The Braille
Monitor
Vol.
38, No. 1
January 1995
Barbara Pierce, Editor
Published in inkprint, in Braille,
on cassette and
the World Wide Web and FTP on the Internet
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
Contents
Vol.
38, No. 1
January 1995
REFLECTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE WORLD BLIND UNION by Kenneth Jernigan
WORLD BLIND UNION OFFICERS MEET IN JORDAN by Kenneth Jernigan
FROM THE TRICYCLE TO THE COOKIE JAR by Barbara Pierce
MAKING SENSE OF A SIMULATION EXERCISE by Anna Cheadle
A WIFE SPEAKS OUT ABOUT BLINDNESS by David and Theresa House
ANOTHER WIFE SAYS WHAT'S ON HER MIND by Carol Lemieux
THE OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION: PC-BASED READING SYSTEMS A COMPARATIVE REVIEW by David Andrews
BLINDNESS: A PERSPECTIVE FROM CHINA by C. Edwin Vaughan, Ph.D.
EXPLORE YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC LIBRARY by Priscilla Hudson
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE GRAND CANYON by Deborah Hartz
NO CANE, NO DOG! by Bill J. Isaacs
MY NFB CONVENTION EXPERIENCE by Jaclyn L. Kusters
CHICAGO NOTEBOOK by Stephen O. Benson
SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1995 by James Gashel
RECIPES
MONITOR MINIATURES
Copyright 1995 National Federation of
the Blind
[LEAD PHOTOS/CAPTION: The National Federation of the Blind has its headquarters in Baltimore at the National Center for the Blind. The building not only serves as a focus of organizational activity but also as a symbol of the long struggle of the blind to achieve full citizenship and first-class status in society. What once was a factory building is now a thoroughly beautiful and modern facility. Here is the front entrance of the National Center for the Blind.]
[Photo: Dr. Jernigan stands at a podium. Caption: Kenneth Jernigan]
REFLECTIONS
AND COMMENTS ON THE WORLD BLIND UNION
by Kenneth Jernigan
At the end of the second World War America,
England, and the countries comprising the British commonwealth were riding high.
There seemed to be a feeling that a new day of progress and prosperity was dawning
and that the English-speaking countries of the world were destined to lead the
way in achieving it (and also, by and large, in paying for it). In this universal
spirit of hope and brotherhood (no, not sisterhood--we hadn't got to that point
yet) all were to receive assistance. There were Marshall Plans, foreign aid,
and the United Nations.
Nobody was to be forgotten--and, of course, that included the blind. So in 1949
the World Council on the Welfare of the Blind was established. It met in Rome;
elected Colonel Baker (the head of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind)
as its president; and planned to meet again in five years, leaving interim matters
to its officers and executive committee. The organization (generally called
the WCWB) claimed to represent not only the governmental and private agencies
but also the blind. And, indeed, there were organizations of the blind in its
membership, including the National Federation of the Blind.
The problem was that many of the European organizations were hybrids. They called
themselves organizations of the blind, and their claim had legitimacy. They
had blind members; they had elections; and mostly they had blind officers. But
they were also agencies, in that they provided rehabilitation and other services
to the blind--very often the only such services in their countries. Moreover,
their principal financing usually came from government, and their leaders were
paid as service providers. This is not the place to discuss whether that was
a better or worse model than we were using but simply to note that it was different.
There were obvious advantages to the hybrid model--a steady source of income,
paid leadership with time to develop programs, and a rather persuasive method
of recruitment. In fact, when I was in Denmark four or five years ago, I asked
how many members that country's organization of the blind had. I was given an
answer. I then asked what the total blind population of the country was, and
again I was given an answer. The two numbers were virtually the same.
On the other hand, there were disadvantages. If a blind person is dissatisfied
with the behavior or services he or she receives, how can an effective appeal
be made? The entire atmosphere of the operation will discourage appeals, as
well as the very notion of adverse interests or freedom of choice.
Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages is a question that can be
argued, but one thing is indisputable. When a group of representatives from
different countries gather to talk about methods and procedures, communication
is made difficult by the different kinds of organizations that call themselves
organizations of the blind. Sometimes the subject can be touchy. I remember,
for instance, a meeting in London a few years ago at which I said that in the
United States an organization of the blind would not be defined in the same
way as it would in some European countries, and I received an angry response
from one of my esteemed European colleagues--which, of course, changed nothing
since the facts are still the facts.
But back to the World Council on the Welfare of the Blind (the WCWB). In its
early years it was largely run by the American Foundation for the Blind, the
CNIB, and the British. It was characterized by quinquennial conventions, agency
control, and professional articles and papers. It wielded relatively little
influence in the blindness field in the United States--taking a backseat, for
instance, to the American Foundation for Overseas Blind, which later split away
to become Helen Keller International.
During the 1950's and 60's the participation of the National Federation of the
Blind in WCWB activities was constant but mostly perfunctory. By the mid-1960's
we felt that a worldwide organization of the blind should be established--not
just an organization composed of and led by the blind but also an organization
undiluted in its purpose of representing the blind. We were not seeking to build
a force that would be hostile to the agencies but the establishment of a world
organization that would avoid combining the functions of both service provider
and service receiver--an organization that would serve as a balance to the agency-controlled
WCWB. As I have often said, the organized blind of the United States do not
wish actually to administer the agencies. If we did, another organization would
have to be formed to serve as a watchdog on us and to represent the interest
of consumers in dealing with us.
Much of the spadework in creating the
new international organization was done by Dr. Isabel Grant, who traveled throughout
the world to promote the establishment of independent organizations of the blind.
At the 1964 convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Phoenix, Arizona,
the preliminaries were commenced, and later that summer in New York the International
Federation of the Blind (the IFB) was brought into being. Dr. tenBroek became
its first president, and I drafted its constitution.
From the beginning it was touch and go with the IFB, for many of its members
were also members of the WCWB. More important, their primary identification
was with the agencies and service providers. Of course, the NFB was also a member
of the WCWB, but its distinction from the agencies was more pronounced than
that of organizations of the blind in many other countries-- particularly some
of those in Europe.
Let me not be misunderstood. A number of the organizations of the blind in Europe
(particularly, those in England) did not perform agency functions. They were,
by the most rigorous definition, organizations of the blind, representing the
blind. But the English organizations were weakened by being specialized--one
serving as a labor union and another as the rallying point for blind people
in the professions.
Despite its problems, the International Federation of the Blind (IFB) had a
promising beginning. New organizations of the blind began to emerge throughout
the world, and a convention was planned for 1969 in Sri Lanka (at that time
Ceylon). But in 1968 Dr. tenBroek, who had been not only the president of the
IFB but its driving force, died. Almost immediately the IFB went into a sharp
decline.
With Dr. tenBroek's death I became president of the National Federation of the
Blind, and my time for the next few years was spent in building and expanding
the NFB. Technically I served as the NFB's delegate to both the WCWB and the
IFB, but any real participation on my part was virtually nonexistent. So was
any meaningful influence by either the IFB or WCWB on matters dealing with the
blind in this country. There were no regular meetings of U.S. delegates, no
exciting proposals or initiatives, and no tangible programs or results.
