and stylus, using a Braille writer,
learning
to travel independently with a white cane?

     * How should one determine which children should learn cane
travel and
which should not?

     * When should typing be introduced and when should a child
be
expected to hand in typed assignments?

Send all material by May 1, 1993, to Sharon Maneki, Chairman,
Teacher Award Committee, 9736 Basket Ring Road, Columbia,
Maryland
21045; telephone: (410) 992-9608.


       1993 DISTINGUISHED EDUCATOR OF BLIND CHILDREN AWARD
                        by Sharon Maneki

Editor's Note: Sharon Maneki is President of the National
Federation of the Blind of Maryland. She also chairs the
committee
to select the Distinguished Educator of Blind Children for 1993.

     The National Federation of the Blind will recognize an
outstanding teacher of blind children at our 1993 convention July
3 to July 9, in Dallas, Texas. The winner of this award will
receive an expense-paid trip to the convention, a check for $500,
an appropriate plaque at the banquet, and an opportunity to make
a
presentation about the education of blind children to the
National
Federation of the Blind Parents of Blind Children Division early
in
the convention.
     Anyone who is currently teaching or counseling blind
children
or administering a program for blind children is eligible to
receive this award. It is not necessary to be a member of the
National Federation of the Blind to apply. However, the winner
must
attend the National Convention. Teachers may be nominated by
colleagues, supervisors, or friends. The letter of nomination
should explain why the teacher is being recommended for this
award.
     The education of blind children is one of our most important
concerns. Attendance at a National Federation of the Blind
convention will enrich a teacher's experience by affording the
opportunity to meet other teachers who work with blind children,
to
meet parents, and to meet blind adults who have had experiences
in
a variety of educational programs. Help us recognize a
distinguished teacher by distributing this form and encouraging
teachers to submit their credentials. We are pleased to offer
this
award and look forward to applications from many well-qualified
educators.


PROBLEMS OF PLACEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY: MAINSTREAMING REVISITED
                        by Fred Schroeder

Editor's Note: On Friday afternoon, July 3, Fred Schroeder,
Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind and a member
of
the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind,
delivered an address to the 1992 NFB convention. Because of his
many years of teaching and administrative experience in the
education of blind children, Mr. Schroeder is an expert in this
field, so his remarks on the modern inclusion
movement--"Mainstreaming
Revisited"--and its impact on the education of blind children,
should be
taken seriously by everyone with an interest in the subject.

     In 1940 when the National Federation of the Blind was
founded,
a mechanism was created by which blind people could at last guide
their own destinies. The achievement of the past fifty years has
not been the product of good fortune or happenstance, but rather
the just and inevitable outcome of concerted action.
     As our organization has grown, we have increasingly come to
recognize that it is our shared philosophy about blindness that
enables us to keep our energies focused and our goals clearly in
view. During Dr. Jernigan's tenure as President of our
organization, he articulated our philosophy in clearly defined
principles. He taught us that, given proper training and
opportunity, blind people can compete on terms of real equality
with their sighted peers. The truth of this statement is
recognized
by all of us and forms a cornerstone upon which policy and
political action are built.
     Our shared philosophy makes us strong, coordinating
individual
effort in collective action. We believe that, given training and
opportunity, blind people can compete on terms of equality. It
naturally follows that, for blind children to be successfully
integrated into society, they too need training and opportunity.
Early residential schools for the blind started with an
assumption
that, if blind children mastered fundamental literacy skills
through Braille, they were capable of becoming well-educated.
Many
schools for the blind practiced mainstreaming long before the
term
became fashionable. I remember Lawrence "Muzzy" Marcelino, a
long-time leader in our organization, telling me that in the
1920's
and 1930's high school students at the California School for the
Blind would attend public school classes armed with a slate and
stylus and a portable typewriter. These students were expected to
compete and had the training to make that expectation a reality.
     After World War II, with the advent of the RLF generation,
schools for the blind found themselves overcrowded, and hence the
practice of integrating blind children into regular school
programs
became more and more widespread. Yet a curious thing began to
happen. Blind students educated away from the residential school
experienced difficulty receiving training, particularly in
Braille
reading and writing, and therefore found themselves educated
under
a substandard, watered-down curriculum. Gone were the
expectations
that came with real literacy. Instead, blind children encountered
a conception of blindness which expected, and even rewarded,
inferior performance.
     In the late 1970's, with the implementation of Public Law
94-142, the integration of disabled children was popularized
under
the concept of mainstreaming. This movement was premised on the
belief that blind and other disabled children should be educated
in
the least restrictive environment, alongside non-disabled
children
in regular classes. The missing element from the mainstreaming
movement was an examination of expectations for blind children.
When I attended graduate school, we were told that blind children
educated in isolation had numerous social problems, making them
ill-equipped to function in a sighted world. The clear focus of
mainstreaming was social integration, with substandard academic
performance tacitly accepted.
     Today there is a resurgence in the mainstreaming movement
with
an even more radical view of integration. Modern-day
mainstreaming,
which goes by the name of inclusion or the regular education
initiative, asserts that all disabled children should be educated
in regular classes, eliminating pull-out programs altogether.
Proponents of inclusion argue that differences in people are
found
throughout society and therefore artificial distinctions which
label and categorize are unnecessary and undesirable in our
educational system. They believe that regular classroom teachers
should be able to educate all children, regardless of their needs
for specialized training. However, as with the mainstreaming
movement, the modern-day inclusion movement fails to address
academic achievement as an essential element of public education.
     On its face the concept of inclusion appears both common
sense
and morally correct. The practice of labeling children--and with
it
the implied stigma of dysfunctionality--seems contrary to the
spirit of American democracy. I am concerned, however, about the
impact of inclusion on the education of blind children.
     For the blind child successful mainstreaming is dependent on
the child's ability to compete with his or her sighted peers.
Braille reading and writing constitute an alternative to print
reading and writing. Similarly, use of the abacus allows the
blind
child to perform mathematical computations quickly and
efficiently.
The typewriter and, more recently, the computer, while not
special
devices for the blind, are vital tools by which the blind child
can
communicate with the sighted. For the blind child to function
competitively, it is also necessary that he or she be able to get
around with the same degree of independence as his or her sighted
peers. Thus competence in the use of the white cane for
independent
travel is essential. These techniques, representing a separate
and
distinct set of skills, are not inferior, but simply alternative.
     Under the concept of inclusion, integrating blind children
from kindergarten on may deny them the opportunity fully to
master
the skills needed to keep up with their classmates. Blind
children
are subject to the same social conditioning about blindness as
the
public at large. Myths and misconceptions about blindness are
rampant. The blind child exposed to prevailing attitudes about
blindness will inevitably internalize at least some of these
attitudes and question his or her own competence. The child may
come to feel that because of blindness he or she is automatically
inferior to his or her classmates and unable to perform
comparable
work.
     Conversely the well-trained blind child possessing the
alternative techniques needed for full participation will find
that
he or she can function on an equal footing with his or her
sighted
peers. The application of alternative techniques serves to
strengthen the blind child's confidence in his or her ability to
function competitively. In this way the blind child can begin to
tear down his or her own misconceptions about blindness and
become
convinced that he or she will be able to be a fully
participating,
contributing member of society.
     Under today's special education system, the alternatives for
blind children are very few. Parents are faced with the real
problem of getting the existing service-delivery systems to
respond
to their children's needs for training in Braille, cane travel,
and
the other skills of blindness. It is not likely that this
situation
will be improved by a push for a widespread desegregation of
blind
children. Rather than achieving meaningful integration, blind
children would be faced with having to compete without having the
opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to be successful. The
end result would be diminished educational opportunities for
blind
children while making them erroneously believe that they are
unable
to compete because of blindness.
     A distinction should be made between segregation for
segregation's sake and specialized services for the purpose of
providing the training necessary for meaningful integration. A
young woman I know attended our state's residential school for
the
blind for her elementary school training. The academic and social
skills she acquired enabled her to return to a public school
setting for the balance of her education. Without this early
mastery of fundamental literacy skills through Braille reading
and
writing, along with the other skills she acquired, it is doubtful
that she would have had either the confidence or the ability to
achieve true integration. Rather than isolating her from society,
her experience at the school for the blind gave her the ability
to
function successfully in society. Today this woman works as a
personnel specialist for the Los Alamos National Labs and is
married and raising two young children. She is living a normal
life, in large part because of the opportunities she received
through specialized training.
     The process of integration should not be confused with
desegregation. Placing blind children with sighted children may
desegregate them, yet integration is an active process which
blind
children can only initiate if they have the confidence and tools
to
make it happen. Inclusion is, of course, the most desirable
outcome, but, as with integration, it cannot be accomplished
merely
through a process of desegregation. To my way of thinking,
inclusion for blind children must, by necessity, start with a
substantial period of specialized training. This training may
take
place in a regular class, a resource room or itinerant program,
or
a residential school for the blind.
     The question, therefore, is not whether the regular class is
preferable to the resource room or school for the blind, but
rather
which setting offers the best prospect for blind children to
acquire training and confidence. If we believe that blind
children
can compete on terms of real equality, then our expectations for
them will be driven by this belief. Children must be challenged
to
achieve and challenged to compete, and by so doing, they will
experience inclusion in the true meaning of the word. Blind
children and their parents need the encouragement of adult role
models who can help them expand their conception of blindness and
their belief in the ability of blind people. Blind children and
their parents need the National Federation of the Blind and the
philosophy that comes with it. We as blind people comprise a
minority, and as such we are subject to public misunderstanding.
Yet we have learned that through the National Federation of the
Blind we have a vehicle for collective action directed by a
shared
philosophy about blindness which gives us determination,
strength,
and the prospect of real equality.


                   THE PITFALLS OF COMPLACENCY
                         by Curtis Chong
       Reprinted from the October, 1992, Braille Monitor.

From the Editor: Your high school ninth-grade son's IEP states
that
he will take the state's required writing competency test with a
computer. It does not, however, address these questions: Whose
responsibility is it to see that the computer is one that your
son
knows how to use? That it is set up and ready to use on the day
of
the test? Who decides if he will take it in the same testing room
with the other kids, or in a separate room by himself and a
proctor? The parents? The teacher of the visually impaired? The
student? The principal?
     This is not, by the way, a hypothetical situation. This
example is from our son's IEP for the 1992-93 school year. As my
husband and I saw it, these arrangements were our son's
responsibility. No, he did not physically place the computer in
the
room, but he--not I--arranged to be oriented to the computer he
would use; he--not I--requested that he be allowed to take the
test
in the same room with his peers; and he--not I--reminded his
teacher to transfer the computer to the testing room the day
before
the test.
     Taking on this task was neither frightening nor frustrating
for our son. Beginning in the elementary grades, my husband and I
have insisted that our son take on increasing responsibility for
ordering his own reading books from the Library for the Blind;
negotiating with his classroom teachers about adaptations he
wanted
for test-taking, using the overhead projector, working with maps,
etc; working out adaptations or alternatives with his P.E.
teacher
in gym class; and so forth. Today, I am largely unaware of the
numerous adaptations and arrangements he makes in the classroom.
For example, if he needs a book on tape or in Braille, he orders
it. (Although I do learn when he fails to get an order in on time
because that's when Mom, Dad, and even brother or sister are
called
upon to be readers until his book gets in.) He doesn't always
choose the best alternative or use the techniques available to
him
either effectively or wisely, but with our guidance he is
learning
and becoming more independent every year.
     By the time he graduates from high school we expect him to
be
fully in charge of making all the decisions and arrangements
regarding his adaptive needs as a blind student. Unfortunately,
many blind high school students have not achieved this goal by
the
time they enter college.
     I get many calls from parents who ask me, "What colleges
provide special services to blind students?" As I delve a little
deeper into what the parents really mean, I invariably discover
that the blind students in question have always had someone order
their books for them, make all the decisions and adaptations for
test-taking, and never had the experience of selecting and
supervising a person to read for them. The parents now assume
that
they must find a college which will continue to provide all these
services to their son or daughter. It has never occurred to the
students or to the parents that the students could and should do
these things for themselves.
     Curtis Chong, who is the vice president of the National
Federation of the Blind of Minnesota and president of the
National
Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, did think about
these
issues when he was a college student. He was prepared when he
went
to college to handle his own academic adaptation needs. However,
he
encountered a system which actively promoted dependency among
blind
students on campus. His experience with disabled student services
offices is unfortunately not uncommon. In the Spring, 1992, issue
of The Student Slate, the publication of the National Association
of Blind students, he wrote of his experience and warned his
readers of the pitfalls that can befall those who rely
unquestioningly on the services of disabled students offices.
Although his comments were directed to students, they have a
message for parents, too. Here is what he has to say:

     Many years ago, when I first began attending the University
of
Hawaii, I came across a program called Kokua. Kokua is a Hawaiian
word meaning "help." The espoused purpose of the Kokua program
was
to help handicapped students attending the University of Hawaii;
and, since I was blind, I was eligible to receive the help
offered
by the program.
     Kokua maintained a staff of college students who served
variously as readers, note takers, and guides. They were paid
with
rehabilitation funds. Kokua staff, for example, would perform the
tedious and frustrating tasks involved in registration. Instead
of
having to stand in line for hours in a large and crowded
gymnasium
to register, blind students had merely to provide the helpful
Kokua
staff with the list of classes they wanted to take, and, presto!
they were registered.
     Much of the time of the Kokua student staff was used
recording
college textbooks. The service was so efficient that blind
students
never had to find out during the previous semester what texts
were
going to be used for the current semester; Kokua had enough
student
readers available to tape books on demand.
     Most blind students at the University of Hawaii loved the
Kokua program. It did everything for them. They didn't have to
plan
ahead to have books taped. They never had to hire their own
readers. They didn't have to stand in long registration lines.
When
tests needed to be taken, everything was handled by Kokua. Blind
students didn't even have to learn how to travel independently;
there was always a guide available to take them from class to
class.
     In short, blind students at the University of Hawaii became
complacent, taking the services they received for granted.
Perhaps
even more tragic, many of them failed to recognize that their
complacency was ruining their long-term prospects for a
successful
and productive future.
     Consider the hiring of readers. The students employed by the
Kokua program were paid for with rehabilitation funds. In fact,
by
the time I began attending the University of Hawaii, blind
students
were expressly prohibited from using rehabilitation funds to pay
for their own personal readers. They were required to use the
services of the Kokua staff. Thus, they were deprived of the
invaluable experience of seeking out, hiring, supervising, and
occasionally firing personal readers.
     Many blind students never learned to be independent
travelers,
preferring instead to depend upon the helpful guides furnished to
them by Kokua. Never venturing into unfamiliar territory on their
own, they necessarily limited their prospects for future
employment.
     Each and every blind student on the University of Hawaii
campus was regarded as a non-entity by most of the professors on
campus. When a question came up about how a blind student would
take a test, professors would invariably consult with the Kokua
office rather than with the blind student. In fact, the Kokua
staff
members, not blind students, were consulted concerning all
problems
on campus involving blindness.
     There were a few blind students on the University of Hawaii
campus, including me, who recognized the existence of the problem
and tried to deal with it. The system was, however, deeply
entrenched, and our efforts were hampered by the fact that we
were
working in opposition to the basic desires of the many blind
students who wanted to have things as easy as possible.
Nevertheless, we did manage to achieve a small measure of
success.
We were able to establish a study area for blind students in one
of
the university's libraries, independent of the Kokua office. This
allowed blind students to study on campus after Kokua staff
locked
up at 5:00 p.m. Additionally, we were able to prevail upon the
state rehabilitation agency for the blind to permit
rehabilitation
funds to be used to pay for readers hired by individual blind
students.
     Back when I first started going to college, programs like
Kokua were in the minority. Today, just about every major college
campus in the country has some form of office specifically
designed
for students with disabilities. Some are more positive than
others.
It is human nature to take the easy way out and to let such
offices
do everything: recruit and hire readers, guide students from
class
to class, determine how tests will be taken, and provide staff to
accomplish the tedious activities of course registration. Now as
never before, blind students cannot afford to be complacent. For
if
they rely upon disabled student offices to handle even the most
rudimentary aspects of their education, they will be selling
themselves short and denying their tremendous potential to
achieve
true equality with their sighted peers.
     If you are attending a college or university with an office
for disabled students, ask yourself whether or not it is
providing
its services in a manner calculated to promote true independence.
Is it encouraging students to gain invaluable expertise in the
management of sighted readers? Are students expected to travel
about campus independently? Are college professors encouraged to
deal directly with the blind students in their classes instead of
going to the office for disabled students? Are blind students
expected to handle registration activities for themselves? If
these
questions cannot be answered in the affirmative, blind students
must take immediate action to correct the situation.
     Blind students cannot afford to permit complacency and the
natural desire to take the easy way out to bolster an environment
which encourages dependence, laziness, and irresponsibility. In
today's corporate world there are no special services available
to
blind employees. Although my employer, IDS Financial Services,
chose to purchase some assistive technology for me once I proved
I
could do the job of systems programming, company officials would
laugh at the suggestion that a staff of readers and guides be
made
available to a blind employee. I am expected to travel anywhere
to
obtain technical training, and I am expected to manage my own
sighted readers. IDS is not unique in this regard.
     It is vitally important for college students to develop
basic
skills in independent travel, management of readers, and
execution
of their own college affairs; and it is critical that these
skills
be learned before or during college. Failure to develop these
skills at the right time can and often does result in the loss of
a paying job.


