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?