Meanwhile, the IFB increasingly moved into the WCWB's orbit. First there were
suggestions and then a growing pressure to merge the two organizations. What
was contemplated was not a true combining of equals but a takeover of the weakened
IFB by the WCWB. This move was resisted by some of the independent organizations
of the blind, especially some in Asia and Africa. It was also resisted by us,
but our resistance was at the token level, lacking priority or a sense of urgency.
Through the decade of the 1970's we were chided by a number of blind leaders
throughout the world for not taking leadership and rallying the forces of the
International Federation of the Blind to bring to fruition the work we had started
a decade earlier. Whether we should have adjusted our priorities and given emphasis
to international affairs is probably not worth debating in the present circumstances.
The fact is that we didn't.
By the early 1980's it was clear that the IFB would be absorbed by the WCWB
and that our choices were to accept the situation or form a new international
organization of the blind with safeguards to prevent subversion. In 1984 a joint
meeting of IFB and WCWB was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for the purpose of
merging the two organizations. As a symbolic statement for the record, the National
Federation of the Blind withdrew from the International Federation of the Blind
prior to the Riyadh
meeting, but we retained our participation in the merged organization by continuing
to be members of the WCWB. It seemed to be an honest recognition of the actuality
of the situation.
We did something else, which in retrospect was probably a mistake. We declined
to go to the Riyadh meeting, which combined the IFB and the WCWB to create the
World Blind Union (the WBU). The American Foundation for the Blind also boycotted
the meeting. In the vacuum, the representative of the American Council of the
Blind, Grant Mack, was elected president of the newly established North American
region (later the North America/Caribbean Region) of the World Blind Union.
The Mack presidency was an interim matter that lasted for a few weeks until
permanent elections could be held.
That was the situation in the fall of 1984 when the six delegates from the United
States and the four from Canada met in a hotel in Washington to conduct the
first regional meeting of the WBU on this continent. The newly written WBU constitution
emphasized geographic regions, and North America was one of seven--the other
six being Africa, Asia, East Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle
East.
At the Washington meeting Bill Gallagher, who at that time was head of the American
Foundation for the Blind, was elected regional president. Incidently and for
the record, I nominated him. I did it despite the fact that the American Foundation
for the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind had traditionally disagreed,
sometimes rather stridently. Relations between the two organizations had begun
to thaw in the early '80's, a process which was in its early stages in 1984
but which would continue through the rest of the decade and beyond. Bill Gallagher
played a major part in the improving cooperation, and it seemed fair to me to
recognize the fact. That was one, but only one, of my reasons for nominating
him.
It was at that Washington meeting in 1984 that I first met Dr. Euclid Herie
and that our cooperative relations with the Canadians began. It was also at
that meeting that the basic outlines of our regional WBU structure and procedures
were established.
In 1986 the World Blind Union executive committee met in New York, and a number
of Federationists (including Marc Maurer, who had just been elected president
of the NFB) attended. It was the first time that I really got to know Sheikh
Abdullah Al-Ghanim of Saudi Arabia, who served as WBU president from 1984 to
1988. The Sheikh wears well, and my respect for his competence and integrity
has steadily increased as the years have passed.
In 1987 Bill Gallagher resigned as regional president, and I was elected to
finish his term. I was reelected in 1988 and again in 1992. Sometime during
the '80's the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean joined our region.
Thus, we had (and still have) twelve WBU delegates--six from the United States,
four from Canada, and two from the Caribbean.
The regional structure of the World Blind Union has served as a principal vehicle
for the growing harmony in the blindness field in our country--a process which
began in the '80's and is today a dominant theme. As to the situation with respect
to the World Blind Union at large, the circumstances are totally different.
The allocation of WBU delegates and the overall functioning of the organization
are not in accord with reality. Therefore, it is not surprising that some of
the results have been what they have been and that strains exist. Europe, for
instance, has more than ten times as many delegates as our entire region. Yet,
it would be hard to make a rational argument that Europe (with all due respect
to its admitted greatness and traditions of excellence) is ten times stronger,
wiser, or more virtuous than we are. Certainly it does not have ten times our
population, and while we are on the subject of population, Europe has more delegates
than Asia.
The allocation of delegates is not the only problem. The functioning of the
organization is such that it is virtually impossible to bring about change by
amending the constitution. Officers' meetings often seem hampered by personalities,
procedures, and questionable issues (see the following article in this issue
of the Braille Monitor).
Even more serious, perhaps, is the seeming tendency of some of the leaders to
flirt with what has been called the cross-disability or pan-disability movement--the
notion that all disability groups should come together in a common effort to
approach problems. Through a resolution initiated by our region,
the 1988 World Blind Union assembly in Madrid voted unanimously that we should
not merge with other disability groups but should clearly keep our separate
identity and concentrate on problems faced by the blind. Despite this fact and
the fact that all of the WBU leaders insist that they support this policy, the
trend of the organization seems otherwise.
A good example is the WBU's dealings with the United Nations. The WBU does not
insist on separate negotiations with the UN but combines with other disability
groups. It does this on the grounds that the UN won't have it any other way.
Yet, this pressure to merge (this insistence that we pretend that all disability
groups have common interests and common problems) is no different from the pressure
the NFB constantly faces from Congress, state legislatures, and the general
public. But we don't surrender to it, and our resistance is successful. It is
more than that. It is one of the principal sources of our strength. I think
the WBU could do likewise if it were determined and if it were convinced of
the justice of its cause.
Another prime example is the case of the International Disability Foundation
(IDF), which I discussed at length in the April, 1994, Braille Monitor.
Through the leadership of Arne Husveg, President of the European Blind Union,
the WBU officers and executive committee have decided to take office space in
the proposed International Disability Center that the International Disability
Foundation intends to establish in the Netherlands at The Hague. If the WBU
takes office space with other disability groups in the so-called International
Disability Center and shares staff with them, I don't see how the organization
can be perceived as maintaining a meaningful separate identity. Moreover, I
don't see how the WBU can reasonably object to fund raising in the name of the
blind by the IDF. Explanations or
anger won't change the reality of what is occurring. In fact, I question the
legality of the decision to participate in the IDF in view of the Madrid resolution
on maintaining separate identity.
With regard to IDF fund raising in Canada and the United States, the organizations
of and for the blind in our region are solidly united. In that connection, the
following letter to David Blyth, president of the World Blind Union, is self-explanatory:
Baltimore, Maryland
November 22, 1994
Dear David:
As you will see from the enclosed minutes, the North America/Caribbean region met on November 4, 1994. Among other things, we discussed the International Disability Foundation and its fund-raising activities. As regional president, I was instructed to write this letter to you and to state in the strongest possible terms our determination not to have the IDF or any other group raise funds either directly or indirectly in the name of the blind in the United States and/or Canada without our prior consent. We feel that the IDF's own literature makes it clear that IDF is raising funds in this region on a continuing basis and that action must be taken to put a stop to it.