            FREE RIDES FOR THE BLIND COST US TOO MUCH
                          by Zach Shore
        Reprinted from the March, 1990, Braille Monitor.

From the Braille Monitor Editor: Blind people must eternally
grapple with the question of the free lunch. If, as is obvious to
Federationists, it does not exist, what is the price? For the
thoughtful blind person, those two-for-one fares, half-price
admissions, and cut-rate transit cards for the blind are all
charitable programs that give rise to reflection and
self-examination. In the October, 1989, issue of the Blind
Activist
a publication of the National Federation ot the Blind of
Pennsylvania, Zach Shore wrote insightfully about his evolving
understanding of the matters at stake. Here is what he had to
say:

     I am a blind citizen, and although I once utilized
half-fares
for public transportation, I would never accept any blind
discounts
today. In most major cities, blind citizens are permitted to pay
half price or discount rates on all forms of public
transportation.
I am opposed to such demeaning and unnecessary treatment.
     For many years I carried my public transit half-fare card
with
me whenever I traveled in Philadelphia and presented it
faithfully
with my money, generally saving about sixty cents a trip. I
believed that, since I could not drive, it was only reasonable
that
I should not be penalized for this handicap. Since sighted people
had the option of driving and I didn't, I reasoned that I was
entitled to compensation. "Besides," I used to tell myself,
"times
are tough. I'm not exactly Donald Trump, and I can't afford not
to
take advantage of every chance to save money." Only much later
did
I consider that many sighted people cannot drive for numerous
reasons, and they take public transportation as frequently as I
do.
I began to reassess my basic assumptions about what I could and
could not afford. Sigmund Freud noted that there are two desires
common to most humans: the desire to be loved and accepted by
others, and the yearning to make one's own way in life
financially.
Certainly this is as true of the blind as it is of any other
group.
I recognize that this charitable offer of blind discounts is made
with only the sincerest and most well-meaning intentions
possible,
but nevertheless, their effect is extremely detrimental to the
blind. Rather than giving us a helping hand, they prevent us from
fulfilling the basic human desire for financial independence by
encouraging blind people to remain dependent on public handouts.
     Half or discount fares serve to reinforce the prevailing
social myths that the blind are the objects of charity and pity,
who exist as social parasites depleting the tax dollars of
hard-working citizens. Every time blind people use a half-fare or
blind discount, they perpetuate the image of the blind as
beggars.
The bus driver who is presented with a half-fare card will
invariably associate blindness with inequality and inability. How
can he think anything else? It is simply not worth the cost.
     The price we pay in public attitudes far outweighs whatever
we
might save in the immediate cost of transportation. There is a
direct link between blind discounts and our economic and social
status. It is no accident that 70% of our nation's working-age
blind are unemployed. The majority of the nation's employers view
the blind as helpless, dependent charity-seekers, rather than
competent, motivated members of the work force and potential
employees.
     Part of being American citizens is sharing in both rights
and
responsibilities. We can never hope to gain equal status in
society
if we are not willing to take on our financial obligations, and
that means paying our fair share along with everybody else. As
long
as we shirk our responsibilities, the blind will remain
second-class citizens with all the misery which that entails.
There
are still no free lunches or free rides--not even for the blind.
We
pay a price for everything we do in life. For the blind as a
minority, the price for half-fares is simply too high.


              MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE BLIND CHILD:
              WHAT IS THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY?
     
        Reprinted from the April, 1990, Braille Monitor.

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

December 18, 1989

Dear Barbara:

     My wife and I had the pleasure of meeting you in May, 1989,
at
a seminar for parents of blind children. We told you about our
blind daughter Laura and our concern that her preschool education
could be affected by state funding cutbacks for the 1989-90
school
year. I am writing now to ask your opinion and advice regarding
what the law entitles Laura to have in terms of her preschool
education.
     Laura turned three years old in November, 1989. She is
performing very well as indicated in the attached Psychological
Report, which was completed by the agency here. Her overall
diagnosis is that she is totally blind but also gifted. All of
this
is great news, but we still have remaining concerns about the
quality of the education being provided by the educational
facility.
     The agency has provided the assistance of both a pre-Braille
skills instructor and a mobility/orientation instructor during
the
1988-89 and 1989-90 school years. This aspect of Laura's
education
has not been affected by any reduced funding. We are very happy
with her progress in these areas. Also, both of the instructors
are
strong advocates of Laura's right to an equal and proper
education.
     The area that we are unhappy with is the general classroom
in
which Laura has been placed. During the 1988-89 school year Laura
attended the local United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) classroom. She
interacted a great deal with the other children. Due to reduced
funding, Laura has been placed for the 1989-90 school year in a
local Project CONNECT classroom that otherwise consists of speech
and hearing impaired children. These children provide very little
audible stimulation for Laura. Also, Laura is functioning at a
much
higher level than the rest of the children. The attached
psychological report notes that Laura is performing at the 97th
percentile compared with sighted children of her age whereas the
other children in the classroom are performing at the 4th
percentile. In fact, the attached report concludes that Laura
would
more appropriately be placed in a preschool setting that serves
children with average or above average verbal and cognitive
skills.
     We met with the agency staff in October, 1989, to review
Laura's situation. At this meeting the responsibility for (1)
finding a suitable preschool classroom for Laura and (2) funding
the preschool tuition was placed with us. We have recently heard
that there is a possibility that the agency may terminate Laura's
eligibility for the Project CONNECT classroom she is now
attending
because there are children with greater needs for the facility.
In
any case the provision of Laura's pre-Braille skills and
mobility/orientation instructors seems secure.
     We want our daughter to be as prepared as possible for
elementary school. We are very pleased that she is doing so well
but also realize that she will need continuing special education
to
maintain her high performance. We look at her needs as absolute
rather than what her needs are relative to other children. The
agency view on this matter appears to be greatly influenced by
its
funding constraint. You can help us by answering the following
questions:

     1. What type of education is the State required to provide
for
Laura by law?
     2. Does the Project CONNECT classroom setting described
above
meet these requirements? Please take into account the disparity
between Laura's functional level and that of her classmates.
     3. Would it be within the law to deny Laura the right to
attend the Project CONNECT classroom even if such denial is for
the
purpose of providing room for a child with greater needs?
     4. Whereas the agency's evaluation concludes that Laura
should
be placed in a normal preschool, is it within the law to place
the
responsibility of finding and funding the appropriate preschool
on
the parents?
     5. How does the law address Laura's situation? Does the law
place primary and fundamental emphasis on her needs as a totally
blind child, or does it also account for her high functional
verbal
and cognitive skills?
     6. What can we do to insure that our daughter's rights to a
proper education are fulfilled?

     Please note that I have certain information concerning the
federal and state laws on this subject. I am seeking an
interpretation of the laws as they might apply to Laura's case. I
am hoping that you can help me understand the law and that I can
therefore be more influential when I deal with the agency in
support of Laura.
     Regretfully, we were unable to attend the recent parents of
blind children seminar in our state. We realize that we could
have
discussed this subject in person at that time. Therefore, we will
especially appreciate your assistance in responding to this
letter.
You may also call me at my work telephone number if it would be
more convenient. I could call you back so that I incur the
telephone charges.
     Thank you very much for your support. We hope that you and
your family have a happy holiday season.

Sincerely,

     
Baltimore, Maryland
January 31, 1990

Dear Mr. and Mrs. ----:

     I have read and re-read your letter many times and have
given
your situation much thought. You raise some important questions,
and you deserve the best answers I can give you.
     First of all, I don't think the primary issue here is what
the
law does or does not provide. Sure, you want to know how it
applies
to your situation, but the fundamental question you have to deal
with is that of your daughter's needs. Only then are you ready to
deal with how to meet those needs. If the law can be used to
support your position, then you'll want to have it enforced
vigorously! If the law is silent on the matter or, worse, has
provisions you don't want enforced, then you will have to use
other
means to get what you need--negotiation, compromise, pulling
strings, using publicity, etc. Of course, if the provision (or
omission) in the law is serious enough, you will also want to get
together with others of like mind and work to get it changed. In
short, you will want to interpret and use (or not use) the law in
a way that will most benefit your daughter. I believe, from the
tone and sense of your letter, that you have the capacity and
determination to do this.
     This brings us back to the fundamental question: what does
your daughter need? Specifically (and I believe I am accurately
reflecting the situation as you have described it in your letter)
should your daughter, who is normal in every way except that she
is
blind and intellectually gifted, remain in a preschool setting
with
children who are functioning at a level far beneath her? And
should
the agency which has been paying for this special preschool
program
find and pay for a regular preschool program (or maybe even a
program for gifted preschoolers, if one exists) for your
daughter?
     I do not think from what you have told me that anyone
involved
believes that your daughter should stay in her current preschool
setting. I certainly don't. It is clear that, not only is there
no
benefit in it for her, but there is a real danger that her
current
abilities and skills will begin to deteriorate as she
unconsciously
begins to imitate the children around her. She needs to be with
peers who will challenge and stimulate her.
     The preschool is only muddying the waters by telling you
that
your daughter should leave the program to make room for a child
who
needs it more. You are absolutely right that the question of
other
children's needs should have nothing to do with making a decision
about what your daughter needs--including whether the program is
right for her.
     So why did they bring it up? Wouldn't the assessment stand
by
itself? If it was a strategy to get you to agree to the
assessment,
it obviously backfired--as it would with just about any parent I
know. I think they brought it up for the same reason that in the
old fable the scorpion stung the fox. The scorpion had convinced
the fox to carry him over the river. Right in the middle he stung
the fox. As they both sank to their death the fox asked why he
had
done it. The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it. It's in my
nature." It seems to be the nature of institutions to be
primarily
concerned with what's best for the institution.
     What do you suppose the agency would recommend if the
program
your daughter is in were in danger of closing its doors for lack
of
students? Let's suppose that nothing else had changed--your
daughter had the same abilities and the same needs--the only
difference was the level of demand for the program. Don't you
suppose they would find compelling reasons why your daughter
should
stay in the program for a few more months or maybe even another
year?
     Given the nature of institutions, my question to you is
this:
Do you really want to give an agency, which has demonstrated that
your daughter's needs and welfare are secondary to its own, the
power to select a preschool program for her? Think about it. Who
cares more about your daughter, you the parents or the
professionals? True, you will not always know what is best for
her,
but neither will the professionals. That's why you should always
be
in charge. Very often parents of blind children, out of ignorance
or insecurity, allow professionals to take over and make
decisions
that are both the right and the responsibility of the parents.
     Another way to think about the situation is to ask yourself,
"If my daughter were sighted, would I want a governmental agency
to
have the right, regardless of my desires and best judgment, to
select a preschool program for her?" This question is based on
the
presumption--or philosophy if you will--that the average blind
person can live and compete on an equal basis with the sighted,
exercising the same rights and responsibilities.
     If the parents of the average sighted preschooler are
expected
to select and pay for a preschool program in your state, then so
should the parents of an average blind child. If state or federal
funds subsidize preschool programs for low-income families, then
the blind preschooler of a low-income family has the same right
to
attend that program as any sighted child who qualifies. (The
Headstart program, by the way, has a mandate to serve disabled
children. I have known of several low-income blind children who
attended Headstart programs successfully.) If a school has a
program for gifted and talented children, then the gifted and
talented blind child has the same right to participate as his or
her sighted peers. The same rule applies for any other public or
community program you can think of--YMCA swimming lessons,
scouting, school field trips, church choir, and so forth. Blind
adults or children should not be excluded just because they are
blind, but neither should they expect special favors.
     I understand that this philosophy is not as simple to
implement as I have perhaps made it sound. First of all blind
children do have unique needs which require special services.
Blind
people (for the most part) cannot read print or cannot read it
efficiently and therefore need an alternative system for reading
and writing. Braille is the answer to that need. But because
Braille is not used by the public at large, it requires special
instruction from a teacher trained in the method. The same is
true
for independent travel. Again, the alternative technique (use of
the long white cane) should be taught by someone who knows how to
travel independently with the cane. There are many other
alternative techniques which a blind child needs to learn, such
as
methods for cooking, shopping for clothes, putting on make-up,
doing research in a library, cleaning house, doing the laundry,
or
fixing a leaking faucet. A few of those skills, such as Braille
and, to a lesser extent, cane travel, require specialized
instruction. Most are a matter of common sense and will be taught
at home just as they are to any other child.
     The question then is whether the use of alternative
techniques
changes our expectations of blind people. Does it alter our
philosophy regarding the normality and equality of the blind?
History has demonstrated that it does not. This philosophy, as
articulated by the National Federation of the Blind, has been
tested by thousands of blind people over several decades now, and
it works. The blind have found that the means by which a blind
child or adult accomplishes something may be different, but the
end
result should measure up to what we would expect from the
sighted.
     "The Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment for the Blind,"
by Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, is one of the best articles I have ever
read on the subject of the rights, responsibilities, and special
needs of the blind. Although this article was written some years
ago and much has changed in the meantime, the principles he laid
down then are as relevant today as they were at the time of their
writing. With this letter, I am enclosing that article as well as
a speech by Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, "Blindness--The Pattern of
Freedom." Dr. tenBroek was the founder of the National Federation
of the Blind, and Dr. Jernigan is the current Executive Director
of
our organization.
     Let me now go back for a moment to the question you raise in
your letter about who should find and pay for a regular preschool
for your daughter--the agency or the parents. Basically I believe
that parents of blind children should do whatever is expected of
other parents. For most regular preschool programs that means
digging into our own pockets. I have three children, two sighted
and one blind. We selected and paid the fees for preschool
programs
for all three of them. Our blind son attended a private
Montessori
program because we thought it would be more challenging for him.
(He is also considered gifted and currently takes special classes
offered to all gifted sixth graders at the public school he now
attends.)
     By the way, I do concede that there may be situations in
which
an agency should pay for the average blind child to attend a
regular preschool. Even so, parents should always carefully weigh
the costs, and I don't just mean dollars and cents. We have all
heard the adages about purse strings and power and how nothing in
life is free. That doesn't mean we should never accept services
and
materials for our children that are needed and are
available--especially if they are from public programs supported
by
our tax dollars--only that we should always be aware of the full
price we are paying.
     I have one more comment to make about blindness and the
education of blind children. In your letter you say that "[we]
realize that [Laura] will need continuing special education to
maintain her high performance." If you mean by this that your
daughter needs instruction in the alternative techniques of
blindness and the means of getting materials in a form she can
use
(such as Braille and taped textbooks), that is certainly
true--but
only up to a point. Eventually she will no longer need Braille
instruction or orientation and mobility. At least by the time she
enters college, she will no longer need anyone else to order her
Braille and taped books or run interference with a skeptical
teacher or professor. She will do it herself. She will know how
to
find and train her own readers and get wherever she needs to go
without the help of parents or professionals. She will do her own
laundry, cook her own meals, manage her own career, pay her own
taxes, and probably raise some grandchildren for you.
     There are those, however, who believe that the disability of
blindness is so profound and pervasive that a blind person must
rely upon lifelong assistance from professionals in order to
achieve maximum independence. A great many professionals believe
this; members of the public believe it; and, though their numbers
are decreasing, there are blind people who believe it. Parents of
young blind children are especially vulnerable to this false
philosophy. It is easy for us to become dependent upon the
professionals who are there when we most need someone to provide
us
with help, hope, and guidance. Not only do we become dependent
upon
them, but we develop a distorted perspective about how and why
our
children learn. We often discount the role we play as the child's
natural teacher and overlook the part played by his or her own
innate will and drive to learn. Instead, we begin to believe that
only the professionals can hold the key to the blind child's
success in life, but that just isn't the way it works!
     I think most people fall somewhere between these two
philosophies of blindness. I know I do. But since everything in
the
world is constantly changing, parents will not stay in one place
on
that spectrum. We will be moving toward either one view or the
other. We will either come to believe more and more in the
normality and equality of the blind, or we will become more
convinced that blindness is a profound limitation.
     As I look again at your letter, I realize that I have
probably
not answered your questions in the way that you expected, but I
have given you, as I promised, the best answers I could. Please
get
in touch with me if you have questions or want to discuss any
part
of this letter. You can call me at home or at the National
Federation of the Blind office, (410) 659-9314.

