                 REFLECTIONS ON RACE, RELIGION,
               DISABILITY, SEX, AND BROADER ISSUES
                       by Kenneth Jernigan

     The opponents of the organized blind movement have never
understood our strength and unity. Failing to comprehend, they
have made a mystery of it, hinting at all kinds of sinister
controls and machinations. But the secret is no secret, and the
mystery is no mystery.
     We deal with only one set of issues--those related to
blindness. As an organization we deal with nothing else.
Moreover, if a thing is not a problem, we refuse to call it one
even if somebody insists that it is. Finally, we treat each other
like brothers and sisters--not the way some folks treat their
brothers and sisters but the way they should treat them. We care
about each other; we defend each other; and we consider each
other's feelings.
     Recently two Federationists (a husband and wife) wrote to me
about something I said at this year's National Convention in
Detroit. They felt that my comments about Doris Johnson when I
presented the Distinguished Service Award to her at the banquet
were inappropriate. They felt (and, incidentally, they are white)
that the comments were racially insensitive. Despite the attempts
of some of our detractors to create a race problem in the
Federation, we have never had one, and I doubt that we ever will.
     In the circumstances I might have answered these two
Federationists superficially or simply have brushed their
comments aside, but this is not the way we treat members of the
family. These are sincere, thoughtful, dedicated Federationists.
They deserved a reasoned response, and I did the best I could to
give them one. I also took the occasion to expand the question
and to write for a broader audience, you who read the Monitor.
Here are the letters and the remarks I made at the banquet:

                                                    July 20, 1994

Dear Dr. Jernigan:
     Greetings. We are both still catching our breaths after the
whirlwind week of convention. We hope you had as wonderful a time
there as we did.
     We are writing to you concerning the Service Award presented
to Doris Johnson at the convention banquet. While introducing
her, you described her at length as an unsophisticated "self-
effacing" volunteer who cheerfully toiled at "humble" tasks with
no expectation of recognition or thanks. In our opinion, the
portrait of Ms. Johnson was stereotypical and degrading, like the
portrayals of black women that have appeared in the literature
for hundreds of years.
     Our objection to the language used to describe Ms. Johnson
stems from our fear of the repercussions that may come from such
racially insensitive comments. It doesn't matter if Ms. Johnson
is in fact exactly as she was described; she could even have
written the portrait herself. What matters is the political
message that such a description sends. We fear that some people
may come to the conclusion that the Federation thinks all blacks
fit the stereotype of the introduction. This could only lead to a
weakening of our organization, both in membership numbers and
internal harmony.
     Thank you for considering what we have said. We welcome your
response if you have time to put it to paper, but all we ask is
that when someone is introduced in the future, that the audience
not be able to identify without a doubt the race of the person
before they step onto the stage.

                                                    Respectfully,

cc: President Marc Maurer


                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                    July 28, 1994

Dear:
     Thanks for your recent letter. I have given careful thought
to your comments, and it is hard to respond without sounding
defensive.
     As you know, I am not much for political correctness. What
was said of Doris Johnson during the presentation of the award
could with equal accuracy have been said of my daughter, who
works by Doris's side doing the grueling preparation of seminar
and similar meals. Except for the fact that she is my daughter,
Marie would also have received a Distinguished Service Award, and
the comments would have been the same.
     In your letter you say:

     "... [A]ll we ask is that when someone is introduced in the
future, that the audience not be able to identify without a doubt
the race of the person before they step onto the stage."