Perhaps the determination and concern of the region can best be shown by calling your attention to the following portion of the minutes of our recent regional meeting. Item IV says in part:
A discussion was held concerning the International Disability Foundation (IDF) and the fund raising it is doing. Mr. Sanders said that perhaps we should write a letter to the World Blind Union president, reviewing the Melbourne discussion concerning IDF and the fact that it is WBU policy that funds may not be raised in a country without the consent of that country's delegation. Dr. Jernigan asked whether the delegates wanted him to send a letter to President Blyth concerning the matter. It was moved by Mr. Sanders and seconded by Mr. Cylke that such a letter be sent. The motion carried.
Dr. Herie said that the WBU president, like all of the rest of us, is bound by the policy adopted in Madrid in 1988 and that if IDF should come to Canada with cross-disability fund raising, CNIB would publicly and vigorously oppose it. Dr. Herie said that mega fund-raising campaigns serve no useful purpose. The United States delegates strongly agreed and were unanimous in feeling that if IDF is raising funds in the United States, there must be determined and concerted public opposition. Dr. Spungin said that she did not want our letter to be too weak. Mr. Sanders said that we should remind the WBU president of the policy concerning fund raising and request that an official letter be sent to the International Disability Foundation saying that the North America/Caribbean region has not approved IDF fund raising in our countries and that such fund raising must cease immediately if it is now in progress and must not be undertaken without our written consent. There was unanimous approval of this course of action, and Dr. Jernigan said that he would write such a letter, first reviewing its exact wording with other regional delegates so that there could be no mistake that it represented the determined and concerted opinion of all of us.
Dr. Jernigan outlined the letter as
he proposed to write it: We feel that fund raising is occurring, and we ask
the WBU president to write a clarifying letter that it should not go forward.
Dr. Herie: Add that if it goes forward,
our region will take steps to let the public and government know that we do
not sanction it.
Mr. Sanders: And we will circulate our
letters.
Mr. Magarrell: Make it clear that it
is a total regional position.
Mrs. Braak: Also reiterate this issue
involves the cross disability policy adopted by the 1988 General Assembly.
Mrs. McCarthy moved and Dr. Spungin seconded that our letter be to this effect. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Jernigan appointed Mrs. McCarthy, Dr. Spungin, and Dr. Herie to work with him on the wording of the letter to the World Blind Union president.
This is what our minutes say, and I think the unanimity and intent are clear. As to our evidence of IDF's fund-raising activity, I was surprised at the recent Amman meeting that there was even any question about it. The IDF's own summer, 1994, publication lays it out in plain language. Here is what it says:
SHARING KING OLAV'S CAR
[Photo: The restored Cadillac limousine of King Olav V will be on permanent display in the Norwegian-American museum at Vesterheim in Iowa.]
Companies on both sides of the Atlantic are contributing to the joint IDF project to place King Olav's 1951 state car in the Norwegian-American museum in the USA. The car was donated by King Harald, and all proceeds will go to the Foundation's work. "It will be a permanent tribute to a great monarch and humanitarian," said Hans Hoegh. Norwegian companies have already made contributions, ... plus a number of donations from private individuals. Interest now moves to the USA where full page adverts have been gifted by The Norway Times and The Western Viking.
This is what the IDF's publication says, and if "interest now moves to the U.S.A.," if there have been a "number of donations from private individuals," and if "all proceeds will go to the Foundation's work," it is hard to see how this can be called anything else except fund raising. Of course, there is all manner of other evidence: talk of art sales, individual contacts, and much more. Yet, when I raised the question in Amman, it was simply brushed aside as if the person responding didn't know what I was talking about.
David, we want to work cooperatively with you and do what we can to help promote the objectives of the World Blind Union. We are not seeking confrontation. We want to do our part in helping fund the activities of the organization. At the same time, we think it is reasonable to insist that the policies adopted by the WBU General Assembly be strictly and scrupulously followed. We are asking you to send to the IDF and anybody else who is concerned a straightforward, unequivocal letter setting forth the policy about fund raising and saying that the policy will be enforced. We would like a copy of that letter so that the organizations in our region may be reassured.
If this can not be done, quickly and clearly, then the organizations in our region will feel that they have no choice except to take immediate, widespread, and determined public action.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Jernigan, President
North America/Caribbean Region
World Blind Union
Under date of December 1, 1994, I received
a letter from Pedro Zurita, Secretary General of the World Blind Union, enclosing
information calculated to show that the IDF is not raising funds in the United
States. Canada was not mentioned. The letters were from Mr. Hans Hoegh, Secretary
General of the
International Disability Foundation, and from someone named Rio D. Praaning,
whose title is not given but who is described as speaking for the Building Foundation
for the International Disability Centre in The Hague. It will be seen from the
dates that the letters sent me by Mr. Zurita could not be in response to my
November 22 letter to David Blyth. Rather, they are attempts to answer questions
I raised about the IDF at the WBU officers meeting in Amman, Jordan, September
26-28, 1994. According to my reading, the letters do not satisfy the concern
but confirm it. Here they are to speak for themselves:
Geneva, Switzerland
24 November 1994
To: Mr. Pedro Zurita
Secretary General World Blind Union
Re: Your Letter dated 14 November 1994
Subject: IDF Fund-raising in the USA
IDF:
His Majesty, King Harald donated his father's Cadillac from 1951 to the IDF.
We sold shares in this car to Norwegian Americans.
American Friends of IDF: no fund-raising
Building Foundation of The Hague: On our request Rio Praaning has sent you a report on the fund-raising activities of the Building Foundation in the United States.
Yours sincerely
Hans Hoegh
Secretary General
The International Disability Foundation
Brussels, Belgium
22 November, 1994
Dear Mr. Zurita,
Through Mr. Hans Hoegh I received your request for information concerning the fundraising for the construction of the International Disability Centre through the Building Foundation.
Please be informed that we have focused our activities on the Middle East and Asia. However, some interested multinational companies in the U.S. may provide a variety of forms of assistance to the centre, particularly due to their interest in Europe.
After the first donation of His Majesty the Sultan of the Sultanate of Oman - the sum of USD 300,000, will be transferred to our account this week - we have been informed that the Gulf Cooperation Council is considering a major donation to the Centre. Contacts in Hong Kong and Japan have indicated similar positive positions. We expect final and formal decisions in December 1994/January 1995.
I trust this will satisfy your request, but I should be happy to provide you with further information at your request.
Yours sincerely,
Rio D. Praaning
These are the letters, and I don't see
how they can be interpreted to mean anything else but fund raising. If Norwegian
Americans are, as it is put, sold shares in a car for charitable purposes, does
their descent from Norwegian stock make them less American, or the solicitation
less a solicitation? Does the fact that, as it is said, certain "interested
multinational companies in the United States may provide a variety of forms
of assistance to the Centre, particularly due to their interest in Europe,"
make that assistance not be a fund raising activity? I wonder whether the Norwegian
Americans will claim their purchases of shares in the car as deductions on their
federal income tax. I wonder whether the multinational companies will do the
same with respect to their "assistance" to the IDF. And I also wonder
whether the authorities that regulate charitable activities in the various states
will want registration of these transactions as charitable solicitations.
