                       THE LESSONS OF 1957

     From the Editor: Since we are talking about history in this
issue, I thought it might be worthwhile to give you a sample of
what the Monitor was like thirty-six years ago. The April-May,
1957, issue marked a transition. It overlapped with May--and
after that, the magazine was printed on a monthly basis. Of
course, it was still called the All Story in April of 1957, but
that would change within a few months.
     During the '50's the Federation experienced tremendous
growth. When I became a national board member in 1952, our total
annual budget was around $15,000. Two years later it was ten
times that much. This was the result of our mail campaign, which
started in late 1952. With money came the ability to do intensive
organizing, and this brought new affiliates--nine in one year,
1956. It meant more communications, more plans, and more
activities. It meant the coming to vigor of a viable, determined,
competently led national organization--an organization not just
in name but in fact.
     But it also meant something else. The governmental and
private agencies doing work with the blind took alarm and became
frightened. Before this time, they had virtually had the
blindness field to themselves. Now, they saw a new force
beginning to build, and they didn't like it.
     As the blind organized and joined the Federation, the more
repressive agencies tried to stop them. They used intimidation,
scare tactics, and whatever else came to hand. Those agencies
that welcomed the new trend and wanted to have partnership were
in the minority.
     As the battle intensified, the National Federation of the
Blind decided to ask Congress to enact legislation to protect
their right to organize and have a voice in programs affecting
them. Companion bills were introduced--in the Senate by John F.
Kennedy of Massachusetts and in the House by Walter Baring of
Nevada. The agencies reacted with fury. There were congressional
hearings throughout the country, and there were inevitable
reprisals against vulnerable blind persons. The right to organize
bills were never passed, but their objectives were achieved, the
proof of which is the current size and strength of the National
Federation of the Blind.
     By the fall of 1957 the battle for the right to organize was
fully joined, but in the spring of that year we were still in the
preliminary stages. Here is how part of it was reported:

                   All Story Braille Magazine
                         April-May, 1957
                           **********
             Secretary Folsom Rebukes Agency Attack
                      On Blind Organization

     The North Carolina Federation of the Blind has recently
announced publicly its success in securing from Secretary Marion
Folsom of the federal Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare a ruling that the release of confidential information
from the files of the North Carolina Commission for the Blind was
"not proper." At the same time, Secretary Folsom stated that
special action had been taken by his department to require
specific protections to guard against misuse of confidential
information. The action taken by the federal Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare revealed that a severe rebuke had
been administered to the state agency for its improper use of its
records. Every blind person in the United States who has ever had
any relationship with a state agency serving the blind will
applaud this action of the federal department. 