Cordially yours,
Barbara Cheadle, Editor
Future Reflections
National Federation of the Blind


      PARENT LEADS THE WAY IN ORGANIZING LOCAL NFB CHAPTER

From the Editor: In the winter of 1983 the Cheadle family moved
from Missouri to Idaho. We took two infants with us; our
nine-month-old daughter, Anna Katherine Roberts Cheadle, and a
thriving one-year-old publication, Future Reflections. Both
continued to grow and flourish for the two years we lived in
Idaho.
It was also while we lived in Idaho--July of 1983 to be
precise--that the Parents of Blind Children Division of the
National Federation of the Blind was organized at our National
Convention.
     We (the National Federation of the Blind of Idaho) did our
part to help our new national parent division grow. We worked
diligently to locate parents of blind children in the state. The
National Federation of the Blind offers so much to parents; a
positive philosophy about blindness that really works, support,
information, advocacy, role models, etc.; but all this doesn't
mean
much unless parents know about us. Anyway, we never organized a
parent group in Idaho, but we began to be known and recognized by
parents not only as the expert in blindness, but as an
organization
that really cares.
     All of this is by way of introduction to the following
article
which appeared in the April 1, 1992, Mountain Home News, Mountain
Home, Idaho. The original title (which is rather typical of the
sentimental human interest slant journalists tend to give to any
story about blindness) does not do the content of the article
justice. (The newspaper title is: "A Light In The Darkness.
4-year-old girl's smile lights up a world she can't see.")
     As I read the article, I was reminded of a young blind
college
student I had met when we lived in Idaho. The student had
explained
to me why he had joined the Federation and why he was
particularly
interested in being active in the parents division. His reason
was
basically selfish, he said. He wanted a better life for himself,
and the Federation was opening doors and creating opportunities
that would make that possible. And his interest in helping
parents
came from his own experiences as a blind child. Though he loved
his
parents, and knew that they had done the best they could, his
life
then and now, he explained, could have been so much different if
only his parents had known about the Federation. He couldn't go
back in time and change his own childhood, but he could tell
parents of blind children today about the National Federation of
the Blind.
     Now, almost ten years later as reported in this local
newspaper, an Idaho parent of a blind child is reaching out in
her
community to tell blind persons of all ages about the National
Federation of the Blind. What goes around, as they say, comes
around.
     Both of these people--the blind college student and the
mother
in the following article--exhibit one of the characteristics of a
Federationist: enlightened self-interest. Federationists
understand
that it is only in a climate of equal opportunity and social
acceptance for all blind persons that any one individual blind
person can ever truly succeed. Because of Joann Grimmett the
blind
of Idaho, and yes, the blind of the nation, have a brighter
future.
Through the National Federation of the Blind, individual efforts
can make a difference! Here is the article from Mountain Home,
Idaho:

     She twisted her curly blonde hair with her small hands and
wiggled in her mom's lap, worried about when she was going to get
to go to school. Four-year-old Marian Grimmett's shy smile became
a broad grin as she reached over and stroked the beard of the
reporter questioning her.
     "She really likes men with beards," her mother, Joann
Grimmett, said.
     Without reaching out to feel it, however, Marian would not
have known it was there. The small white cane in her hand
explained
why. Marian is blind.
     When she was two months old she was diagnosed as having
cancer
of the eyes. At the age of four months, surgery took one eye from
her. The other was subjected to extensive radiation treatments.
Today, she can see at 20 feet what others can see at 800 feet.
She
is legally and practically blind.
     "You wind up verbalizing everything to her, that's probably
why I rattle on so much when I talk," Mrs. Grimmett said. "For
her
to get a picture of anything, you have to describe it."
     Yet, to this point in her life, Marian says she's missed
nothing. She has scores of friends at Children's House Montessori
School in Mountain Home, where she receives a pre-school
education.
On the playground, the children line up to play with her, almost
fighting over the opportunity to help her. With her small white
cane and the heightened senses of awareness the blind develop,
however, she rarely needs the help as she heads for her favorite
playground equipment. Her smile is quick, her laughter bright.
     "They treat me like everybody else," Marian says. Her mother
smiles. "They treat her like a queen."
     Supplementing the instruction she receives at Children's
House
is an itinerant teacher from the Gooding School for the Deaf and
Blind, who visits her home on a regular basis. She's already
begun
to learn her ABCs in Braille and said she enjoys reading with her
fingers.
     Next year, she will enter kindergarten in the Mountain Home
School District, becoming the third student with severe vision
impairments to be attending the district (the other two are much
older). Some district officials admit it will be a challenge for
them when Marian enters kindergarten at West Elementary, but they
are already preparing to receive her. An aide will be hired and
trained to help her visualize some of the things the other
students
will be seeing (the aide also will be available to the other
students in the class) and the Gooding School will translate all
of
her textbooks into Braille for her.
     "They (the school district) are trying to do all they can
within the limits they've got," Mrs. Grimmett said.
     But Grimmett also is fighting for the rights of the blind
and
awareness of their needs. "A totally blind person can do anything
except drive," she said, "yet 70 percent of the blind who are
capable of working are unemployed."
     At the recent state convention for the National Federation
of
the Blind of Idaho, held in Moscow March 20-22, Mrs. Grimmett
received the Frank Smith Memorial Award for her efforts "to help
the blind in her efforts to achieve their goals." It was the
first
time the award had ever been given to a sighted person.
     She said she returned to Mountain Home from the convention
with a "new determination to try to organize the blind, visually
impaired, and those interested in these people into a local
organization.
     "If we have enough people in Mountain Home that are
interested
in beginning a local chapter of the NFBI, or who just want some
more information, I hope they will show up at a meeting we are
having April 20 at 7 p.m. at the Mountain Home Public Library."
     Ramona Walhof, NFBI president, will be present to speak to
those in attendance. For more information about the meeting or
for
assistance with a ride call her at 587-4002 in the evenings.
     "One of the reasons I want to start this group, is so Marian
can have older blind people around her, as role models, more than
she would have just going with me to conventions."
     Mrs. Grimmett hopes to take Marian to the national NFB
convention at the end of June, and will be raising funds to help
pay for the trip. Mrs. Grimmett said she has learned a lot about
the blind since she began her associations with them, but the one
thing that has struck her the most is that "the average sighted
person has been taught from early childhood many misconceptions
concerning the blind.
     "Blind people, like sighted people, come in all different
shapes, sizes and styles, as do sighted people. And like sighted
people they develop their abilities in their own ways. One cannot
compare all sighted people into one grouping, nor can they do so
for the blind."
     "Some of the experiences the blind go through, are just
appalling," she said, relating a case where, when visiting the
BSU
Student Union with several blind youths, a guide directed them to
a freight elevator to take them to the third-floor conference.
"After we got there, we discovered there were regular elevators
we
could use."
     She said she was "appalled" to discover that there are no
state or federal competency standards for Braille instructors.
"Very often, the teacher of a blind student is only one or two
lessons ahead of their students. I don't know any sighted
children
with this kind of teaching situation."
     She said her goal is to fight the discrimination that exists
regarding the blind and to build public awareness of their needs
and capabilities. She is trying to build a better world for her
daughter and all others like her. Behind her, as she spoke,
Marian's giggling laughter could be heard as she headed into
class
with her fellow students. So far, Marian hasn't seen the barriers
ahead of her.


             WHY I THINK PARENTS SHOULD BE PARTNERS
             IN THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
                       by Sandra Jacobson

Editor's Note: Why should parents attend the National Convention
of
the National Federation of the Blind? Over the years I have
discovered that the answers to that question are always the same,
yet always different and new as each parent encounters the
convention experience for the first time. Here is what Sandra
Jacobson of Minnesota has to say about what the 1992 NFB
Convention
meant to her and her son.

     I am a parent of three beautiful children, one of whom is
blind. Blind since birth, Jacob is now fourteen years old. He is
attending junior high and is in the eighth grade.
     When my husband and I were told that our son was blind we
knew
it would not change our love or our goals for his life. Our plans
remained the same.
     Little did we know that society--including some friends and
family members--would not have the same attitude. I could share
numerous stories about situations in which we have encountered
the
misconceptions of blindness held by doctors, teachers, coaches,
schools, friends, and even family. Let me share two of those
experiences with you.
     Last summer I arrived early at camp with 22 children who
were
looking forward to a week of training, singing, swimming, water
skiing, boating, etc. Jacob, a normal fourteen-year-old, was
looking forward to the week's activities, not as a spectator but
as
a participant. We were met by the camp director, and he informed
us
that the "handicap" would be staying in the dorm instead of with
his sighted friends in the cabin. I immediately asked Jacob if he
wanted to stay in the cabin or in the handicapped dorm. Jacob, of
course, wanted to be with his friends. I explained to the
director
that I had purposely arrived early to give all the children time
to
orient themselves to the camp and also to give Jacob a chance to
orient himself to the necessary buildings. After much
embarrassment
to all of us, the director reluctantly said he would permit Jacob
to stay in the cabin along with the rest of his friends. For the
next hour he followed us all around the camp watching Jacob. The
time finally came for me to leave. After all the trouble with the
camp director, I was an emotional wreck. I constantly worried
about
Jacob and often wondered throughout the week if he was being
treated with fairness and dignity.
     A few weeks later, I sat with Jacob in the Orthodontic
office
as he got braces put on his teeth. The assistant called me over
to
give me instructions on brushing, flossing, and putting on rubber
bands, as if I was the one who was getting braces! I had to
inform
her that Jacob had been taking care of his own teeth since he was
five years old. Again, I was angry, frustrated, and full of
self-pity for hours after this incident.
     I understand now that stories like these are the same for
all
blind individuals, just different places with different people.
This is why it is important to be a part of a network of people
who
have faced challenges and conquered situations that you may also
be
experiencing. That's why attending the 1992 National Federation
of
the Blind Convention in North Carolina this past July was just
the
answer to my prayers. It was a wonderful experience for Jacob. He
met new friends, participated in the talent contest, attended
many
great informative seminars, played games, and attended many
social
gatherings. But most of all he met many blind successful students
and professionals. I would like to say a special "Thanks!" to:
Scott LaBarre, Curtis Chong, Brian Buhrow, John Miller, Russell
Anderson, Chaz Cheadle, and Ollie Cantos. You gave Jacob a very
much-needed confidence in himself.
     For myself, I believe I received much more than Jacob. For
me,
the National Convention was an emotional healing. Logically, I
can
handle the problems that our society puts on Jacob and other
blind
persons. As described in the stories above, I have always stood
up
for Jacob and tried to educate people about blindness. But I
would
always come home from such incidents an emotional mess; angry,
crying, and full of doubt, fear, and self-pity. I know that
because
of these feelings, I did not always come across well in these
encounters. I'm sure I was viewed as hostile, strident, and
emotional. But I couldn't help it. I was full of fear of the
future
for my son and doubt that Jacob really could have a chance to
live
a full life. And the self-pity came from wondering why I always
had
to be the one to instruct and convince not only the public of
Jacob's abilities, but also the professionals. I thought
they--the
professionals--were here to help us through situations!
     This is where the National Federation of the Blind came in
for
me. I discovered I wasn't alone. I witnessed thousands of blind
people helping each other and educating the sighted. Everyone
there--blind people and parents--had all gone through the same
situations our family had encountered. I came home from the
Convention well-informed and ready for anything. Most of all, the
National Federation of the Blind Convention brought to me a
wonderful and much needed faith and encouragement.
     Now when I run into situations like the two I just described
earlier, I do not get angry or cry in frustration. Emotionally, I
have accepted the challenge to do my part to educate society to
the
fact that the blind are normal people who, if given the chance,
can
lead perfectly normal lives in our society today.
     This is why I believe every parent of a blind child should
become a partner with the National Federation of the Blind. We
need
to pull together, parents. The NFB and the NFB Parents of Blind
Children Division can bring you and your child the emotional
support that is necessary to face the demands and challenges of
being blind in today's society.
     I hope to see you in Dallas, Texas, in 1993!!!!