With all of these problems, the WBU
is still the only organization today which has worldwide membership and claims
to speak for the blindness field. Our choices are simple. We can form a new
international organization of the blind with appropriate safeguards to prevent
subversion, and either stay in the WBU or get out of it; we can withdraw from
the WBU and concentrate on regional affairs; we can maintain nominal membership
in the WBU but limit our participation and largely write it off; or we can continue
to participate and try to reform and improve the organization. Whatever we do,
our actions should be upbeat and positive, but this does not mean that we should
allow ourselves to be intimidated or dissuaded from expressing our opinions
or seeking change because somebody may accuse us of being negative or disruptive.
Our conduct should be orderly and courteous--but it should also be honest, vigorous,
and purposeful. We should remember that by not following one course
of action we necessarily follow another. Above all, we should not just drift
into whatever we do. We should do it deliberately and with planned precision.
[Photo: David Blyth and Euclid Herie sit at a table looking at the camera. Caption: World Blind Union David Blyth (right), President; and Euclid Herie, Treasurer]
WORLD
BLIND UNION OFFICERS MEET IN JORDAN
by Kenneth Jernigan
The officers of the World Blind Union
usually meet twice each year, once in the spring and once in the fall. The most
recent meeting was held September 26-28 in Amman, Jordan, and Mrs. Jernigan
and I went. Flying is always difficult for me, and this was no exception. It
took about eight hours from Dulles Airport to Paris and another six or seven
to get to Amman. The return trip was about the same except that I stopped off
in Miami to make a speech to a district meeting of Rotary.
As to our stay in Amman, Sheikh Al-Ghanim was his usual courteous and considerate
self. Mrs. Jernigan and I visited in his home. We also spent an evening at the
Saudi embassy, where a reception was being held to commemorate the founding
of the Saudi kingdom. On another evening all of us went to the home of the brother
of the king of Jordan for conversation and an outdoor dinner.
As to the meetings, I can do no better than give you excerpts from the report
I gave at the North America/Caribbean regional meeting held in Washington on
November 4, 1994. What I am about to say is neither chronological nor definitive.
I am simply bringing you certain observations and conclusions. Here, therefore,
is the major part of what I said at the regional meeting.
Perhaps the place to begin (for purposes of indicating the tone of the Amman
meeting, if nothing else) is with a comparatively unimportant event involving
Sir Duncan Watson. At the WBU Officers and Executive Committee meeting in Melbourne
last January, Mr. Watson was discussing what he called "The Standard Rules."
I asked him (and I did it with courtesy) what the Standard Rules were. He seemed
to take offense at the question and said that I had been at enough meetings
to know what the Standard Rules were and that he wouldn't tell me. Being accustomed
to Mr. Watson's personality and proclivities, I wrote the matter off to ill
temper, poor digestion, or some other untoward event and forgot about it. During
one of the breaks at the Amman meeting I tried to rally Mr. Watson about the
matter, but it was immediately clear that he was not prepared to treat the subject
lightly. He went into a rage and was quite abusive. As one might say, he told
me off properly.
It caused me to reflect on the outr‚ quality of certain aspects of human nature. If we put a good deal of time and effort into a thing, we are likely to think it is very important, not only to us but to everybody else. I gather that Mr. Watson has done a lot of work on these "Standard Rules," and I suppose he thought I was making light of him and really knew what they were. The truth is that I wasn't and didn't.
Because of the context of Mr. Watson's comments in Melbourne, I assumed that the Standard Rules dealt with the United Nations and pertained to one of the following:
1. UN rules involving the relationship between the World Blind Union and other disability groups;
2. UN rules involving the relationship between disability groups and the UN; or
3. UN rules involving the relationship between the UN and one or another (or, perhaps all) of its various agencies.
The laugh was on me, for I later learned that I had been mistaken on all counts. Pedro Zurita, Secretary General of the World Blind Union, told me that these mysterious Standard Rules were recommended rules, and I quote, on the "Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities and Other Resolutions Concerning Disability and Social Development." He said they were meant as UN guidelines for governments throughout the world. He even went so far as to send me a copy in Braille, which I glanced at but confess that I did not read. I observed in the table of contents under Roman numeral III the item "Recommendations of the Third Committee." I tremble to think what would happen if I were to ask some of my more touchy WBU colleagues what the Third Committee is or was--or, for that matter, the Second or the First Committee. And then, there is the General Committee, which is mentioned in the introduction to this 126-page Braille document. There may also be other committees, but I quietly closed the volume and wrote the whole business off to experience.
Amusing as the controversy concerning the Standard Rules may be, it has its serious side, one that points up the difficulties that some of us sometimes have with our colleagues in the World Blind Union. I know that the United Nations, with all of its various ramifications and edicts, is perceived as extremely important by a number of individuals and countries throughout the world, just as other things are regarded as important by some of the rest of us. The truth is that the United Nations rarely makes headlines in the United States, and even when it does, the coverage is usually generalized and brief. The UN is simply not very high on the list of priorities. If this is not the way it is in other parts of the world, or if this is not the way it should be in the United States, anger and abuse will not change the situation. Goodwill and an effort at understanding would be more productive. Likewise, we should take a lesson from our own book and try to be considerate of opposing views and emphases. For my part I have resolved to treat Mr. Watson with more care and gentleness in the future and to say no more about the Standard Rules.
Let me turn now to the question of the International Disability Foundation (the IDF). Since I wrote extensively on the subject in the April, 1994, Braille Monitor, I will not go into the background of the situation. At the Melbourne meeting of the WBU Executive Committee last January, the North America/Caribbean delegates unanimously voted that the WBU should not associate itself with the IDF or take space in its proposed Center at the Hague. However, we were in the minority. To be more precise, we stood alone with the exception of a few abstentions by individuals in other delegations. At the Amman meeting President David Blyth said that he had met with Hans Hoegh and others and that he thought we should proceed with the plan to participate in the activities of the IDF, including accepting space in its Center. He said that the IDF would go forward with or without us and that we should, therefore, be associated with it. I asked if I could know whether the IDF is now raising funds in the United States and, if so, how and to what extent. Mr. Arne Husveg, President of the European Blind Union, said that if I would provide him with details, he would ask the question and get answers.
I said that I was not making any charges, that I just wanted to know whether funds were being raised. Mr. Husveg said that he would get the question answered as asked. Mr. Husveg also said that he believed all of our concerns raised in Melbourne had been satisfactorily met. I said that I had the same concerns that I had raised earlier but that I could count votes and, therefore, would not take the time of the officers to discuss the matter further. Without objection the officers voted that the WBU should go forward in its plan to associate with the IDF.
