                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                           June, 1997

                     Barbara Pierce, Editor


      Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by

              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT


                         National Office
                       1800 Johnson Street
                   Baltimore, Maryland  21230
                   NFB Net BBS: (612) 696-1975
              Web Page address: http://www.nfb.org



           Letters to the President, address changes,
        subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,
       articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor
             should be sent to the National Office.




Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars
per year.
Members are invited, and
non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost.
Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:


                National Federation of the Blind
                       1800 Johnson Street
                    Baltimore, Maryland 21230


   THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
 SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES





ISSN 0006-8829

THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

                            CONTENTS
                                                       JUNE, 1997


Historic Victory at Last
for the National Federation of the Blind and Blind Vendors
     by James Gashel

Price, Tax, and Gratitude:
Doing Business with Telesensory

It Is About Guide Dogs:
But It Is About More Than Guide Dogs

Can Braille Change the Future?
     by Denise Staulter

What We Can Expect from a Commission for the Blind
     by James H. Omvig

Who Are the Experts? Comments on Pregnant Women and Blind
Consumers
     by James H. Omvig

Blind, 88, and on the Rocks
     by Heather Harmon

Vision Stimulation: Is the Tide Turning?

Carnival Magic for a Federationist
     by Julie A. Russell

More about Braille Remote Learning

Recipes

Monitor Miniatures

       Copyright (c) 1997 National Federation of the Blind

[LEAD PHOTO #1: Doris Johnson stands at the banquet podium
speaking into a microphone. She has her hands on the plaque she
has just received, which is lying on the lectern. PHOTO #2: Doris
Johnson is carrying a stack of baking trays toward a commercial
sink unit, obviously intent on washing them.
     CAPTION: At the 1994 Convention of the National Federation
of the Blind, Doris Johnson received the Jacobus tenBroek
Distinguished Service Award (above) for her hundreds of hours of
volunteer service at the National Center for the Blind. An active
member of the Baltimore Chapter, Doris continues to serve
selflessly wherever and whenever an extra pair of hands is
needed. (Pictured below, Doris Johnson works in the kitchen at
the National Center for the Blind.) This April the City of
Baltimore honored Doris with its Volunteer Award for Continuing
Service. Although a number of such awards were presented, Doris
has the distinction of having both the Baltimore Sun newspaper
and a local television station do stories about her and her work
with the National Federation of the Blind. We who know and love
Doris have always recognized the value of her cheerful, tireless
service to the organization. It is fitting that the City of
Baltimore has acknowledged her value as well]
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dennis Groshel]
                    Historic Victory at Last
   for the National Federation of the Blind and Blind Vendors
                         by James Gashel

     From the Editor: When the Randolph-Sheppard Act was last
amended in 1974, it was the National Federation of the Blind that
insisted upon having legal safeguards in the law to prevent
violations by both federal and state agencies. The principal
safeguard is the right to arbitration of disputes and the
opportunity to take an unresolved violation into the federal
courts if the arbitration is not successful. Although the entire
process can become somewhat lengthy and expensive to all parties,
the case discussed here by James Gashel shows that justice can
eventually prevail. In his capacity as Director of Governmental
Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind, Mr. Gashel was
asked to represent the State of Minnesota and Dennis Groshel, a
blind vendor when the dispute with the Department of Veterans
Affairs started at the arbitration stage several years ago.
     Events surrounding this case, now known as the Dennis
Groshel case, have been recounted in the Braille Monitor on the
occasion of each major decision on the long path toward a final
resolution. (See the January, 1989; February, 1993; and June,
1994, issues of the Braille Monitor.) The battleground in this
particular dispute has been a vending facility, consisting
entirely of vending machines, located at the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The
question has been whether a blind vendor, by virtue of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, should be given a priority over commercial
vendors in operating the vending machines as a small business
under the federal Randolph-Sheppard Act at that location.
     While in one sense the immediate issue of a particular
vending facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota, should have been quite
narrow, the implications for both the Department of Veterans
Affairs, on the one hand, and the entire national program for
blind vendors, on the other, are broad and substantial. This is
why the struggle and the litigation underlying it have been so
contentious and protracted.
     Under any other conditions a blind vendor, standing alone,
would have been forced to abandon the effort years ago. But
Dennis Groshel has had the National Federation of the Blind by
his side all the way. It should also be recognized, however, that
we have benefitted greatly from the cooperative leadership of the
state licensing agency for blind vendors in Minnesota--the
Minnesota Department of Economic Security. This agency, the
attorney general of Minnesota, and all of the staff and officials
involved deserve great credit for standing firm on behalf of
Dennis Groshel and all blind vendors in this instance. With that
as a backdrop, here is Mr. Gashel's explanation of the events in
this case, followed by the final and binding decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

     The federal Randolph-Sheppard Act directs that "priority" be
given to blind persons in the operation of vending facilities on
federal property. This mandate applies to all departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States. Nonetheless
the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Veterans' Canteen
Service (VCS) have been particularly stubborn in refusing to
abide by the law. The Department operates 171 medical center
facilities throughout the country. Each state, with the exception
of Alaska, has at least one of these centers, and several states
have many more.
     In theory there should be no doubt about whether the
veterans facilities are subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act, but
for many years that has not stopped the Department of Veterans
Affairs from resisting the application of the priority for blind
vendors. The Department has contended that the VCS has the
exclusive right by law to serve patients, visitors, and others at
the medical centers which it operates. The National Federation of
the Blind has held exactly the opposite view.
     Dennis Groshel is a licensed blind vendor in Minnesota. He
is also a long-time member of the National Federation of the
Blind. Beginning in 1985, he was assigned to a vending facility,
consisting entirely of vending machines, at the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center located in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
These vending machines had been serviced by a blind vendor since
1977. This was an exception to the Department of Veterans
Affairs' general rule.
     The arrangement between the VCS and the Minnesota Department
of Economic Security--the licensing agency for blind vendors in
Minnesota--was an ordinary commercial vending contract. In
agreeing to this arrangement, the VCS was not conceding that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act would have any applicability at the St.
Cloud medical center or at any similar site. From the VCS's point
of view it was irrelevant that the machines were being serviced
by a blind vendor who was licensed under the Randolph-Sheppard
Act.
     A commercial vending contract differs from an agreement
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act in at least two respects. First,
a contract has a limited term, normally three or five years, with
two noncompetitive extensions allowed for satisfactory
performance. The Randolph-Sheppard agreement, technically
referred to as a "permit," is for an indefinite period, subject
to cancellation only in the event of non-performance. Second,
commercial contracts require vending machine operators to pay a
commission fee based on sales. No commission is charged for sales
made by blind vendors under Randolph-Sheppard permits.
     In 1985, when Dennis Groshel took over the St. Cloud medical
center vending machines, the contract was due to expire in 1987.
It was uncertain whether he would be awarded the contract after
that time. Also Dennis was required to pay an amount equal to 17
percent of his gross revenues directly to the VCS as a sales
commission. The contract required this payment. These conditions-
-the periodic termination of the contract and the sales
commission--were not imposed upon other blind vendors in the
state. The situation raised questions about basic fairness and
about the applicability of the law.
     To its credit the Department of Economic Security concluded
that Dennis Groshel should be treated like all of the other
vendors in its program. Therefore the licensing agency asked the
VCS to issue a normal Randolph-Sheppard permit for the continued
operation of the vending machines at the St. Cloud medical center
as the time for the contract to expire approached in 1987. The
application for a permit was filed in 1986, and soon thereafter
the written response came back. The VCS refused the state's
request for a permanent agreement, or permit (rather than a
contract), with the stated reason that the medical center (and by
implication all of its other medical centers) are exempt from the
priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act.
     At this point the battle was joined. The legal question was
whether the priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act
apply to property served by the VCS or whether that property is
exempt from the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The Department of Veterans
Affairs correctly pointed out that vending machines on property
served by the VCS are exempt by law from the income-sharing
provisions which would otherwise apply. The Department then
argued that, by extension, Congress implicitly provided an
exemption from the Act for all VCS activities. These arguments
are grist for the ongoing mill of the federal courts, but time
was running out for Dennis Groshel. The immediate concern was
what would happen to his vending facility in mid-1987 when the
contract was scheduled to expire.
     Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act a state licensing agency may
file a complaint with the Secretary of Education if it finds that
a federal property-managing Department, agency, or
instrumentality is violating the law. An arbitration panel is
then appointed to conduct a hearing and decide whether the act
has been violated. The Minnesota agency filed its complaint early
in 1987, but the normal arbitration of such matters can take as
long as two years. In order to protect Dennis Groshel's business
during this period, we advised the state to seek a federal court
injunction which would maintain the existing contract until the
legal dispute was resolved. Officials in Minnesota, including the
attorney general, agreed.
     They sought and obtained an injunction, which placed
Dennis's livelihood out of harm's way while the legal proceedings
moved back from the federal district court to the arbitration
panel. Panels appointed under the Randolph-Sheppard Act are
composed of three members--one chosen by the state licensing
agency, one chosen by the federal property-managing agency, and a
third member who serves as chairman and is appointed by the other
two members. On this panel I served on behalf of the State of
Minnesota. That was, of course, the official, legal designation;
but I also served on behalf of Dennis Groshel and, in a broader
sense, on behalf of all blind vendors who might someday be
affected by the decision in this case.
     It would be an understatement to say that the proceedings
before this panel were convoluted. The hearing record was more
extensive than that developed in any previous Randolph-Sheppard
arbitration. Well over one hundred separate documents were placed
before the panel as evidence during the first of two hearings. As
matters evolved, the dispute was divided into three phases with a
temporary (initial) ruling made in 1988, a supplemental decision
made in 1989, and a final decision made in August of 1991. In all
three rulings the panel unanimously confirmed the view that the
Randolph-Sheppard Act does apply to property served by the VCS.
     The purport of this decision was that the state of Minnesota
and Dennis Groshel must be given priority to provide vending
machine services at the St. Cloud medical center. The panel was
divided, however, on several questions relating to the terms of a
continuing agreement between the VCS and the state which would
implement the statutory priority. The most pronounced
disagreement revolved around money--would the VCS be entitled to
receive a commission from sales made from vending machines
operated by a blind vendor?
     In its initial ruling the panel unanimously declared that
the commission fee of 17 percent, which had been charged to
Dennis Groshel based on his gross sales, was "an inequity." The
panel then ordered that no commission should be charged by the
VCS until all of the legal questions had been resolved. The
effect of this decision was an immediate doubling of Mr.
Groshel's net income from approximately $13,500 to about $27,000.
The difference was the amount that he had been paying to the VCS.
     This is how the case stood until August 14, 1991, when the
panel issued its final decision and award. In a surprising turn
of events, two members--a majority of the panel--reversed
themselves on the commission question and found that a 17-percent
commission rate would be acceptable at the St. Cloud medical
center. They expressed the view that this did not violate the
Randolph-Sheppard Act. I disagreed, arguing that the Randolph-
Sheppard Act does not allow the VCS to impose a charge for
providing a vending-facility opportunity to a blind vendor. To
permit a commission to be charged would be inconsistent with the
panel's firm opinion that the Randolph-Sheppard Act applies to
property served by the VCS just as it does to all other agencies.
Still the vote was two to one.
     Court action was then necessary to appeal the arbitration
panel's final ruling. In the fall of 1992 the District Court
upheld the panel's unanimous view that the Randolph-Sheppard Act
applies to the medical center and then reversed the panel
majority on its view that a commission could be charged. (See the
February, 1993, issue of the Braille Monitor for the text of this
decision.) The Department of Veterans Affairs appealed this
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. Throughout these proceedings the National Federation of
the Blind continued to represent Dennis Groshel's interests by
formally intervening in the case on his behalf.
     On March 11, 1994, the court of appeals ruling was handed
down. It has stood as the final decision in the issues raised in
this dispute, at least to that point. The Department of Veterans
Affairs decided to abandon further appeals over the questions of
commissions or Randolph-Sheppard priority. However, it was pretty
clear that the Department of Veterans Affairs had not undergone a
change of heart. The decision by the appeals court was binding
throughout the states covered by the Eighth Circuit--Arkansas,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota--and was precedent-setting for the rest of the country.
     But it didn't take long to discover that the VCS and the
Department of Veterans Affairs had no intention of lying down and
tamely giving in. As far back as the arbitration panel's decision
of 1991, the VCS had been told that it could not install vending
machines to compete with Dennis Groshel's operation at the St.
Cloud Center. But, ignoring this part of the arbitration ruling,
the Department of Veterans Affairs decided that a permit for
Dennis Groshel to continue to work at the St. Cloud facility
would be granted only if VCS would also be allowed to install
vending machines to compete with Mr. Groshel's. The National
Federation of the Blind and Minnesota officials said no, and with
that the parties were back in district court, where our position
was once again upheld.
     The Department of Veterans Affairs is nothing if not
stubborn, so, when it lost that decision, it went back
immediately to the Appeals Court for the Eighth Circuit on
October 23, 1996. The appeals court's decision was filed on
February 26, 1997. It was a total victory for Dennis Groshel. The
court ruled that the VCS could not install vending machines
unless the Secretary of Education made an exception in the clear
mandate given by Congress to Randolph-Sheppard vendors. Because
of its importance to all blind vendors, we are reprinting both
the letter to President Maurer from our attorney describing the
decision and the decision itself. Here are both documents:

                                              Baltimore, Maryland
                                                    March 3, 1997

Mr. Marc Maurer, President
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland

     Re: Minnesota v. Riley/Groshel v. Corley

Dear Mr. Maurer:
     Victory! Enclosed is a copy of the 8th Circuit's decision,
which affirms the district court's finding that VCS installation
of competing vending machines would limit Dennis Groshel's
ability to earn a living and is therefore forbidden.
     Potentially, the VCS could ask for an exemption from the
Secretary of Education or could petition the Supreme Court to
review the case. I think both are unlikely, and even less likely
to be granted.
     On the other hand, we will probably file a request to
recover at least a portion of the attorneys' fees and costs you
have paid. The court reached this decision in the appeal of the
State's case (in which Dennis was also a party), and therefore
dismissed our separate case as moot, and I am not yet sure how
that affects our chances for fees. Also, because our opponent was
the federal government, the standard for recovering fees is not
simply did we prevail, but was the government's position
substantially justified? The Eighth Circuit's description of
VCS's behavior as "stonewall[ing]" and a "scorched-earth
campaign" will help with that. The precedent should also help
force other VA hospitals to create facilities for blind vendors.
     Whatever happens on fees, the bottom line is a very sweet
victory and a guarantee that Dennis will be able to continue to
operate without competing machines. I know he is grateful for the
Federation's help, without which the VA would long since have
succeeded in driving him out of business. If you have any
questions about any of this, please call me.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Andrew D. Freeman

                           __________

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Eighth Circuit
                          No. 96-2477MN

Minnesota Department of Economic Security
State Services for the Blind and Visually Handicapped
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Dennis Groshel, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard Riley, United States Secretary of Education
United States Department of Veterans Affairs; James B. Donahoe,
in his official capacity as Director, Veterans Canteen Service,
Defendants-Appellants

          Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the District of Minnesota

                                      Submitted: October 23, 1996
                                         Filed: February 26, 1997

Before Fagg, Bowman, and Hansen, Circuit Judges.

Fagg, Circuit Judge.
     The Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act, 20 U.S.C. 107-
107f (1994) (the Act), gives blind persons licensed by a state
licensing agency priority to operate vending facilities on
federal property. This dispute began more than ten years ago,
when Minnesota's licensing agency, the Minnesota Department of
Economic Security (formerly the Minnesota Department of Jobs and
Training) (Minnesota), applied under the Act and its
corresponding regulations for a vending permit for the Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota (VA Medical
Center). Minnesota's application was rejected by the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans' Canteen Service
(collectively VCS), which claimed to be exempt from the Act.
Minnesota sought arbitration, as the Act provides. See 20 U.S.C.
 107d-1(b). The arbitration panel (the Panel) held the VCS was
subject to the Act. The VCS and Minnesota then jointly submitted
five disputed issues for the Panel to resolve. Only two are
relevant to this appeal. The Panel decided Minnesota's licensed
blind vendor Dennis Groshel should pay the VCS a commission on
vending sales, and the VCS does not have the "right to install
and operate its own vending machines" at the VA Medical Center.
     Minnesota sought judicial review in the district court,
which decided commission payments violate the Act. The VCS
appealed to this court, and we affirmed. See Minnesota Department
of Jobs & Training v. Riley, 18 F.3d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 1994). We
held the Act applies to the VCS. See id. at 608-09. We also held
that commission payments, like any limitation on a blind vendor's
operation, are unlawful unless approved by the Secretary of
Education. See id. at 609; 20 U.S.C.  107(b). Although Riley
paved the way for Minnesota to receive its vending permit, the
VCS continued and continues to stonewall Minnesota and its blind
licensee. Ignoring the Act, the Panel's decision, and our opinion
in Riley, the VCS offered Minnesota a permit, but only if
Minnesota agrees the VCS can install competing vending machines
at the VA Medical Center. Minnesota returned to the district
court, which granted Minnesota's motion to enforce the Panel's
decision. In doing so, the district court recognized that
"installation of vending machines by the VCS is undoubtedly an
attempt to limit the income of the blind vendor which must be
approved [by] the Secretary of the [Department of Education]
prior to implementation." Although the district court
characterized its enforcement order as a preliminary injunction,
we agree with the VCS that, for the purpose of review, we should
treat the order as a permanent injunction because Minnesota and
the VCS disagree only about the law, and nothing remains for the
district court to resolve. Likewise, we agree with the VCS that
we review the disputed questions of law de novo. See
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
Dist. Lodge No. 19 v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 850 F2d 368, 374 (8th
Cir. 1988) (en banc). On appeal, the VCS once again claims
exemption from the Act. Our earlier opinion in Riley forecloses
this claim.
     Echoing its argument in Riley, the VCS contends it need not
comply with  107(b), which prohibits any limitation on a blind
vendor's operation unless approved by the Secretary of Education,
because the Veterans' Canteen Service Act independently
authorizes the VCS to operate vending machines at the VA Medical
Center. See 38 U.S.C.  7802. Further, the VCS asserts that when
it operates within the parameters of  7802, neither an
arbitration panel convened under 20 U.S.C.  107d-1(b) nor the
district court can hold the VCS answerable for violations of the
Act. In Riley, however, we held the VCS must comply with every
provision of the Act, and that includes  107(b) and 107d-1(b).
See 18 F.3d at 608-09. We have never questioned the VCS's
authority to operate canteens, install vending machines, or do
anything else the VCS's enabling legislation empowers it to do.
But in Riley, we held the Act precludes the VCS's exercise of its
statutory authority when that exercise would limit a blind
vendor's operation, unless the Secretary approves the limitation.
See id. at 609-10. Here, the VCS does not challenge the district
court's finding that "competing vending machines will...undermine
or...destroy [the] blind vendor's ability to obtain what is
already a small income." No less than commission payments,
competing machines would limit the blind vendor's operation.
Riley rules out both, unless the Secretary decides otherwise.
     In truth, the VCS has done far more than merely limit the
blind vendor's operation at the VA Medical Center. Congress
assumed federal agencies would respect a blind person's vending
enterprise and willingly comply with the Act. See 20 U.S.C. 
107d-2(b) (2). Instead, the VCS has tried to drive the blind
vendor out of its domain. Testifying before the Panel in 1988, a
VCS official said:

     Basically as long as this dispute lasts, the guy who is going
to suffer
     over it is going to be [the blind vendor] because prices are
going to
     continue to go up, and we are going to continue to hold until
this is
     resolved. The longer it goes on the less money he is going to
make.