The Background Facts are Briefly These:
     Early in 1956 two members of the North Carolina Federation
approached an attorney in their city to discuss with him the
possibility of becoming the legal counsel and representative of
the organization. While learning about the composition and
program of the organization, the attorney expressed particular
interest in improving the state's vending stand system.  He later
wrote a letter of inquiry about the vending stand program to the
chairman of the state Commission for the Blind, who thereupon
requested that a reply be made by Mr. H. A. (Pete) Wood, the
Commission's executive head.
     Mr. Wood called upon the attorney in his office, and after
an extended interview left with the attorney a long letter signed
by himself attacking the North Carolina Federation of the Blind.
Enclosed with the letter was a file of documents purporting to
substantiate the attack. The entire file of documents was later
given over into the hands of the two blind persons who had
originally approached the attorney. To their immense surprise
these persons, both of them former clients of the Commission,
found among the documents official summaries of the case
histories of one of them and of the wife of the other. The case
summaries appeared over the official signature of Mrs. Madeline
McCrary in her capacity as Chief of Rehabilitation Services for
the Commission, and bore a date in December, 1955. They contained
detailed information of a highly personal nature about the
individuals and their families.
     Wood's conduct was immediately reported to both the North
Carolina Federation and the National Federation of the Blind. The
disclosure was promptly protested by the individuals concerned in
letters addressed to Secretary Folsom and both senators from
North Carolina, and these were supported by letters from the
state and the national organizations. During the succeeding few
months a thorough investigation was carried on by the Federal
Office of Vocational Rehabilitation at the direction of Secretary
Folsom. The facts were thoroughly proved that Mr. Wood had used
the confidential records of the Commission to further his purpose
to discredit the state Federation of the Blind.
     In mid-October, Secretary Folsom wrote both North Carolina
senators about this use of confidential data and in both letters
stated that "its release was not proper" under either the state
or the federal regulations. Similar letters were sent to the
North Carolina Federation, to the National Federation, and to the
individuals. All of these letters stated further:
     "In order to prevent such a situation arising again, we have
requested and have received written assurance from the Commission
to the effect that no confidential information concerning
vocational rehabilitation clients will be released except with
the client's consent, other than in those situations where the
release is clearly authorized by the state agency's regulations,
without first obtaining advice from the appropriate state legal
official that the disclosure in question would be authorized
under the state's regulations, or, where compliance with a
federal regulation is in question, from this office....
     "We have directed our Regional Representative to work
further with the North Carolina Commission for the Blind to
assure that its policies concerning the protection of the
confidentiality of rehabilitation records and the procedures for
carrying out such policies will prevent a recurrence of this type
of situation."
     This rebuke administered by Secretary Folsom to Mr. Wood has
particular significance at this time.
     All of us who are working to build strong and effective
organizations of the blind devoted to enabling the blind to
achieve self-determination, self-help, and freedom from the bonds
of patronizing assistance know well that there is an element, in
some states a powerful element, among old-style agency workers
that is now determined to strike out against self-organization of
the blind, and especially to strike out against the National
Federation and its affiliated organizations. These agency people
are now making a desperate stand to stop the recent swift growth
of the National Federation of the Blind. In their eagerness to
succeed, they are using every resource that comes to hand.
     Funds that have been appropriated or donated by the public
to help the blind are now being diverted by these people to fight
the blind. Organizations that have been built up over years to
disseminate good will toward the blind are now being used by
these people to disseminate ill will toward the blind. Agencies
that have been supported by the public in the past because they
have promoted the education, economic independence, and welfare
of the blind are now being used by these people to deny to the
blind one of the first fruits of these advantages--self-
determination and self-organization.
     Obviously this use of these funds and these agencies to
fight self-organization of the blind is regrettable and should be
ended. It is regrettable because it is threatening to destroy the
future usefulness of agencies that in the past have contributed
largely to the advancement and welfare of the blind. It should be
ended because it constitutes a gross misappropriation of public
funds and public welfare services.
     The action of Secretary Folsom in rebuking the conduct of H.
A. Wood is a timely warning to these people. In this case, Wood
was found to be exercising the power inherent in his office to
discredit blind persons working for the self-organization of the
blind. Whether or not his actions violated the "confidence" of
the Commission files was not emphasized by the Secretary. The
Secretary did emphatically determine that Mr. Wood's actions in
using these files to discredit the movement of the blind toward
self-organization was clearly not consistent with his public
office, and clearly not proper.
     This ruling of the Secretary affords to each agency the
occasion to re-evaluate the part it has played in the past, and
will play in the future, in the movement toward self-organization
and self-determination of the blind. The Secretary's decision
that it is not proper for an agency to engage in actions designed
to resist self-organization of the blind is a correct decision
and a necessary decision. But more than this is needed. Each
agency should now seize this occasion to reshape its program to
assist, encourage, and provide a maximum of opportunity for the
self-organization and self-determination of the blind. The
example provided and the principles adopted by one of the
established agencies point the way: "... to apply in principle
and in programmatic implementation the proposition that this
agency is the representative of the visually handicapped, subject
to their wishes, needs, and decisions, and committed to their
struggle for full opportunity, recognition, and equal treatment,
socially and economically."

                   All Story Braille Magazine
                            May, 1957
                           **********
                Agency Attack Upon the Federation

     One of the most flagrant attacks yet made by the agencies
upon the National Federation of the Blind took place recently in
Houston, Texas. The incident also involved a brazen threat to the
livelihood of a blind vendor and an obvious effort at
intimidation of the blind men and women of Texas.
     The attack was contained in a letter by Lon Alsup, Executive
Secretary-Director of the Texas State Commission for the Blind,
addressed to the president of the Houston chapter of the Texas
Federation of the Blind. The letter was read before a Houston
chapter meeting on November 2, 1956, which was preparing to act
upon recommendations of a special committee appointed to
investigate the desirability of affiliation with the NFB. The
letter was unsolicited by the chapter and was timed to arrive
while the meeting was in progress.
     The letter warned the Houston group that "If you want to
wreck the work for the blind in this state, then you follow the
recommendations as outlined by Mr. Moody, one of our stand
operators." Thomas F. Moody, chairman of the investigating
committee, was one of five members who submitted a unanimous
recommendation for NFB affiliation, along with a strongly
favorable report on NFB activities.
     The threat to Moody--and to any others who might express
similar independence in the future--was contained in Alsup's
assertion that "I want everyone to know that if Mr. Moody does
not like the way the stand program is being operated in this
state, there are thousands of other blind people who would give
everything to have the stand which he has and would never gripe
because they have to pay a small agency fee."
     Alsup was, however, quick to cover his iron hand with a
velvet glove by declaring that "Mr. Moody is my friend" and that
"This letter is not to be construed by any blind person in this
state to mean that this agency would deny any service to any
blind person because he belongs to the National Federation for
the Blind."
     The depth of his friendliness was suggested by Alsup in a
statement which bluntly impugned the committee chairman's motives
in expressing approval of the NFB: "The only reason that he is
vitally interested is for the sole purpose of getting absolute
control of the equipment which is in his stand and not have any
supervisory assistance from this agency."
     A clear indication of what many blind people have long
suspected--that some public agencies supposedly concerned with
the welfare of the blind spend time and money warring upon the
blind and subverting their attempts at organization--was set
forth in the Alsup letter:
     "Last week in Denver, while attending the National
Rehabilitation Association meeting, the Council of Executives of
Agencies for the Blind went on record against the practices and
policies used by the National Federation, and established a
committee within its organization to supply information to any
state where there was an attempt to organize the state in behalf
of the National Federation for the Blind."
     Moreover, according to Alsup, "It was definitely proved at
this meeting that the policies used by the National Federation
for the Blind had retarded the work of the blind for at least
twenty-five years." But the Alsup letter, despite this sweeping
denunciation, failed to specify a single instance of such
negative policies, or to provide any other documentation of the
charges made.
     The familiar bogey of "outside interference," with its
suggestion of alien and sinister forces at work, was raised by
Alsup with the exclamation that "We do not need any national
organization to tell Texas how to run its program" and advising
Houston members to limit the expression of their discontent to a
committee of the state legislature: "... and again I reiterate we
do not need people from out of state coming down here and telling
us how to run our program."
     The Alsup letter throughout referred to the NFB as "the
National Federation for the Blind" and repeated in various
phraseology the declaration that "In the interest of the blind of
this state, I want every member of your organization to know that
I do not in any manner endorse the National Federation and its
policies."
     The Alsup letter constitutes a frontal attack by an agency
for the blind upon the right of the blind to organize for
purposes of self-improvement and the improvement of programs
concerning them. In view of the importance of the Alsup letter it
is set forth here in full:

                                   State Commission for the Blind
                                             Land Office Building
                                                    Austin, Texas
                          Lon Alsup, Executive Secretary-Director
                                                 October 26, 1956

Mr. W. T. Keith, Jr., President
Houston Chapter of the 
Texas Federation for the Blind
Houston, Texas

Dear Mr. Keith:
     Information has recently come to me to the effect that a
meeting is to be called by the Houston chapter of the Texas
Federation for the Blind for Friday evening, November 2nd, for
the purpose of voting on the question as to whether or not the
local chapter would affiliate with the National Federation for
the Blind.
     In the interest of the blind of this state,I want every
member of your organization to know that I do not in any manner
endorse the National Federation and its policies. Last week in
Denver, while attending the National Rehabilitation Association
meeting, the Council of Executives of Agencies for the Blind went
on record against the practices and policies used by the National
Federation, and established a committee within its organization
to supply information to any state where there was an attempt to
organize the state in behalf of the National Federation for the
Blind.
     I want everyone to know that I wholeheartedly approve of the
action taken by this national organization of executive
directors. It was definitely proved at this meeting that the
policies used by the National Federation for the Blind had
retarded the work of the blind for at least twenty-five years. We
do not need any national organization to tell Texas how to run
its program. If you want to investigate the work for the blind in
this state or have it done, then I suggest that you write to the
legislative chairman of the Interim Committee of the State
Legislature requesting them to make an investigation of the work
for the blind in this state, if in your opinion you think that
all programs are not being administered satisfactorily. This
legislative committee of the State Legislature has the authority
to act on matters of this kind, and again I reiterate, we do not
need people from out of state coming down here and telling us how
to run our program.
     If you want to wreck the work for the blind in this state,
then you follow the recommendations as outlined by Mr. Moody, one
of our stand operators. I have seen some of the letters which he
has written to the various states, and his statement says, "At
present the Houston Federation is independent of NFB. We are,
however, considering the possibility of affiliation with that
organization." Mr. Moody is my friend, but nevertheless, I do not
concur in his thinking--and the only reason that he is vitally
interested is for the sole purpose of getting absolute control of
the equipment which is in his stand, and not have any supervisory
assistance from this agency.
     Mr. Moody has a right to his opinion, but I want everyone to
know that if Mr. Moody does not like the way the stand program is
being operated in this state, there are thousands of other blind
people who would give everything to have the stand which he has
and would never gripe because they have to pay a small agency
fee.
     This letter is not to be construed by any blind person in
this state to mean that this agency would deny any service to any
blind person because he belongs to the National Federation for
the Blind. We intend to give the service that is needed to any
blind person, if he is eligible, but that does not mean that this
agency is in favor in any manner of the practices and policies of
the National Federation for the Blind, because we are not.

                                          Respectfully submitted,
                                                     S. Lon Alsup
                                     Executive Secretary-Director
                       ____________________
     That is how we reported what was happening in North Carolina
and Texas in 1957, and it was illustrative of what was occurring
all over the country. We were engaged in a war for our right to
organize and be heard, and the stakes were as high as our
independence and self-respect--and ultimately our ability to make
a living and stand on our own. It happened thirty-six years ago,
and today we live in a different world--but not totally
different. Many of the agencies now work with us, and none would
dare make such public attacks--but oppression takes many forms.
Let us consider our roots; let us be diligent in the present; and
let us prepare for the future. It couldn't happen again--or could
it?