     Surely you are not implying that what I said could not with
equal accuracy have been said of a member of the caucasian race,
for that would imply that whites are too good to work in the
kitchen and that only blacks can do such work--an insult to both
races, and a fallacy into the bargain.
     Doris's family (people of culture and good taste) were
present at the banquet and heartily approved of what was said. In
fact, they provided much of the background. They were deeply
moved and, I am sure, would be hurt by any reflection on the
nature and content of the presentation.
     Be that as it may, your letter raises a broader question,
one that deserves comment. Let me begin with something that may
not on first examination seem relevant to what we are discussing.
We do not have a black caucus in the Federation, and I for one
will fight to see that we never do. The concept is demeaning to
black Federationists. It implies that our black members cannot
make it in competition with the rest of us. I have talked with a
great many of our black members, and (not withstanding a dogmatic
few) I believe the overwhelming majority are as opposed as I am
to a separate black bloc.
     At times we have had as many as two black national board
members (one of them a Vice President) and as many as nine black
state presidents, all serving at the same time--not because they
were black but because they were dedicated Federationists, who
were politically savvy and had fought their way up through the
ranks just like everybody else. Of course, we have seven or eight
black state presidents today. I haven't counted lately. It
doesn't matter.
     If every member of the national board and every state
president were black, it should not be a matter of concern. It
should not, that is, unless color was the reason for the
election. By the same token (token, not tokenism) it should not
matter if all national board members and all state presidents
were non-black--not unless color was the reason. But there are
some (hopefully not very many) who would object to either
situation.
     Some time ago, somebody asked me whether one of our state
presidents was black. I said that I didn't know, and I was
telling the truth. How would I have known unless somebody had
told me? The old tired cliche that "you can tell them by their
voice" is not only racist but also provably false. We had a
reason not too long ago to fill out a paper concerning the racial
composition of our staff here at the National Center for the
Blind, and I was told that I had omitted one of our black staff
members. This person had worked for us for several years, and I
had no idea what his color was. What difference did it make? I
couldn't see him; I couldn't tell by his voice; and I had never
asked. The people who hire in our organization are blind, and
they don't use color as a litmus test.
     There is a basic premise in the functioning of the
Federation, one that goes back to the very beginning. It is easy
to understand, objectionable to a few, and (in my opinion)
largely responsible for the harmony and effectiveness we have
enjoyed. It is this: we treat each other like brothers and
sisters, and we deal with only one issue--blindness. We have
black racists, white racists, and mostly neither. We have pro-
abortionists, anti-abortionists, and many who don't give a hoot
either way. We have right wingers, left wingers, and people who
claim they are centrists. We have religionists, atheists,
agnostics, and many who don't bother about it. We have elitists,
red necks, and plenty of pseudos. We have those who favor women's
lib, men's lib, gay rights, the Nation of Islam, the Ku Klux
Klan, and Rush Limbaugh. Yet, we live in harmony with each other.
     The reason is no mystery. We deal with one issue, blindness-
-and we don't impose our non-blindness views on our fellow
Federationists. All of us are happy to have the rest of us work
in any other cause we like, just so long as we don't intrude that
cause into the Federation--and especially just so long as we
don't try to make each other discuss it and accept our view of
it.
     When the Vietnam War was at its height, one of our members
(he called himself a dove) wanted us to discuss and pass a
resolution condemning the war. I told him I would oppose it.
     "Oh," he said, "so you are a hawk!"
     "It doesn't follow," I said. "If somebody wants to introduce
a resolution supporting the war, I will oppose that, too. More
than that: I will oppose discussing the question at all. We are
an organization to deal with blindness, not Vietnam--and not
anything else." He wasn't very happy with me, but I believe the
overwhelming majority of Federationists would have been.
     When we were organizing in Florida three or four years ago,
one of the members wanted us to go on record as opposing
abortion. I was chairing that meeting, and I told him that I not
only objected to our adopting the resolution but to discussing
it. I told him that before we could consider the merits of the
question, the members would have to agree that they wanted to
talk about it. I further told him that the members had the right
to decide not to discuss an issue. Everybody in the entire
meeting except him thought we should not consider the matter, and
we didn't--but I know that many of those present felt that
abortion was wrong. None of us objected to his holding his view
on abortion; none of us objected to his going out and trying to
get the rest of society to believe as he did; but we felt that
the Federation was not the proper forum.
     For my part, the concept of a disability group or caucus in
either of the major political parties would be counter-productive
and offensive. We are not as helpless and incompetent as that
implies, and if the idea should ever take hold, we would likely
forever to be limited to minority status and disability matters.
This is my personal view, one that may not be shared by other
Federationists--and I am content to have it that way.
     Having given you this background concerning Federation
traditions and practices about race and similar issues, I want to
return to the specifics of your letter. When you say that the
audience could identify without a doubt the race of the person
receiving the award before she stepped onto the stage, I am
curious to know how. I have reviewed my remarks and herewith
enclose a copy for your examination. As far as I am concerned
there is not one sentence or word in the entire presentation
which identifies race, with the possible exception of the fact
that Doris attended Morgan State University. Even that is not
definitive since a few white students now go there.
     Was it that she grew up in a poverty-stricken rural area of
the South? That is the setting in which I grew up, and so did
many others in the Federation, white and black alike. Was it
because her family were share croppers? That is no identifier. My
family had the same experience, living on somebody else's land.
When I was a child, my father cut and hauled telephone poles for
a dime apiece, and he often worked from sunup until dark for
fifty cents. He milked the cows and did other chores after the
day's work. Besides the share of a crop, the pay was often in
apples or molasses or whatever else was available. There wasn't
enough money to do otherwise.
     Is it because Doris did cleaning chores and housework to pay
her way through school? When I was a boy, I shined shoes with the
same objective. Is it all right for white boys to shine shoes for
low pay but not all right for black girls to do similar work? Is
it perhaps that Doris came from a large family? My father was the
thirteenth child in his family, and I remember a neighbor woman
(white, incidentally) who had twenty-one children. Was it that
Doris worked in the fields when she was not in school? My brother
and all of the other children in our neighborhood did the same
thing, and I would have done it too if my family had believed I
could instead of thinking blindness was a bar.
     Then, if it was not Doris's childhood background, was it her
adult experience--her training in home economics and cosmetology,
her interest in her church, her volunteer work in hospitals? If
not that, was it the description of her work in helping in the
kitchen at the National Center for the Blind? Obviously somebody
has to cook and clean, and equally obviously the somebody has to
be either paid or volunteer. Have we come to the place where it
is acceptable for a white male to do kitchen work but
unacceptable for a black female to do it?
     If I have still not identified the reason why it was obvious
to the audience that Doris was black before she ever stepped onto
the stage, was it perhaps my description of her attitudes and
behavior--that she is modest, self-effacing, unassuming, and
willing to work tirelessly without expectation of reward? Surely
these characteristics (though admittedly possessed by a shrinking
few regardless of race) are admirable, not demeaning. You say
that these traits are the stereotype of black women, and I
answer: "Not today." Unfortunately the present-day stereotype of
the black female is that she is rude, pushy, bad-mannered, long
on discussing her rights, and short on considering the rights and
feelings of others. Although that stereotype fits some black
women (and a great many white ones, too, as well as a lot of
males of all races), I think it is false, characterizing only a
minority. Humility, good manners, willingness to work, a desire
to give, and a spirit of dedication without a corresponding wish
for self-aggrandizement are still (even in today's society of
skewed values) worth recognizing, praising, and rewarding.
     Let me move to another aspect of the situation. How should I
have made the presentation? I might have said that Doris was an
outstanding leader and that the award was being given to her for
that alone. Such a presentation would not have been believable,
would not have given pleasure to Doris, and would not have helped
the organization. Doris is not an orator, a center-of-the-stage
planner and rallier of the troops. She is a solid, hard working
member--and she likes it that way. Her contributions are of real
value, and the Federation was recognizing that fact and telling
her that she is appreciated.
     I could have made the presentation in such a way as not to
indicate the kind of work Doris does for the movement, but this
would have been vapid and inappropriate. I could have talked of
her work without mentioning her qualities of humility and
avoidance of the limelight, but such a presentation would not
have been accurate or complete. Moreover, it would have had
racist overtones, implying that a black person cannot be
portrayed as gentle and service-oriented while a white person
can.
     Of course, we could have refrained from giving her the award
at all because of the kind of work she does and because of her
unassuming spirit. But that seems unfair and counter-productive.
It would have been the worst kind of elitism.
     Doris Johnson is a rare human being. She is strong without
being "pushy." She is humble without being weak, modest without
being spiritless. Unlike so many, she does not demand constant
petting, nor does she insist on forever being told how great she
is. She simply sees what needs to be done, and does it. I wish we
had hundreds more like her.
     In your letter you say: "It doesn't matter if Ms. Johnson is
in fact exactly as she was described; she could even have written
the portrait herself." As you reflect on the matter, I hope you
will decide that this is not exactly what you meant. It is all
very well for us to care about classes of people, but I think it
is even more important for us to care about individuals. What
Doris wants and how she feels are important factors in the
equation. If we move human beings like pieces on a checkerboard
to accomplish overall strategies and to satisfy the needs of this
or that segment of society, we dehumanize ourselves and the
entire process.
     You wrote to me in unadorned candor. I hope you are willing
for me to do likewise in response. I respect you (both of you)--
and for many of the qualities that earned Doris her award. I hear
good things about you and believe you have a great future in the
movement. It must be obvious that I have given time and careful
consideration to your letter. Think about what I have said, and
tell me how you feel about it if you want to. Whatever your
reaction, let us work together to make the Federation better and
stronger than it has ever been.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Jernigan
                                               President Emeritus
                                 National Federation of the Blind


     DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD PRESENTATION: DORIS JOHNSON

     Doris Johnson was born and raised in South Carolina, the
second of nineteen children--all with the same parents if anybody
wants to know. She has always been a hard worker. She worked her
way through high school by cleaning the principal's house before
classes every morning. She then caught the train and went to
school. After getting home, she would work in the fields until
dark. (Her parents were share croppers.) After it was too dark to
work outside, she would study for school the next day.
     After high school Doris went to Baltimore, where she worked
her way through Morgan State University, graduating with a degree
in Home Economics in 1956. She has always been active in her
church and was the secretary of the church Sunday School for many
years. While teaching at a Baltimore beauty and barber college,
Doris earned the outstanding teacher of the year award on two
separate occasions. She also helped prepare many students for
their state licensing examination. For many years Doris went to
Montebello State Hospital in Baltimore and did the patients' hair
as a volunteer.
     Let me turn now to Doris's work with the Federation. Because
she is quiet and unassuming, few people know how much she does.
She does over a thousand hours of volunteer work every year at
the National Center for the Blind. She does everything from
erasing tapes and labeling cassettes to manning (or, if you like,
"womaning") NFB booths at local events. In the kitchen she is
invaluable. She comes early and stays late, until the last dish
is done. When there is a seminar or a meeting of any other kind,
Doris is always willing to help in whatever way she is needed.
     Doris, you exemplify the spirit of our movement, the best
that is in us, and the essence of service to others. I have here
a brass plaque on polished walnut wood that I want to present to
you. It is the tangible manifestation of the love we have for you
and the appreciation of what you are and what you do.


                NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
                   DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
                          PRESENTED TO
                          DORIS JOHNSON

YOUR ENERGY AND COMMITMENT ARE FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY GIVEN
YOUR DEVOTION AND SPIRIT INSPIRE YOUR COLLEAGUES

                      No task is too humble
                        No hour too early
                         No job too much

           THE BLIND OF THE NATION GIVE YOU THIS AWARD
                   WITH LOVE AND APPRECIATION
                          JULY 6, 1994