Nine years later, the VCS is still at it, demanding the right to
install machines that would, as the district court found, destroy
the blind vendor's livelihood. It is time for the VCS's scorched-
earth campaign to end. Although Minnesota, in securing a permit,
must work within the Act's regulatory scheme, Riley makes clear--
and we hold today--that unless the VCS gets the Secretary's
approval, the VCS may not insist Minnesota accept the presence of
VCS vending machines at the VA Medical Center as the price of
Minnesota's permit.
     Finally, the VCS raises two other issues. First, the VCS
contends arbitration panels convened under  107d-1(b) have no
authority to order remedies for violations of the Act. See
Maryland State Department of Educ. v. United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, 98 F3d 165, 169-71 (4th Cir. 1996); Georgia
Department of Human Resources v. Nash, 915 F.2d 1482, 1491-92
(11th Cir. 1990). The VCS's argument is misplaced. The Panel
never ordered the VCS to take any remedial action but simply
decided competing VCS vending machines at the VA Medical Center
would violate the Act. The Panel did exactly what the statute
authorizes. See 20 U.S.C.  107d-2(b); Maryland State Department
of Education, 98 F.3d at 169-71; Nash, 915 F.2d at 1491-92.
Indeed, by insisting on a permit condition at odds with the
Panel's decision, it is the VCS that ignores its statutory
responsibility to bring itself into compliance with the Act. See
Maryland State Department of Education, 98 F.3d at 171. Second,
the VCS questions whether the Panel's no-VCS-machines decision
continues in force because the Panel's reasoning interweaves that
decision with its overturned ruling on commission payments. If
the two decisions were as mutually dependent as the VCS now
claims, it is surprising the VCS did not say so when the
commissions issue was before us in Riley. Nevertheless, the
argument is without merit. The VCS itself, together with
Minnesota, asked the Panel to resolve two separate disputed
issues, commission payments and competing machines. In deciding
against the VCS's vending machines, the Panel took into
consideration that the VCS would receive commissions. The Panel
never said, however, that if Minnesota pays no commissions, the
VCS may then go ahead and install its machines. Rather, the Panel
said yes to commissions and no to competing VCS vending machines.
The Panel's decision was the final word on what the VCS must do
to comply with the act. See  107d-1(b).
     The VCS is no different from any other steward of federal
property. If the VCS wants to impose limitations on a blind
vendor's operation, it must get permission from the Secretary of
Education. Of course, if the Secretary approves installation of
the VCS's vending machines, the VCS need not share its income
with the blind vendor. See  107d-3(d). We affirm the decision of
the district court.
                                                      A true copy
                                                    Attest: Clerk
                            U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit


***********************************************************
     You can create a gift annuity by transferring money or
property to the National Federation of the Blind. In turn, the
NFB contracts to pay you income for life or your spouse or loved
ones after your death. How much you and your heirs receive as
income depends on the amount of the gift and your age when
payments begin. You will receive a tax deduction for the full
amount of your contribution, less the value of the income the NFB
pays to you or your heirs.
     You would be wise to consult an attorney or accountant when
making such arrangements so that he or she can assist you to
calculate current IRS regulations and the earning potential of
your funds. The following example illustrates how a charitable
gift annuity can work to your advantage.
     Mary Jones, age sixty-five, decides to set up a charitable
gift annuity by transferring $10,000 to the NFB. In return the
NFB agrees to pay Mary a lifetime annuity of $750 per year, of
which $299 is tax-free. Mary is also allowed to claim a tax
deduction of $4,044 in the year the NFB receives the $10,000
contribution.
     For more information about charitable gift annuities,
contact the National Federation of the Blind, Special Gifts, 1800
Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230-4998, (410) 659-9314,
fax (410) 685-5653.
***************************************************************


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Cynthia Handel]
                   Price, Tax, and Gratitude:
                 Doing Business with Telesensory

     Every time one of my children uses my microwave, I receive
an earful of teasing about its decrepit condition and my obvious
and immediate need for a new one. I hang on loyally to my poor
old microwave because it has given good service for a dozen years
and because I dread trying to find one today that I can actually
operate. I feel real hostility when I am forced to think about
what appliance designers have done to blind people by installing
flat touch pads and burgeoning menu options.
     So, although I have never used an Optacon, I can understand
in small part the anger and frustration of those who have
depended for years on this portable, flexible method of reading
print. Telesensory has decided to stop making, and in the
foreseeable future to stop repairing, Optacons because too few
people are buying them. Marketing decisions must be made based on
sales figures, and consumers must live with those decisions or
see producers go out of business altogether.
     But Optacon users have not lain down and taken Telesensory's
decision passively. Understandably they feel betrayed and
abandoned. No other piece of technology provides the kind of
print access the Optacon does, and those who need that particular
ability face very real inconvenience and inefficiency.
     So what happens when disgruntled users respond angrily to a
notice that in six months their Optacon maintenance contracts
will no longer be honored? As it happens, we have an answer to
that question. Cindy and Gerry Handel, leaders of the NFB of
Pennsylvania, are both longtime Optacon users. What follows is a
transmittal letter from Cindy to Ted Young, President of the NFB
of Pennsylvania, and the letters she received from Telesensory
and her response. Telesensory Systems, Inc., has changed its name
several times during the past twenty years. People are still apt
to use any of them when referring to the company. Here are the
letters:

                                                   March 15, 1997
                                      Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Mr. Ted Young, President
NFB of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Ted,
     I know that Telesensory is not one of your favorite
companies. So I thought you might be interested in the
information I've enclosed. Jerry and I received the enclosed
letter from TSI this week. They are no longer going to offer
service agreements for our Optacons. However, they will still
repair them, at cost to us, which I'm sure will not be
inexpensive. We have always been captive when it came to their
prices and services. Now it's just getting worse. The most
frustrating part is that we seem to have no power to do anything
about it. The only option, which is coming much sooner than we
thought, will be to use some other type of reading device. While
they are good, they don't offer the same flexibility that we have
with Optacons for some uses. Additionally, replacing this
equipment will be costly for our own personal use at home. Then
I'll have to figure out what to do about work.
     Hope you will read the information and offer any suggestions
you might have about how I can further deal with them. There is
probably nothing more to be done because there never is. Just
thought you should know.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Cynthia E. Handel

                           __________

                                                   March 10, 1997
                                        Mountain View, California

Gerald & Cynthia Handel
Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Handel,
     Thank you for your past purchases and continuing support of
Telesensory.
     Due to increasing cost and limited availability of service
parts, we regret to inform you that we cannot offer an extension
to service agreement contracts for some of our products that are
out of production.
     Therefore, when the current service agreement contract
expires on your Optacon I, Model number RID-02 on September 30,
1997, any repair or service that you have Telesensory perform on
this unit after that date will be billed to you.
     Please be assured that we will continue servicing these
units as long as replacement parts are available for them.
     If you have any questions in regard to the above, please do
not hesitate to contact me at the following: phone (415) 960-
0920, extension 3327, Fax (415) 960-0277, Internet:
jvickers@telesensory.com
                                                       Sincerely,
                                                  Jill E. Vickers
                                       Lead, Order Administration
                                      Blindness Products Division
                                                      Telesensory

     That was the letter the Handels received from Telesensory,
and its notification of increased repair costs and inevitable
cessation of all Optacon repairs led to frustration and anger.
After all, the Handels had hoped to keep their units going
through maintenance contracts for a good while longer. This is
what Cynthia wrote:

                                                   March 15, 1997
                                      Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Ms. Jill E. Vickers
Lead, Order Administration
Blindness Products Division
Telesensory Systems, Inc.
Mountain View, California

Dear Ms. Vickers:
     My husband Jerry and I are both Optacon users. I have had
mine since February, 1974, and Jerry has used his since March,
1977. So you can see that we are not new to our relationship with
Telesensory Systems. Over the years, however, the business
relationship has always been provider-oriented. We, as consumers,
had no choice and very little say about how the services were
provided and fees levied. If we were to continue to use our
Optacons, we had to agree to the terms set by TSI.
     During the mid-1970's, Telesensory Systems offered regional
service centers. Optacon users could send their Optacons to a
repair person, often within their own state. The turn-around time
was short, and convenience was a priority. Then, apparently, this
became too costly. So all services were moved to your
headquarters in California. Indeed you paid to have the machine
sent back to us, but we had to pay to ship the product to you for
inspection or service. Having it insured for its value and
shipped second day air, which you recommended, became costly--
recently as much as $50.
     Then we must consider the cost of service. I, unfortunately,
had the bad experience of having to have an array replaced while
my Optacon was not covered under a service agreement. This cost
me approximately $1,700--nearly half the cost of the piece of
equipment. Since then, in approximately 1981, Jerry and I have
spent the money, apparently wisely, to purchase service
agreements for our Optacons. We have probably paid you somewhere
in the area of $8,700 over the past fifteen years for service on
two Optacons.
     I don't have a problem with paying for a service agreement
and wish that you still offered them. We received your letter
this week indicating that, because of the "difficulty in
obtaining parts," you are no longer going to offer a service
agreement on our Optacons. You did not say that you cannot repair
our Optacons, but just that you will charge us for the service. I
do have a problem with this position.
     I work for the Better Business Bureau. We are constantly
advising consumers to be wise shoppers and compare prices and
services--look for the best buy. If they are charged what they
believe is too much for a product or service, in most cases they
have only themselves to blame because they had the opportunity to
compare ahead of time. We do not have that option. Telesensory
Systems is the only company, and has always been the only
company, in the country, and for that matter in the world, who
sells and services Optacons. When we've needed service, we have
had no idea whether all the parts and adjustments which have been
performed were really necessary. We have to take your word for
it. We cannot get a second opinion or tell you that we don't like
the outrageous fees you choose to charge for your precious
service.
     When I was told that my array needed to be replaced, I was
shocked. I had been using the Optacon and didn't notice a problem
with it. I simply sent it for a check-up and got hit with that
bill. How are we now to know, when we have to pay for service
because you have eliminated your service policy, that we will
really be getting the quality service we need and that we will be
charged fairly? Are you going to publish a parts price list and
labor schedule for us to examine before we ask for service? I
think not.
     So, finally, you have made the decision about what we will
do for the privilege of using our Optacons. Admittedly, ours are
older models. Perhaps the new models made in collaboration with
Cannon, would cost less to repair, but then that's understandable
because, although the retail price didn't come down much, they
probably cost less to make. The quality certainly isn't there.
But then you didn't want to hear that, either, when Optacon users
told you about it.
     So in your letter you said that we should feel free to
contact you with any suggestions. My biggest question is,
whatever happened to the supply-and-demand concept of service
provision? Yes, the service will be provided on these machines
for some limited period of time, but at what cost to the
consumers? As I understand it, the Optacon was the first product
TSI produced. Now that you believe it is less convenient for you
to provide products and services to Optacon users, you're just
going to drop it and move on to something else, until you tire of
that one. Think of this: although Braille can now be produced
with computers and many people use other means to read because
they've been told that Braille is slow, Perkins Braillers are
still being produced. They are sold and serviced through many
companies across the country. While prices may not vary
drastically, we still have choice. Perhaps Telesensory should
take a lesson from that and consider serving their consumers
rather than dictating to us.
     I am sending copies of this letter, along with your letter
to us, to a few people who may be interested in what is happening
with TSI and your services. They are listed below. I would
appreciate hearing from you if it is not simply a public-
relations-driven form letter. I've read them and am not
interested.
     Incidentally, I did read your letter to me with my Optacon.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Cynthia E. Handel
cc:  Marc Maurer, President
     National Federation of the Blind
     Ted Young, President
     National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania
     Barbara Pierce, Editor
     Braille Monitor

     There you have Cynthia Handel's letter. Understandably it
was not well received at Telesensory--it is never pleasant to be
on the receiving end of anger and criticism. It cannot have
helped that accusations similar to those implicit in Cynthia's
letter have been made against Telesensory by many over the years.
In any case something seems to have snapped in Telesensory's
corporate psyche. The Handel letter apparently made its way to
the desk of Larry Israel (Chairman, President, and CEO of
Telesensory). He undertook to write a response defending the
company's decision to stop production of the Optacon, praising
the ability of his employees, and criticizing Mrs. Handel for
hurting their feelings. While not particularly professional or
understanding of the strain the corporate decision had placed on
those dependent on the disappearing Optacon technology, Mr.
Israel's response is chiefly astonishing for its condescending
lecture on the Handels' ingratitude for all the years of faithful
service the Optacon technology and Telesensory employees have
given them. While generally accepted conventions of civility
require that our dealings with one another be courteous, the
concept that those buying products and services from producers
have an obligation to feel and express gratitude for the
privilege of enjoying what they have bought is at the very least
novel. Here is Larry Israel's letter:

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Larry Israel, Chairman, President, and CEO of
Telesensory
Systems, Inc.]
                                                   March 25, 1997
                                        Mountain View, California

Cynthia E. Handel
Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Dear Ms. Handel,
     Thank you for your letter of March 15 to Jill Vickers.
Because of the importance of the subject you've raised, I felt it
important that I respond to you on behalf of Telesensory and its
employees.
     For more than twenty-five years our company has worked
diligently to provide useful products and services to its blind
customers around the world. For the most part I think we have
succeeded, although I can acknowledge that we make mistakes, as
does any company (or any human being, for that matter). If we had
not served our customers well, for the most part, we might well
have disappeared by now.
     For twenty-two years, you and your husband received
substantially uninterrupted use of your devices, and they are
still going strong. How many times did you write to thank the
people supporting you for all these years? Have you ever heard of
a consumer product operating and supported by the manufacturer
for that long a period of time? (You should ask your colleagues
at the BBB for examples of such companies.) Others have expressed
their appreciation to people like Teresa Lee at Telesensory for
more than twenty years, and who personally and lovingly assembled
the last one to be built. If you have any thanks or appreciation
for the contributions Telesensory has made to your quality of
life, your letter is strangely silent about that.
     Your letter is unfair to the 200 plus employees of
Telesensory, many of whom have dedicated ten to twenty years of
their lives to serve you, the customer. Telesensory is not one
evil person. It is a group of hard-working people who do the best
they can.
     I am offended by your letter, as are others of our employees
who have seen it, because it indicates a flawed attitude about
our company and our employees which is wholly unwarranted, to the
extent it is based on the facts and circumstances you offer. Your
letter also seems to suggest that you believe Telesensory should
meet your needs without regard to whether it is profitable to do
so.
     We are a for-profit company and are not at all ashamed or
embarrassed about that. Without profits companies do not survive
nor prosper, and grow and develop new products to benefit their
customers, nor offer their employees a fair living, nor reward
their shareholders for their investments which made it all
possible, unless someone subsidizes them (whether it be
government or by charitable donations).
     Your contention that our business has always been provider-
oriented, and that you (as consumers) have had little to say
about it, is flatly untrue, except in the very limited sense
which is true with respect to any unique product. The fact is
that many, many blind people are unwilling to purchase Optacons
today, whether because they do not highly value its functions, do
not want to undertake the extensive training required, or think
that it is too high-priced. Those people have made consumer
choices and have strongly influenced what we do. The number of
people who wish to buy Optacons is very small and continues to
diminish each year. That represents the voices of consumers
delivering a message to Telesensory, and the message is: "Do not
produce Optacons any more."
     Yes, I understand that you and your husband, among many
others, have expressed an opposite opinion. But you are in a
distinct minority, and there are simply not enough interested
customers to justify continuing product development or production
of Optacons, regrettable as that might be. The consumer has
spoken!
     Regarding service agreements versus charging for that
service on a case-by-case basis: if we offer you a service
agreement, we have a legal and a moral obligation to maintain a
reasonable supply of parts to meet our service obligations. If we
cannot be assured of a reasonable supply of parts, it would be
duplicitous and deceitful of us to offer service agreements, and
we might well be subject to legal action from consumers.
     Please refer to Ms. Vickers's letter to our customers, in
which she states: "Please be assured that we will continue
servicing these units as long as replacement parts are available
for them." On a chargeable service basis, which is the current
situation, you may request service, and we may unfortunately be
unable to provide it due to unavailability of parts. After the
product has been out of production for ten years, I find nothing
about such a policy to be reprehensible, immoral, or poor
business practice. There is a reality here related to what is
humanly possible for us to do, which cannot be overcome by
wishful thinking.
     I also deeply resent the implication that we have in any way
cheated you because you cannot get a second opinion regarding the
costs of service. You never were presented with a bill you had to
pay. Your approval was always solicited, after our technicians
advised you of what, in their professional opinion, was necessary
to permit the product to function properly. Since we are the only
manufacturer of the Optacon, there is no rational way in which we
could make it possible for you to get a second opinion, but that
is hardly a sound basis on which to impugn our integrity as a
company or the integrity of our individual employees.
     You say that your biggest question is, "Whatever happened to
the supply-and-demand concept of service provision?" The answer
is that it is still alive and well, and we do our best to respond
to the demand for service and will do so as long as that is
reasonably possible for us. In fact, we go well beyond that,
because we accept a certain level of moral obligation to continue
to provide service for this very important product. If we were to
make our decisions based solely on economic considerations, we
would have given up servicing older Optacons many years ago,
since it is not profitable for us and does not yield significant
revenue.
     In most of our product lines we do have very strong
competition, and our customers do make choices about what
products they will buy. We are very sensitive to what our
customers feel and believe and try to pay much attention to that.
That is the primary reason why I have written this quite lengthy
letter to you, because I believe that I have as much obligation
to honor and respect the contributions of our employees (and
prevent their integrity from being unfairly impugned) as I have
an obligation to give very careful consideration to the interests
and needs of our customers, such as yourself.
     While we clearly disagree on some important issues, I do
respect your opinion. If you have other thoughts on this matter
which you would like to share, I would welcome hearing further
from you.
     Please feel free to forward copies of this letter to Mr.
Maurer, Mr. Young, and Ms. Pierce, if you wish to do so.