I believe this is a serious mistake. The major questions are still unanswered. It is WBU policy that funds may not be raised in a country without the consent of that country's delegation. I believe that the IDF (according to its own literature) has been raising money in the United States, has been raising it in the name of the blind, and is still doing so. I believe that part of the fund raising involves an automobile formerly owned by the King of Norway and that there are other activities as well. I seriously doubt that we will get a responsive answer to the question concerning the matter formally and officially raised by me as President of this Region. Time will tell, and we either will or we won't. Meanwhile, if fund raising continues in our country in the name of the blind in connection with WBU activities without our consent, we will probably need to take whatever steps are necessary to put a stop to it or discredit it. We cannot allow the WBU policy to be evaded by the device of using the IDF or any other entity as a vehicle.
On another topic, I read with interest portions of a document we were given in connection with the Amman meeting which was entitled "President's Committee; Rome, Italy, 19-20 June; Action Sheet." Section 20 of the document deals with the "Commission on Blindness and Aging" that has been established by the World Blind Union. Section 20.2 talks about the composition of the Commission and states that one of the members will be "Ruth Machobane (black lady from South Africa)." I told the Secretary General, who had prepared the document, that I thought the wording was unfortunate. I asked him what he thought the reaction would be if he were to specify that one of the members would be a white male. He said that there had been white rule in South Africa for so long that this was simply an attempt to show that blacks were to be represented. I said I thought we should avoid racism in all of its forms, but I did not make an issue of the matter during the meeting. However, this is something I think we should watch in future WBU activities. As far as I am concerned, racism is not acceptable whether it be black, white, or some other color.
Also in connection with the Amman meeting the officers were given a document entitled "WBU/ICEVI Joint Educational Policy Statement." The document says in part:
The World Blind Union and the International
Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment join together in this
statement to:
A. Urge governments to: ...
2. place the educational services for blind and visually impaired children under the same general governance as that of children without visual impairment.
This language could be read to mean that a residential school for the blind is not an appropriate setting for the education of blind children. I am sure this was not the intent, but I think consideration should be given to different wording.
Concerning another matter, the officers discussed the relationship between the World Blind Union and DPI (Disabled Persons International). Mr. Husveg said that the WBU has really made no progress at all in its efforts to get DPI to stop saying that it represents the blind of the world. He said that DPI will only say that WBU has the right to speak for its members and that DPI has the right to speak for its members, including its blind members. The officers discussed whether some sort of UN statement could be had to the effect that the UN recognizes DPI to represent other groups but not the blind, and the WBU to represent the blind. Mr. Husveg said that DPI and the UN often take the position at the local level that DPI represents the blind and all others. It was felt that a statement of support from the UN would be of real benefit. Mr. Blyth said he did not know whether we could get such a statement but that he would try. He said that WBU has the same status with the UN as DPI and that this was not the case until two years ago.
A discussion was held concerning Puerto Rico. Under date of August 24, 1994, the following letter from Enrique Ellisalde, President of the Latin American Union of the Blind, was sent to me as President of the North America/Caribbean.
Dear Dr. Jernigan,
One of the members of your region, Puerto
Rico, has approached the Latin American Union of the Blind some time ago stating
that they would like to belong to it, due to historic and cultural links--language
is by no means to be forgotten. They even said and wrote that they are ready
to lose their present relationship to North America.
We have accepted their membership just as observers for the time being and would
very much
appreciate your comments on this matter to see whether we can reach some acceptable
solution for all the parties involved.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
With warm regards,
Enrique Ellisalde
President
Latin American Union of the Blind
Under date of September 9, 1994, I responded as follows:
Dear Enrique:
This will reply to and thank you for
your fax of August 24, 1994, concerning the status of Puerto Rico
and whether it should be part of the Latin American Union of the Blind or the
North America/Caribbean Region. As you know, Puerto Rico is part of the United
States. In fact, the National Federation of the Blind has a Puerto Rican affiliate.
It is true that many of the people in Puerto Rico speak Spanish, but it is also
true that many of them speak English. Likewise, many of the people of Florida,
New Mexico, and California speak Spanish. Many of them also speak English.
Puerto Rico is not an independent country. My reading of the constitution of
the World Blind Union
does not indicate that a state, a province, a territory, or any other part of
a country in one region can be accepted as a member country of another region.
If that were true, the North America/Caribbean Region might enter into negotiations
with a province of Argentina or Uruguay or Brazil. Ultimately, of course, anything
is legal (whether right or wrong, sensible or otherwise) if a sufficient majority
of the electorate votes it that way. I think the legalities under the present
constitution and rules are clear, but I have no idea how my fellow officers
or the members of the Executive Committee might view the matter. It seems to
me that the dismemberment of countries because of preference or political consideration
would be a dangerous precedent. I would contend that Puerto Rico by virtue of
its affiliation with the National Federation of the Blind is now as much an
integral part of the World Blind Union as any other part of the United States
and that membership is through the North America/Caribbean Region.
I am, of course, aware of the fact that some in Puerto Rico talk of seceding
from the United States, but such has not yet been the case. Other Puerto Ricans
just as vehemently want to become one of the states. If secession should succeed,
then I think we would have a legitimate question as to what region Puerto Rico
should belong, but until or unless the separatist movement is successful by
force of politics or arms, I see no legal way to permit Puerto Rico to have
more representation in the World Blind Union than it now has.
As you can imagine, I would be glad for the World Blind Union to treat each
state and territory of the
United States as a separate country. It would tend to redress some of the imbalance
in the voting procedures. But again, unless such a situation occurs either by
force of politics or arms, I think we are stuck where we are.
These are my thoughts on the question you have raised, and I shall share them
with President Blyth and others.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Jernigan, President
North America/Caribbean Region
WORLD BLIND UNION
The Constitution of the World Blind Union provides in Item "h" of Section 1 of Article III on Membership that "Where an application for membership is received from a dependent territory which apart from its dependent status is otherwise qualified for membership, the assembly in consultation with the national member concerned may admit that territory to whichever category of membership it considers appropriate upon payment of the appropriate membership fee." Some discussion was held concerning the Puerto Rico matter. Mr. Blyth said that it was strictly a question of the Constitution; that no application had been received; and that, therefore, the officers could not properly deal with the matter. In any case Puerto Rico is in the North America/Caribbean Region since regions are defined by the WBU Constitution as specific geographic areas of the globe. Mr. Zurita tried to discuss the matter further, pointing out that Puerto Rico is similar in language to much of Latin America--but Mr. Blyth ruled him out of order, saying that language was not an issue with respect to the WBU Constitution. There was some additional spirited exchange between Messrs. Blyth and Zurita, and then the meeting proceeded.
