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?