                                                       Sincerely,
                             Larry Israel, Chairman/President/CEO
                                        Telesensory Systems, Inc.

cc:  Soloveychik
     Meyer
     Vickers

     That was Mr. Israel's letter, and it speaks for itself. We
close this exchange of letters with Cynthia Handel's cover letter
to the Braille Monitor when she forwarded the correspondence.
Here it is:

                                                   March 30, 1997
                                      Willow Street, Pennsylvania

Mrs. Barbara Pierce, Editor
Braille Monitor
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Mrs. Pierce,
     I've enclosed a copy of the letter I received on Saturday,
March 29, 1997, from Larry Israel, President of Telesensory
Systems, Inc. This is in response to my letter of March 15, 1997,
to Jill Vickers. Mr. Israel has taken my letter very personally
and has obviously read a lot into it that wasn't there. For
example, he believes that I have had the same Optacon, working
well, for the past twenty-two years. In fact, I have had it
replaced once, and the array, which is a major part of the
equipment, replaced on the first Optacon I had. He also appears
to think that, if I believe that his staff has gone out of their
way to perform a service, they deserve thanks and praise for
doing their jobs in addition to payment. However, I have never
been in that position with TSI. Although they generally do an
adequate job repairing Optacons, you wouldn't know what they
actually did, since their handwritten service slips are difficult
to read and written in code so that an average person who does
not work for TSI does not know what the abbreviations mean.
Finally, despite what Mr. Israel believes, I have never had a
real choice about whether or not to pay one of their bills. My
only choice has been whether or not I wanted my Optacon to be
repaired so I could use it again. If I ask that they repair it, I
am expected to pay my bill, and rightly so.
     So, although I don't intend to respond to Mr. Israel's
protestations, I believe you should have his letter and these few
thoughts. His letter does make me wonder, however, if I will
receive their high standard of service on my Optacon when I send
it for a check-up for the final time before my service agreement
runs out.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                Cynthia E. Handel


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Karla Westjohn and her dog]
                     It Is About Guide Dogs:
              But It Is About More Than Guide Dogs

     From the Editor Emeritus: In the October, 1995, issue of the
Braille Monitor we extensively discussed the use of guide dogs as
a means of mobility for the blind. Despite some initial
fireworks, I think that discussion was constructive and
worthwhile. Its consequences are still being felt.
     When we were preparing that issue of the Monitor, I received
a thoughtful article from Karla Westjohn, but I got it too late
for inclusion. Now, over a year later, she has written me again,
and this time it is not too late for inclusion. What she has to
say is about guide dogs, but it is about much more than that.
     In late January of this year "Dateline NBC" aired a program
about a blind person and a guide dog, and Karla didn't like it.
No, worse than that. She thought it was absolutely
terrible--miserable--benighted--and any other uncomplimentary
term you can think of. She not only thought, but she acted. She
wrote a letter to me; she wrote an article for the Monitor; and
she wrote a letter to "Dateline NBC." We are printing all three.
     I disagree with a few of Karla's comments, but that doesn't
matter. What counts is that most of what she says is right on
target and that all of it is thoughtfully put and said with
civility. It has the ring of sincerity without the stridency of
bigotry. Our problems would be made easier if more of us behaved
that way--speaking up with courtesy, firmness, and determination
when we encounter misconceptions.
     Here is Karla's letter to me, followed by her article for
the Monitor, followed by her letter to "Dateline NBC":

Champaign, Illinois
March 28, 1997

Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, President Emeritus
National Federation of the Blind
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Dr. Jernigan:

     In late January "Dateline," one of NBC's news magazines, did
a particularly awful story featuring a blind woman and focusing
primarily upon her use of a guide dog. Before watching it, I did
not believe that every stereotype about blindness could appear in
a single broadcast. I know better now.
     To make matters worse, a representative of the NBC affiliate
for Champaign-Urbana contacted me the day before the segment
aired. The "Dateline" story dealt with guide dogs, the gentleman
said. Specifically, it dealt with the long and cumbersome process
of getting a guide dog. Would I agree to do a brief interview for
the local affiliate, which would follow "Dateline?"
     Never wishing to bypass an opportunity to present accurate
information about any and all aspects of blindness, I replied
that I would be happy to discuss the matter, but I did not find
the process difficult at all. I further stated that guide dog
schools have every right to check out applicants--as does any
other educational institution.
     I provided factual information about guide dogs and
blindness. Specifically, I discussed the responsibilities of
being a guide dog handler and stated unequivocally that cane
skills are invaluable. When the reporter inquired if my dog had
made it possible for me to do things which I could not otherwise
have done, I said that she certainly enhanced efficiency in
travel but that, whether or not I used a dog, I would have
accomplished whatever I set out to do. Parenthetically, the same
could be said of white canes.
     My responses were nonexistent in the piece. With the
exception of about five seconds, the reporter spoke the entire
time during the local broadcast, ratifying the vapid "Dateline"
interpretation and stating that I "entrusted my life" to my dog.
     During the interview I noted the advantages of guide dog
use. Not surprising, since I have worked dogs for more than ten
years. I also indicated that my dogs have provided vital
information. I hope so! If I never derived valuable information
from my Seeing Eye dogs, working them would be pointless! That is
hardly the same as mindlessly entrusting my life to my dogs.
     Suffice it to say that I was a prop in the local story, and
I didn't appreciate it! Visions of false light privacy invasion
complaints danced in my head. Currently I am operating my own law
practice and trying to return to government service as a
prosecutor. I have taught legal courses at a community college
and would like to teach at the Police Training Institute at the
University of Illinois. The kind of garbage disseminated in the
"Dateline" broadcast destroys opportunity for blind people, and I
have no desire to perpetuate the destruction.
     Furthermore, people who believe such insipid, sappy drivel
make terrible guide dog handlers. Theirs are usually the dogs who
cause problems and complications in public. At best, they send
their dogs back--confused, traumatized by poor handling,
potentially ruined for anyone else. At worst, when the dogs fail
to be caretakers in canine form, the disillusioned owner vents
her fury and frustration by abusing or neglecting the dog.
     Work kept me busy for several weeks, but I have written to
NBC to complain about the broadcast. I have also contacted WICD
TV, the local affiliate which interviewed me. In addition, I
wrote an opinion piece about guide dogs for the Champaign News
Gazette, the local newspaper. The Gazette has accepted my piece
for publication, and the editor informs me that it will appear
within the next few weeks.
     I submit that article and my letter to NBC to the Braille
Monitor. I have also included my photograph, since the Monitor
routinely prints portraits of the authors appearing in its pages.
If the Federation has not protested to NBC about the program in
question, we should.
Sincerely,

Karla Westjohn

Here is Karla's article for the Monitor:

                  Guide Dogs Are for Grown-ups
                        by Karla Westjohn

     "I like your technique," the policeman says. "That's a nice
Lab, too." I smile and thank him. As it turns out, he is a dog
handler. An attorney, I am at an unfamiliar courthouse on
business, and the door I plan to use is locked. I instruct Jodie,
my Seeing Eye dog, to "follow," and the policeman directs me to
another entrance.
     With respect to guide dogs, fact is infinitely better than
fiction. In the public mind blindness is a debilitating, shameful
curse, slightly mitigated by the heroic exploits of a dog. Some
assumptions are just too specious to go unchallenged.
     Guide work may be the most complicated job that trained dogs
perform. Guide dogs have mastered general obedience
commands--mandates like "come," "sit," and "down." They obey
basic guide commands--"right," "left," and "forward." They find
entrances and exits. They locate important objects in strange or
familiar areas--counters and elevators, to name two. They work
beautifully in snow, a cane user's nightmare because it
obliterates ground textures and mutes echoes, both of which
provide vital environmental clues. Guide dogs avoid obstructions
of all kinds--including overhead obstructions that a cane cannot
detect.
     Most difficult of all, they disobey commands if obeying them
would be hazardous. Good guide dogs have performed life-saving
tasks without being told. The traffic check is perhaps the most
obvious example of intelligent disobedience or unsolicited work.
Both Jodie and Jazz, her predecessor, have responded to rogue
vehicles before I heard them: stopping on a dime, jerking me
sideways, or backing up. I have simultaneously followed my dog
and discovered the reason for her actions. At such times reacting
to the errant vehicle when I actually heard it would have been a
dangerously late response.
     A well-used guide dog permits unparalleled speed and ease in
movement. Only joggers pass me on uncrowded sidewalks. Moving
that fast with a cane would be unthinkable. Despite proper cane
technique, momentum can cause nasty collisions. Rapid motion
generates a ferocious cane tip. If that frenetic tip gets between
the feet of another pedestrian, the luckless person falls like an
axed tree. Conversely, a properly handled guide dog moves with
slow deliberation through a crowd, painstakingly avoiding
mishaps--no more inadvertent ankle whacking.

     Beware the pitfalls!

     Mature, assertive people with strong travel and
interpersonal skills succeed as guide dog handlers. Getting a
guide dog because one lacks orientation skills, friends, or basic
self-esteem is a prescription for disaster. The best guide dog
cannot assist a mistress who is hopelessly lost most of the time.
At first the dog tries to guess what her mistress wants.
Eventually she stops guiding because working conditions are
impossible.

     The white cane is usually the bedrock of orientation skills,
social success, and a positive attitude about blindness. It
instills the abilities to visualize an area and to ask good
questions in unfamiliar surroundings. Using a cane provides a
solid understanding of traffic. Impeccable traffic checks and
intelligent disobedience happen because a guide dog handler
possesses that knowledge and usually gives proper commands to his
dog. A guide dog who is continually misdirected in heavy traffic
ultimately becomes unreliable.
     In addition, cane users tackle negative attitudes about
blindness head-on. If she wants a social life, a cane user must
be comfortable with her blindness and must put others at ease,
too. Often sighted people see the cane, imagine all the wrong
things they could say, and remain silent. The cane user makes
friends as a competent human being, not the appendage of a wonder
dog.
     In the hands of a savvy owner, a guide dog is a social
asset. A clean, well-behaved, pretty dog is more striking than a
white cane. Such a dog provides a safe entree for a sighted
person meeting a blind person for the first time. Discussions may
start with a reference to the guide dog, but they need not end
there.
     On the other hand, a guide dog in the hands of an inept
owner is a social detriment. A poorly groomed animal, wandering
loose or sniffing, unchecked, at the end of a leash, connotes the
most pathetic and antiquated images of blindness. Cutesy
behavior--dogs that vocalize in public or who are otherwise
conspicuous and disruptive--paint a portrait which is little
better. People tolerate such nonsense because, after all, this
annoying creature takes care of one even more helpless and
pitiful.
     Certainly one member of the team needs care. The dog must be
fed, relieved, groomed, bathed, and examined by a veterinarian.
Her owner must eradicate fleas and other parasites. Regular
obedience exercises maintain discipline. Regular play sessions
build the equally essential bonds of affection.
     Like all dog owners, guide dog handlers must cope with an
occasional transgression. A housebreaking mistake or some
inappropriate chewing is common in the early months of a
partnership. A flawlessly trained dog can be sick--at home or in
public. Solving such problems requires self-control and
perspective. Without anger a guide dog user must be able to
reprimand his dog when necessary. Public accidents are
embarrassing. Confronting them requires poise and courtesy. An
apology is always in order--along with an offer to clean up the
mess or to pay the cleaning bill.

     The maudlin mythology deters responsible guide dog use. Some
blind people act upon it. Consequently, they are bitterly
disappointed when their dogs fail to fix their lives. At worst,
such dogs suffer abuse or neglect by their owners. At best, the
disheartened owner sends the dog back to the school from whence
he came. At the other end of the spectrum are those blind people
who, though they could benefit by using a guide dog, are
vehemently opposed to the practice--largely because of the
widespread misconception that the dog acts as their keeper.
     Proficient guide dog handlers know better. Guide dogs lead
the way, but they look to their owners for leadership. Being
entrusted with the life and well-being of these magnificent
animals is a privilege and a responsibility which should be
clearly understood.

Here is Karla's letter to "Dateline NBC":

Champaign, Illinois
March 28, 1997

"DATELINE NBC"
New York, New York

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     On January 22, 1997, "Dateline," one of your network's news
magazines, featured a story about a blind woman with the primary
focus upon her use of a guide dog. Virtually every stereotype
about blindness manifested itself in the piece. Such press
coverage does immeasurable damage to blind people by perpetuating
misconceptions and negative attitudes about blindness.
Discrimination against the blind is rampant--in education,
employment, housing, and every other significant facet of life.
Stereotypes should be shattered, not buttressed.
     Dennis Murphy, the reporter who handled the story, describes
Desiree Stan, the subject of the feature, as "inspirational." Her
blindness is portrayed as a traumatic, terrifying curse,
imprisoning her in her home. Ms. Stan tearfully states that [upon
becoming blind] "the pills were in my hand." She laments her
inability to see color and faces.
     Blindness is a characteristic, not a curse.
     Certainly sight is a significant asset, and blindness is
sometimes a formidable inconvenience, but that is the extent of
it. Trauma, or at least grief, is present at its onset. Parents
of a blind child or adolescent are terrified about their son or
daughter's future. An adult who loses eyesight is afraid for the
same reason. Still, with proper training and equal opportunity,
the physical effects of blindness can be reduced to the level of
a nuisance.
     Blind people, including those of us who have never seen, do
not live in a dark, desolate world. We use our memories, our
other senses, and our powers of analysis to apprehend visual
phenomena and are by no means indifferent to beauty--even visual
beauty. Culture, more than visual appearance, determines what is
beautiful.
     For example, Cleopatra, at four feet nine inches and at
least 150 pounds, was a knockout in ancient Egypt. A modern
American woman of similar stature would not be considered pretty.
If visual appearance, not culture, were the primary determinant
of visual beauty, standards would be far more uniform.
     If "Dateline" wished to describe blindness or portray daily
life for a blind person, Mr. Murphy should have interviewed
someone competent in the skills of blindness and confident in the
knowledge that it is respectable to be blind. Unfortunately,
Desiree Stan demonstrates neither competence nor healthy
self-confidence. Braille and cane travel, two of the most crucial
skills of blindness, are depicted as arduous to learn and
inferior to sighted techniques.
     Ms. Stan describes the difficulty she encountered in
learning Braille, recounting finishing a few paragraphs and being
unable to recall what she had just read. No neophyte is adept at
the skill she is learning. Experience remedies this problem.
Braille is a highly efficient method for reading and writing. It
can denote all languages, music, mathematical and scientific
notation. Braille's shorthand code was, in large part,
responsible for getting me my first real job as an adult--a
secretarial position between college and law school.
     As has been the case with many other blind professionals, I
have found that Braille has facilitated most of the important
events in my life: graduating from college in the top quarter of
my class, getting a law degree, passing the bar examination on
the first try and under the same conditions as my sighted peers,
practicing law, and teaching at the college level. Deplorably,
however, only nine percent of blind students read Braille today.
Many adults who become blind receive inadequate Braille
instruction from rehabilitation professionals. Seventy percent of
working-age blind people are unemployed. Eighty-five percent of
the working blind read and write Braille proficiently.
     Hmm ... Could a news story be lurking amid those statistics?
One which actually informs the public?
     Similarly the white cane, far from being ineffective and
connoting pathos, is a tool which every blind person should know
how to use. Cane travel teaches environmental awareness as
nothing else can. With a cane an individual can move safely and
independently, interpreting ground textures and sounds, which are
every bit as informative as street signs. She learns to visualize
surroundings and to ask pertinent questions in unfamiliar areas.
She comprehends traffic patterns and traffic laws.
     More important, the white cane instills the realizations
that the blind person is a capable human being and that it is
okay to be blind. A white cane forces a blind person to confront
negative attitudes about blindness head-on. He deals with
unabashed staring and unnerving silence at his approach. She
learns to initiate social contacts. Nobody starts conversations
by complimenting a white cane, but nobody assumes that the cane
is in charge of the man or woman using it either. Friendships are
based upon mutual respect. The cane user is not the human
appendage of a wonder dog.
     I for one was appalled to hear Desiree Stan say that she
threw her cane away! The story implies that a guide dog handler
need never use a cane. Do guide dogs never become ill, never
suffer injury, never die? If, like other living creatures, they
succumb to these maladies, are their owners then marooned at
home?
     I have been a guide dog handler for more than ten years, and
I highly value my cane skills. The myth of the guide dog as
caretaker must go the way of cave dwellings. It demeans the
blind. It entices incompetent people to use guide dogs while
dissuading potentially excellent dog handlers from doing so. In
reality guide dogs are intelligent, magnificent working dogs,
who, like their contemporaries in police, search-and-rescue, and
military work, need care, love, and direction from their owners.
     We who are guide dog handlers derive numerous travel
advantages by working our dogs--faster travel, improved obstacle
clearance, and heightened reflexes, to name three. These benefits
elude the individual who cannot give specific, authoritative
commands to his dog. The handler must know where he is going and
how to get there. If he does not, guide work degenerates into
aimless wandering, and the dog chooses more rewarding
endeavors--like sniffing trees and chasing squirrels.
     Mishandled guide dogs are generally incapable of intelligent
disobedience, too. Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of guide
work, intelligent disobedience, occurs when a guide dog disobeys
an improper command. As they pass a construction site, the dog's
mistress directs him to go forward. A gaping hole yawns before
them, so the dog maneuvers to the left around the hole. A guide
dog and her master are standing at a busy intersection. The
parallel traffic indicates a green light, so the master directs
his dog to go forward. The dog does not budge. A car shoots from
the stream of parallel traffic and speeds around the corner in
front of them, turning right on red without yielding to
pedestrians.
     Veteran guide dog handlers tell stories like those with
pride, but such potentially life-saving exploits do not occur
because the dog is omniscient and the handler is oblivious. They
happen because the handler usually gives the proper commands to
his dog, and the dog thus knows what to do. A good handler also
reprimands the dog for mistakes and administers regular obedience
exercises. Guide dogs who are continually misdirected become
unreliable, as do those whose handlers tolerate misbehavior.
     Ms. Stan and Mr. Murphy make much of the social advantages
of guide dog use. Advantages exist, but not those they mention. A
clean, well-behaved, beautiful dog makes a positive statement
about her handler's capabilities and, by inference, the
capabilities of blind people generally. A reference to a guide
dog can be a safe entree for a sighted person meeting a blind
person for the first time. Working a guide dog can spark an
interest in other realms of the dog world--animal welfare,
obedience and conformation competition, and other canine
professions. Several of my friends are dog lovers who share a
major interest with me and who, at least partly because of my
dogs, see me as an equal.
     Nevertheless, using a guide dog neither insulates one from
rudeness nor ensures a social life. If anything, guide dog
handlers must be better able to blend courtesy and assertiveness
than our cane-using counterparts. Without permission--or even
after being explicitly told not to do so--people try to pet or
feed a guide dog. Those same people often speak to the dog
without uttering a word to his owner. Despite the fact that it is
illegal, guide dog handlers encounter even more discrimination
than other blind people in housing, transportation, and public
accommodations.
     The legend of the canine nanny actually impedes proper guide
work and may promote abuse and neglect of guide dogs. Sighted
people, realizing their own competence and believing that the
guide dog handler is even less capable than her dog, try to
"rescue" the team by directing the dog. The dog has no reason to
obey the stranger, and such interference only distracts her from
legitimate guide work. The well-intentioned but wrongheaded third
party may not even be using commands that the dog knows.
     The consequences can be even worse when the blind owner
believes such drivel. In the best case scenario, the disheartened
owner does not resort to inhumane measures. She merely sends a
confused, forlorn dog back to school. What a needless waste of
time, effort, and money!
     Mistreatment of guide dogs is extremely rare, but it
happens. As with other forms of cruelty, the perpetrators usually
lack basic self-esteem. Often, an abusive guide dog owner lacks
the skills of blindness too. Therefore, when his dog fails to be
the mythical guardian that magically fixes his life, the human
teammate cannot cope. Guide dogs have been kicked, beaten,
starved, and chained for days at a time.
     The NBC story also indicates that Desiree Stan obtained her
guide dog after a friend talked her into it. Apparently Mr.
Murphy believes that blind people cannot make any major
decision--even one as intimate as the choice of travel
tool--without sighted intervention. Like all major commitments
working a guide dog should be the idea of the person who will
actually do it. Guide dog handlers must feed, groom, and bathe
dogs regularly. Just as regularly we clean relief areas, control
parasites, and schedule veterinary visits. Without the care and
affection of her mistress, a guide dog has no incentive to work.
A guide dog handler must like dogs well enough to have one near
her virtually twenty-four hours a day for eight to twelve years.
She must be mature enough to face difficult decisions at the end
of her dog's life. Euthanasia is often the most merciful option,
but that does not make it easy to do.
     "Dateline's" brief allusion to the fact that "some
partnerships don't work out" is, to put it kindly, inadequate.
The problems related to guide dogs could be solved or prevented
if the people involved had a positive attitude about blindness.
Sappy drivel keeps many fine candidates for guide dogs from using
them. Many blind people are unalterably opposed to the whole
concept because of the misperceptions which surround it. Often
such individuals have excellent travel skills, which the use of a
guide dog could enhance. Frequently they are also discerning and
thoughtful--traits which make for good dog ownership of any kind.
     Most distressing of all is the pervasive contempt with which
Ms. Stan and Mr. Murphy seem to regard blind people. Ms. Stan
receives Mr. Murphy's adulation when she says that blindness
cannot "have me"--whatever that means. Undoubtedly blindness does
not define her entire life, but whether she likes it or not,
Desiree Stan is a blind woman. Mr. Murphy describes Ms. Stan as a
"scrapper." If her blindness is irreversible, Ms. Stan has two
choices: live with it or die. She's living with it. So?
     After accomplishing some rudimentary independent travel with
her dog, Ms. Stan proclaims, "Not bad for a blind woman!" If this
was supposed to be a joke, many of us are not laughing. Unfunny,
self-deprecating comments and anecdotes about blindness are as
unflattering as the performances of black vaudeville stars of a
bygone era. Fortunately for all America, those hideous displays
stopped when courageous black actors and actresses refused to
shuffle and grin.
     Describing her fear, Ms. Stan says, "I thought we [she and
her children] would end up living in a basement on public
assistance." She did not need to finish her thought; her meaning
was glaringly clear. "I thought I would be on public assistance
like all those stupid blind people to whom I am superior."
     Desiree Stan would do well to get to know some of those
blind people--including some who have had the misfortune to need
public assistance--before thrusting her nose into the air. For
me, at least, the best advice, assistance, and support in meeting
the challenges of blindness have come from other blind people.
Many blind people who receive public assistance do not do so by
choice or because they lack skills and ability. They have been
forced to accept a government check because discrimination
against the blind, statutes notwithstanding, continues unabated.
Other blind people work in vending facilities or sheltered
workshops for the same reason. Despite despicable treatment, many
of these folks volunteer in their churches or synagogues or do
other community-based charity work in an effort to leave the
world a little better than they found it.
     That, too, would be an interesting issue for "Dateline" to
tackle, but it would require the rest of society to do some
unpleasant soul-searching. No more cliches. No warm fuzzies to
make the majority feel wonderful while a minority lives in abject
and unrelenting poverty.
     Even blind professionals suffer. Though we may have fine
credentials, too few people believe that a blind person could
actually attain that sort of success. To illustrate, take the
case of a young, blind woman lawyer. She had received some
academic recognition during law school and had written a winning
appellate brief when she had less than a year's work experience.
At the time in question, she had about four years of work
experience in the public and private sectors, doing civil and
criminal work. Thinking of trading her solo shingle for an
associate's job at a law firm, she tested the waters by sending
application materials to several large, well-respected
establishments.
     To her delight, she received a letter from one of the
oldest, most respected firms in the city. The firm was not
officially hiring, the letter said, but the senior partner would
like to meet with her at her earliest convenience. Enclosed with
the letter was a brochure about the firm. The young lawyer
perused the brochure with great interest and anticipation.
     The big day came, and the attorney carefully followed the
rules of workplace etiquette. She was punctual, clad in the
requisite business attire, carrying the obligatory briefcase.
Along with extra copies of her resume and writing samples, the
briefcase contained client files for the work she had to do after
the meeting.
     She soon discovered that the senior partner had relevant
questions on his mind. "You're very attractively dressed," he
observed. "Tell me, how do you put your clothes on in the
morning?"
     Under the table, the lawyer's scrupulously clean Labrador
Retriever lay like an ebony statue, evincing no unappealing
sights, sounds, or odors.
     "Does your dog have control of her bodily functions?" the
senior partner asked next.
     He provided the lawyer with a motion, which he wanted her to
evaluate within forty-eight hours. The lawyer analyzed the
material within twenty-four hours and called back as requested.
The senior partner refused to take her calls--uninterested,
apparently, in the Erie Problem and other conflicts of law.
     He told me how much he admired me, too.
     The potential for harm by this and similar broadcasts cannot
be overstated. All people deserve to fulfill their dreams without
having to jump arbitrary hurdles. Every individual deserves the
chance to win real respect, not the saccharine sentimentality
accorded to those from whom nothing meritorious is really
expected. Tragically, NBC really blew it this time.
Sincerely,