                    A REPORT ON HOMESCHOOLING
                     by Sunny Shain Emerson

Editor's Note: I recently received the following letter and
report
from Sunny Emerson, who is completing her first year
homeschooling
their son, Adam, who happens to be blind. This is also her first
year as chairperson of the Parents of Blind Children Division of
the NFB Committee on Homeschooling the Blind Child. Sunny would
be
glad to share information, answer questions, and generally assist
parents of blind children who are homeschooling or are
considering
doing so. Here is how you may contact her: Mrs. Sunny Shain
Emerson, 11951 Burtley Drive, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313;
(313) 739-0014.
     
January 18, 1993

Dear Barbara,

     I am sending you a copy of Adam's activities for the month
of
December homeschooling report. We are enrolled in Clonlara Home
Based Education Program. They do not tell us what to teach but
share with us the requirements needed to graduate from high
school.
They have Adam's school records from his other schools; thus our
state has not questioned why Adam was not in school. Also, before
we took Adam out of school we told the special educators of the
visually impaired that we no longer needed an IEP.
     Adam is working on the 9th grade level, and as long as he
meets the requirements needed for a diploma, Clonlara will issue
one. There are many, many resources for homeschoolers and more
activities and things to do than we can possibly fit in.
     [As chairperson of the POBC Committee on Homeschooling], I
have had questions from parents of blind children who want to
homeschool their children in the early elementary grades. As this
is our first year with Adam and he already has the skills of
blindness, these parents need to be in contact with other parents
who are successfully home-schooling their blind children.
     I have told them everything they need to know can be found
in
the back issues of Future Reflections and our Handbook for
Itinerant and Resource Teachers of Blind and Visually Impaired
Students. But as you know, nothing beats personal contact with
someone who is successful at what you are doing. That is why the
National Federation of the Blind has always been a blessing to
our
family.
     Our POBC of Michigan is going strong and we have an
enthusiastic new president, Dawn Neddo, who brings with her much
experience due to her in- volvement with foster parenting. We
will
be putting out a new newsletter soon, and you will see in it all
the good things happening for blind children in our state because
of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. Our blind
adults in the NFB are so supportive to our parents, and they
genuinely love our children.

See you in Dallas,
Sunny

Adam Emerson:
December, 1992, Monthly Report

     Since November, 1992, Adam has read 27 books. Some--such as
Quarks to Quasars by James Jesperson and Asimov on
Chemistry--more
than once. We are enclosing a book list of the books he read
during
November and December. As you will notice Adam has taken quite an
interest in electronics recently and is busy trying to collect
items to take apart for their electronic components.
     Adam did a report on Louis Pasteur, a biography on Spurgeon,
completed studies on nutrition, and continues his grammar course
by
mail from Hadley School for the Blind. We may contact the teacher
from Hadley anytime between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on a toll-free
phone line. We try to read and write Braille every day even
though
Adam can now handle print much better with his new telescope
glasses. Adam has two slate-mates (Braille pen-pals) in Arizona
and
in Michigan. He also started a home-school student newspaper
group
that put out a December edition.
     Adam has music most every day. He practices vocal solos and
piano specials for church on a regular basis. He also conducts a
children's group from time to time and leads them in singing
while
playing the piano.
     We attend a homeschool group biology class (graciously
offered
in the home of a very knowledgeable family) every Friday and have
many, many hours of homework to do during the week. We also often
attend art classes with this very talented family and have many
fun
field trips.
     On Tuesday afternoons we attend an Algebra class offered at
the home of another homeschool family with a retired Physics
professor as instructor. Adam uses the Alge-Blaster computer
program, a Milliken workbook and a John Saxon algebra textbook
(for
tests and a resource) to compliment his regular work in
Elementary
Algebra, a text by Auvil and Poluga.
     For Christmas Adam received a new hard drive for his
computer
and has spent hours installing it while listening to talking book
tapes.
     Adam has a busy social life and enjoyed attending the play
"The Greatest Christmas Pageant Ever," a progressive dinner, and
two concerts during December. He went roller-skating as well. We
also have a large family--four married siblings with children,
grandmothers, a great-grandmother, and many aunts, uncles and
cousins--with which we visited during the holidays.
     Adam cut the Christmas tree, washed windows, baked Mom's
birthday cake, made ornaments, decorated the house inside and
out,
wrapped presents, and went to Lakeside Mall to do his shopping by
himself. He also helped Dad with the church treasurer's job by
doing the computer operations (his Dad knows little about
computers).
     There are probably things I left out, December was such a
busy
month.


                     POWER--OR EMPOWERMENT?
                        by James H. Omvig

Reprinted from News and Views of Blind Arizonans, The NFB of
Arizona newsletter, Summer, 1992.

News and Views Editor's note: James H. Omvig is an attorney. He
was
the first blind lawyer ever employed by the National Labor
Relations Board. He worked for that agency both in Washington, D.
C., and New York City. Later, he became professionally involved
in
vocational rehabilitation and served as Director of the Iowa
Adult
Orientation and Adjustment Center for the Blind, the Director of
Social Security's Handicapped Employment Program, and finally as
the Director of the Alaska Center for the Blind and Deaf, before
retiring to Arizona because of chronic ill health.

     Recently I was putting together some information and ideas
while preparing for a training presentation I was invited to make
to the staff of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. As I was
thinking about the question of how best the staff of that agency
could serve its consumers to make sure that they could reasonably
expect to experience quality lives, I was struck by the thought
that I might have a clear contradiction in my own notions about
service providers.
     To set up the situation exactly as it was when I was
troubled
by my own thoughts, let me give you this additional piece of
information: We in Arizona have been working for three years,
now,
on the issue of literacy for our blind children. At the very time
I was preparing for the New Mexico presentation, we were working
with the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind on a policy
regarding Braille literacy. Some of the "professionals" from this
state had shown up en masse to oppose the proposed policy.
     These were the type of professionals the blind have come to
know all too well--those who exude arrogance and condescension
toward the blind and who belong to that elite corps of
specialists
who vehemently tell us, "Don't trouble us with the facts; we know
what is best for you!" These are the people who have actually
convinced themselves that there is a new, complicated and very
sophisticated science involved in the routine tasks of work with
the blind. It seems virtually to be a disease which runs rampant
among them.
     "We know what is best for you." It was this tiresome and
oppressive concept, then, which was on my mind as I was
developing
the presentation for the New Mexico agency staff. And then the
apparent contradiction struck me: The good agencies or the good
educational institutions or the good specialists for the blind
really DO know what is best for the client or student--they have
to. For the student or client who is new to the system has no
reason to know and truly has no idea what kind of service or
training is needed.
     Think about it! The new student or client doesn't know about
the wide range of possibilities which exist for the blind who
have
had proper training. He or she must be taught and often persuaded
by someone who does know. The new client or student doesn't know
why it is so very important in the adjustment process to use the
word "blind" rather than some inane and injurious word or phrase
such as sightless, unsighted, hard of seeing, or visually
impaired.
He or she must be persuaded by someone who truly knows and
understands the importance of the client's acceptance of
blindness.
The newly blinded adult doesn't know that prevocational training
in
a residential orientation center is always preferable to training
in a daytime-only program.
     This blind individual who is new to the system does not know
why it is important to use the long, white cane; why sleepshades
are necessary for the partially blind person during training; or
why Braille and other alternative techniques are so important.
Someone who really knows and cares must convince the blind person
of these and a myriad of other facts and truths.
     All of the foregoing is the way that it is. And often, of
course, all of this persuasion and convincing must be
accomplished
in spite of the stubborn resistance of the blind student or
rehabilitant involved.
     So there you have the apparent conflict. What is the
difference between the proper action I have described here and
the
attitude of the professionals who say, "We know what is best for
you?" Clearly there IS a difference--an enormous difference! As I
wrestled with this question, I came up with two explanations. I
decided, though, to put it on hold and to raise the question with
the New Mexico staff as a part of the training presentation.
     We had quite a discussion. We decided first of all that one
factor in the difference had to do with the source of the
information which was being provided to the blind student or
client. The ideas about training which work most effectively are
those which have been developed and tested by the blind
themselves.
Therefore, we agreed that these concepts would tend to have much
more validity than those conjured up in some university
laboratory
and that it is proper to present these ideas forcefully to the
client or student.
     We finally agreed, though, that the major ingredient
involved
in the difference has to do with the actual motive of the
educator
or rehabilitator. If the intention of the specialist is truly and
solely to help the blind individual achieve success, then the
action or attitude is proper.
     It was Dick Davis of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind
who put it all into perspective for us. "It has to do with the
difference between power and empowerment," explained Mr. Davis.
     This statement made it all come crystal clear. When the
pseudo-scientists who like to call themselves "professionals"
exercise their "we know what is best for you" attitude, they do
so
for the sole purpose of exerting power over the blind and
maintaining intact their superiority and new-found science. They
could care less what actually happens to the blind person.
     On the other hand, when the good educator or rehabilitator
works vigorously to convince the blind person to get involved in
proper training and positive thinking, he or she is acting
correctly where the effort is for the sole purpose of empowering
the blind person.
     I checked the dictionary for the meaning of empowerment, and
I wasn't totally satisfied with what I found. It says, "To give
power or authority to." This is all right as far as it goes, but
I
believe that in today's usage the meaning is broader.
     I think that, for the blind, the meaning would probably be
something like this: A service provider may be said to "empower"
the blind individual to the extent that that person is equipped
with the tools--the knowledge, the skills, the motivation and the
self-confidence--which are necessary to enable him or her to take
charge and to make sound judgments and decisions based upon fact,
skill and ability so that the blind person can be the best that
he
or she is capable of becoming. The quality program knows what it
takes, and it also knows how properly to involve the blind
individual.
     In trying to achieve this desired objective, if the
specialist
approaches the blind only for the purpose of exercising power,
then
this is always wrong no matter what the outcome. On the other
hand,
if the specialist does what he or she does honestly for the sole
purpose of empowering the blind person, then it is always right
no
matter what happens.
     The New Mexico agency is on the mark and, as a result, blind
people in that state are on the move. I earnestly hope that we
are
approaching that day when the vast majority of those in work with
the blind will truly act only for the purpose of empowerment--no
axes to grind, no pseudo-science to which to give validity, no
wounded pride to protect.
     All persons who are blind should have not only the right but
also the essential tools with which to take charge. The quality
agency or school knows how to make all of this happen.
     No, there is no contradiction in thinking about the role of
quality service providers. But there surely is a monumental
difference between those who would exercise power and those who
seek to empower.


      1991-1992 BRAILLE READERS ARE LEADERS CONTEST WINNERS

The following students were top winners in the 1991-1992 National
Federation of the Blind Braille Readers are Leaders Contest. This
nationwide contest recognizes the reading accomplishments of
Braille students from kindergarten through 12th grades throughout
the nation. Students who enter the contest compete for cash
prizes
and a special contest T-shirt. All contestants receive a ribbon
and
a certificate in recognition of their efforts in the contest. The
number of pages read by the following winners is a testament to
what Braille students can achieve when they have the enthusiasm
and
motivation to read. Long after their prize money has been spent,
their T-shirts outgrown or outworn, their ribbons tucked away
forgotten in a scrapbook, they will still be reading. This skill
will continue to open doors of opportunity and pleasure
throughout
their lives.

Kindergarten-First Grade

First place: Cassie Lucarelli, Madison, WI; 4,539 pages. 
Second place: Gabriela Gonzalez, Las Vegas, NV; 3,231 pages.
Third place: Arielle Silverman, Scottsdale, AZ; 2,701 pages.

Second-Fourth Grade

First place: James Konechne, White Lake, SD; 8,838 pages.
Second place: Jennifer Espinoza, Albuquerque, NM; 7,623 pages.
Third place: Blake Earl Roberts, Felton, DE; 7,405 pages.

Fifth-Eighth Grade 

First place: Travis Roth, Dorchester, NE; 6,056 pages.
Second place: David Mehler, Uniontown, OH; 5,896 pages.
Third place: Wes Derby, Scotts Bluff, AZ; 5,602 pages.

Ninth-Twelfth Grade

First place: April Swaim, Arlington, TX; 10,013 pages.
Second place: Chastity Morse, Coon Rapids, MN 6,715 pages.
Third place: Jennifer Baker, Rockville, MD; 5,416 pages.

Print-to-Braille

First place: Joshua Jungwirth, Ishpeming, MI; 1,475 pages.
Second place: Heidi Ward, Hanson, MA; 1,297 pages.
Third place: Gina Bunting, Fort Meade, MD; 1,264 pages.

Most Improved Winners: 

     The intent of this award is to recognize those who have
shown
the greatest improvement in Braille reading from their
performance
in the previous year's contest. The top five (excluding those who
qualify as winners in the other categories) are selected as the
Most Improved Winners. 

Karen Johnson, Muskegon, MI.
Rebecca Hart, Springfield, VA.
Annette Harvey, Baltimore, MD.
Melissa Keys, Stephenville, TX.
Paul Jackson, Baltimore, MD.

Note: The 1992-1993 contest ended in February.  The final judging
and
selection of winners for the contest will occur in late April,
1993. 

     The 1993 -1994 Braille Readers are Leaders contest form will
be
published in Future Reflections this coming Fall.


                    VBTI'S STORYBOOK PROJECT
                        by Mary Ann Damm

From the Editor: Over ten years ago when the Parents of Blind
Children Division and the National Association to Promote the Use
of Braille were discussing the possibility of co-sponsoring a
national Braille reading contest, one problem was raised: the
lack
of reading material for very young blind children. The board
debated whether, for this reason, children in kindergarten
through
second grade should be included in the contest. We finally
decided
that we had to include them. We knew getting books would be a
problem, but perhaps this would help educate parents, teachers,
and
others about the urgent need for more Braille books for beginning
readers. If more people in the right places were made aware of
the
problem, perhaps we could get more Braille books for youngsters. 
Today, thanks to a number of public and private national programs
and dozens of state and local efforts, we do have more Braille
books for beginning Braille readers than ever before. I believe
that our contest has helped make that possible, but the
connection
is not always direct or easily identified. I was delighted, then,
when I came across this article in the Fall, 1992, (volume 28,
number 3) NBA Bulletin, a publication of the National Braille
Association, Inc. No longer do we need to speculate about the
impact the Braille contest has had on the increase of Braille
books
for children, not in Wisconsin anyway. Here is the article:

     Three factors led to the initiation of The Storybook Project
at Volunteer Braillists and Tapists, Inc., (VBTI) Madison,
Wisconsin. First, while working as a Braillist in the public
schools, I observed the difficulty that the students encountered
in
getting books while competing in the National Federation of the
Blind's (NFB) annual reading contest. Second, Connie Risjord and
I
attended a meeting at the State's Department of Public
Instruction
(DPI) where we learned that there were over 200 visually impaired
pre-schoolers in Wisconsin. Finally, while at the NBA meetings in
Atlanta and Lansing, I attended Susan Christensen's storybook
workshops.
     Since VBTI already had a lending library, I went through our
files to see what children's books were available. To my
surprise,
there were over 250 titles. Unfortunately, they seemed to be a
secret not only to me, but also to parents and teachers. I
updated
the list, dividing it into categories of children's fiction,
children's non-fiction, and teenager's books. New descriptions
were
written, and a catalog was compiled. DPI was contacted, and
agreed
to copy and send the catalog to parents of visually impaired
students in Wisconsin.
     I also attended a meeting of the Wisconsin chapter of AER
(Association for Eduction and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
Visually Impaired) in order to reach the teachers to tell them
about our lending library and about our willingness to put their
materials into Braille and/or tape. The Wisconsin Council for the
Blind, as well as the National Library Service Regional Library
in
Milwaukee and the state school in Janesville publicized our
efforts, as did the local TV stations.
     Our group set a goal of putting 100 new titles into Braille
and tape in the first year. Print/Braille and Braille/tape books
were to be given priority. I held workshops using Susan's
handouts.
Many of the Braillists who had "burned out" or found other
interests eagerly returned to transcribe the children's books. A
monthly Library Hour, when visually impaired children could visit
our offices for a morning of reading and games, was suggested and
implemented. This became an excellent way to see what the
children
were reading and what they wanted to read.
     Since its beginning in the fall of 1990, almost 200 books
have
been added to the library. At Christmas, we offer fifteen to
twenty
books for sale at minimal cost. And if parents bring in a print
book of their own, we will add the Braille labels to the book for
only the cost of the labeling material. 
     Although initially set up for children who are Braille
readers
or potential Braille readers, another group that really
appreciates
the service is blind parents of pre-school children. They want to
read to their children as early as sighted parents do. As one
parent wrote: "As a blind parent, I am always on the lookout for
read-aloud books...the idea of Braille books to accompany
recorded
tapes is a terrific idea for beginning Braille readers. Kids who
read print have had tapes and books for years." An attorney in
New
York City wanted One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish done
quickly so that she could take it with her when she visited her
godson in Alabama. (In fact, we had to send it to Alabama so it
would be there when she arrived.)
     These personal contacts have energized our organization.
These
books are great short-term projects--a welcome respite from
longer
and heavier assignments. It is gratifying to be able to finish a
book in an evening, especially when one knows a child is eagerly
awaiting its completion.
     Besides these psychological benefits, there are others. Our
recruitment numbers are up dramatically. Twelve students are
currently working on their manuscripts, and twenty-one are signed
up for the fall class. We have also trained twenty more tapists.
We
attribute this increase to the fact that we are better known in
the
community because of the publicity that this project has
generated.
There are even financial rewards. The local chapter of the
Telephone Pioneers has "adopted" us and started by giving us
$1,000
to buy print books. They also purchased Hot Dots software to be
used with their word processors at work. During their breaks and
lunch hours, several volunteers type/transcribe books for older
children, ages ten and up. Other groups have donated computers
and
even a used thermofax machine so that we can make encapsulated
paper tactile graphics.
     Certainly the greatest benefit of all is the contact with
the
children themselves. The Library Hour is very popular. We have
made
three books of our own with original tactiles done by the
children--Christmas trees, creepy critters, and activities for
the
summer. And, one of our "regulars" won the national NFB reading
contest this year.
     I personally hate to tear myself away from the children's
books in order to do my Nemeth assignments. Actually, one of
these
assignments--a kindergarten math workbook--was easier to
structure
because of my experience with the tactile graphics done for the
children's books.
     As you can see, The Storybook Project has been a success for
our organization. Thanks, Susan and NBA for your help in getting
it
off the ground!


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
                    1993 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
                        by Barbara Pierce

     If you were a college or graduate student, what could you do
with $10,000, or even $2,000? Tuition, books, rent, adaptive
equipment: the demands are endless, and the money one has
available
never stretches far enough. As the parent of three students, I
know
how unbalanced the equation can be that arranges demands on one
side and resources on the other. And all of us know just how many
more expenses blind students have than most others.
     That is why the National Federation of the Blind established
a scholarship program many years ago and why we expanded it in
1984. For the most part, people do not believe that blind
post-secondary students who have the same dreams as their sighted
counterparts are quite right in the head. If they are so foolish
as
to pursue such fields as international relations, electrical
engineering, or medicine, they are dismissed immediately as "out
of
touch with reality." Even if they major in education, counseling,
or computer science but do not express a burning desire to "help
blind people live more satisfying lives," obstacles are still
often
placed in their paths. 
     We in the National Federation of the Blind begin with the
premise that blind students have as much right as anybody else to
try to fulfill their dreams, and we believe that blindness as
such
is no reason to assume that a given individual cannot do a
designated job or enter a particular profession. The individual
may
not have the intelligence, dexterity, stamina, creativity, or
alternative skills to do the work successfully, and some of these
limitations may well prove insurmountable; but blindness, which
is
so often held up as the obvious explanation, is not really the
culprit.
     The National Federation of the Blind's 1993 scholarship
program seeks to find the twenty-six most outstanding blind
post-secondary students in the United States today and honor them
for their ground-breaking work. We want to help them on their way
as much as we can. These twenty-six students will be selected on
the basis of academic excellence, service to the community, and
financial need (recipients of Federation scholarships need not be
members of the National Federation of the Blind.) We will present
the 1993 winners with awards ranging in value from $2,000 to
$10,000, and we will bring them as our guests to the 1993
convention of the National Federation of the Blind to experience
first-hand the excitement and stimulation of a gathering of the
largest and most dynamic organization of blind people in the
country today.
     Anyone can order scholarship forms from the Materials
Center,
National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230. NFB State Presidents and members of the 1993
Scholarship Committee will also have scholarship forms. These may
be copied as long as both sides of the form are reproduced. Send
completed applications to: Miss Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National
Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue,
Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112; (515) 236-3366. The completed
form
must be received by March 31, 1993. 
     The hard-working 1993 Scholarship Committee will gather in
the
spring to evaluate hundreds of scholarship applications. They
will
also work closely with the scholarship winners during the
convention in Dallas, Texas. The following people have been
appointed to serve on the 1993 Scholarship Committee: Peggy
Pinder,
Iowa, Chairman; Adrienne Asch, New York; Steve Benson, Illinois;
Charles Brown, Virginia; Sharon Buchan, Alaska; Douglas Elliott,
Nevada; Priscilla Ferris, Massachusetts; Michael Gosse,
Pennsylvania; John Halverson, Missouri; Allen Harris, Michigan;
David Hyde, Oregon; Bill Isaacs, Illinois; Carl Jacobson, New
York;
Kristen Jocums, Utah; Susan Jones, Indiana; Tami Dodd Jones,
Michigan; Kathy Kannenberg, North Carolina; Scott LaBarre,
Minnesota; Melissa Lagroue, Alabama; Reggie Lindsey, Tennessee;
Sharon Maneki, Maryland; John Miller, California; Maria Morais,
New
Mexico; Homer Page, Colorado; Barbara Pierce, Ohio; Ben Prows,
Washington; Eileen Rivera, Maryland; Fred Schroeder, New Mexico;
Larry Streeter, Nebraska; C. Edwin Vaughan, Missouri; Ramona
Walhof, Idaho; Jim Willows, California; Joanne Wilson, Louisiana;
Gary Wunder, Missouri; Robin Zook, Utah.

Scholarships to be given at the National Convention in 1993 are
listed here with any special restrictions noted:

     1. Ezra Davis Memorial Scholarship; $10,000; endowed by Ezra
Davis and given by the American Brotherhood for the Blind, a
nonprofit organization which works to assist blind persons. No
additional restrictions.
     2. National Federation of the Blind Scholarships; sixteen to
be given: two for $4,000; five for $2,500; nine for $2,000. No
additional restrictions.
     3. Anne Pekar Memorial Scholarship; $4,000; given in loving
memory of Anne Pekar by her parents, who say "The purpose of the
scholarship is to help others as Anne had tried to do in her
various volunteer endeavors....It is our hope that this small
gesture in her name will remind us of the wonderful things about
Anne and, in particular, her concern about other people and her
desire to help." Winner must be a woman between the ages of 17
and
25.
     4. Melva T. Owen Memorial Scholarship; $3,000; given in
memory
of Melva T. Owen, who was widely known and loved among the blind.
She and her husband Charles Owen became acquainted with
increasing
numbers of blind people through their work in the "Voicepondence"
Club. Charles Owen says: "There shall be no limitation as to
field
of study, except that it shall be directed towards attaining
financial independence and shall exclude religion and those
seeking
only to further general or cultural education."
     5. Howard Brown Rickard Scholarship; $2,500; winner must be
studying or planning to study in the fields of law, medicine,
engineering, architecture, or the natural sciences.
     6. Frank Walton Horn Memorial Scholarship; $2,500; given by
Mr. and Mrs. Charles E. Barnum, the mother and stepfather of
Catherine Horn Randall. No additional restrictions, but
preference
will be given to those studying architecture or engineering.
     7. National Federation of the Blind Humanities Scholarship;
$2,500; winner must be studying in the traditional Humanities
such
as art, English, foreign languages, history, philosophy, or
religion.
     8. National Federation of the Blind Educator of Tomorrow
Award; $2,500; winner must be planning a career in elementary,
secondary, or post-secondary teaching.
     9. Hermione Grant Calhoun Scholarship; $2,000; Dr. Isabelle
Grant endowed this scholarship in memory of her daughter. Winner
must be a woman.
     10. Kuchler-Killian Memorial Scholarship; $2,000; given in
loving memory of her parents, Charles Albert Kuchler and Alice
Helen Kuchler, by Junerose Killian, dedicated member of the
National Federation of the Blind of Connecticut. No additional
restrictions.
     11. Ellen Setterfield Memorial Scholarship; $2,000; given in
memory of Ellen Setterfield by Roy Landstrom, who says: "During
the
course of her life, she gave of herself to defend the dignity and
self-respect of those around her." Winner must be studying social
sciences at the graduate level.


       PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND: 1993 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 

From the Editor: Every year for many years now, members of the
National Federation of the Blind have descended upon Capitol Hill
in Washington, D.C., by the hundreds. The purpose of this
activity
(which we call the "Washington Seminar") is to educate senators
and
members of the House of Representatives about the legislative
needs
and priorities of the blind of the nation. Once again, in
February
of 1993, the tapping of hundreds of white canes echoed in the
halls
of Congress as Federationists scurried to appointments with
congressmen and congresswomen. 
     This year we also had a record number of parents of blind
children among our D.C. seminarians. A special parent leadership
seminar was conducted at the National Center for the Blind in
Baltimore the Friday and Saturday preceding the Sunday, January
31,
kick-off of the Washington Seminar. Half of the dozen parents
attending the leadership seminar stayed over for the D.C. event.
On
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday they joined some 300 blind
Federationists from 44 states in buttonholing their legislators
about the priorities for the blind as described in the following
memo, which was distributed to every legislator or his/her staff.

     Of course, this event was only the beginning of the push for
implementation of these priorities. Much more work needs to be
done, and parents can help make a difference. If you have
questions
about the priorities and/or want to know what you can do to help,
contact your local affiliate of the National Federation of the
Blind. If you do not know how to get in touch with your local NFB
chapter or state affiliate, you can get this information by
contacting: 

National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
(410) 659-9314. 


                     LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 1993

From: Members of the National Federation of the Blind
To: Members of the 103rd Congress
Re: People Who Are Blind: Legislative Priorities for the 103rd
Congress, First Session

     Public policies and laws affecting people who are blind have
a profound impact throughout our society. Most people know
someone
who is blind. It may be a friend, a family member, or a co-worker
on the job. The blind population in the U. S. is estimated to
exceed 700,000. Fifty thousand Americans become blind each year.
By
themselves these numbers may not seem large, but the social and
economic consequences of blindness directly touch the lives of
millions. Less directly, blindness affects us all. 
     People who are blind as a group share a unique struggle.
More
than being a matter of physical disability, the real problems of
blindness are lack of good training, lack of opportunities, and
lack of correct information about blindness among employers and
members of the public at large. If a person who is blind has
proper
training and opportunity, the physical loss of eyesight itself
can
be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance. 
     Public policies and laws that result from misconceptions
about
blindness or lack of information are often more limiting to
people
who are blind than loss of eyesight itself. This is why we have
formed the National Federation of the Blind. The Federation is a
private-sector resource of knowledge, encouragement, and support
for people who are blind and for anyone (blind or not) who wants
to
join in the effort we are making to win understanding and
opportunity. 
     People who are blind are well-organized at the community and
grassroots levels throughout the United States. Our policy
positions are developed and determined by vote of the blind
themselves. This is why the Federation is known by lawmakers and
the public as the "voice of the nation's blind." Our priorities
for
the first session of the 103rd Congress express our assessment of
issues requiring action by Congress on behalf of people who are
blind this year. 

     (1) Congress should amend Title II of the Social Security
Act
to modify or eliminate the limitation on earnings imposed by the
retirement test and apply the modified exempt earnings policy to
persons of working age who are blind as well as to retirees. This
proposal seeks to improve the work incentives provided to Social
Security beneficiaries. Under a 1977 amendment to the Social
Security Act, the same exempt earnings amount--$880.00 monthly,
or
$10,560.00 annually--is allowed for people of working age who are
blind as well as for those who retire at age 65. This proposal
calls for increasing the exempt amount or eliminating the
limitation on earnings altogether.
     People of working age who are blind must not be forgotten as
Congress continues to debate whether changes should be made in
the
Social Security retirement test. A significant relaxation of the
present earnings limitation would encourage thousands of
beneficiaries to increase their work attempts. Those who
successfully find full- or part-time work will pay taxes rather
than simply drawing benefits. The results of their greater
efforts
to be productive will positively affect the Social Security
system,
as well as benefiting the individuals and families involved. A
complete removal of the earnings limitation would provide
beneficiaries with the maximum incentive to work. In any case,
the
statutory linkage which ties the exempt earnings amounts for
retirees and working age people who are blind together should not
be broken and must be consciously kept in mind as the debate over
the future of the earnings test for Social Security eligibility
proceeds. For more details and an explanation of the need for
this
legislation, see the fact sheet entitled "How Persons Of Working
Age Who Are Blind Would Be Affected By Changes In The Social
Security Retirement Earnings Test."

     (2) Congress should Enact the Americans With Disabilities
Business Development Act. This proposal seeks amendments to the
Small Business Act so that programs authorized to assist
minority-owned small businesses, conducted under Section 8 (a) of
the Act, will be open to persons with disabilities. The Section 8
(a) program is designed to foster business ownership by
individuals
who are both socially and economically disadvantaged and to
promote
the competitive viability of businesses owned and operated by
them.
To achieve these goals, Section 8 (a) authorizes the Small
Business
Administration (SBA) to enter into all types of contracts with
government departments and agencies for supply, service,
construction, and research and development. Small business
concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
persons can be eligible to receive subcontracts to fulfill SBA's
procurement obligations. Technical assistance is also made
available to minority small business concerns. 
     This proposal is simply the recognition of disability as a
condition of minority status for participation in SBA's targeted
efforts to provide economic and technical assistance to members
of
minority groups. The social and economic disadvantages which
accompany disabilities are well-known and beyond dispute. The
problem for SBA has been to define disability and the extent of
the
class of individuals included. To resolve that issue, The
Americans
with Disabilities Business Development Act excludes minor or
perceived disabilities from the term "disability," as it is
defined
in the bill. Another problem has been SBA's lack of legal
authority
to presume that people with disabilities are socially
disadvantaged
in the absence of a clear legislative mandate. The Americans with
Disabilities Business Development Act will provide that mandate.
For more details and an explanation of the need for this
legislation, see the fact sheet entitled "Americans With
Disabilities Business Development Act: A Proposal For Business
Ownership And Jobs For People With Disabilities." 