There was a considerable amount of discussion about the Louis Braille birthplace. Dr. Herie said that we should deal directly with the Commune of Coupvray instead of the French National Committee and various other French groups. He said that we should also change the designation from the Louis Braille Museum to the Louis Braille Birthplace and Memorial. Mr. Zurita thought we should research further the effect of such a change with French interests to see if there would be funding implications. It was noted that the question is probably academic since the World Blind Union does not own the Louis Braille property. It is owned by the Commune of Coupvray. If the Commune does not agree with the changed designation, it probably can't be done. The word "museum" carries with it certain implications concerning a curator and other matters. With the comment that the French already mostly refer to the building as "The Birthplace," Dr. Herie moved that we try to achieve the changed designation, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Blyth asked me to contact the mayor of Coupvray directly to try to get things moving.
On another subject, I asked whether a person could continue to serve on a committee or in any other position in the World Blind Union if that person had lost the confidence of the national delegation. Mr. Blyth said that there was no formal rule to that effect but that the practice was that such a person could not continue to serve. I said that I thought a formal policy to that effect should be adopted, and Mr. Husveg agreed. Mr. Blyth said that a proposal should be brought to the next General Assembly.
The WBU will now present a research award. A discussion was held as to whether the award should be given for accomplishment or to encourage future breakthroughs. It was decided that the award should be to encourage and stimulate research rather than to reward the past. The motion was unanimously adopted.
A discussion was held concerning the establishment of a World Blind Union Foundation. This would be a non-profit organization. Its purpose would be to provide long-term, stable funding for the World Blind Union. Dr. Herie moved that authorization be given to set up in Canada a WBU Foundation to establish a capital fund to earn revenue to be spent on programs authorized by WBU. Mr. Husveg seconded the motion, and it was unanimously adopted. As with the International Disability Foundation, the WBU Foundation would not be able to raise funds in a country without the consent of that country's national delegation. This is a policy adopted by the General Assembly. Therefore, it cannot be altered by the officers or Executive Committee.
In view of the fact that the officers voted to rescind the decision to hold the 1996 General Assembly in Hong Kong, we should consider whether North America would like to submit an invitation. I have told Dr. Herie that I hope Canada will make a bid. If Canada is willing to do so, I feel that all of us will do everything we can to assist. This is a topic which we must discuss at this meeting.
The next meeting of the WBU officers will take place on April 7-8, 1995, in Caracas, Venezuela.
As will be seen from this report, I came away from the Amman meeting with a number of unresolved questions. Because of improved technology and transportation, the world is, in effect, growing smaller. Obviously we neither can nor want to live in isolation, but this does not mean that we should allow others to pressure us into adopting their agenda. We do not want to establish priorities and policies for other regions, and we will not permit others to do so for us. Our region now has more unity and strength than it has ever had, and it must evaluate on an ongoing basis its relationship with the World Blind Union. The inequity in the number of votes allotted to the different regions is not simply a formality or happenstance. It was done deliberately, and it translates into policies that may not be in the best interest of the blind of our region or, for that matter, the world. The imbalance is, of course, of relatively little consequence as long as the World Blind Union remains comparatively weak; but if the WBU becomes truly strong and viable, we cannot permit the imbalance to continue unless we are prepared to allow others to determine our destiny, and unless we are willing to accept second-class status in world affairs. More to the point, we have the means to remedy the situation, whether through the World Blind Union or otherwise.
These are my observations concerning
the Amman meeting, and I give them to you for whatever they may be worth.
[Photo: The Pierce family is pictured in their yard when the children were in high school. Caption: The Pierce family is shown here in the side yard of their home. They are: Bob (back left), Margy (center), Anne (back right), and Barbara and Steven (front)]
FROM THE TRICYCLE TO THE COOKIE JAR
by Barbara Pierce
From the Editor: The following article is taken from When the Blizzard Blows, the latest in our Kernel book series of paperbacks. Though it addresses one of the most vexing problems facing blind parents, it also demonstrates the important role family members can play in educating the public about the abilities of blind people. The article begins with Dr. Jernigan's introduction. Here it is:
What special problem does a blind parent face? You might guess a thousand times without coming up with the problem many blind parents consider toughest. Barbara Pierce has been blind from childhood and is the mother of three children, who are now adults. Here she writes about her efforts to overcome a particularly worrisome problem--the one you probably didn't guess.
All parents who take their responsibilities
seriously are concerned about how to help their children grow up to be disciplined,
honest, compassionate, and organized and to develop all the other virtues. But
blind parents have one more responsibility: to keep their youngsters from absorbing
the general public's poor attitudes about blindness and blind people.
My husband and I have raised three children, and in their formative years we
tried hard to teach them that as their mother I was like other moms--helping
with homework, fixing their favorite meals as birthday treats, and making them
pick up their coats and books from the living room sofa. In our family there
was always a division of labor: Dad drove and played catch; Mom baked cookies,
bread, and apple pies. Dad trimmed hair and decided when fingers were infected;
and Mom ironed clothes, sang songs, and sewed on buttons. Both of us listened
to problems and helped to work out solutions.
Yet from the time the children were small, I knew that the world outside our
happy home was lying in wait to complicate our lives. Evidence of this fact
began piling up early and usually when I least expected it. I remember a day
when Steven, our five-year-old, was at kindergarten. The baby had an appointment
with the pediatrician, and I told Anne, then three, that she could ride her
tricycle, which she had recently learned to pedal, to visit the doctor. I put
baby Margaret into her backpack, grabbed my long white cane, locked the front
door, and prevented Anne from riding her tricycle down the seven steps of the
front porch. Once we were safely on the sidewalk, we started the three-and-a-
half block expedition with Anne in front and me right behind, reminding her
about stopping at the corner.
The first two streets we had to cross were very quiet, with cars seldom driving
through the intersection, particularly in the early afternoon. Anne did well
at the first crossing, stopping at the curb and waiting for my go-ahead before
pedaling straight across to the other side. As we neared the second street,
I dropped back a little to let her feel that she was making the decision of
where to stop on her own. No cars were coming, so she was safe, and I was close
enough to stop her if she decided to bolt for freedom.
She halted at the corner, and I was opening my mouth to praise her when I realized
that an older man had materialized beside her and was bending down to talk earnestly
to her. To my horror I heard him saying, "You must take very good care
of your mommy because she needs your help."
I was humiliated to realize that he believed I was incapable of keeping my daughter
safe and furious that he presumed a sighted toddler was more competent than
I to walk the streets of our small town. I made a brief comment to the effect
that in our family the parents cared for the children and whisked Anne across
the street. I have always been grateful that I did not recognize that neighbor,
for it would have been hard in later years to be civil to him.
When we reached the other side, I asked Anne if she knew what the man had said
to her. She shook her head vigorously and hopped off her bike to pick up a feather
dropped by a passing bird. It was clearly more interesting to her than the conversation
of an old man, and I was profoundly grateful.
The situation was a good deal different a few years later when our family visited
a nearby amusement park. I rather like rides that swoop and twirl, and my husband
absolutely does not. So I was the one designated to take the girls on the swings,
a ride in which each person sits in a separate swing, is firmly
strapped in, and then is whirled high into the sky for several minutes. We found
three swings close together, and I made sure that each of the girls was strapped
down before climbing into my own seat.