Karla Westjohn

     P.S.: For accurate information about blindness, contact the
National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230, (410) 659-9314.


                 Can Braille Change the Future?
                       by Denise Staulter

     From the Editor: The following article first appeared in the
March, 1997, Michigan Focus, a publication of the NFB of
Michigan. Denise Staulter is an experienced teacher of blind
students. She has received and read NFB publications for some
time now, but the Michigan affiliate's fall convention last year
was her first actual contact with members of the organization. It
is obvious from the following article, however, that, like many
others of us, she was a Federationist long before she joined the
organization. This is what she says:

     As an itinerant teacher of the visually impaired, I often
teach my students for many years. More than four years ago, I met
a lovely little girl in her second year of school who had very
little usable sight for reading. Before she came to me, she had
the use of a closed circuit television (CCTV) and other
magnifying equipment but was not doing well in school because of
her lack of sight and inefficient skills for coping with this
visual impairment. The first six months we worked together she
constantly talked about quitting school as soon as she turned
sixteen. She hated school so much because she couldn't do
anything.
     I started teaching her Braille as intensely as I thought she
could handle. I knew that, when she had something she could
actually use in school, she would begin to enjoy academics like
her classmates. After a year and a half and the acquisition of a
great deal of Braille knowledge, she was able to read books like
the rest of her peers. She finally began to enjoy school. She was
still behind academically and struggled with school but insisted
every time the class had a particular book that she also have it
in Braille so she could "read it like them." She now delights in
showing sighted peers how to read Braille in her books and write
Braille words on her Brailler. This has also become quite a self-
esteem builder.
     She is also a very accomplished typist for her age. Typing
is a skill she needs right along with her Braille, so she can
produce work for her regular education teacher and turn it in
along with her peers. When her regular teacher asks her to write
something, she does not hesitate to go to her computer and
generate her work, knowing she can do the work as her sighted
counterparts do.
     This student has progressed from constantly talking about
quitting school to chatting about going on to college, just
because she knows she can get the material she needs and do the
work like others. I often wonder, if she and other students like
her had begun Braille when their sighted peers learned their
letters at age three or four, how much more successful might she
and they have been?" Would she have suffered constant struggle
and hatred of school for two to three years because of her lack
of the essential skills needed by a visually impaired student?
Such speculation is fruitless. We must not look back; we must
look forward in order to help other pupils.
     As teachers we must constantly look into the future of our
students to make sure they will have the skills they need to be
successful people. Our ultimate goal is, "...The success of all
children through appropriate educational practices, equipment,
and technology."


[PHOTO/CAPTION: James Omvig]
       What We Can Expect from a Commission for the Blind
                        by James H. Omvig

     From the Editor: This paper was originally presented by Jim
Omvig at a convention of the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan at which there was a discussion concerning the Michigan
Commission for the Blind. The paper was reprinted in the Braille
Monitor in 1983 and was updated in July of 1996. Jim Omvig is a
longtime leader in the National Federation of the Blind, and
since its first publication this article has been a popular and
useful compilation of Federation thinking about the importance of
the commission model for service delivery to blind consumers and
the most effective methods for carrying out rehabilitation. We
thought that it would be helpful to reprint it now that the
super-agency model is threatening to undermine such progress as
has been made in improving the quality of rehabilitation in a
number of states. This is what Jim says:

     I am extremely pleased to be here today and to have the
opportunity to speak with you concerning what blind consumers
should reasonably expect from the Michigan Commission for the
Blind or, for that matter, from any other state agency for the
blind.
     First, let me provide you with a thumbnail sketch of my
background since it will demonstrate that the opinions which I am
about to express are not hypothetical or fanciful but based upon
considerable experience and proven practices.
     As most of you know, I am blind and have been for thirty
years. I was a client of the Iowa Commission for the Blind and a
student in its adult orientation and adjustment center.
Therefore, I have had the experience of receiving services from
an outstanding state agency. Following my experience as an
orientation student, I attended college and law school as a blind
student. Then I experienced the struggle of finding a good job as
a blind person. I was the first blind attorney ever employed by
the National Labor Relations Board. I worked for that agency in
both Washington, D.C., and New York City.
     Then I returned to Iowa to enter the field of vocational
rehabilitation for the blind. I worked for the Iowa Commission
for the Blind for the next nine years, first as a rehabilitation
counselor and then as Director of the Orientation and Adjustment
Center, in which I had previously been a student. Finally I
served as Assistant Director for Staff Development for the entire
agency.
     In 1978 I left the Iowa Commission in order to become
Director of the new Handicapped Employment Program of the Social
Security Administration in Baltimore. I am working primarily to
create greater employment opportunities for the blind and
disabled within SSA itself.
     In addition to this formal background and experience, I have
been attending and speaking at NFB state conventions now for the
past fourteen years. I have visited most states and have had the
opportunity to become familiar with most state programs for the
blind, both the good and the bad.
     By visiting the states, incidentally, one can conduct quite
accurate and meaningful surveys and studies. There is only one
way properly to assess the effectiveness, or lack of
effectiveness, of a given program for the blind. Just take a look
at what has happened to the blind people who have been served by
the agency! Are they employed in meaningful jobs, jobs which are
commensurate with their abilities and qualifications? Are they
successful? Are they full of self-confidence, and can they
function efficiently and independently? Can they travel well,
going where they want to go when they want to go there? Are they
active in their families, their churches, and their communities?
Are they happy?
     If these and other similar questions can be answered, "Yes,"
then the services are good no matter what the agency structure
may be, and if the answers are "No," then the services are bad,
no matter what the agency structure is.
     Now let me turn for a moment to some comments about
blindness and a philosophy about it. In this area the National
Federation of the Blind has learned well what some professionals
in the field either cannot or will not understand at all. The NFB
has learned the shocking truth that blind people are normal
people, simply a cross-section of society at large, and that
blindness is merely a normal, physical characteristic like
hundreds of other human traits, no more nor no less.
     Like other characteristics blindness sometimes has its
limitations. Very often, of course, it does not. It all depends
upon what you are going to do in a given situation. In those few
instances where limitations because of blindness really do exist,
alternative techniques can be used to overcome those limitations.
An alternative technique is simply a method of doing without
sight what you would do with sight if you had it--Braille, long-
cane travel, etcetera.
     We of the Federation have come truly to understand and
believe with our emotions as well as with our minds that blind
people are normal, ordinary human beings who, given proper
training and opportunity (and these are large provisos), can
compete successfully with sighted people. We can compete
successfully on the job, and we can compete and participate fully
in the affairs of family, community, state, and nation.
     And, finally, we have learned another fundamental truth:
namely, that it is not our blindness but rather society's
attitudes about it which have kept us down and out through the
years. In other words, blindness is primarily an attitudinal
problem, a social problem, not a physical one. To be perfectly
blunt about it, most people--blind and sighted alike--still think
of us as helpless and hopeless and unable to compete or even
participate in the real world. Most people continue to think of
us as beggars and rug-weavers rather than as lawyers, machinists,
chemists, or college professors.
     It is this attitude, then, and not the physical fact of
blindness which we must face and overcome. And, since those who
are now blind and those who will become blind have involuntarily
assimilated the negative public attitudes about blindness, this
attitudinal problem is what must be addressed by an agency for
the blind if it hopes to be effective in working with its
clients. The blind have the right to expect that the agency knows
what it is doing and can give proper service.
     With all of this background in mind, let me turn to a
discussion of the agency for the blind--what should it be? What
agency structure is best? And, most important of all, what do the
blind have the right to expect from the agency?
     Turning to structure, experience has shown over and over
that blind people have the best chance for good services from a
separate agency or commission for the blind. Funding is always
better. There is at least the possibility of developing a staff
which becomes expert in blindness, there is at least the
possibility that responsibility can be pinpointed, and staff
members and administrators do not get themselves sidetracked on
other issues or in other areas of personal interest or
preference.
     On the other hand, I am not aware of a single case in this
nation in which blind persons get a fair shake under the so-
called super-agency structure or where the blind are served in
the same agency with all other disabled people. We are such a
small minority in the disabled community that we always get the
short end of the stick. No emphasis is given to programs for the
blind or to our unique rehabilitative needs, and administrators
are quite often interested in some other disability group. Also
it is simply not reasonable to expect that a general rehab
counselor can be expert in all areas, including blindness.
Therefore the separate agency always offers the best possibility
for successful rehabilitation.
     But we must always be mindful of this: There is no magical
formula which says that services from a separate agency will
always and automatically be what they should be. You can have the
best structure in the world and still have service which is not
only poor, but borders on being criminal, if the agency continues
to be administered and staffed by some of the great minds of the
eighteenth century!
     Attitude and philosophy are everything! The agency must
believe in blind people, believe that it is respectable to be
blind, and it must be willing to do as much work as it takes to
pass on that positive belief to its blind consumers and to the
community at large. Therefore, to have superior service you must
have both the proper philosophy and the right governmental
structure, and the blind have the right to expect both.
     Now I want to turn specifically to a discussion of those
ingredients which have brought success in good programs for the
blind--ingredients such as a proper agency philosophy, a
committed board, a knowledgeable and committed staff, a
willingness to advocate for its clients, and a quality adult
orientation and adjustment center.
     1. The agency must have a constructive and positive
philosophy. It has been said that, "Philosophy bakes no bread."
But it has been said with equal wisdom that, "Without a
philosophy, no bread is baked." Incredible as it is, I know of
some agencies for the blind in this country which proudly
proclaim that they have no philosophy about blindness and whose
only apparent philosophy seems to be "to serve the blind." How?
What are its goals and objectives? What hope does such an agency
offer blind clients?
     The agency must have a strong, positive, constructive
philosophy about blindness, and it must be committed to that
philosophy. The blind have the right to expect that the agency
will develop a philosophy best equipped to put hope and meaning
into their lives.
     The only philosophy about blindness I know of which really
works is that of the NFB. I have spelled it out above in some
detail. I know of no other constructive philosophy which an
agency could adopt and espouse. The sad fact, of course, is that
even those agencies which say they have no philosophy really do.
Although not expressed, by all that they do they tell their blind
clients that blindness is an unmitigated disaster, that blind
people are helpless and incompetent, and that blind people can
never expect to compete successfully or participate side-by-side
with sighted people, but that we should be grateful anyway for
what they have given us.
     2. The commission board of directors must be a meaningful
part of the program. (In the commission form of agency, the
governor typically appoints a policy-making board which hires the
director, and the director then hires the staff.)
     While it is true that the board should meet periodically to
set broad policy for the agency, good board members will also
take the time to learn about blindness and to develop a real
understanding about philosophy and services. Board members should
be willing to use their time and personal contacts to help sell
the program to the general public and elected officials and to
talk with employers about hiring qualified blind people. I think
that it is appropriate for a board member to lean a little on a
business associate if doing so might get a job for a blind
person.
     3. The staff must consist of persons who truly believe in
the blind and who are committed to doing whatever it takes to
pass on that belief to others. In other words, the staff members
must have the proper philosophy about blindness, and they must
recognize that the sole purpose for their jobs is serving the
blind, not protecting their vested interests.
     At the Iowa Commission we developed some extremely sound and
interesting practices for building and training a staff. If a
blind person wished to join the staff, he or she must first have
successfully held some other job in competitive employment to
demonstrate, both to that individual and to others, that regular,
competitive work is possible for the blind. Because of this
experience such a blind staff member was in the best possible
position to give real help and guidance. He or she could then
serve as a role model for blind clients and was much more
credible when advising blind students.
     I tell you of this unique Iowa policy knowing full well that
most agencies send some bright young blind persons to school,
help them get master's degrees, and then hire them to help
others. I shudder to think of the help such inexperienced
professionals will give.
     I suppose I don't need to tell you what chance for
employment at the Iowa Commission any blind person would have had
if he or she continued to be so ashamed of blindness as to refuse
to carry a cane, use Braille or other alternative techniques, or
even refuse to admit to being a blind person. None! Again, we
were selecting a staff to serve the blind, not to provide
employment for those who couldn't get jobs some place else.
     Sighted staff members had to be willing to undergo training
as blind persons--sleepshades, cane travel, and all. They had to
come to understand blindness and to know from personal experience
that NFB philosophy really works. In addition, when they were
practicing cane travel alone on the streets of Des Moines,
members of the sighted public assumed they were blind and treated
them accordingly. It was helpful for them to experience and cope
with the things that happen to us every day. And, of course, both
blind and sighted staff members were given extensive
philosophical training before they ever came into contact with a
blind student.
     4. The agency, from the board and director on down, must be
willing to listen to what blind consumers have to say and to work
in a spirit of partnership with the organized blind. We are the
ones affected by the services, and we have the right to a voice
in what those services will be. Through our collective experience
we know well what works and what doesn't, what is good and what
is bad.
     Again, as bizarre and outdated as it is, some agencies
continue to operate on the worn-out theory that, "We know what is
best for you." This type of thinking should have vanished along
with the nineteenth century.
     And when I said that the partnership should be with the
"organized blind," I meant exactly that. Some agencies refuse to
listen to us, preferring to get their consumer information from
blind individuals specifically not affiliated with the National
Federation of the Blind. While one can elicit expressions of any
attitude or opinion desired through careful selection of the
respondents, such a practice has no place in an agency with the
best interests of the blind at heart. There is no reason for
unaffiliated people to have any useful knowledge of what the
entire range of blind consumers need. Meaningful information and
opinion can be gathered only from those who have had the good
sense to join together and to share ideas and experiences--the
organized blind.
     5. The good agency must be an advocate for the civil rights
of all blind persons in the state. It must be willing to become
involved and to have confrontations if necessary. However, it
must be mindful of the fact that it does not represent anybody.
Only those elected by the group in question can do that.
     6. The good agency must operate on the presumption that all
blind people are capable, that everybody can do something, and
that blind people have sufficient intelligence to choose wisely
what we can and want to do. Incidentally, like sighted people we
should also have the freedom to choose unwisely. The agency's
role should be to help the blind person develop sufficient self-
confidence and skill that the individual can decide what he or
she wishes to do. Once the blind person makes this decision, the
agency should help the person prepare for the employment
objective. Frankly, who cares what the agency thinks an
individual can or should do. Therefore testing and evaluation
should be kept to a minimum.
     7. The heart of any good rehabilitation program for the
blind is an effective orientation and adjustment center. The
purpose of a good center is to assist blind people to become
independent by teaching self-reliance and self-confidence; by
teaching needed skills; and by teaching the students what the
social attitudes about blindness are, why they are what they are,
what will happen to them every day because of society's erroneous
attitudes, and how to cope effectively with the unjust or painful
things said or done to them.
     This center should be pre-vocational in nature. That is, it
should be a place where individuals can learn how to be blind.
Later vocational training should be purchased or provided
wherever sighted people receive it. This vocational training must
be integrated with that provided to sighted students since,
presumably, blind graduates will work alongside sighted ones for
the rest of their lives.
     Such a center must be an attitude factory, a place where
blind adults from across the state can come to live for some
months to build hope and self-confidence, to learn that it is
respectable to be blind, and to learn basic skills and
alternative techniques. The atmosphere must be such that,
twenty-four-hours a day, seven days a week, the student is being
told, "Come on, you can do it, you can do more."  And blind staff
members must be available who can serve as role models and who,
when a student says, "I can't do it," can say, "Look, my friend,
I'm as blind as you are. I know what can be done and how it can
be done, so don't say you can't; just do it!"
     The goal is to help the student get to the point where he or
she can say, "Yes, I am blind, so what? I like myself, and I'm
OK! I can do anything I want to do." If an adult rehabilitation
facility does not build self-confidence and self-esteem, then
nothing else it can do will make any difference.
     Incidentally, training facility staff should call students
"students." Some rehabilitation facilities refer to trainees,
clients, or even patients. It is important to use the most
positive word possible--"student." It's much easier for a blind
Iowa resident to leave his home to be a "student" at the "school"
in Des Moines than to be a patient or client in some state
institution.
      I have listed the objectives of a good orientation and
adjustment center. How can these objectives be accomplished? The
answer to this question is simple if you understand that the
problems connected with blindness are primarily attitudinal, and
if you really want to do something constructive to solve these
problems.
     Everything done in such a center must be related to this
constructive philosophy. Here are some of the ingredients which
are absolutely essential in any good center:
     (a) Blindness must be discussed, and the word "blind" must
be used and stressed. If we are ever to accept our own blindness,
we must first admit that we are blind, and the agency that simply
reinforces and perpetuates denial of the fact is useless. Like
black people of another generation who attempted to solve their
problems by pretending they were white, blind people who pretend
they are sighted are fooling only themselves and are ducking the
central issue of their lives. Blacks ultimately worked to solve
their problems by making it respectable to be black,and we will
solve our problems only when we make it respectable to be blind.
Therefore, such phrases as "unsighted," "sightless,"
"hard-of-seeing," or "visually impaired" should not be used when
referring to people who are legally blind.
     Frank individual and group discussions about blindness must
take place. Students must intellectually learn the positive
philosophy about blindness through discussion. Then, to transform
those ideas into belief and conviction, students must be required
to do all kinds of things which will teach them emotionally that
they really can function and that a normal, happy, and productive
life really does lie ahead. In Iowa we used such varied
techniques as water skiing, grilling steaks, running power tools,
and cutting down trees to supply wood for our fireplace.
     (b) The center must be located in a busy, urban area. I know
that many centers are currently found in secluded locations, away
from people and possible danger. However, if the purpose of the
center is to help blind students become a part of society, then
training should be where the action is. The facility should be
near enough to restaurants, stores, theaters, churches, and bars
so the students have reasons to leave it. Much confidence-
building can be achieved simply by going out into the world.
     Under no circumstances should an orientation and adjustment
center be housed together with a sheltered workshop for the
blind. Where this is done, the work of a good center is lost. You
can present the best philosophical training in the world in the
center, but the blind students will see and identify with the
blind people who have been beaten down and placed in the shop.
     When a center is being constructed or renovated, center
personnel should contact and work with state officials to have
the center exempted from accessibility requirements such as those
calling for detectable warnings at the top of steps, etc. Blind
students must learn to rely on the white cane to give them needed
information about steps or other obstacles. The creation, in the
name of safety, of an artificial environment in the training
center will actually place students at greater risk when they are
traveling and working in the real world. If the training has been
done properly, students will be perfectly safe in the world as it
is.
     (c) The students should be treated like adults, not
children. Therefore, there should be no hours or curfews at the
center, nor should there be bed checks. Adults come and go as
they please.
     (d) The same training should be required for all students at
the center. Some centers have one kind of training for the
totally blind and another for the partially blind. If you
understand that the major problem of blindness is attitudinal and
if you intend to teach positive philosophy, then all students
must have the same training.
     All students at a blindness training and adjustment
facility, regardless of the amount of their residual vision,
should be required to use long, non-folding canes at all times.
In some centers canes are used only during travel class. However,
students who wish to travel well and to become independent must
use the cane over and over until its proper use becomes a reflex
action. In addition, use of the cane helps to build self-
confidence and helps students admit and accept the fact that they
are blind since, by using it constantly, they are telling the
world that they are blind. Denial is eliminated as a method of
coping.
     (e) The blind students with some remaining usable vision
should use sleepshades during all training. The great temptation
for students with some vision is to attempt to use that vision
even when it is inadequate. These students are also tempted to
pretend that they are sighted by using sighted techniques. The
reason for this is simple; people yearn to be normal. They
believe it is normal to be sighted. They fear that, if they use
blindness techniques, they will not be seen as normal. False
logic, but that is how our minds work until someone intervenes
with the truth that normality is not defined by visual acuity.
     Those who are blind enough to be at the center are blind!
Their limited vision will not be useful in many situations.
Therefore such students must learn blindness techniques, learn
that they work, learn not to be ashamed of using them, and learn
during training to use the combination of blind and sighted
techniques best suited to their individual visual limitations.
Having received this type of training, the student with residual
vision will forever after be in the best position to know when to
use sight and when to use a blindness technique. Putting this
another way, when sleepshades are used, the partially blind
student can actually learn for the first time how to use his or
her remaining vision efficiently.
     (f) All students must be trained to use Braille. While some
students with a little vision may argue that they don't need
Braille, everyone should be exposed to it. The student may well
learn that it is more efficient than he or she had thought and
that reading large print at twenty or thirty words a minute isn't
particularly efficient.
     (g) Proper practices must be established concerning meals
and eating. No, I don't mean spreading butter, cutting meat, and
pouring cream. To assume that all students need classes in good
manners and etiquette is insulting and demonstrates a negative
philosophy rather than a positive one. Sometimes students do need
help in this area, particularly students who have come from
residential schools for the blind. When this occurs, staff
members should work with this individual quietly and privately.
     I am referring to a particular problem and an interesting
Iowa policy: Many newly blinded people feel conspicuous eating in
front of sighted people. Therefore they are quite content to have
someone serve them in the seclusion of a group dining room. To
solve this problem, at the Iowa Commission we had a public
cafeteria, where the students could buy their breakfasts and
lunches if they wished. They went through the line themselves
with the other customers. However, we closed the cafeteria during
evenings and weekends. Moreover, we had a rule that students
could not cook in their rooms, nor could more experienced
students bring meals to the new ones. The obvious intent of this
practice was to get students out into the public to find food and
to get used to being seen. The only way to overcome the fear of
moving and eating in front of others is to do it over and over
again until one feels comfortable.
     (h) The good center should have no psychologists or
psychiatrists on staff. Students should be assumed to be mentally
fit. The intent of the program is to overcome stereotypical
thinking about blindness. Society is already filled with negative
attitudes about psychologists and psychiatrists--"Only crazy
people see them." So the student who is forced to see one on a
daily or weekly basis quickly concludes that things are even
worse than he or she had thought.
     Am I saying that I am opposed to all psychologists or
psychiatrists? Of course not! Rarely a student may develop
emotional problems. When this occurs, that student should be sent
to a competent professional. Care should be taken to choose the
professional wisely. If this has not been done, the professional
will most likely try to help the student adjust to blindness in a
manner which will help no one. If the orientation staff can't
tell the difference between a normal fear of blindness and a real
emotional problem, the staff had better be replaced. But don't
use such a problem as a reason for bringing in the psychologists
or psychiatrists.
     (i) There should be no house mothers or baby sitters in the
center. The students' time is valuable, and they should have
competent staff members available to work with them during
evenings and on weekends. Therefore staff members should be
available at all times to help solve problems, give counsel, and
talk about blindness. I know that in most centers this does not
occur, and house parents are on hand. I must say that I was
particularly dismayed when I learned last night that the Michigan
center has nurses on duty to care for the trainees. This practice
can only lead to a belief on the part of students that they are
sick patients in some kind of state institution.
     (j) The students should be exposed to organizations of the
blind and to successful blind persons. This point surely speaks
for itself and needs no elaboration.
     8. Now let me take a few minutes to round out what I believe
the blind have the right to expect from a good agency.
     (a) Competent home teachers and rehabilitation counselors
who truly believe in the blind and who can motivate blind people
from across the state should be on staff. They must be
persistent. That is, if a newly blind person refuses to accept
services from the agency after only one or two contacts, they
should keep returning and trying. Of course this effort should
not be confused with trying to force the blind person to accept
services which he or she truly does not want. Very often,
however, people who are newly blind will mistakenly assume that
there is no hope and that nothing useful can be done. A person
has the right to informed choice, but such a choice can be made
only after the individual has learned enough to be informed.
     (b) Then there is the matter of vending facilities. Blind
vendors should truly run the businesses. In many states the
agencies actually run the facilities and in reality the blind are
only glorified cashiers. If agency personnel truly believe that
the blind can function competitively and independently, they
should be permitted to run the businesses. Let them do their own
hiring, firing, purchasing, price-setting, bookkeeping, etc.
     (c) The state library for the blind should be part of the
state agency for the blind. Experience has shown that the service
is much better and more coordinated when this is the case. The
rehabilitation agency gets referrals through the library, and
vice versa. Also Federal rehabilitation dollars can be put into
the state library when it is a part of the state agency.
     (d) Finally, let me speak briefly about employment. Suitable
job placement is the final step in the rehabilitation process.
Job placement is handled in two different ways around the
country. In many states a job placement specialist is assigned
specifically to work on placements. In others, including Iowa,
the counselors do their own placements. Since I know that this
system works well, I guess I favor this model.
     Agency rehab counselors (or placement specialists) should
spend a good part of their time in getting to know business
owners, personnel officers, department heads, etc., within their
territories. These counselors should work to create a positive
atmosphere so that, by the time the individual blind consumer is
ready for employment, interviews and possible jobs will already
be available. The ultimate objective in any state should be that
any blind person who wants to work and who is willing to undergo
proper training can get a suitable job.
     The second major part of the job placement issue has to do
with employer and public education. In Iowa, virtually every day
of the year (and often many times a day) a Commission employee or
the center students were speaking and presenting programs for
Lions and other civic organizations, churches, schools, business
men's associations, fairs, etc. The effort of the agency must be
to create an atmosphere in which blind citizens are accepted as
normal people and can find good jobs when their training has been
completed and they are ready for employment.
     These, then, are some of my thoughts concerning what blind
consumers should be able to expect from a good agency for the
blind. Since the best governmental structure is known, since the
proper philosophy is known and proven, and since the best
teaching and rehabilitation service techniques are known, tried,
and tested, I believe that the expectations outlined here are
reasonable. I hope these opinions and experiences are helpful as
you assess the value of a Commission for the Blind in the
upcoming session of your state legislature.


                      Who Are the Experts?
         Comments on Pregnant Women and Blind Consumers
                        by James H. Omvig

     From the Editor: This article was first printed in the
August/September, 1983, issue of the Braille Monitor and was
updated in 1996. Because it follows so closely on the reasoning
of the preceding article, we are reprinting it here. Here is what
Jim Omvig says:

     An ancient proverb says that, when the blind lead the blind,
they will both fall into the ditch. Apparently the minds of some
of the great thinkers of the past were about as out-of-touch on
the subject of blindness as some of the so-called great thinkers
of today. For, in truth, even though we are often told
differently, it was only when the blind began to lead the blind
that we started the climb out of the ditch together.
     In that climb from the ditch we have come together in an
organized way, and we have shared common experiences and ideas.
We have pooled our thinking and have developed a sound philosophy
and a vast body of knowledge on a variety of major issues
concerning blindness. Among other things we know what it takes to
operate a quality rehabilitation agency for the blind.
     Since the recent publication of my article about what the
ideal agency for the blind should be if it is truly to make a
difference in its consumers' lives, I have been involved in
several interesting and lively discussions on the topic. The most
recent of these occurred at our Minnesota affiliate's state
convention, where we discussed the subject yet again.
     The panel discussing the issue included an official of the
Minnesota state agency for the blind, who spoke before I did.
From comments he made, it is clear that he has a deep interest in
what is happening to blind people in America today and that he is
an enthusiastic supporter of the National Federation of the
Blind.
     Even so, he went on to remark that the topic of "what
constitutes the ideal agency for the blind" is a very difficult
one. He described several problems which exist within the current
service-delivery system, but he never really offered his notions
of what the ideal agency should be; he just maintained that it is
a difficult topic--what lawyers call a "knotty problem."
     In my presentation I told the previous speaker that I do not
regard the topic as difficult at all. In fact, it is simple,
well-known, and clear-cut: The best governmental structure for a
state agency is known; the ideal philosophy with which an agency
should operate is known; what should be taught at an adjustment
center and who should teach it are known; the proper role for the
agency professional is known; how best to educate employers and
the rest of the sighted public about blindness is known; and it
is also well known that certain existing agency practices hurt
rather than help blind consumers and should, therefore, be
eliminated. In other words, the solution has been tried and
tested, and it works! (Since my views on this topic appear in the
article, "What We Can Expect from a Commission for the Blind," I
shall not repeat them here.)
     I went on to say, however, that, while describing the ideal
agency for the blind is not difficult at all, a different
question is very real and very difficult--"How can we get the
professionals who run the agencies to listen to the blind and to
accept and understand the information which already exists? And
after that how can we get them to use this previously tested and
proven knowledge in the agencies which they administer?"
     At this point our discussion shifted from the ideal agency
topic to the question of "consumer input," and ultimately I
presented an analogy which, while a bit fanciful, is instructive:
     Let us suppose, I said, that we have a group of doctors
(obstetricians) who have decided to gather the best available
data on the topic of the techniques and medications most
effective for childbirth: general anesthesia, regional
anesthesia, prepared child birth, underwater birth, or something
else.
     Suppose further that these doctors truly wish to provide the
best possible care and treatment for their patients. And,
finally, suppose that they are a remarkable bunch who are
completely objective and open minded--no bias, no prejudice, no
vested interests to protect, no axes to grind, no political
agenda clouding the discussion, no pseudo science to be defended,
and no fragile egos (with their accompanying feelings of
superiority and condescension). Wouldn't it be a joy to encounter
this group?
     This enlightened, if unusual, group would have various
choices to make in determining how best to acquire the desired
knowledge. First, they could simply decide to discuss the issue
among themselves and reach a consensus, or they could be
democratic and take a vote. But this process would give only a
limited view based upon their own attitudes and experience.
     Of course, they could put the question to the professors in
their medical schools. But, while some new thinking might be
forthcoming, for the most part this would be the same old stuff,
since the college professors would be the very people who had
taught them and who had, therefore, given the doctors their
current information and attitudes.
     One forward-looking doctor might say, "Well, then, let's ask
the man on the street." To which another doctor, probably a
woman, might reply, "Why ask men? They haven't had babies! They
actually don't know the first thing about it! I think we should
ask women!"
     After some discussion some member of this enlightened group
would see the next logical step and say, "But you can't just ask
any woman, since not all women have had babies! No, I think that
the only really valid source of information will be those women
who have had babies and can discuss their actual experiences."
     It might take a little time and discussion to move beyond
this plateau and to arrive at the final point in this chain of
logical thought. But, ultimately, the real thinker in the group,
probably the woman, would say, "As I think about it, I don't
believe it would be enough simply to raise our question with
women who, while they have had babies and received our services,
remain isolated. As individuals many women who have had babies
still have never really had the opportunity to think about what
is best--they only know about what has happened to them. They may
have no familiarity with the methods and procedures which they
have not experienced. Many times, because of their limited
experience, such women would not even be aware of the various
techniques which have been developed and tried by other doctors
and other women in other places."
     At this point we might have the final breakthrough. Another
doctor might say, "I think I've got it! If we really care about
what is best for our patients, we can't just sit here and decide
among ourselves by taking a vote; we can't seek advice from men;
we can't seek the opinions of women who have never had babies;
and we can't even turn to just any women who have had them! The
solution for us is to find a group of women who have borne
children and who have also seen fit to join together with others
to discuss the variety of issues concerned with motherhood and
childbearing. By bringing together those women who have
experienced a variety of procedures and techniques into a group
where the issue is freely and openly discussed and debated, a
body of knowledge would surely exist based upon the best thinking
of those who have experienced our services in the past and who
have seen fit to join together for concerted action. This group
would surely know best what services our patients bearing
children need and deserve."
     Another doctor might wrap it up by saying, "Well, you are
all aware of the existence of the National Federation of Mothers
Concerned with Childbearing. They have been around since 1940,
but I have always been told that they are too militant and that I
shouldn't pay much attention to what they have to say--after all,
it has been pretty generally understood in the field that they
are just women who have had babies, not professionals like us, so
what could they possibly know? But I've got to tell you that,
after our discussion here today, I'm all for talking to those
organized women! I'm convinced that they could give us reliable
data."
     End of analogy; end of parable; end of parallel.
     In no way am I suggesting that blind people who receive
services from state agencies are patients needing doctors. Far
from it! We are simply ordinary, normal human beings who happen
to be blind and who may be in need of effective training if we
are to achieve success and full participation in the ordinary
pursuits of life.
     What I am suggesting with this parallel is simple--as it is
with expectant mothers, so it is with the blind. If you are the
professional who has an honest desire to provide the best
possible assistance to the greatest number of blind people you
serve and who really wishes to know what is best, you will not
simply discuss the issue of quality or ideal services in a
vacuum. Nor will you try to find all of the answers in a meeting
of professionals. You will not seek your counsel from college
professors or from sighted persons on the street who have no
knowledge or experience of issues concerning blindness. You will
not seek your counsel from persons who, while they are blind,
have never been the recipients of independent living or
rehabilitation services for the blind, and you will not put much
stock in the advice which you might receive from those blind
people who have received services but who are limited, isolated,
and totally lacking in broad knowledge and experience. If I don't
know what services other blind people have had, if I don't know
what happens in other states, if I don't even know what can be
done under the law, what possible value can my opinions have?
     No, if you truly have an open mind and an honest desire to
acquire the best possible information about services for the
blind, you will go to the source possessing a vast body of
knowledge based upon actual experience and the pooled and
distilled wisdom and thinking of thousands of blind people. You
will seek out the organized blind.
     The information about the ideal agency for the blind exists,
and it works. Wouldn't it be a tremendous breakthrough in the
field of work with the blind if we were to encounter a remarkable
group of rehabilitation professionals like those enlightened
doctors in my analogy--completely objective and open-minded, no
biases, no prejudices, no vested interests, no axes to grind, no
political agenda, no pseudo science, and no fragile egos.
     I suppose it will be a long time before those of us who are
blind will have the opportunity to encounter such a remarkable
group--at least, as a group. However, we must be gratified in the
knowledge that more and more individuals involved professionally
in work with the blind are coming to see the light and to know
the truth.
     So who are the experts who should counsel the professionals?
Why, they are the blind, the organized blind, the National
Federation of the Blind!