     (3) Congress should control and stabilize postage rates for
nonprofit organizations such as NFB. This request seeks
sufficient
appropriations and support for a permanent legislative remedy to
meet the costs of the United States Postal Service for qualified
free or reduced-rate mailings. Under existing law and
appropriations levels, nonprofit postage rates could be increased
from 11.1 cents per piece for items of letter size to more than
19
cents per piece. An increase of this magnitude would cost the
National Federation of the Blind over $1 million in a single
year.
This cost could not be met by the Federation. 
     Nothing can be more critical to a voluntary, private sector
group of citizens than to have affordable, stable postage rates
for
mass communications. Paying the postal service's commercial rates
for necessary use of the mails would force the National
Federation
of the Blind to dismantle many programs or to cease operations
altogether. Survival for many other groups of importance in our
society would also be threatened. If communications with persons
who are blind and the public at large are cut, a time bomb is
created, since fewer people will understand anything about
blindness and even fewer will know of the continuing need to
help.
Then the downward spiral is in motion, with fewer people helped
and
even fewer people helping. Soon the benefits are gone. This does
not overstate how vulnerable we are to the postal rate crisis if
Congress fails to approve adequate funding. The fact sheet
entitled
"Crisis In Nonprofit Mail Rates Means Serious Harm To People Who
Are Blind" explains the current situation and gives details on
how
members of the 103rd Congress can help. 
     People who are blind are asking for your help in securing
positive action by Congress in the areas outlined here.
Legislative
proposals will be offered to achieve each of our specific
objectives. Many priorities confront this session of Congress,
but
the needs of the nation's people who are blind must not be
overlooked. We of the National Federation of the Blind stand
ready
to assist our Representatives and Senators to understand our
needs
and to take meaningful action to address them. In partnership
with
the National Federation of the Blind, each member of Congress can
help build better lives for people who are blind both today and
in
the years ahead.


    PROS AND CONS OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF BLIND PERSONS
              Address by Professor Jacobus tenBroek
             AAWB Convention, Quebec, June 19, 1955

     The topic of this discussion immediately suggests the
ambivalence, if not the outright hostility, aroused in most of us
by the idea of preferential treatment. If it implies unwarranted
favors and advantages, as it sometimes seems to, how is such
treatment to be justified with reference to the blind, or, for
that
matter, with reference to any group? If the blind are normal, as
they claim, why do they need to be treated differently? If their
objective is really social equality and integration, is it not
true
that preferential treatment serves to perpetuate special status,
with all its connotations of inequality and inferiority? Is there
anything about the problems of the blind or of blindness which
makes necessary or desirable some form of preferential treatment?
"Any class," wrote one blind man, "which demands special
privileges
soon finds itself a dependent class" and "the blind of America
have
developed a progressive disease--that of dependency."
     We espouse the principle, wrote another blind man, "that the
blind are normal and competent people, capable of making their
own
way, on a basis of equality." Yet at the same time, we ask
"special
concessions and privileges on the basis that we are helpless and
unequal." "We cannot have our cake and eat it too and such
measures
and propaganda stressing the inequality of the blind are bound to
have a most damaging effect upon our primary goal of equality."
     Let us begin our analysis of the pros and cons of
preferential
treatment of the blind at the beginning, that is, by defining the
terms used.
     Preferential treatment of the blind is treatment which
singles
out the blind for special favors, advantages, or benefits. In
short, it is any special treatment. Preferential treatment may be
based on an irrational whim, prejudice, or taste--as when one
prefers strawberries instead of blueberries, or as when it is
said
"gentlemen prefer blondes." On the other hand, preferential or
special treatment may be based on the possession by the group
receiving it of some distinctive talents or unique qualities or
peculiar needs having a relationship to a proper public policy or
socially desirable objective.
     There are no pros, there are only cons, with regard to the
preferential treatment of the blind, which is founded in
irrational
whim, prejudice, or taste; and the blind cannot rightly claim,
nor
do they generally want, mere favoritism, public or private, any
more than they claim or want the opposite: discriminatory
disadvantage, guilt-or-shame-motivated rejection,
kindness-inspired
overprotection, or unthinking exclusion. The pros and cons of
preferential treatment founded in special qualities or needs of
the
group depend in each individual instance upon three factors: (1)
upon a faithful determination and accurate evaluation of the
special qualities or needs of the blind; (2) upon a correct
appraisal of the public policy or social objective sought to be
achieved by the particular preferential treatment; and (3) upon
the
adaptation of means to ends, that is, upon whether the means are
proper and there is a close and substantial relationship between
the special qualities and needs of the blind, on the one hand,
and
the policy or objective on the other.
     The other term that must be defined is "the blind." Who are
the blind? What is blindness?
     The term blindness in its literal denotative sense means
loss
of eyesight; the absence of visual acuity. It refers to a
strictly
physical condition. The blind, then, are simply those who cannot
see. Nothing more, nothing less!
     The term blindness, however, also has a wider connotative
sense. In this sense, it refers to restricted social and economic
contact, opportunity and activity. To be stripped of eyesight is
to
be shorn of full-fledged membership in society.
     The difference between the denotative and connotative
meanings
of blindness is exactly that between disability and handicap.
Disability refers to a physical deprivation; handicap to the
social
consequences of that deprivation. The distinction may be seen in
the fact that there are many disabilities which carry little or
no
handicap, such as the chronic laryngitis of Andy Devine, the
undersize of jockeys, or the oversize of basketball players.
Likewise, there are handicaps with no disability, such as the
black
skin of American Negroes or the religion of the Jews in Nazi
Germany. Disability is properly the concern of medical science.
We
can do little about the physical fact of blindness except to cure
it or live with it. But it is not blindness alone that we live
with. We live with the other people, which is to say we live in
society. It is society which creates and imposes the handicap of
blindness, for it consists of the misconceptions of the sighted
about the nature of the physical disability. The principal
misconception, the one that embodies and epitomizes all the rest,
is that blindness means helplessness--social and economic
incapacity; the destruction of the productive powers; the
obliteration of the ability to contribute to or benefit from
normal
community participation; in short, the lingering image of the
helpless blind man.
     Three comments about the social handicap of blindness are
particularly in order: (1) To place responsibility for it upon
the
sighted is not to speak in terms of blame or recrimination. Far
from it! The misconceptions are sanctioned by a society motivated
mainly by benevolence, wishing above all else to be kind and
helpful. (2) Wherever, as happens with increasing frequency, an
individual blind person breaks through the social barriers, his
success is likely to be attributed to his possession of special
genius or compensatory powers either superhuman or supernatural
which leave the overall image of blindness intact. (3) Public
attitudes about the blind inevitably become the attitudes of the
blind. The blind see themselves as others see them. They accept
the
public view of their limitations and thus do much to make them a
reality.
     Most people exaggerate the physical and underemphasize the
social aspect of blindness. Our distinguished and able chairman,
Father Carroll, has defined blindness in terms of twenty lacks
and
losses. I am one of Father Carroll's numerous admirers. But I
admire him more for his willingness to prepare a list than for
the
list he has prepared. It seems to me that he falls prey to the
common fallacy. Note what a large percentage of the items on the
list refers to the physical fact of blindness and its immediate
physical and personal consequences; what a small percentage
refers
to the broadly social. What may be known hereafter as Father
Carroll's Lacks and Losses reads as follows: 1) loss of physical
integrity; 2) loss of confidence in the remaining senses; 3) loss
of reality contact; 4) loss of visual background; 5) loss of
"light"; 6) loss of mobility; 7) loss of visual perception:
beautiful; 8) loss of visual perception: pleasurable; 9) loss of
ease of written communication; 10) loss of ease of spoken
communication; 11) loss of means for informational progress; 12)
loss of recreation; 13) loss of technique, daily living; 14) loss
of career: vocation; goal; job opportunity; 15) loss of financial
security; 16) loss of personal independence; 17) loss of social
adequacy; 18) loss of obscurity, anonymity; 19) loss of
self-esteem; 20) loss of total personality organization.
     I would not have you believe that I under-assess the
importance of the physical disability. Without sight, the range
of
perception is narrowed. Objects which can be seen from afar must
be
near at hand to be discernible by other senses. And the blind
person who has not scuffed his shins on low-lying implements and
toys carelessly left on the sidewalk or stumbled over a curb, or
bumped his head on an overhanging awning or branch has never left
his armchair. These are undeniably embarrassing or uncomfortable
experiences; but they are properly to be classified as minor
annoyances or distractive nuisances like shaving in the morning
or
removing your glass eyes at night. In my experience, blind people
who are willing to move and put one foot out in front of the
other
always somehow get where they want to go.
     In any event, the main point is that the real affliction of
blindness is not the physical disability or its immediate
consequences but the social handicap. It therefore becomes most
important to analyze the precise nature of the handicap. Of what
does it consist? What are the elements which compose it? What
does
it mean to be excluded from society? What are the rights of
membership of which the blind are thus deprived?
     To answer these questions one must identify the main
features
of American society, for it is denial of participation in these
which constitutes the handicap of blindness. The process of
answering the questions therefore is one of re-surveying American
social and political thought and constitution ideals, one of
restating the principles, doctrines, and concepts that are
contained therein.
     The task of restating American social and political
assumptions and goals is complicated by a number of facts and
factors. Major American social and political principles, such as
the dignity of the individual, liberty, equality, and private
property, are so intermingled and overlapping that it is
difficult
to separate any one of them out for single treatment.
     Emphasis on the various elements has shifted at different
periods in our history, in the documents which have embodied and
expressed different movements, forces, and times, and among the
prominent political writers and speakers. Equality was the
dominant
note in the Declaration of Independence. Property assumed
relatively a stronger position in the Constitution. During the
nineteenth century when fortune and geography gave the nation
military safety, and free land and the open frontier gave
individuals a sense of economic safety, security was assumed and
liberty was elevated into a primary position. Today, as Ralph
Henry
Gabriel writes, "When the traditional foundations of culture
crumble, ... when government by law gives way to government by
irresponsible force, the preoccupation with liberty as an end in
itself is replaced by a new search for security, mental, social,
economic, and even physical."1
     Sometimes, indeed, going far beyond mere shifts in emphasis,
the elements are presented as irreconcilably contradictory. Read
for example this passage from William Graham Sumner: "Let it be
understood that we cannot go outside this alternative: liberty,
inequality, survival of the fittest; non-liberty, equality,
survival of the unfittest. The former carries society upwards and
favors all of its best members; the latter carries society
downwards and favors all its worst members."2
     Finally, the task of stating American social and political
principles is made difficult by the fact that they are not fixed
and immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians were
reputed to be. To the extent that they are a living reality in a
developing democracy, they are constantly growing, maturing, and
changing. Every generation, every decade is a formative period in
the constitutional life of the nation. In our generation, the
creative interpretation and application of American social and
political principles in the sphere of international organization
and in the social and economic sphere are in process.
     Yet, despite these difficulties in stating them, the major
elements in the set of widely accepted and persistently enduring
political principles and social ethics are identifiable and
subject
to description and characterization. The "easily remembered"
formulations can be found in the landmark documents of our
history.
These documents not only express and embody movements and periods
of the past but are as well basic forces of government in the
present and for the future. They include the Declaration of
Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, the Preamble to the United
States Constitution, the state constitutions, the Civil War
amendments to the United States Constitution, and the more famous
pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court.

     1. Liberty. In American political thought, liberty has many
aspects and sources. It is both positive and negative. It is
political, economic, personal, and, in a broad sense, social. It
is
founded by some in positivism; by others, in natural law; by
still
others in moral law. It sets in equilibrium constitutionalism and
democracy.
     In part, liberty consists in protection against the will of
the majority, no matter how regularly manifested and how lacking
in
oppressiveness or arbitrariness. In this aspect, it is embodied
in
an array of restraints on governmental action and the organized
power of society. The existence of a constitutionally arranged
governmental structure and distribution of powers, in fact, the
existence of a constitution at all implies a system of limited
government. The Constitution, too, contains many explicit
prohibitions on government. Though some exist elsewhere in the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments are, of
course, a catalogue of these. Among them are the protection given
life, liberty, and property, the requirement of established and
regular procedures by government, and the guarantee of immunity
from unreasonable intrusions into the privacy of one's person,
house, papers, and effects. The many safeguards against improper
conviction for crime refer not only to the technical aspects of
criminal justice, but bespeak the basic right of personal
freedom,
i.e., freedom to move about as one pleases and to be not subject
to
surveillance and custodialization by the agents of the state.
Likewise, freedom from slavery and peonage is decreed, implying
not
only self-ownership but free labor and the right to the rewards
of
labor.
     A dominant part of American social and political thought has
always been a notion that these rights, thus fixed in the
Constitution, are the indivestible possessions of individuals
even
when not so guaranteed. Whether derived from natural law, moral
law, higher law, or various other concepts about the fundamental
nature of man and society, this notion has found constant
expression throughout our history. Its standard formulation is in
the Declaration of Independence: "[T]hat [men] are endowed by
their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These rights governments
were instituted to secure and protect, not to create and confer.3
     The conception that rights which are regarded as very
important are somehow natural rights or derive from a higher law
results from a philosophic view which has lost much of its
persuasion and support in recent decades. The Founding Fathers,
however, and most American statesmen down through the Civil War
period, made it their starting point. Natural rights thus became
inextricably woven into the fabric of American social and
political
thought and popular belief. They lurk just below the surface of
many of our State papers, judicial pronouncements, and political
orations of today. Of those Americans who do not accept this
particular philosophical conception most still insist upon the
great importance and basic character of the rights proclaimed.
     So far, I have spoken of the constitutional side of
constitutional democracy. The democracy side is a positive aspect
of liberty. It has to do with the individual's right to
participate
in government, in the determination of social direction and
policy.
Its foundation is the doctrine of popular sovereignty and the
consent of the governed. Its implementations are the right of
suffrage, the right to seek and hold office, and the right of the
majority to rule. Its indispensable conditions are freedom of
speech, press, and assembly.4
     Liberty is positive in another phase besides that of the
co-sovereignty of citizens of a republic. Government is
responsible
for the protection of the rights of the individual. This cannot
be
wholly achieved by the government itself refraining from invading
them. It must prevent others from invading them. It must
eliminate
and control the conditions which nullify them or make their
exercise impossible. It must foster, promote, establish, and
maintain the conditions which make their exercise possible and
significant. This is especially true if the right is active
rather
than passive; if it involves doing and not just being; acquiring
and not just having; speaking and not just listening. Congress,
as
Webster declared in his famous debate with Hayne, is under an
obligation to exercise the powers delegated to it in the
Constitution for the purpose of achieving the objectives set
forth
in the Preamble of the Constitution--to "establish justice,
insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity....."5
     Men have a right to live, to personal freedom and personal
security. They have the right to marry, have and rear children,
and
to maintain a home.6 They have a right, so far as government can
assure it, to that fair opportunity to earn a livelihood which
will
make these other rights possible and significant.7  Men may not
be
bound to the place of their poverty and misfortune; they may move
freely about the country in search of new opportunity.8 They have
a right freely to choose their field of endeavor, unhindered by
arbitrary, artificial and man-made impediments.9 They have a
right
to enter the common trades, callings, and occupations of the
community. They have the right, if they are free, to manage their
own affairs as they see fit, unless and until there is
interference
with the equal rights of others to manage their affairs or there
is
injury to the welfare of the community.
     "It is not enough," wrote the President's Committee on Civil
Rights in 1947, "that full and equal membership in society
entitles
the individual to an equal voice in the control of his
government;
it must also give him the right to enjoy the benefits of society
and to contribute to its progress.... Without this equality of
opportunity, the individual is deprived of the chance to develop
his potentialities and to share the fruits of society. The group
also suffers through the loss of the contributions which might
have
been made by persons excluded from the main channels of social
and
economic activity."

