THE VALUE OF DEBATE 
by Stephen Benson 

As Monitor readers know, Steve Benson is a member of the 
Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind and the 
energetic President of the NFB of Illinois. This article is reprinted 
from the Spring edition of the Student Slate, the newsletter 
of the Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind. 
  
Blind residents of Illinois have long been aware that being a client 
of the Department of Rehabilitation Services is at least an adventure. 
The perception abroad in the Land of Lincoln is that the Illinois 
Department of Rehabilitation Services (DORS), erects at least as many 
barriers to full participation in society as it removes. It may well 
erect more. Doug Lee won an $1,800 NFB Merit Scholarship in 1986. Lee, a
computer engineering student at the University of Illinois, was notified by
DORS that the scholarship was regarded as a similar benefit and that, 
therefore, he must repay DORS $1,800 of the funds the agency had previously
advanced for his education. Further, Lee's counselor at the University 
accused him of trying to build a financial empire while a student, 
despite the fact that Lee's gross income that year was $2,900. As 
one might expect, Lee appealed. 

The appeal process dragged on for almost a year. The DORS director 
upheld the counselor's position and ordered Lee to pay the $1,800. 
The cost to DORS of the entire procedure was more than the $1,800 
the agency tried to squeeze out of Lee. In the summer of 1987, Federation
representatives met with the director of services to the blind within DORS
and urged that the decision be reversed. After all the scholarship could
not be a similar benefit since it was awarded on the basis of academic
merit as part of a competition with several hundred other students while
financial assistance provided by DORS was based only on the condition of
blindness. The NFB representatives argued further that DORS' position was
unreasonable, shameful, intolerable, and punitive. Beyond that, DORS was
the only agency in the nation that was taking this position, and it seemed
to us that the media would like to know about it. The director of DORS
reversed her decision, but only because of the intervention of the NFB and
the likelihood that negative and damaging publicity would result. In light
of this scenario, what happened to Ali Nizamuddin was no surprise. 

In 1987 Ali Nizamuddin entered Northern Illinois University (NIU) 
as a political science major and communications minor after completing 
high school in three years. A native of India, Nizamuddin arrived 
in this country at the age of nine, unable to speak English. Be that 
as it may, at the end of his sophomore year at NIU he had earned a 
3.48 GPA on a 4-point scale. As of this writing, early January, 1990, 
Nizamuddin has completed his first semester at Northwestern University, 
having raised his GPA to 3.75 on a 4-point scale. 

At the beginning of the 1988-89 academic year, Nizamuddin joined the 
NIU debate team. He regarded debate as essential to his vocational 
objective--university teaching or politics. He saw it as an excellent 
experience that would sharpen both his thinking and his research
techniques. 


On his resume it might also make a significant difference when competing 
for a job. During the Christmas holiday of 1988-89, Nizamuddin used reader
services to prepare for a debate. He submitted a reimbursement request to
DORS. His counselor denied the request on the grounds that debate is not 
a credit course leading to a degree. Nizamuddin appealed the decision. 
Members of the Federation represented Nizamuddin at the fair hearing. 
(It should be noted that all members of the hearing panel were DORS 
employees.)  During the hearing I made the following remarks: "...the 
steady grind of academia is made richer by campus activities that 
have direct impact on what the student does or is able to become after 
graduation. For a student with aspirations to enter journalism, it is
critical for him or her to work on a university or college newspaper,
yearbook, literary magazine, or other publication...."  For a law student,
having a perfect academic record is a ticket to a solid career, no question
about it. A law student with less than a perfect record, but who has 
edited the law review or contributed substantially to it, or a student 
who has won recognition in moot court competition, will have opportunities 
that a good student with no activities can never hope to have. For 
a student majoring in political science and minoring in communications 
with ambitions for teaching at the university level or entering politics, 
participation in debate is as critical as the law review and moot 
court are for a law student, or as critical as newspaper or year book 
is for a journalism major.... The alleged policy regarding extra-curricular
activities is blatantly discriminatory against blind students and 
works as a disincentive to campus involvement. Further, it denies 
Nizamuddin an opportunity to hone skills he will use in teaching." 
At one point I commented to Nizamuddin's counselor that debate is 
not something frivolous like bowling. I asked whether he saw the difference
between bowling and debate. After some waffling, he acknowledged that 
debate might have some value, but he rigidly adhered to the Department's 
policy of not covering the cost of extra-curricular activities. 
When the DORS Director, Philip Bradley, upheld the denial of Nizamuddin's 
reimbursement request, I once again urged the Director of Services 
for the Blind to take all steps necessary toward the reversal of the 
decision. The message I conveyed to him was the same as that conveyed 
at the hearing and the same as that conveyed regarding Doug Lee: the 
Department's position was shameful, intolerable, unreasonable, and 
punitive. In addition I pointed out that the entire dispute could 
have been avoided if Nizamuddin could have continued working with 
a counselor from the Bureau for the Blind rather than with a general 
counselor at the University, who clearly had no knowledge of the needs 
of the blind students. Under date of December 14, 1989, Director Bradley 
wrote the following to Ali Nizamuddin:  
 
Dear Mr. Nizamuddin: 

At the request of Stephen Benson, President of the NFB of Illinois, 
I have reversed my decision regarding payment of reader services during 
December of 1988. 

This review disclosed some factors which were not addressed during 
the fair hearing. Reference was made in your case file record to the 
fact that English was not your original language and that experiences 
to familiarize you with relating with individuals of a different cultural 
background than your own would be an important part of your vocational 
training. Although extracurricular activities are not normally covered 
in an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan [IWRP], participating in a
debating team would, in this context, seem to be important in 
furthering your experience and confidence and should contribute to 
your success in reaching your vocational objective. 
 
Sincerely, 
Philip Bradley 
 
The DORS Director reversed his decision; however, attitudes and policies 
reflecting a narrow view of extracurricular activities and the use 
of readers for those activities remain rigidly in place. The Illinois 
DORS, like most agencies for the blind in this country, lacks the 
creativity, commitment, and will to do those things that will make 
a substantial difference to the lives of blind people. They claim 
they must be accountable to and responsive to the bottom line. In 
Nizamuddin's case, the Department would rather have spent $1,000 or 
more in defense of its position than under $200 on reader fees for 
a college student with tremendous potential for competitive employment--
someone who could serve as a role model for other blind people and for DORS
staff. In view of the current 70% unemployment rate among working 
age blind people, wouldn't anybody with good sense want to encourage 
and support student involvement in those activities that would give 
blind people a competitive edge? If the NFB had not intervened in 
the Nizamuddin and Lee cases, their resolutions would have been much 
different. Other similar cases exist in Illinois and every other state. 
They will continue to occur until and unless the rehabilitation system 
makes wide-ranging, dramatic changes. Until that happens, the NFB 
will continue to advocate for all blind people and, thereby, provide 
the answer to the question: Why the National Federation of the Blind?