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Heather Harmon]
                   Blind, 88, and on the Rocks
                        by Heather Harmon

     From the Editor: If one convention speaker could have been
said to steal the show at the 1996 NFB Convention, it was Heather
Harmon. She charmed her audience on Thursday afternoon, July 3,
with her lively personality and unassuming sense of humor. Having
lived a life filled with travel and intellectual stimulation, she
thought her life had virtually ended with her sudden blindness at
the age of eighty-six. Characteristically for her, she decided to
start reading about what had happened to her, and in doing so,
she discovered the National Federation of the Blind. The rest is
the story she told that afternoon. Here it is:

     There is always a question about where to begin a story--
because my story is true. But one must set parameters. Alice,
when she went to Wonderland, learned the answer from the walrus.
He said to her, "Alice, do you have a story?"
     She said, "Of course, I have a story."
     "Well tell it."
     "The problem is where to begin," She said.
     The walrus said, "Well you begin at the beginning, and when
you get to the end, you stop." So I'm going to set parameters.
We're going to begin the day I became blind. That was two years
ago, very rapidly, unexpected too. And we're going to stop as of
today.
     When I became blind, I immediately cast around for something
to do. One must have a career of some kind. I couldn't find
anything. The car was gone from the garage; I couldn't get a
license to drive it. I couldn't work in the garden because I
couldn't tell a flower from a weed. I could not read the piano
scores. I could not read the organ scores. What about
Shakespeare? What about the opera? I had a house full of books,
and I couldn't read them. What to do? I couldn't even go for a
walk, because I was timid about crossing the street. I thought,
"I'm going to end up an unidentifiable mass of bones and blood."
So I didn't know what to do.
     My friends were still my friends. They were the same people,
but after a while, when they also realized that my condition was
irreversible, they thought they should step in--invade my
privacy--and tell me what to do. They did preposterous stuff.
We've all been through this haven't we? Preposterous! Then, when
we don't do what they want, what do they do? They pity us. Well,
I thought this sort of thing was too insidious. It was creeping
up on me. I was becoming very dependent, not capable of doing a
single thing, so I thought, I must take matters into my own
hands. I called my travel agent. I said, "I understand you are
planning a trip to Fez. I want to go."
     "Oh," she said, "Wonderful. Wait a minute; I'll punch you
into the computer." She did. She said, "Any changes over there,
the same thing?"
     I said, "Exactly the same--Oh, except that I'm blind."
     She said, "In that case you can't go. It would be
impossible."
     Now, to quote Shakespeare--and Shakespeare has a quote for
everything--My life was "at sixes and sevens." It was finished.
One of the things I enjoyed was the cassettes from the Library of
Congress. I had requested a report of a multi-national meeting in
1993 of blind organizations in Toronto. It was a long report,
very interesting. (I didn't know this sort of thing was going on.
The countries on this planet are getting together to help us. I
didn't know that was happening. It was very exciting.)
     Before the tape was over, there was another thing that
really intrigued me. It was a story about a little boy who was
blind, and he was put in the blind school. Now I knew all about
this because in Canada as children we had studied Charles
Dickens, and we knew these places. We knew that children ate from
trestle tables. They ate out of wooden bowls with wooden spoons.
Poor Kenneth. We knew all about that. Well, I just loved the
story. It was sad, but there was a lot of humor in it too. At the
end of the tape there was a name and an address. I wrote to Dr.
Kenneth Jernigan. [applause] I thought, what a beautiful life. If
that Kenneth is this little Kenneth, he is making a beautiful
life. We can be proud of him and are grateful to him.
     I wrote the letter, and a few weeks later I had a telephone
call. The caller identified herself as Pat Maurer. She said she
was from the Federation. I said that I was so glad she had called
because I would like to know about your Federation. Well, she
said that she would like to send me some information, and she
did. One of the things she sent to me was a Kernel Book. I read
it. It was beautiful. It was the Kernel Book that did it. I
called her back. I said, "Pat, this is fascinating. I did not
know all this was going on."
     She said, "What are you going to do?"
     I said, "Well I thought I might get a modem so I could talk
with the outside world."
     She said, "Why don't you come down to see us? Our Mr. Ring
has a room full of computers. He will help you." I thought that
sounded great, so I said I'd do it. Then she said as an
afterthought, "Come down for the Washington Seminar."
     I said, "Great, I'll do that." So I did. That's another
story. We're not going to touch on that one.
     At the end of the last day of the seminar, we were rather
late getting back to Baltimore. We were standing in the reception
area, where the telephone switchboard is. I had just gotten my
cane. Lorraine Rovig was standing there looking at me. I sensed
that she was rather critical of me, but I didn't know what she
was criticizing. I didn't ask her. Just then Scott LaBarre came
in. He is our resident attorney. He had been with his peers all
day long--and you know how tiring that can be! Lorraine said,
"Scott, show Heather how to manage her cane. She doesn't know
how." With all the graciousness in the world, as tired as he was,
he instructed me. He hung in with it until he was sure that I
knew how to manage it--very, very gracious.
     Then Mrs. Thompson--Mrs. Thompson and I liked each other so
much we thought we'd get related to each other, so I'm her
grandmother. She's started something because all the children at
the Center in Denver are now my grandchildren.
     The next morning Pat said, "Let's talk." I said that I had
five questions. The first four we settled easily. We both agreed
on our answers. But the fifth one was about blindness skills. I
didn't even know that term; I had never heard it. So we talked a
little while, and she said, "Let's go across the hall." So we
went across the hall and saw Marc, who happens to be her husband
and our president. He talked for a little while. Then he picked
up the phone and talked with someone he called Homer--the author
of the epics, you know. Well, after a while Marc said to me,
"Pick up that phone over there. Homer will talk with you."
     So I picked up the phone and I said, "Yes, Homer."
     He said, "Yes, Heather, we have quarters for you if you can
get here right away."
     I said, "I'll do that." So I was there. I got there in time
for a belated Valentine's Day party. The love in that place--the
place was filled with so much love! It was palpable; you could
feel it.
     A few days later we had some very nice guests. Mary Ellen
Jernigan came and Priscilla Hudson. We had a lovely conversation.
One of the things that Mary Ellen mentioned to me was Walking
Alone and Marching Together. I said that I didn't know anything
about the book but that I would like to. So a few days later in
the mail I got a package. You can guess what it was.
     The teachings at the Center in Denver are on several levels.
The student takes all the levels necessary to meet his or her
needs. The first level, as I figured it out, is the level of cane
travel. That's very important. We are taught to use our ears
instead of our eyes. Then we come inside, and we are taught
Braille. We learn to use the ends of our fingers instead of our
eyes. We go to the talking computer, and it's much the same
thing. That is one level. These are the compensatory skills.
Compensation, that is a good word, an important idea.
     Then there is another level of teaching at the Center. (The
Center is very new, you know.) Diane McGeorge is there to help
us. She intuitively knows what the students need to make
progress. She knows what we need, and she is capable of giving it
to us. She gives it to us without our even asking. That is
another level of teaching--teaching the art of living. If you
want to change the "l" in that word to a "g" that makes it
giving, and that's what she does. Without saying a word, she
teaches us the art of living and the art of giving.
     There is yet another level of teaching, and that is
something I discovered from a book its author titled
Transcendence. The author is the second director of the Colorado
Center. Diane was the first director. I like that word--
transcendence. I like the prefix t-r-a-n-s. It suits well this
age we are living in, the age of quantum physics. The author is
Dr. Homer Page. I marvel at the great economy of words in his
book. The search he must have made for words of great meaning
makes me think of Abraham Lincoln and Gettysburg. Every word in
that book means something. I've gotten permission to quote
loosely from this book. It is just a few lines, but they bear
thinking about. "My blindness is a great source of strength. I
love more. I give more freely. I receive more graciously. My
blindness is a source of great strength." Those are the words.
     From those words we learn the art of living with ourselves.
So you see in the beginning we master these compensatory skills.
Then Diane comes along and teaches us the art of living. Finally
we find the art of living with ourselves, knowing ourselves
better. All this insight and experience came out of a Kernel
Book. Would you believe it?
     We're coming to the end of this story, and there is just one
thing more. You remember the walrus? He said, "When you come to
the end of the story, you stop." So I'm going to stop.


            Vision Stimulation: Is the Tide Turning?

     From the Editor: The following editorial first appeared in
the January, 1997, POBC News and Views, a publication of the
Parents of Blind Children Division of Colorado. Here it is:

     Editorial: For many years the professionals in the field of
visual impairment have held that visual skills could be taught--
that children with impaired vision could be trained through
focusing and tracking activities to use better any residual
vision they might have. For just as many years the National
Federation of the Blind has argued against this philosophy,
believing that the time spent trying to stimulate the use of
vision through therapy involving darkened rooms and flashing
lights is better spent enriching the child and guiding him in the
use of alternative techniques in visually based activities. But
more than just a waste of time, the NFB has suggested that
underlying such programs is an insidious implication that the
better you see, the more valuable you are as a person. In a 1986
article from Future Reflections, (Vol. 5 No. 2, 1986; page 25)
entitled, "Learning to Look," Barbara Cheadle wrote:
     "Putting aside for the time the question of how valuable
vision stimulation programs are (or could be) for the blind or
low-vision child, there is a greater concern. Like drugs or a
common kitchen knife, even useful educational tools can be turned
into dangerous weapons that destroy instead of nurture."
     Meanwhile, as recently as 1995, the National Association for
the Parents of the Visually Impaired presented an article
entitled, "Sensory Development, Vision, Focusing & Tracking." The
article stated:
     "Using his/her vision is a learned activity for the child
who is visually impaired. It is not automatic, so you must teach
your child that using his/her vision will be beneficial to
him/her. For example, instead of handing your child a cookie, you
should hold the cookie and ask the child to reach out and take
it. That way, he/she is being rewarded for using his/her vision."
(Awareness, Winter Issues, 1995, page 6)
     What does such an approach teach the child? The child is
rewarded for seeing the cookie and made to feel inadequate for
failing to see it. The child is set up for failure and diminished
self-esteem. Instead of valuing and appreciating the usefulness
of alternative techniques, the child is being taught that it is
better to do your best with whatever vision you have and hide
your inability to see than to use a alternative technique of
blindness.
     We all agree that enriching the environment with color and
shape is extremely important for a visually impaired child (as it
is for any child), but enriching the environment and trying to
teach visual skills are very different matters. It is dangerous
to try to teach vision, for you have then placed a value on
seeing versus not seeing which can have damaging psychological
implications.
     Happily, there is evidence that the vision professionals may
be reevaluating their stand on the value of visual stimulation. A
recent article published in the Journal of Visual Impairment and
Blindness (Vol. 90, No. 5, Sept-Oct, 1996) entitled "A Call to
End Vision Stimulation Training" by Kay Ferrell, Ph.D. and D.
William Muir, M.A., questions the efficacy of teaching visual
perceptual skills.
     "The cautions against using vision stimulation are
significant. The main ones are 1) the research to support visual
skills training is ambiguous at best; 2) the procedures violate
the principle of normalization and diminish the self-esteem of
children, families, and teachers; and 3) the training consumes
time better devoted to instruction for real-life demands."
     Ferrell and Muir also say: "Children may think that they are
not good enough and that visual impairment is indeed a loss,
rather than a learning characteristic requiring adaptation."
     Dr. Ferrell and Mr. Muir are highly respected professors in
the Division of Special Education at the University of Northern
Colorado. However, it may take some time before their fellow
professionals are willing to abandon what they have long
considered best practice. At the very least one can hope that
their students, future teachers of the blind and visually
impaired, will be entering the professional ranks not as vision
teachers, trying to teach vision, but as teachers of the blind
and visually impaired. Thank you, Dr. Ferrell and Mr. Muir, for
seeing the light and providing a beginning to the end of visual
skills training.


[PHOTO: Julie Russell is standing, holding her cane, and wearing
her Bards of
Bohemia crown. CAPTION: Julie Russell]
               Carnival Magic for a Federationist
                       by Julie A. Russell

     From the Editor: The lead photographs in the March issue of
the Braille Monitor were of the Bards of Bohemia parade and ball
at the 1997 Mardi Gras celebration in New Orleans, in which
Federationists took part. Julie Russell of Louisiana was one of
the maids in the Bards of Bohemia court. Here is her account of
that magical day:

     Three blocks from any New Orleans parade route one can hear
the crowd cheering, the bands playing, and the noise of Mardi
Gras trinkets falling to the ground. At the parade one observes
two groups of people: those in the parade and those scrambling
for the trinkets and dancing to the music that beats like the
heart of the city.
     It was in January of 1997 that I discovered I was to be one
of seven Federationists to ride in a Mardi Gras parade. I was to
be a maid in the Royal Court.
     I had heard hundreds of stories about riding in a parade in
the dozen years I have lived in New Orleans but very few about
being a member of a Royal Court. I asked friends, but few knew
about the events of the Court. I knew it would be an
extraordinary day, but I was not sure what form the surprises
would take. During the next few weeks my excitement built as I
gathered more and more information.
     On February 10, 1997, I served as a maid in the Bards of
Bohemia's Royal Court. Now I have my own thrilling story as part
of one of the most exciting events on earth. Within the intricate
structure of Mardi Gras Krewes lies the Royal Court. King, queen,
captain, and maids are only a few of the titles that a handful of
individuals prize so highly. "I have waited years to be a maid,"
said one maid. "First I was a page, then a junior maid, but this
year is really it."
     That Monday was a full day that will become one of my
treasured memories. "Remember ladies, this is your day," said
Captain Larry Smith at the day's inception. And it was. I met the
other six maids at a rehearsal early Monday morning. Our day had
been mapped out for us from the rehearsal of the presentation of
the Royal Court all the way through to the breakfast served at
midnight during a magic show. The day was packed with exciting
events.
     The rehearsal went well, learning where and when to curtsy
to the other members of the Royal Court. My biggest worry, in
common with the other women, was whether or not I was going to
trip on my floor-length white gown as I climbed the stairs at the
center front of the stage. Together we shared the fear of
forgetting our roles or forgetting which song each of us was to
march to. We were truly acting the part of maids in a royal
court.
     After rehearsal we rode to Commander's Palace, a world-
famous local restaurant, where the Queen's Luncheon was to be
held. We opened our party favors, but more important, we received
our crowns, which were to be worn for the remainder of the day.
Throughout lunch we listened to the jazz band and toasted one
another and the Krewe, which had been rolling since 1932.
     A television station came to the luncheon and interviewed me
for the evening news on what it was like to be blind and in the
Bard's Court. I do not think mine was a different experience from
the other women's, but I am not sure if I conveyed that to the
ABC reporter. My concerns were not unique to a blind person but
characteristic of anyone in my position.
     The interview with the journalist brought up a previously
untouched topic, my blindness. As a result I felt that I should
say something to my fellow maids. "A bunch of us from the
National Federation of the Blind are in the parade," I said. "We
show people that we can compete on an equal basis with everyone
else." One maid said she had read an article in the Times-
Picayune that morning about me, referring to the piece that had
run that morning and that was reprinted in the March issue of the
Braille Monitor. I spent about five minutes answering questions
before we moved on to other, more immediate topics, such as the
ball to be held that night.
     After the luncheon we raced back to the hotel for a toast to
the King and Queen with all the other riders. We then awaited
limousines to bring us to our float some six miles away in Uptown
New Orleans. Soon we were out in the wind, wondering how we would
ever stay warm in the unexpected cold.
     As we waited for the parade to roll, we organized our boxes
of throws and shared excited comments about the day. It was
adrenaline that kept us warm since the business suits we were
instructed to wear on our float offered little protection from
the cold.
     I had beads and cups to throw to the eager masses. Soon the
wall of cheers engulfed all those who rode. The crowds desired
any trinket, and I had many. The Mardi Gras throws are both
prized and collected. Beads are pushed to the back of closets,
and cups are stacked in high piles at the front of many kitchen
cabinets.
     The cups I threw bore the proud logo of the National
Federation of the Blind, complete with our address. I showed one
to the maid next to me. "You are not what I think of when I think
of blind people," she said.
     Before I could ask her why, a mother of a blind eight-year-
old, came to my float. She had seen the article in the paper that
day. I invited her to our next chapter meeting. She had come in
from an area called Violet, far from the beginning of the parade,
just so she and her son could see me on the float as we began to
roll.
     Another reporter came onto the float. She had seen the
article in the paper. She and her cameraman filmed a small piece
and rode with me for a few blocks before dropping back to the
float which held other Federationists.
     The parade itself is beyond description. We threw Mardi Gras
merchandise to the screaming mobs, up to ten people deep. Again
and again I heard, "Hey Misses, throw me something!" Many of
these people now drink from a plastic cup that bears the National
Federation of the Blind's logo and address. Unlike the maid next
to me, when they think of blind people, perhaps they will think
of the National Federation of the Blind.
     Less than half an hour after the parade halted at the end of
Canal Street, the maids congregated with the rest of the Royal
Court behind the stage in the ballroom. Long white gowns hid the
tennis shoes of the two smart women among us. We all laughed
nervously with one another.
     Soon we were lined up with our escorts to walk pair by pair
down the center of the room in a bright spotlight. My escort had
to be on my right--the hand with which I usually cane, so I
transferred the cane to my left. I am pleased to report that no
one suggested I leave it behind.
     I represented the "world of the circus" that night. When my
song began, I started my walk, curtsied four times, then took my
position on-stage.
     I stood with the other members of the sixty-fifth Royal
Court; our theme was the world of entertainment. Finally we
marched down the stage in the Grand March with confetti cannons
sprinkling the ballroom.
     What that final reporter had had trouble understanding was
that my enjoyment of the day was no different from anyone else's.
I cannot remember what I thought about the blind and how they
enjoyed things before I became blind myself. What I do know now
is that my blindness defines neither my activities nor the manner
in which I enjoy them.
     I was lucky, though. I met the National Federation of the
Blind soon after losing my sight. Finding an environment in which
I could continue to dream and learn the skills to pursue those
dreams has made all the difference in my life. The training at
the Louisiana Center for the Blind allows me not only to continue
my life but to push onward into unknown areas, such as Royal
Courts.
     Without the news article and the two TV reporters my day
would have been identical to that of the other maids. Today we
need to broadcast news like this so that even more people will
know about the Federation. But won't it be a grand day when a
blind person in a carnival parade is not newsworthy?