     2. The Dignity of Man. Deeply imbedded in this conception of
liberty is a democratic view of the individual, of his role in
society, relation to the state, essential dignity and worth. It
is
the individual who possesses rights which are fundamental and
inalienable. He is at the beginning and the end of the State. He
organizes it and gives it authority. Its powers are conferred to
protect his rights and to assure the conditions necessary for
their
maximum expression. The State exists for his benefit, not he for
its. "In democratic society," wrote Charles Merriam, "regard for
the dignity of man stands behind the throne of public order, a
constant reminder of the need for liberty and justice as well as
order, a constant plea that the human personality shall not be
forgotten in the multiplications of laws, in the ramifications of
administration or in the antiquarianism of formal justice."10
Democracy breathes respect for all men and seeks to preserve
their
individuality and autonomy. This spirit is violated wherever men
are alienated or sheltered from the mainstream: not only in the
overt gestures of rejection but in the sentimental embrace of
patronage and protection. Humanity is degraded and individuality
disparaged by treatment of the person as a unit in a category
determined by irrelevant traits, defined and measured not in
unique
terms of personal character and achievement but in the stereotype
terms of physical, or national, or racial difference.

     3. The Rights to Property and to Contract. The rights to
property and contract have likewise been regarded as fundamental
in
the American system. The right to property along with life and
liberty is listed as one of the three great rights of all free
men
in Chapter 39 of the Magna Charta. It appears thus also in the
American State Constitutions, early and late, in the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, in the United States Constitution, Amendments
V
and XIV and elsewhere.11
     The rights to liberty, property, and contract are
interlocking
if not interchangeable concepts, The right to contract is
sometimes
stated as an incident to the right to property; sometimes as an
independent aspect of liberty. Property is described by some as
sufficiently broad to incorporate all other rights of
individuals,
including liberty; and liberty is often regarded by others as
broad
enough to encompass the right to acquire, use, and enjoy
property.
The three rights of liberty, property, and contract are thus
intimately associated in American thinking.12
     Property and contract rights are not unlimited; but on the
contrary, are subject to public control in the public interests.
They may be abridged, and, in some cases, destroyed altogether,
if
that is necessary to protect the community against injury or
danger
in any form, against fraud, or vice, or economic oppression, or
serious public inconvenience, or depression, or other disasters.
The power to control is coextensive with the social and economic
activities of men. It finds its limit in the nature of the acts
forbidden or required and its justification in the direct
relation
of these acts to the public welfare or to the equal property
rights
of others.
     The power of the State over property and contract rights,
however, is not merely negative or incidental to the power to
legislate for the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the community. The basic character of the right and the purpose
of
government regarding it cannot be minimized or ignored. That
purpose, as in the case of liberty, is to protect and preserve,
maintain, and nurture the right. The power to regulate the use of
property and contract, consequently, may not, save in very rare
and
special circumstances, be converted into the power directly to
take
property and contract rights. And in discharging its primary and
affirmative duty with respect to these rights, the State must
keep
constantly in view the essential values of private property in
our
system. It is a central factor in the organization of society. It
is an impelling source of motivation. It is a principal incentive
for productive activity. It is a reward for labor and
contribution.
It is at once the object of individual enterprise and success and
the means of achieving success. And contract is the form of
expression and governing instrument, not only of most business
activity, but as well of most of the transactions of daily life.

     4. Equality. Only second to liberty itself in our history
has
been the ideal of equality. In fact, equality has always
conditioned liberty and determined its character just as liberty
has always conditioned equality and determined its character. In
the Declaration of Independence, the first of the "self-evident
truths" is that all men are created equal; and all men are
equally
"endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
     Alexis de Tocqueville, in 1835, described equality in
America
as "the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived
and the central point at which all my observations constantly
terminated." In his view, it gave "a peculiar direction to public
opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims
to
the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed."
It
"extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the
country, and... has no less effect on civil society than on the
government; it creates opinions, gives birth to new sentiments,
founds novel customs, and modifies whatever it does not
produce."13
     Equality, even more than liberty, stood in the forefront of
the historic struggle in the nation to abolish property in man
and
the institution of slavery; and, along with liberty, emerged in
the
Civil War amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth
Amendment,
freeing men from slavery and nationalizing the right of freedom,
nationally guaranteed what slavery denied: the equal right of all
to enjoy protection in those natural rights which constitute
freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment, in the three redundant clauses
of Section I, re-embodied these same objectives and added an
explicit guarantee of the equal protection of the laws, thereby
adding another confirmatory reference to the self-evident truth
that all men are created equal and are equally entitled to the
protection of government in the enjoyment of their natural and
inalienable rights.14
     Like liberty, equality has many phases. One of them relates
to
the doctrine of proper classification. The laws must be aimed at
the achievement of a public and constitutional purpose. They may
not be motivated by hatred, vengeance, favoritism, or private
gain.
Legislation framed with a discriminatory purpose, manifesting "an
evil eye and an unequal hand" contains an elementary antagonism
to
the idea of the equality of men. Once legislation is endowed with
a public and constitutional purpose, it still must meet other
tests. Because there are real differences among men, regulation
would be altogether ineffective if it had to apply to all or
none.
The law must therefore be selective. But to be equal, it must
treat
all those similarly situated alike. The differences between men
that underlie selection must be real differences and must bear an
intimate relationship to the purpose of the law and valid social
goals.  All other differences are irrelevant and must be ignored.
"Class Legislation," said Justice Field in summing up this
doctrine, "discriminating against some and favoring others, is
prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a public
purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of
its
operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not
within the amendment."15
     Another phase of the idea of equality is the rule of law. If
all men are created equal and equally possess certain rights, and
if governments are instituted to secure and maintain those
rights,
and men therefore are equally entitled to such protection, the
protection can only be afforded by uniform rule, that is, by law.
One way of putting this is the expression "Equality before the
Law." Another way is in the celebrated words of the Massachusetts
Bill of Rights: "That the government of the Commonwealth may be a
government of laws and not of men" Thus, in this aspect, the
doctrine of equality is in effect a command that the government
act
by established and regular procedures and by uniform rules. It is
a command that the purely personal, the arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical, be reduced and eliminated from the exercise of power.
It
is a command that the rules be fixed and announced in advance in
a
way which will make them freely and publicly available. It is a
requirement of a degree of certainty and predictability in
government action and of a system of rights growing out of
uniform
rules. It is finally an order that administrators as well as
legislators act within these confines.
     In still another phase, equality is not negative and
procedural but positive and substantial. Anatole France referred
to
"the majestic equality of the laws which forbid rich and poor
alike
to sleep under the bridges, to beg in tile streets, and to steal
their bread." But the demands of equality are not met by the
equal
treatment which results from the absence of the laws or from the
indiscriminate application of the laws to those who are
dissimilarly situated. Moreover, the demands of equality are not
exhausted by the doctrine of classification and the rule of law.
The equal protection of the laws refers to the quality of the
laws
as well as to the mechanics of their operation. The reign of
equal
laws involves as well the reign of just laws, and the maintenance
of equality in the enjoyment of rights is at the heart of the
system of justice. Equality thus must be the very purpose of
governmental action and policy as well as a test and measure of
its
means. It must "give direction to public opinion," determine "the
tenor of the laws, impart "maxims to the governing authorities,"
and modify "whatever it does not produce."
     Particularly is the government under a duty to guarantee
equality of opportunity. Without that, freedom itself cannot last
and becomes an illusion. The only aristocracy that a system
founded
upon equality can tolerate is an aristocracy of personal merit
and
achievement. Uniformity and regimentation, on the one hand, and
status, influence, and power based on birth, social position, or
inheritance on the other hand, are equally incompatible with
equality. Equality of all men presupposes respect for the rights
of
others. In a society of equals, therefore, men are free to be
different. All limitations on opportunity, all restrictions on
the
individual based on irrelevant differences of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, and the like, are in conflict
with
equality and must be removed and forbidden. Access to the
mainstreams of community life, the aspirations and achievements
of
each member of society, are to be limited only by the skills,
energy, talents, and ability he brings to the opportunities
equally
open to all Americans.
     From what I have said so far, a number of propositions
emerge:
     (1) Preferential treatment of the blind based on favoritism,
privilege, whim, prejudice, patronage, pity, charity,
self-interest
of others, or feelings of like or dislike, cannot be justified
and
indeed does a great deal of harm. On the other hand, preferential
treatment which takes account of the special qualities or needs
of
the blind or aspects of their situation not shared by others,
which
is aimed at a desirable social objective and which employs proper
means properly adapted to this purpose is not only justifiable
preferential treatment but is treatment which should be at the
foundation of all public and private policy toward the blind.
     (2) Blindness has a dual aspect: the physical and the
social.
The first is the disability; the second is the handicap.
Treatment
of the disability is a medical task. Overcoming the handicap is
the
function of rehabilitation.
     (3) The handicap consists mainly of the misconceptions of
the
sighted about the physical disability which result in social
exclusion. In all but the physical sense, and even to some extent
in that, it consists of a loss of full membership in society; a
denial to the blind of the rights and goals which others
share--liberty, equality, property, dignity.
     (4) Overcoming the handicap of blindness, therefore, means
removing the bars, exclusion, and denials of which the handicap
consists: conferring on the blind the title deeds of social
freedom
and membership; the rights of liberty, equality, property, and
dignity; in short, their reintegration into society.
     (5) Programs which address themselves to this purpose or
which
move in this direction, while they necessarily involve
preferential
treatment, meet all the tests and standards set up for good
policy.
Such special arrangements might better go by the name of equal
treatment. Indeed, to lift from the backs of the blind the
special,
heavy, and unnecessary burdens which society has caused them to
bear and to call this preferential treatment can hardly be
regarded
as anything but the bitterest irony. Programs which move in the
opposite direction, which accept and build upon the public
misconceptions about the nature of the physical disability, which
presuppose the incapacity and abnormality of the blind and which
institutionalize that presupposition in segregation and
custodialization--all programs, in other words, which continue or
intensify social exclusion or which are motivated by patronage,
charity, whim, prejudice, or self-interest involve preferential
or
special treatment which increases the handicap. They perpetuate
the
very attitudes and conditions which they should be designed to
prevent.
     (6) Preferential treatment is also justified which: (a)
tends
to ameliorate the immediate physical consequences of the physical
disability of blindness; or (b) pending the day when integration
has been achieved, mitigates the financial and other consequences
of social exclusion or offsets the disadvantage resulting
therefrom
by means which do not further entrench the public misconception
or
which do so as little as possible.
     (7) To be consistent with the standards dictated by the
basic
principles of our social, political, and constitutional system,
programs for the blind must:
     (a) Allow the blind to manage their own personal affairs and
proceed on the assumption that they are capable of doing so.
     (b) Not only permit the blind, but stimulate and encourage
them to develop their potentialities, share in the fruits of
society, and contribute to its work and progress.
     (c) And to do this, not only permit, but stimulate and
encourage the blind to work, to engage in individual enterprise,
to
exercise free judgment and free movement in the search for
opportunity, freely to choose their fields of endeavor and to
enter
the common callings, trades, occupations, and professions of the
community.
     (d) To stimulate and encourage the blind to do these things
by
relying on the normal incentives, principal among which are
financial remuneration and the improvement of one's economic lot
and social status.
     (e) Permit, stimulate, and encourage the blind to acquire,
enjoy, and use property, real and personal, not just for
immediate
consumption purposes but as a motivational source of endeavor and
a means of economic improvement.
     (f) Protect the essential dignity of the individual: by
recognizing the worth of the human personality and treating it as
a community asset rather than a community liability; by supplying
aids and services without humiliation, without undue intrusion
into
the privacy of the recipient, without imposing upon him the
badges
and indicia of a needy and special status, without subjecting him
to the personal judgments of social workers influenced by
humanity,
charity, approval, or other emotions; by making possible a
standard
and circumstance of living not conspicuously different from that
enjoyed by the rest of the community; by leaving recipients free
to
make their own decisions as to spending, living arrangements, and
personal matters.
     (g) If the demands of equality are to be met, public
financial
aid must be granted as a matter of right, the element of personal
discretion exercised by administrators and welfare workers must
be
eliminated, the amount and conditions of the aid must be
specified
in uniform rules made accessible to recipients and prospective
recipients and sufficiently exact so that recipients may
determine
to what they are entitled and what their responsibilities are.
Legislative and administrative standards must be established
which
are uniformly applied, which treat all welfare recipients alike
who
are similarly situated with respect to a valid purpose of the
welfare law, and which vary the amount and the condition of the
grant when there are real differences among recipients in terms
of
their relationship to the welfare program. Finally, equality
requires--as does liberty, the dignity of the individual and the
essential notion of property--that the purpose of the welfare law
be opportunity as well as security. Relief rolls should provide
relief; but they must also provide the means of escape from them.
Reintegration into society through open and equal access to the
mainstream of community productive activity must be an object of
welfare law and a measure of its adaptation if the fundamental
political and constitutional principles of our system are to be
honored in the fact as well as held out in the promise.
     Measured by these standards, evaluated in the light of these
considerations, how do our programs and provisions for the blind
prove out? The answer must be mixed. Some programs are
well-adapted
to these principles; others poorly; and still others are in flat
contradiction of them. Unfortunately, some of the most important
programs fall into the latter two categories.
     The rapidly growing and recently created system of
orientation
and adjustment centers--focusing on mobility training, personal
care, prevocational manual skills, and the development of
attitudes
which make these other activities possible and fruitful-are
properly oriented and adjusted to reduce the immediate physical
consequences of the disability of blindness, to uproot the
conviction of incompetence, and to impart self-confidence, hope,
and a zest for living.
     The home teacher system, though hampered by the need to deal
with the blind person in his home and then only in occasional
short
visits, substantially moves in the same direction as the
orientation center. It is most effective when used as a
case-finder
for the center and otherwise works in close collaboration with
it.
It is least effective when it emphasizes handicraft as mere busy
work or when it teaches Braille to clients who will never have
any
use for it.
     White Cane laws, now enacted in almost all the states, by
giving the blind a legal position in traffic and moderating the
discriminatory harshness of the contributory negligence rule,
make
meaningful for the blind the human and constitutional right of
free
movement, just as the cane itself makes more meaningful the
physical capacity of free movement.
     What about good vision requirements established in many laws
and regulations dealing with jobs, licenses, and the like? Some
of
these are, of course, perfectly in order. Where sight is
indispensable to the performance of the task--as in hunting with
a
gun, driving a truck, or working as a photographer of wildlife
for
the National Park Service--the blind are legitimately excluded.
Where sight is not indispensable, as is the case in thousands of
jobs public and private from which the blind are now barred--the
continued exclusion of the blind can have no special
justification.
In many of these cases, the bars remain up because those who tend
them have only their misconceptions to guide them.
     Laws and regulations giving preference to blind persons with
respect to jobs are not mere favoritism if they are based on the
special qualifications of the blind to perform the tasks
assigned.
This is clearly so when the blind are called upon to work in or
administer programs affecting the blind. In that circumstance,
blindness is an enabling asset endowing the worker with special
knowledge, experience, and the confidence of his clients which
probably cannot be secured in any other way than by being blind.
Of
course this enabling asset should be given determinative weight
only when other things are equal. For the blind to be given
preference in other situations in which blindness does not
contribute to the ability to do the work would be as
unjustifiable
as to discriminate against the blind in jobs in which blindness
does not detract from the ability to do the work.
     What about vending stands for which the blind are given
rent-free locations on public property, in connection with the
establishment of which they are given a preference and protection
against vending machine competition, and with respect to the
operation of which blindness is not an enabling asset? These
special arrangements will not withstand merited criticism once
the
blind have achieved a footing of complete economic equality.
Until
that time arrives, however, the vending stand program is
preferential treatment which is justified as a small offset to
almost universal economic discrimination against the blind; and
one
in which bona fide jobs are provided for qualified blind workers
at
comparatively negligible cost to the public; and one in which the
blind are presented to the public in an aspect of competence and
normality. If the management of the vending stand programs is to
be
consistent with the standards above discussed, it must keep
supervision and control at an absolute minimum; allow the
operator
to purchase his stand and equipment with only an option to
repurchase by the public; give the operator complete independence
in the management of his business affairs retaining only the
power
to revoke the license if the operator proves incompetent or
becomes
publicly obnoxious; protect the operator's profits against
confiscation for the support of supervisory personnel or
sub-marginal stands which the administrators have mistakenly
established in unprofitable locations. The control system, on the
contrary, reflects the custodial attitude toward the role and
abilities of the blind, a conviction that the blind are incapable
of running their own businesses and incompetent to lead their own
lives
     Let us turn next to public assistance. Liberty in the
direction of one's affairs, the whole basic principle of
self-management, is violated by the means test. Under it, the
individual recipient soon loses control of his daily activities
and
the whole course and direction of his life. The capacity for
self-direction presently atrophies and drops away. With each new
item budgeted or eliminated, with each new resource tracked down
and evaluated, the social worker's influence increases. This is
an
inevitable concomitant of the means test. It results from the
nature and extent of the system. It is bred and nourished by the
provisions of the statutes and the rules issued under them. It is
in the flexible joints of the cumbersome machinery. It is in the
detail and intimacy of the investigation. It is in the
inescapable
confinements of the budget. It is in the idleness defeatism, and
waning spirit of the recipient. Whatever the social worker's
wishes
and intentions, her hand becomes the agency of direction in his
affairs. The "concern of assistance with the whole range of
income," wrote Karl DeSchweinitz, "always contains a threat to
the
freedom of the individual. Even when there is no conscious intent
to dictate behavior to the beneficiary, the pervasive power of
money dispensed under the means test may cause the slightest
suggestion to have the effects of compulsion `Whose bread I eat,
his song I sing.'"16
     Not only is liberty violated by the means test but so also
are
dignity and equality--and for many of the same reasons. Dignity
is
jeopardized by the initial financial investigation, by the
searching inquiry into every intimate detail of need, living
habits, family relations, by the setting up of a detailed budget
of
expenditures subject to repeated examination and review, by the
continuously implied and often explicit threat that if behavior
is
uncooperative or unapproved, aid will be reduced or stopped, by
the
wholesale substitution of agency and social worker controls for
the
personal direction of personal affairs, by the unwarrantable
intrusions into privacy involved in each of the foregoing and the
galling humiliation of the whole process, and, finally, by the
constant tendency of the whole system to push living standards
down
below a minimum of decency and health.
     The excessive individualization of the whole design and
process of means test aid is fundamentally antithetical to the
idea
of equality. A system which makes so much depend upon a minute
examination of every aspect of the individual's situation
necessarily involves personalized judgments by officials and
invites arbitrary and whimsical exercises of power, prevents the
enforcement of a uniform rule even when the legislative
provisions
and administrative regulations are detailed and exact, renders it
impossible for the recipient himself to determine to what he is
entitled, constitutes the very thing intended to be prevented by
the idea of "a government of laws and not of men," and flies in
the
face of basic requirements of proper classification. Since with
respect to the purposes of public assistance law most individuals
are parts of groups standing in the same relationship, those who
are similarly situated are not treated alike and real differences
are frequently disregarded.
     Means test aid also violates the notion of individual
opportunity, access to the mainstream of community productive
activity and normal incentives. Since means test aid requires
that
all income and resources of the recipient be applied to meet his
current needs, and since the public assistance grant is reduced
by
the amount of any such available income or resources, the usual
financial motive for effort and endeavor is removed from the
recipient unless the recipient can gain enough and with
sufficient
certainty to be independent of the relief rolls.
     Granting aid as a matter of right contradicts practically
all
of the tendencies inherent in the means test and produces a
system
more consonant with the political and constitutional assumptions
and goals of American democracy.
     Aid as a matter of right requires the establishment of fixed
and uniform rules specifying the terms and conditions of the
grant.
Thus the principal features of the system must be laid down by
the
legislature. This contrasts with the means test variable grant,
based on individual need individually determined by the
administrative agency under discretionary authority conferred by
the legislature. Those who are similarly situated are therefore
necessarily treated alike and under standards comparable with
those
governing assistance to other groups in the community.
     Granting aid as a matter of right protects the liberty of
the
individual to manage his own affairs and conduct his daily life
free of authoritarian controls and caseworker supervision.
     It protects the dignity of the individual. He is treated as
a
member of a class entitled to be dealt with in a manner
determined
by law, not by individualized administrative discretion. The
occasion is eliminated for invasion of the individual's privacy,
supervision of his personal behavior, and humiliating probing
into
the intimacies of his life; and a seminal principle is
established
which stands as a barrier to all such actions.
     Finally, rehabilitation. The primary task of vocational
rehabilitation, as I have said, is the overcoming of the social
handicap--not the physical condition. It consists in the creation
of an environment within society, within public programs, and
within the blind themselves, which will be in the fullest sense
conducive to normal livelihood and normal life. It involves
opening
up the channels of social participation, that is, enabling the
blind to enjoy the benefits of socially determined standards of
liberty, equality, property, and dignity. Its time-tested tools
are
vocational orientation, vocational training, counseling, and
guidance which stimulates and opens up horizons--and finally, of
course, placement in remunerative employment in the common
callings, trades, pursuits, and professions of the community.
     In the proper conceptions of its function as well as in the
use of these time-tested tools, the vocational rehabilitation
program of the United States must in large measure be pronounced
a
failure. The hope and opportunity are to be measured in miles;
the
actual accomplishment must be measured in inches.
     Rehabilitation so far as the individual rehabilitant is
concerned is a complex process in which mental and emotional
elements are predominant. It involves myriad adaptations not
merely
physical in nature but social and psychological. In effect, the
entire personality must undergo reconstruction; the blind
person's
conviction of his own incompetence accepted from the public
misconception must be uprooted; a rebirth, a new act of creation
must be wrought. In this process, ambition, hope, and
self-reliance
are essential ingredients. Consequently, rehabilitation by the
command of the counselor, or submission to his attitudes and
preferences, or by the coercion which results from conditioning
public assistance upon it is a contradiction. It is therefore
futile. It is as futile as ordering a person to restore his
emotional balance while adding to the very factors which cause
the
unbalance. Since the objective of rehabilitation is restoration
to
a normal useful role in society, the standards of success are in
large measure culturally determined. The rehabilitated person,
thus, is one for whom the assumptions and goals of the community
have become as significant as for others, who has in fact
achieved
equal opportunity to enter the calling of his choice, to acquire,
use, and dispose of property, to exercise the right of personal
independence, and to operate on the other assumptions and
principles before listed. Just as the habits of freedom are not
learned by experiencing slavery, so ambition is not learned by
destitution, self-management by authoritarian controls, incentive
by denying the hope of gain, or self-respect by second-class
citizenship. Rehabilitation by command or coercion cultivates the
very traits which frustrate and prevent rehabilitation. A
rehabilitation program which continually impresses upon the
client
a sense of his helplessness and dependency, which enshrouds him
in
an atmosphere of disbelief, doubt, and defeatism, and which
exhibits attitudes of guardianship and custodialism, must
inevitably sap the fibre of self-reliance, undermine hope, deter
self-improvement, and destroy the very initiative which is
indispensable to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation by stimulation,
by
opening up new horizons, by assisting the client in the
achievement
of goals of his own choice, by incentives carefully planned to
encourage productive activity by the expectation of normal
rewards--retention of earnings, improvement of standards of
living,
accumulation of real and personal property--places rehabilitative
effort in conformity with the political assumptions, economic
impulses and behavioral standards imposed by democratic thought
and
current social knowledge.
     Optimistic and skillful counseling, built on personal
experience with the handicap and its problems, is required to
accomplish this delicate work. Under the present program such
counseling has not been supplied. On the contrary, too often
rehabilitation officers have themselves subscribed to the
conviction of the incompetence of the blind. Little has been done
under the present program to halt the tendency of shunting the
disabled into a limited series of stereotyped occupations, to
provide a staff which will have and exhibit full confidence in
the
blind, and which will aid the blind to enter fields of their own
choosing. Little has been done under the present program to
strengthen placement as an inescapable function of the
rehabilitation agency. For the blind this is the arduous
culmination of a long and arduous process. It cannot be
accomplished by automatic referral to employers. It can only be
accomplished by the application of highly specialized and
individualized techniques of affirmative contact with employers,
aggressive seeking of employment opportunities, personal
demonstration, and follow-up. Little is done under the present
program to remove the obstructions to employment of the
physically
handicapped which exist in the public mind, in the statutes,
ordinances, administrative rulings, judicial decisions, and
institutional practices. Above all, the true nature of handicap
and
the elements which compose it, particularly the social and the
psychological as distinguished from the physical and medical
elements; the proper functions and goals of rehabilitation; the
relationship of disability of dependency, especially economic
dependency; the part presently played and properly to be played
by
public financial aid under social insurance and public assistance
in the process of rehabilitation; the determinative character of
the reintegrative objective and the bearing upon it of liberty,
equality, property, and dignity--these basic and urgently
pressing
questions have never been sufficiently analyzed by the
responsible
officials in Vocational Rehabilitation.
     Until this whole pattern is changed, until a great deal is
done to reorient the training and functions of rehabilitation
workers, to strengthen guidance and counseling services, to
improve
techniques and focus rehabilitation attention on the placement of
rehabilitants in competitive employment, and to remove legal,
administrative, and other obstacles to the employment of the
blind
in the public service, the trades, professions, and common
callings
of the community--until that happy day rehabilitation of the
blind
is likely to continue to be measured in inches and not in miles.
     Americans are familiar with the unhappy divergence between
creed and conduct in many phases of our national life. Myrdal's
observation of the disparity between social equality as a
cherished
political norm and our unequal treatment of the Negro is but one
instance of a pattern that is all too pervasive. The field of
blind
welfare provides another, one which has been less noticed but is
not less conspicuous or significant.