When we landed again, the attendant handed me back my cane, and I gathered up
the girls and herded them down the exit ramp. When we reached the bottom, a
woman hurried up to them and knelt down, fumbling with her purse. I asked her
if there were some problem. And she explained rather hastily that she just wanted
to give "these dear children some money," because she had been watching
us, and she was so touched by the loving way they took care of me. She probably
noticed my expression, for she quickly explained that they were so attractive
and well behaved that she thought they deserved some reward for taking me on
the rides. I said that I did not permit my children to accept anything from
strangers and that, if she wanted to do something constructive to help the families
of blind people, she could make a contribution to the National Federation of
the Blind. I hurried the girls away, but they were unhappy. After all, that
woman had been going to give them money, which was more than they could usually
persuade me to do. I hardly knew what to say to them. Finally I explained that
she had wanted to pay them for taking care of me; but that, since they didn't
take care of me, it wasn't fair to take her money. They thought about that for
a moment; then Anne summed the matter up with, "That's weird. Everybody
knows that Moms take care of kids." I told her she was exactly right, and
the lure of the roller coaster ended the conversation.
I was beginning to learn that, when I was around at the moment people did odd
things because of my blindness or suggested to my children that I was not a
proper mother, I could combat the problem. But I worried about what was happening
to them when I was not present. One day, when Steven was in fifth grade, he
came home to say that he had had a fight on the playground because a kid had
called him a liar when he described his mom's homemade pizza. (It's a recipe
from northern Italy, given to me by a friend, and my family has always loved
it.) But this boy said that a blind mom couldn't cook. Another time Anne's teacher
suggested that perhaps the room mother could supply cupcakes for Anne's birthday
treat so that she wouldn't feel left out. Meanwhile Margy began sitting close
to me when we watched television together in order to "explain what's happening."
When I questioned her about why she had started doing this, she admitted that
her friend's mother had told her that Margy's mommy couldn't understand "Sesame
Street" unless Margy told her what was happening. I realized that something
had to be done.
I went to the children's teachers and asked for a chance to talk to each of
their classes about blindness. In Margy's class we played games that taught
the children just how much they could tell about the world by listening and
sniffing and feeling with their hands and feet.
They discovered that there are lots of ways to tell what's going on. I showed
the older children how to read and write Braille and taught them how to offer
assistance to a blind person who needs help crossing the street, and I explained
how I crossed streets without any help. I brought home-made treats to all three
classes and talked about how blind people cook and take care of their families.
That seemed to dispose of the negative comments from friends and teachers; but,
as the children grew older, I became aware that they were increasingly disturbed
by the way strangers stared at me when we were out in public. I should explain
that, like many other competent blind people, I use my cane even when I am walking
with a sighted person, so there are lots of opportunities for people to see
me using my cane.
The youngsters began to resent the stares that I received, and they decided
to take matters into their own hands. They thought the staring was rude, and
they appointed themselves the official phalanx of stare-backers. They were prepared
to stare down anyone who began staring at me as we passed. I tried explaining
that these people had probably never seen a blind person using a white cane
correctly and they did not know what to make of the situation. But the kids
agreed with each other: it was rude to stare at anyone; it was even more rude
to stare at a person who did not know what you were doing. They believed they
had a perfect right to call such rudeness to the attention of the person practicing
it. Perhaps I should have protested and forbidden them to continue their campaign,
but I decided that they needed to feel that they were doing something to counteract
an activity they felt was inappropriate, unfair, and rude to me.
As the years passed, I continued to wonder from time to time whether the children's
attitudes about blindness and me as a blind person had been negatively affected
by the peculiar notions of other people. Then, when Anne was a junior in college,
I received my answer. A friend who teaches in elementary school had asked me
to come speak about blindness to all the sixth grade classes in her school.
I was happy to do so, and, because Anne happened to be at home at the time,
I asked her to drive me to the nearby town where the school was located. At
the close of my talk I asked if anyone had questions about what I had said.
My daughter had been introduced, and one child asked her what it was like to
have a blind mother.
Anne, who ran the citywide summer swimming program during college and had a
way of making friends with youngsters, strolled to the front of the room and
sat down on the edge of the teacher's desk beside me. She draped her arm across
my shoulder and said quite seriously:
"It is really terrible having a blind mother! Do any of you have to do
the dinner dishes sometimes?" A number of students groaned enthusiastically.
"And does your mother expect you to clean up the kitchen too--I mean wiping
off the counters, washing out the sink, and cleaning around the burners of the
stove?" Again a chorus of agreement answered her. "Well, I discovered
a long time ago that my friends only had to clean up enough to have things look
okay. But, when you have a blind mother, you have to get things really clean
because she doesn't inspect your work from the doorway; she comes in and touches
everything. It has to be clean!
"And that's not all. Do any of you have cookie jars in your house?"
A number said that they did. "We had one, too, and it was always full of
cookies, which was nice for us when we could get at them. But we three kids
learned when we were very little that, as long as Dad was the one watching us,
we had a chance of sneaking cookies, if he wasn't looking. But when you have
a blind mom, she hears the cookie jar lid no matter where she is in the house!
It's terrible having a blind mother."
By this time they were all laughing with her and me. They had gotten Anne's
message, that really life was no better and no worse with a blind parent, just
a little different. And they were right.
I left the school smiling that day. My lovely, compassionate, talented daughter
had demonstrated without even thinking much about it that she does know that
blindness doesn't have to be a big deal. Together we had come a long way: from
the tricycle to the cookie jar.
[Photo: Portrait. Caption: Anna Cheadle]
MAKING
SENSE OF A SIMULATION EXERCISE
by Anna Cheadle
From the Editor: Members of the National
Federation of the Blind get used to finding opportunities to educate the public
about blindness and the abilities of blind people. We sometimes forget, however,
that our friends and families can also play an important part in this vital
work. I have often found that my children can have a powerful impact on the
attitudes of others when they set out to educate their friends and co-workers,
and I know that our family is not alone.
Anna Cheadle is now twelve. Her older brother Charles is blind, and both her
parents work at the National Center for the Blind. In addition, her mother serves
as President of the National Organization of Parents of Blind Children, a division
of the National Federation of the Blind. Last summer Anna had two
experiences that demonstrate what an important role knowledgeable sighted family
members can have in educating the public about blindness. Anna loves horses
and has taken riding lessons at a nearby stable which also does work with disabled
people, including students from the Maryland School for the Blind. She was interested
in working with the blind riders, so she signed up for special training as a
volunteer.
Not too surprisingly, one of the components of this training turned out to be
blindness simulation. All the trainees were blindfolded in turn and instructed
to get on the horse and see what it was like to ride when you couldn't see where
you were going. It goes without saying that no one bothered to talk to the volunteers
about blindness and the alternative techniques available, and no one reminded
them that successful riders depend largely on feeling what the horse is doing.
This horse was by nature calm and easy-going, but after enduring a number of
frightened riders, he began to get nervous. By the time it was
Anna's turn, he was clearly skittish, but she swung into the saddle and started
off. Because she knows about blindness and therefore was not frightened, she
was able to quiet the animal and complete the course without incident or panic.