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Curtis Chong]
               More about Braille Remote Learning

     From the Editor: In the March, 1997, issue we reprinted an
exchange of correspondence which had first appeared in the
Winter, 1997, edition of Computer Science Update, a publication
of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, an
NFB division. It was between Curtis Chong, division president,
and Robert Gotwals, a computational scientist with a strong
commitment to Braille literacy and an interest in determining
whether or not it is possible to teach Braille on the Internet.
The intended audience was to be students working to become
teachers of blind children and those intending to qualify as
transcribers.
     The problem was that blind people can and do obtain
certification in both these fields, and from what anyone could
tell there would be no way for a blind person to access the Web
pages where the course materials were to be located. It was
necessary to use a graphical Web browser, and so far there is no
way for a person using speech access or a refreshable Braille
display to use such a browser. Poor Mr. Gotwals must have thought
that the very hounds of Hell were after him when the e-mail
messages of complaint began. Curtis tried to put the entire
matter into perspective for him and to suggest that it would be
advisable to warn people up front that the intended audience, at
the moment, at least, was sighted Braille students. He assured
Mr. Gotwals that the experiment he was conducting was important
and everyone wished him well because we certainly do need
competent Braille teachers who are excited about the code.
     As often happens in such exchanges, misunderstandings
occurred, which one hopes have now been resolved. Mr. Gotwals and
his colleagues are to be commended for their commitment to
teaching Braille and for their intensive efforts to make their
Website as accessible as possible. In an attempt to make the
current situation as clear as possible, we print here an exchange
of correspondence between Robert Gotwals and Curtis Chong that
took place between April 21 and 23. Here it is:

April 21, 1997
From: Bob Gotwals <gotwals@shodor.org>
To: Chong99@cris.com
Subject: March Braille Monitor

     Saw your article in the March, '97, Braille Monitor. I'm a
little disappointed that nowhere was it stated that the course is
and has been accessible since day one. When you and I were having
our conversations, the materials were in development, and we
expected to not be able to have them readily accessible in time
for the initial testing of the materials.
     We were able to get them ready, in spite of the fact that we
did so at our own expense. Your comment "What I do know is that
in its present form Braille Remote Learning is not accessible to
the blind--nor is it meant to be" is therefore in error. Have you
looked at the pages?
     If you wish to chat about this, I can be reached at e-mail
or at (919) 490-1626. We are both interested in increasing the
awareness and literacy levels of Braillists, especially folks
capable of providing that skill. Are you helping or hurting that
goal? Want my opinion?

Robert R. Gotwals, Jr.
The Shodor Education Foundation, Inc.
Computational Science Educator
Durham, North Carolina
http://www.shodor.org
(919) 286-1911 (V/TDD) Fax 286-7876

     The next day Curtis Chong replied to this memo. When Mr.
Gotwals received Curtis's letter, he made comments throughout the
text. Here is Curtis's letter with the Gotwals interpolations
printed in italics:

April 22, 1997

From: Curtis Chong <Chong99@concentric.net>
To: Bob Gotwals <gotwals@shodor.org
Subject: March Braille monitor

Hello Bob:
     I am sorry that you were disappointed by what appeared in
the March edition of the Braille Monitor regarding Braille Remote
Learning. The information I had when the article was written was
that the course would not initially be usable by somebody who
could not see pictures of Braille output on the screen. As far as
I am aware, this is still correct. If you have information to the
contrary and if you have made additional efforts to make the
course accessible to the blind over the Internet, please do
provide me with that information. If I was wrong, I will
certainly work to see that a correction is printed in the
Monitor.

     I appreciate that there is often a delay in getting stuff
published, and I am sure the Monitor is no different. Three
months in the print world is actually quite fast. In the
electronic publishing world, three months is an eternity.
     The course is accessible, and has been since day one. We
expended considerable resources to ensure that the course was
accessible to all users. We had to take that time away from other
Braille development work, but we were glad we were able to make
the materials available. As I had mentioned before, we had
proposed that the accessibility work be done after the materials
had been developed, the bugs had been worked out, and the courses
were ready for production. Having to do it sooner rather than
later did make our task more difficult, but we are grateful for
the visually-impaired folks who are actively participating; they
are providing substantial assistance to our efforts.

     I hope you realize that I can only work with the facts I
have in hand. I still do not have any information that would
indicate that Braille Remote Learning is a tool that is usable
directly by blind persons on the Internet. This does not detract
from the value of the course as a learning tool for Braille
transcribers. God knows we need more of them.

     I would have hoped that you or someone from the Monitor
might have checked. Again, my guess is that the scenario of
events was that you submitted your article in December after our
e-mail exchanges, then did not see the article again until it hit
the streets. I was mostly disappointed that no one bothered to
ask. It's not like I'm hard to locate. The pages are also easily
accessible, and any page that uses graphics says "Text Version"
at the very top of each page. We've checked pages using Lynx and
have run a number of pages through some of the few accessibility
checkers, such as Bobby.

     I think that with the facts I had, my presentation in the
Monitor was fair and balanced. I understand and respect that you
may not see things that way. I have not said, nor do I intend to
say, to anyone that Braille Remote Learning is a project without
value. It most certainly has value. However, as I said in my
article, I do not know whether a blind person can really learn
Braille if auditory output is the only means by which information
is provided. Other material needs to be available, e.g., hard-
copy Braille samples, refreshable Braille, etc.

     That's part of the experiment. We're doing this work partly
because we are scientists and partly because we're trying to
provide a service. We won't know if this delivery system will
meet a variety of Braille literacy needs until we do the
experiment. The course actually was never intended to teach
Braille to visually-impaired folks, but if we can figure out how
to make that happen, we'll do so. We don't do anything in terms
of reading readiness, i.e., tactile discrim exercises, etc. We've
toyed with providing Duxbury files that folks can download, but
there has not been lots of demand for the ones we have made
available.

     I had thought that we had ended our correspondence on a
fairly positive note. I am sure you thought so as well. I regret
that what appeared in the Monitor did not meet with your
approval. However, without additional information, my comments
still stand.

     Me too. I didn't even know about the article until I got
several pieces of e-mail from folks not even involved in the
program who saw it and weren't too happy. Some of the comments I
received were not happy with the NFB. I chatted with Allison
Scheuermann at the NFB and conveyed my impressions. The article
did suggest at the beginning that the conversations were
friendly, but there was still sort of a negative overtone to the
article. We can't do the experiment of investigating online
Braille instruction without students, including visually impaired
ones. Anything that discourages that community from participating
takes the opportunity out of our hands.
     I don't want to suggest that the journalism was
irresponsible, but perhaps it could have been a little tighter.
     I like to think we're both on the same side, and both want
the same thing. I certainly don't mind criticism. That's how
things get better. However, I have little patience with criticism
that is unwarranted. My students know that I've been at the
receiving end of lots of comments, and we've worked hard to fix
what they have suggested. All in all, however, we think things
are going pretty well.

Regards,
Curtis Chong, President
NFB in Computer Science

and to you! Thanks for your reply.

PS. I'd encourage you to submit this conversation as well. Ask
Barbara not to wait three months, however, to publish it! She
also might want to solicit the opinions of the 80 or so folks
currently participating in the program. E-mail to
Braille@shodor.org will reach all participants, program staff,
and observers.

Robert R. Gotwals, Jr.
The Shodor Education Foundation, Inc.
Computational Science Educator

     The following day another exchange of correspondence took
place. Again Curtis wrote a letter, which Mr. Gotwals returned
with comments interspersed throughout it. Here is the letter with
Mr. Gotwals's comments italicized:

April 23, 1997
From: Curtis Chong <Chong99@concentric.net>
To: Bob Gotwals <gotwals@shodor.org>
Subject: March Braille Monitor

Hello Bob:
     I have been giving considerable thought to our exchange of
correspondence over the last two days, and I must tell you that I
am trying very hard not to come away from that exchanged feeling
annoyed and more than a bit put out with the way in which you
have chosen to deal with me. In all of my communications with
you, I have tried to engender good will.
     Moreover, I have encouraged members of the National
Federation of the Blind to support your efforts instead of
dogmatically insisting that Braille Remote Learning be 100
percent accessible at the outset.

     I actually think (or perhaps thought) that we were on the
same page. As you have no evidence that our stuff is accessible,
I have no evidence that you've been encouraging support, but I'll
take you at your word!

     Do you remember the bashing you took when you first
announced the project? Many people criticized the work you were
doing because participants were required to use a graphical web
browser. One of the things you said in defense of your work was
this:

     This Braille ed program is, by the way, part of a
     larger VI masters degree program that is being
     developed at North Carolina Central University. The
     idea is to make a large part of that program accessible
     over the net, and the Braille course is the first test
     of that concept. We sure would like a chance to make it
     work....again, if there is a demand that the effort be
     made to ensure 100 percent accessibility in the
     experimental phase, we can pretty much ensure that the
     experiment will fail.

     Yep. And as initially designed, it was pretty much
inaccessible. We did a re-design (to some degree) and spent much
more time up front looking at making it accessible than we had
planned at that stage of the project.
     Under the terms of the grant, we were not funded nor
committed to accessibility that early on, but I felt, especially
after conversations with you and others, that it was important to
do things earlier rather than later. But what if technologically
it had been difficult to do so, and the insistence had continued?
What would have been our options? Were we willing to risk a
lawsuit under ADA or some other statute to continue to do the
work? I seriously doubt that my board of directors or executive
director would have supported our continuance of this work if
that had been the case. You as a computer scientist understand
that the technology doesn't always maintain pace with desires,
dreams, wishes, and best intentions. As it is, our technical
solution is adequate, but that's probably all I can say for it.
Fortunately, other people are looking hard at the accessibility
issue of Internet resources, and we hope to be the beneficiaries
of their labors. We're not charged with that end of the
technology.

     I interpreted this to mean that during the initial phases of
the project your attention would be focused primarily on making
the program work as opposed to making it fully accessible to
blind Internet users. After all, I reasoned, the program was
aimed primarily at transcribers and teachers. Hence, when I wrote
to you, I was trying to clarify our position that accessibility
by the blind to your project was, for us, a secondary concern. In
short, I was trying to mitigate some of the criticism you were
receiving.

     That was the original intent of the program. I didn't get
the sense that it was your position that accessibility was a
secondary concern...I'll certainly go back and re-read
correspondence, but I'm not sure that position came through...

     If you recall, one of the recommendations I made was this:
"I think it is important that your promotional materials clarify
that Braille Online is not now accessible to the blind. You might
even take this notion a step further and clarify that the target
audience for the program consists of sighted people who will be
teaching or producing Braille."
     Your response to this recommendation was a simple "Done."
You raised no objection to the statement that "Braille Online is
not now accessible to the blind."

     And, again, we changed that position. When you and I were
conversing in December, that was a true statement. When the
course was opened in January, it was not. Christmas holiday
wasn't!

     Since that time I have received no word from you--no e-mail,
no phone call, nothing. Moreover, none of my colleagues in the
National Federation of the Blind reported reading anything from
you on any Internet mailing list about any change in emphasis for
the project. Based on all of the information I had in my
possession, there was no reason for either me or the editor of
the Braille Monitor to do any further checking. Exactly what
should we have done differently? I would have thought that you,
knowing that I lead a national organization of blind people
dealing with computer access issues, would have taken the trouble
to let me know that a significant effort had been made to make
your course accessible to blind people. Certainly, if you had
written to me, I would have done everything possible to change
the article which ultimately appeared in the Monitor.

     Guess we're both at fault. For my part, if I had known our
e-mail correspondence was being published, I would have taken the
steps to ensure that authors/editors were aware of changes. I had
no idea that the article had been published (guess I gotta start
reading the Monitor, huh?) until my mailbox exploded. For your
part (or that of the editor), I guess I would have liked to have
had someone contact me letting me know the stuff was going in,
and/or have looked at the pages.

     I take exception to your implied criticism of me and the
National Federation of the Blind for the way in which we
portrayed your program in the Braille Monitor. You say that the
journalism could have been tightened up a bit. Frankly, I don't
see how. As far as we were concerned, all of our information was
current.

     As above. Again, three months is a long time in the Internet
business, as I suspect you know as a computer science
professional. On both of our parts two minutes worth of work
would have completely removed all of this time (and bad
feelings!) that we're spending on this conversation.

     I hope that you will not misunderstand what I am saying
here. I have no quarrel with the work you are doing. I am very
glad that you and your colleagues have taken the time and effort
to work on accessibility concerns. You should be commended for
this effort. Because I believe that the work you are doing is
important to the blind community, I would like to know more about
what you have done to make it possible for blind users of the
Internet to participate fully in your program. Those of us who
are proficient Braille users are keenly interested to know how
Braille (which is essentially a tactual experience) can be taught
using speech output. I would also like to know the specific
actions you took to ensure accessibility to the project during
the early stages.

     Thanks for those words, and again I think (or hope) we're on
the same page of Braille! We don't know if it will work either;
that's what we're trying to find out! If it works, we'll extend
and publish. If it doesn't, we'll publish why not. Again, we're
hoping that the work of others to improve the accessibility of
Web pages will have an impact on what we're doing. If not, we'll
forge our own path as best we can!

     Please be assured that all of this correspondence is being
forwarded to Barbara Pierce, Editor of the Braille Monitor.
Moreover, if you supply me with more specific information about
how the program is accessible to the blind today, I will send
that along as well.

     Appreciate that extra effort. Simply, any page that has any
kind of graphics on it (examples, sentences, exercises, etc.) has
a text version that is the first link on the page. Other images
have the appropriate "alt" tags embedded. We're encouraging as
many visually impaired students as we can, as much as we're
encouraging any participation--we've advertised to two or three
listservs and have plenty of participants.
     That's not to say we don't want more, but beginning this
summer we'll complete some evaluation work and then promote the
course more aggressively.

     In closing, I would like to say that you and I should
communicate with each other more often and under better
circumstances. I think that both of us can do a lot to improve
our relationship. I will always endeavor to ensure that the
information I send to the Braille Monitor about your work is
complete and accurate. I don't have a lot of time to read the
hundreds of messages per day generated by the many
blindness-related mailing lists. So please understand that
anything you distribute to those lists will probably not be seen
by me unless somebody happens to forward a particular item to me.
Therefore, I trust that you will continue to keep me informed
about the work you are doing by writing to me personally.

     Will do. Likewise, it's hard to keep up with the listservs.

Yours sincerely,

Likewise!

Robert R. Gotwals, Jr.
Computational Science Educator
The Shodor Education Foundation, Inc.

     Editor's postscript: In an e-mail exchange of my own with
Mr. Gotwals in early May, I told him that I intended to publish
his comments and Curtis's responses. I also explained that, when
articles are reprinted in the Braille Monitor from affiliate or
division publications, I do not as a rule conduct further
research or interviews. In his response to me he did not add
anything more to what he had already said to Curtis. We both
ended with complimentary statements about the efforts the other
was making to improve matters for blind people. We can all hope
that both parties are successful.


                             Recipes

     This month's recipes were submitted by members of the
National Federation of the Blind of Wisconsin.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Margie Watson]
                         Macaroni Salad
                        by Margie Watson

     Margie Watson is an active member of the National Federation
of the Blind of Wisconsin. Her daughter Katie is a vivacious and
confident member of the fifth generation of the Federation.

Ingredients:
1 16-ounce box elbow macaroni
2 small cans little shrimp
1 rib celery, chopped
1 small onion, chopped
mayonnaise
salt
pepper

     Method: Cook elbow macaroni according to package directions;
drain. Rinse shrimp in cold water, drain. Add salt, pepper,
celery, and onions. Adjust seasonings to taste. Add mayonnaise
and mix together.

                  Hot Chili Bean and Corn Salad
                        by Margie Watson

Ingredients:
2 16-ounce cans hot chili beans, drained
3 cups frozen corn with red and green peppers
4 medium ribs celery, thinly sliced (include leaves)
1/2 cup picante sauce
fresh cilantro for garnish (optional)

     Method: Combine beans, corn, celery, and picante sauce. Set
out at room temperature one hour before serving. To serve
immediately, defrost corn in microwave. Cook on high for half of
recommended cooking time or cook in boiling water according to
package directions. Drain and cool slightly before adding to
salad. Garnish with fresh cilantro leaves if desired.


                    No-Egg Butterscotch Cake
                         by Mary Sheire

     Melvin and Mary Sheire are new members of the NFB of
Wisconsin. Melvin is the chairman of the scholarship committee.
Mary is an excellent cook.