                            FOOTNOTES

     1. Gabriel, THE COURSE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT 22
(1940).
     2. Sumner, THE  CHALLENGE  OF  FACTS  AND  OTHER  ESSAYS 25
(Keller ed.
1914).
     3. For illustrative statements of this doctrine see, Johnson
and Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat 543, 572 (U.S. 1823);
Story, MISC. WRITINGS 74 (1835); Justice Matthews in Yick Wo v.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Justice Cardozo in Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1937); see also Justice
Murphy
dissenting in Yamashita v. Styer 327  U.S. 1, 26 (1946).
     4. Winston Churchill speaking at Fulton, Missouri, March
1946.
     5. Under the general power of the states, often called the
"police power," wrote Justice Barbour in City of New York v.
Miln,
11 Pet. 102, 139 (U.S. 1837), "[I]t is not only the right, but
the
bounden and solemn duty of a State to advance the safety,
happiness
and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general
welfare..." Said Justice Field in Barbier v.  Connolly 113 U.S.
27,
31 (1884), "[N]either the [14th] amendment--broad and
comprehensive
as it is--nor any other amendment, was designed to interfere with
the power of the state ... to prescribe regulations to promote
the
health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people,
and
to legislate so as to increase the industries of the state,
develop
its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity."
     6. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 263 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).
     7. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915). Justice Hughes
there
said, "It requires no argument to show that the right to work for
a living
in
the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of
the
personal
freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the amendment
[14th] to
secure."
     8. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).
     9. Truax v. Raich supra note 7; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165
U.S. 578
(1897).
     10. Merriam, THE NEW DEMOCRACY AND THE NEW DESPOTISM
84-85(1939).
     11. Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull 3 Dall. 386 (1798);
Chancellor
Kent,
2 KENT. COMM. 1 (1827).
     12. Braceville Coal Co. v. People 147 Ill. 66 (1893).
     13. DeTocqueville, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 3 (1945 ed.).
     14. tenBroek, ANTISLAVERY ORIGINS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT (1951).
     15. Barbier v. Connolly 113 U.S. 27 (1885).
     16. DeSchweinitz, PEOPLE AND PROCESS IN SOCIAL SECURITY
56-57 (1948).


           KENNETH JERNIGAN LIBRARY FOR BLIND CHILDREN

               A Division of American Action Fund
                  for Blind Children and Adults

18440 Oxnard Street
Tarzana, California 91356

          ******APPLICATION FOR LIBRARY SERVICES******

Applicant's Name_(PRINT)_________________________________________
Mailing Address_(PRINT)__________________________________________
City, State, Zip_(PRINT)_________________________________________

If applicant is a minor, please name parent or guardian
_________________________________________________________________

The books offered by the KENNETH JERNIGAN LIBRARY are available
in
the following Grade levels:

CHECK The Grade Level Of The Books You Desire.
     Pre-School
     Kindergarten
     Grade 1
     Grade 2
     Grade 3
     Grade 4
     Grade 5
     Grade 6
     Grade 7
     Grade 8 (young adult)
 
Is subscriber...
     BLIND ADULT?__________
     BLIND CHILD?__________

Birthdate of Child________

            PLEASE READ THE BACK OF THIS APPLICATION

Agreement Covering Library Services.

As conditions for the privilege of borrowing books from the
Library, I agree to keep the Library informed of change of
address,
to care for all books properly, and to mail books back to the
KENNETH JERNIGAN LIBRARY within a period of 90 days or arrange
for
an extension before due date. I have read the conditions on the
reverse side of this application.

Signature: ____________________________________Date______________


                           CONDITIONS

Library books are distributed free of charge to subscribers.

Books are sent to subscribers for a period not to exceed three
months. Overdue books will suspend lending privileges. A request
for extension of time is available upon request.

Return books to the Library in the same mailing-box in which the
books were sent. It is only necessary to pull out the mailing
label
and reverse it. The return address is printed on the reverse
side.
NO POSTAGE IS REQUIRED.

Books are graded by reading level. When applying for service,
please be sure to include the reading level of the books you
require.

Specific titles may be requested or reserved. Requested books
will
be sent as soon as the title becomes available.

Please call attention to damaged books or books with missing
pages.

           KENNETH JERNIGAN LIBRARY FOR BLIND CHILDREN