Ingredients:
1 cup brown sugar
1/2 cup granulated sugar
2 cups flour
1/2 cup butter
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 cup buttermilk
1/2 cup chopped nuts
1 cup butterscotch chips

     Method: Mix flour, sugars, and butter in a bowl. Remove 1/2
cup of mixture and set aside. Add vanilla and milk. Stir in
remaining ingredients. Mix well. Pour into 9-by-13-inch pan.
Place butterscotch chips on top and sprinkle over cake the cup of
butter mixture you set aside. Bake forty minutes at 350 degrees.


                          Moon Muffins
                         by Mary Sheire

Ingredients:
1 box chocolate cake mix
Filling:
1 8-ounce package cream cheese
1 egg
 1/3 cup sugar
dash of salt
1 cup chocolate chips

     Method: Prepare cake mix according to package directions.
Mix until smooth. In a separate bowl mix cream cheese, egg,
sugar, chocolate chips, and salt. Fill muffin trays  3/4 inch
full of cake batter. Pour one tablespoon of filling in the center
of each muffin. Bake fifteen to eighteen minutes at 350 degrees.
Store muffins in refrigerator.


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Bonnie Peterson]
                     Chocolate Chip Cookies
                       by Bonnie Peterson

     Bonnie Peterson is the President of the National Federation
of the Blind of Wisconsin.

Ingredients:
1 cup butter
1 cup firmly packed brown sugar
2 eggs
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2 1/4 cups flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
2-1/2 cups chocolate chips
2 to 3 cups very finely chopped walnuts

     Method: Cream butter and sugar in a bowl. Add eggs and
vanilla, stir or beat until creamy. Add flour, salt, and baking
soda. Mix well. Fold in walnuts. Add chocolate chips. Drop by
tablespoonfuls onto lightly greased baking sheet. Bake at 350 for
ten minutes.


[PHOTO/CAPTION: Bill Meeker and Cheryl Orgas]
                        Barbecued Chicken
                         by Bill Meeker

     Bill Meeker and Cheryl Orgas are leaders of the Wisconsin
affiliate. Bill reports that this chicken recipe is Bonnie
Peterson's favorite way of preparing chicken. Bonnie agrees and
says that she bought her husband a grill identical to Bill's in
the hope that he could replicate this chicken. But so far Bill is
the only one who does it to perfection.

Ingredients:
One grill with separate firebox and smoking chambers
at least 5 pounds skinless, boneless chicken breasts
1 or 2 bottles of Gates Bar-B-Q sauce (may be ordered by calling
(816) 923-0900 with your Visa or MasterCard number or writing
Gates Bar-B-Q, 4621 Paseo, Kansas City, Missouri 64110)

     Method: Preheat grill to 350 degrees using charcoal and one
apple wood log or other wood of choice. Sear chicken over fire
for two minutes. (I use a long-handled wire grill basket in order
to sear a number of pieces at once and turn them at the same
time.) As chicken is seared, throw it into a large bowl
containing the sauce and let it sit several minutes. Remove
chicken from bowl and place in smoking chamber. Pour excess sauce
from bowl over chicken in smoking chamber. Cook forty-five
minutes or until done. (This varies with amount of chicken and
fire temperature. A grill with a thermometer helps.) With
experience you will be able to judge the correct heat of the
smoker by feeling the outside of the smokestack or the body of
the smoking chamber or the smoke coming out of the stack. Don't
worry if you don't have a thermostat or a meat thermometer. When
cooked, remove chicken from smoker and enjoy. Note: I use either
heavy leather gloves or welding gloves to handle wire baskets and
to adjust the fire, consuming one bottle of Wisconsin seasonal
beer during cooking. If you don't want to sear the meat, try
marinating it in sauce from four hours to two days. Experiment
with variations of your own as I did. It's hard to go too far
wrong with a smoker.


                           Shortbread
                         by Cheryl Orgas

Ingredients:
1-1/2 cups flour
 3/4 cup powdered sugar
2 sticks butter

     Method: Mix all ingredients until dough is sticky and firm.
Pat into standard pie pan. Place in preheated 350-degree oven for
fifty minutes. Let cool before cutting. These cookies are simple
to make but delicious.


                       Monitor Miniatures

New Web Services Available:
     The Greater San Antonio Chapter of the National Federation
of the Blind of Texas is pleased to announce the start-up of its
World Wide Web Site. You can visit us at
http://www.txdirect.net/users/sdyer/nfb/
As a service to the blind community part of this site will
contain a list of Braille transcription groups. In the short time
we have had the site online, we have posted a number of
interested individuals and Braille-producing organizations on our
site. The best part is that the service is free.
     Part of this site is also a bulletin board where blind
people who wish to post their resume on the World Wide Web can
do so free of charge. You need not be a member of the NFB in
order to avail yourself of this service. Supplementary material
in the form of task descriptions (information detailing how you
have done or will do the job you are seeking), photographs, midi
files, audio files, or film clips with a maximum length of 30
seconds are welcome, and we will post them as disk space permits.
You could also send us the URL of the site where this material
resides so we can link to it. Our only other requirements are
that your audio or video material be directed toward getting a
job and that it be in good taste (something that everyone can
enjoy).
     If you would like to list your business or your resume on
our site, please send the information to us in an ASCII,
Microsoft Word 6.0, or HTML file on a 3.5-inch diskette. We will
put you on the web as quickly as possible. You can e-mail us at
pdonahue@texas.net Our postal mailing address is Peter Donahue,
Secretary, Greater San Antonio Chapter, National Federation of
the Blind of Texas, 100 Lorenz Road, Apt. 1205, San Antonio,
Texas 78209, phone, (210) 554-9454. Please leave us a message,
and we will return your call. We hope these services will benefit
you. The San Antonio Chapter looks forward to serving you.

Braille Music Transcription Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Dancing Dots specializes in Braille music transcription.
Their software-based service is much, much quicker than
traditional methods. Dancing Dots can transcribe a printed score
or your MIDI or Lime notation files. Contact them for details, a
rate schedule, and an order form. In most cases your Braille
music will be returned to you in two weeks or less.
     The translator has been designed to provide music Braille
that conforms to the standards set by the Music Committee of the
Braille Authority of North America. Send your print score, Lime
notation file, or MIDI file. They will use GOODFEEL to convert
these files to music Braille. They will input print scores into
the Lime notation editor and then translate the resultant Lime
file using GOODFEEL. Transcriptions can be returned as embossed
Braille or as an ASCII text file. All first-time orders will
receive a discount.
     $3.25 per Braille page transcribed from computer files,
$4.75 per Braille page transcribed from print score, $3 minimum
handling charge per order, $20 per hour rate for set up (prorated
to the quarter hour, typically fifteen to thirty minutes). $2 per
volume, optional binding fee, $.75 per page for additional
copies. Written estimate provided for large jobs.
     For more information contact Dancing Dots, 130 Hampden Road,
Third Floor, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania 19082-3110, (610) 352-
7607, fax (610) 352-4582, e-mail ddots@netaxs.com URL:
http://www.netaxs.com/~ddots

Elected:
     Lois Montgomery, Secretary of the Bix Beiderbecke Chapter of
the NFB of Iowa, reports her chapter's election of new officers.
They are Deb Smith, President; Mary Hartle-Smith, Vice President;
Lois Montgomery, Secretary; Mike Smith, Treasurer; and Teresa
Gregg, Board member.

Children's Books in Braille Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The following books are available in Braille from the Louis
Braille Center: A Child's Garden of Verses by Robert Louis
Stevenson, $10; Winnie-the-Pooh, $15; The House at Pooh Corner,
$18; and When We Were Very Young, $10; all by A.A. Milne. Ask for
a free catalog in Braille or print. Please note our new address
is Louis Braille Center, 320 Dayton Street, Suite 125, Edmonds,
Washington 98020-3590. Phone (206) 776-4042, fax (206) 778-2384,
e-mail: lbc-brl@worldnet.att.net

Useful Audio Tapes Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     For people who find conventional explanations of computer
operation or the Internet bewildering, there is good news now in
the form of a two-cassette audio package that can make the basic
concepts and terms of computers and the Internet understandable
to virtually anyone. Internet Explained--Short & Sweet, new in
September, '95, is for people who want to understand what the
Internet phenomenon is all about, whether they choose to become
cybernauts or not. This often humorous one-hour audio tape
explains the Internet concept in terms clearly understandable to
the non-techie. $12.95.
     60 Minutes Towards Computer Literacy makes basic computer
concepts and terms understandable to virtually anybody through a
series of non-technical, non-threatening, and highly imaginative
analogies to which everyone can relate. Praised and recommended
by publications such as PC Novice, Home Office Computing, Library
Journal, Modern Office Technology, and Law Practice Management.
Used by thousands of individuals, business and professional
offices, libraries, schools, and governmental agencies, $12.95.
     To order, call BusinessFilm International at (800) 260-7717,
fax (203) 968-2255, or write 1397 Hope St., Stamford, Connecticut
06907.

For Sale:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     For sale, Braille 'n Speak, Classic, without calculator,
used very little, in good condition with carrying case, line
cords, tape tutorials, manual, Braille cord book. $600 or best
offer.
     Contact Phil Copeland at (216) 324-2520 or (216) 365-7970,
or write to 110 Indiana Avenue, Elyria, Ohio 44035.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Peggy Chong]
Useful Chapter Project:
     Peggy Chong, President of the Metro Chapter of the NFB of
Minnesota, reports that her chapter took time during its March
meeting to tell each other about products and services they had
found useful. They then compiled Braille and print lists and
distributed them at the April meeting. Very few of the products
or services had anything to do with blindness, yet they were
useful alternatives that many of the chapter members did not know
about.
     It all started when one chapter member wanted to visit
relatives over Thanksgiving in a small Minnesota town. But she
could not get a Greyhound bus there. After talking with the
Chamber of Commerce in that town, she discovered a van service
that would take her from the Minnesota/St. Paul Airport to the
little town. She then passed that information on to other members
of the chapter.
     Soon more ideas were being shared. The list turned out to be
six print pages long. It included transportation alternatives,
grocery stores that deliver, the phone number for the movie
information line, catalogs that carry talking items, transcribers
in our area, a source for 5-by-7-inch Rolodex cards, and much
more.
     Peggy says, "Everyone got involved. It was a fun project for
our chapter, and we learned a lot about our community."

Searching the Internet with AltaVista:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Now available from National Braille Press, The AltaVista
Search Revolution: How to Find Anything on the Internet (three
volumes), $18.99. Millions of users are already taking advantage
of this powerful search engine--which also happens to be
accessible with speech or Braille.
     Perhaps you are plagued by a few words of what may be a song
or a poem or a passage in a book. You don't know who wrote it or
when. With AltaVista, you just enter the words you know, and it
finds what you are looking for anywhere on the Internet.
AltaVista is a web site, not a piece of software. If you have
access to the Net, you have access to AltaVista.
     Order from National Braille Press, 88 St. Stephen Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02115 or call toll-free (800) 548-7323.
Major credit cards accepted.

Reading on the Air:
     WRBH is sponsoring a Braille-on-the-air week. WRBH is a non-
profit radio station broadcasting twenty-four hours a day
translating the written word into the spoken word. We read
everything from the TV Guide to the daily newspaper; best
sellers; our book of the month; and articles from various
magazines, including the Braille Monitor.
     If you would be interested in reading on the air, please
contact the station for a copy of an audition page that you can
read onto a cassette. Read in a clear voice and include your
name, address, and phone number and send it to Diana S. Ahern,
3606 Magazine St., New Orleans, Louisiana 70115, or call (504)
899-1144 or (504) 888-5509.
     This opportunity will do a lot to promote the use of
Braille; and, who knows, some of you good readers may find a new
career. We also include children, so submit your audition tapes.

Unabridged Audio Fiction Available:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Dercum Audio is a company producing quality unabridged audio
fiction. Their offerings fall into five main genres: mystery,
science fiction, horror, fantasy, and classic literature. Authors
in the collection include Dickens, Poe, Mark Twain, Isaac Asimov,
Arthur C. Clarke, Jules Verne, etc. Dercum Audio also has
exclusive anthology collections, including four all new editions
and the first ever audio edition of Ayn Rand's classic, Anthem.
Dercum Audio is known for its quality recordings. These are now
being further enhanced by digital re-mastering, so Dercum titles
will sound better than ever. A new catalog of titles has just
become available.
     To order call (800) 327-5113 or check out the Website
http://www.bookbase.com/dercum

Elected:
     The Greater San Diego Chapter of the National Federation of
the Blind of California reports its April 1, 1997, results. The
new officers are Brian Miller, President; Joseph Lopez, Vice
President; James Lyons, Treasurer, Dominique Platero, Secretary;
and John Miller and Ivan Weich, Board members.

Grant Award Made:
     We recently received a press release announcing the
following information:
     Bayer Animal Health, a division of the Bayer Corporation,
has awarded a grant to Ed and Toni Eames to continue their
mission of educating veterinary students about the needs of
clients with disabilities, particularly those partnered with
guide, hearing, and service dogs. The grant will underwrite the
costs of lecturing at six veterinary schools in 1997.
     Ed Eames, Ph.D., and Toni Eames, M.S., are adjunct
professors of sociology at California State University, Fresno.
They have co-authored a book about guide dog training programs in
the United States and Canada. Their publications as columnists
for Dog World Magazine have earned them top awards from the Dog
Writers Association of America. A number of these columns will
appear in a book, Partners in Independence, to be published by
Howell Book House in 1997.
     In their endeavor to sensitize the veterinary community
about disabled clients, Ed and Toni Eames have visited thirteen
of the twenty-seven veterinary schools in the United States.
Bayer's grant will enable them and their golden retriever guide
dogs, Echo and Escort, to travel to programs not previously
visited. It will also enable them to return to previously visited
colleges where a new generation of students has enrolled.
     Bayer Animal Health is pleased to make this grant as part of
its mission of fostering the role of the veterinarian in
enhancing the human/companion animal bond. Toni and Ed Eames can
be contacted at 3376 North Wishon, Fresno, California 93703-4832,
(209) 224-0544.

Elected:
     Alyce Bouy and Clint Hickman of the Pueblo Chapter of the
NFB of Colorado, report the chapter's recent election of
officers. They are Alyce Bouy, President; Clint Hickman, Vice
President; Don Kayganich, Secretary; and Treva Bright, Treasurer.
The Board members are Elaine Kayganich, Christine Daniels, and
Mike Massey.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Donna Siebert, 1945 to 1997]
In Memoriam:
     Sharon Gold, President of the NFB of Sacramento, writes: I
am saddened to tell you that Donna Siebert passed away on April
1, 1997, from severe diabetic complications. In early 1980 I
received a telephone call from Richard Edlund, who was then
President of the NFB of Kansas. Dick told me that Donna and her
husband Richard were moving to California, that they were active
members of the Kansas affiliate, that Donna was a good NFB
worker, and that I should meet her and put her to work as soon as
they arrived in California. I did just that. Over the years Donna
served on many NFB of California committees and as the Treasurer
of our state affiliate. She was a leader in our Diabetic Chapter
and the National Diabetic Division. She also served as the
President and Treasurer of the NFB of Sacramento. For many years
Donna made a weekly trip by light rail and bus from her home in
Carmichael to the NFB of California office, where she prepared
literally thousands of envelopes, cassette tapes, and other
pieces of mail for the NFB of California. Donna's health began to
fail several years ago, which forced her gradually to curtail
many of her NFB activities; however, unless Donna was in the
hospital, she and her husband Richard faithfully attended chapter
meetings. While Donna's presence and faithfulness will be forever
missed in the NFB, Rich continues to be active; in fact, he is a
member of the Board of Directors of the NFB of Sacramento. Our
condolences go to Rich in his sorrow.

Tandem Bike Rental at Yosemite:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     The bicycle rental concession at Yosemite National Park has
acquired a tandem bicycle for use by blind or visually impaired
persons. You must provide your own sighted pilot. Since only one
tandem is available at this time, advance reservations are
strongly encouraged. For further information and reservations,
contact Joe Alfano at (209) 372-1208.

Kurzweil Introduces a Free Demo Disk for Omni 1000 Software:
     We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
     Kurzweil Educational Systems, Inc. (KESI) announces the
release of a demo disk for its Omni 1000 software. Now, anyone
with the proper hardware can try the Omni 1000 free of charge and
realize the benefits of this advanced PC-based reading system for
people who are blind or visually impaired from Ray Kurzweil.
     "Twenty years ago, I founded the reading technology industry
with the Kurzweil Reading Machine, the first print-to-speech
reader," said Mr. Kurzweil, KESI Chairman and CEO. "Now KESI is
reinventing reading technology with Omni 1000. We see
opportunities to give people who are blind or visually impaired
greater freedom, independence, and enjoyment by providing a
reading system that is easy to use and more technologically
advanced than any other product currently available."
     A fully-functioning version of the actual software, the Omni
1000 demo disk will run for thirty minutes at a time for two full
weeks. After that, it will automatically de-install. Omni 1000 is
the only system with a talking dictionary, document management
capabilities, batch scanning, and the ability to read multi-
column text easily. Additional features include highly accurate
optical character recognition (OCR), twelve reading
personalities, the clearest synthetic speech available, and voice
commands.
     Please note that for the demo to perform at its optimum
level, the following hardware is required: a pentium processor,
32MB of RAM, 1.2GB of hard disk storage, a floppy drive, a CD-ROM
drive, a 17-button keypad, a color scanner, speech synthesis,
speakers, and a microphone.
     For a free demo or more information about Omni 1000 and
other leading-edge reading solutions for people with
disabilities, contact KESI at 411 Waverley Oaks Road, Waltham,
Massachusetts 02154, (800) 894-5374, and fax (617) 893-4157. Send
e-mail to info@kurzweiledu.com or visit KESI's website at
www.kurzweiledu.com

Elected:
     Larry Povinelli, President of the Potomac Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind of Virginia, reports his
chapter's April 9, 1997, election results. The new officers are
Larry Povinelli, President; Seville Allen, First Vice President;
Jerry Yeager, Second Vice President; Cathy Schroeder, Recording
Secretary; Carol Cooper, Corresponding Secretary; and Bob Hartt,
Treasurer. The Board members are Melissa Ressnick, Rajiv Shah,
and Michael Reese.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Victor Gonzalez (left) stands with NFB of West
Virginia
President Ed McDonald (center) and Progressive Blind of Clarksburg
Chapter
President Jack McIntire (right).]
Forty Years of Board Service:
     In March, 1997, the Clarksburg Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of West Virginia celebrated its fortieth
anniversary. The Board of Directors of the West Virginia
affiliate is comprised of representatives from each chapter. In
1957 Victor Gonzalez was elected as the Clarksburg representative
to the Board. He has served in that role ever since. In addition,
he has held every elective office in the chapter and, since 1960,
has chaired an NFB committee that meets regularly with the state
agency serving the blind. Congratulations to Victor Gonzalez for
a long and distinguished career of service in the West Virginia
affiliate.