Then she told the organizers what she thought of the exercise. She pointed out
that the other trainees knew nothing about blindness, so they had caused their
own problems--problems that the blind youngsters were unlikely to share unless
the volunteers communicated their own fear and pity to them. She reported that,
once she had brought the horse under control, the exercise had provided her
with no insight because riding blindfolded was pretty much like riding using
sight, particularly when someone else was leading the horse around the track.
At almost the same time Anna had the experience she recounts in the following
article. She was attending the church camp she goes to every summer, and the
staff there too decided to educate (or mis-educate) the campers about disabilities
by conducting an exercise in disability simulation. By this time Anna was an
old hand at taking charge of the situation. This is the way she tells it:
"Anna? Anna, are you there?"
"Yeah, just a sec; my thumbs are being taped."
This is how my camp friend Beth and I conversed at around 10:30 last Saturday
morning. We were both at a weekend retreat at Camp Mary-Mac, where I attended
Chi Rho Church camp this summer. We had been separated into groups of five or
six, and each person in a group was assigned a handicap. Two people in my group
had no arms. One had legs tied together; a boy named Ryan was mute; I had no
thumbs; and Beth had been blindfolded. Have you seen the flaw in this? Blindfolds
teach people fear, not the competence that many blind persons have. There were
three or four other blind people in the large group, and, of course, none of
us was given any information about our handicaps and how to make them work for
us, instead of inconvenience us.
So, considering my background with the National Federation of the Blind and
my parents' jobs for as long as I can recall, I obviously wanted to do something
to help the people who were suddenly blind.
First, I searched around and found a long, wooden pole for Beth to use as a
cane. After this I taught her how to swing it back and forth in front of her
properly and avoid obstacles. After a while the other blind people caught on,
and they were all using their own canes. Second, I had her take my elbow--the
way that any blind person would do. But I didn't let her depend totally on me.
As we walked and talked, I provided her with information about blindness and
blind people--how they read, how they get around, and other things that promoted
a good attitude and some understanding about the competence of blind people.
"Ugh!" A heavy pile of rocks had been dropped into my arms by the
mute boy, Ryan. Beth was standing next to me, and all of the groups were having
a race to see who could collect the largest number of dinner-plate-sized rocks
in a certain amount of time. Ryan began urgently pointing down the hill towards
the fire circle, where all of our pile was being watched by a person with no
arms. "Can I help?" asked Beth. She wanted to contribute to our group.
In the beginning she wasn't sure, but after a while she realized that, if she
didn't say something, no one would listen. In other words, people immediately
assumed she was helpless. With the extra confidence of knowing what my brother
had done and what my parents' boss had done, she was able to stick up for what
was right: a group where everyone contributed.
Of course, compared to a person who'd been blind their whole life, this wasn't
a very long time, but for the kids at camp, having these handicaps for four
hours was quite enough. In the middle of those four hours, we were having lunch.
You can imagine how well some of the no-arm people were getting along, as well
as us non-thumb people, who were slightly annoyed at the menu choice for the
day--sandwiches. (Ever try to hold a sandwich with no thumbs?). But after lunch
was over, some people went outside to play football.
"I think I'll take a walk outside," said Beth.
"I'll go with you," immediately replied another girl, who had automatically
assumed that Beth would need someone to help her every inch of the way. "No
thank you," said Beth, with her new-found independence; "I can do
it by myself." So she left the dining hall, going around the tables and
finding the door with her cane and feeling the wall.
"So, ah, how do you think people interacted with all these handicaps?"
This was the head counselor, Jason. We were having a reflection time, without
handicaps, before dinner. Among other responses, I felt particularly good when
I heard Beth's.
"Anna was really helpful. At first I was scared, but she helped me around
and gave me a cane; then she told me things about blindness and other blind
people that I didn't know before."
Needless to say, Beth was still glad when the blindfold was taken off. But she
had also learned from the experience, as had we all, and I am glad of that.
[Photo: Portrait of the House family. Caption: Theresa and David House are pictured here with their children, David, Jr.; Chris; Patrick; and Veronica]
A WIFE SPEAKS OUT ABOUT BLINDNESS
by David and Theresa House
From the Editor: There is a strong
temptation, particularly for those who are losing vision as a result of one
of the degenerative eye disorders, to focus their energies on keeping the enemy
at bay, battling every complication, and denying the inevitable outcome. Of
course scientific research into the causes and prevention of such disorders
is important, especially for patients in the next generation; but most of us
have found that we can successfully get on with the interesting business of
living a full life only after we have put aside the emotional warfare against
blindness, come to terms with the realities of vision loss, and set about to
master the skills of blindness. Then we discover that, having abandoned the
struggle to use the tools of vision with very little of that commodity available,
we are suddenly free to learn to be efficient again through using the alternative
techniques of blindness.
It sounds sensible and simple, but for most people it is not. Such a decision
requires large measures of honesty and courage. We must stop pretending that
we can see what is only a blur; admit the fact that we sometimes need help;
begin using a white cane; and even, perhaps, learn to use Braille. We must also
start carrying our share of the load in our homes and families and on the job.
It takes determination and energy to stop loved ones and colleagues from doing
your share of cooking, cleaning, laundry, yard work, and job-related tasks because
they believe it's easier for them. Anger and depression focused on one's blindness
make it easier to sit back and let others, rather than learn to master the skills
of daily life again.
What happens when a group of competent, confident, active Federationists decide
to carry the NFB message of optimism and hope into a gathering of several hundred
people dedicated to and completely focused on fighting degenerative eye disease?
Naturally they discover many distressingly negative attitudes about blindness,
but they also find a rich harvest of people eager for good news and hope. They
also discover opportunities to educate blind people and their families. That
is what seven determined members of the National Federation of the Blind of
California found in mid-November. David and Theresa House are active members
of the San Diego Chapter of the NFB of California. Here is their adventure as
David reported it in a letter to President Maurer and Theresa shared it that
day in her remarks as part of a panel of significant others:
San Diego, California
November 22, 1994
Dear President Maurer:
Every two years, the RP Fighting Blindness Foundation has a national conference
which has an attendance of nearly a thousand people. The intent of the conference
is to bring everyone up to date on the latest research in finding a cure for
retinitis pigmentosa, macular degeneration, and Usher's syndrome. This year
the conference took place in San Francisco, California, November 18 through
20.
I am pleased to report to you that board members from four different chapters
of the NFB of California participated in this conference in a big way. Our strategy
was to show attendees that accepting blindness rather than fighting it is the
appropriate choice on an emotional and personal level. We tried to convey that
the fighting should be done on the scientific level. We were very successful
in getting this message across.
Two of the Bay Area chapters shared equally in the cost of $100 to have a booth
in the exhibit hall, which was open the first two days of the conference. Over
a thousand pieces of literature promoting NFB philosophy were given out at this
booth. This included hundreds of our standard brochures, 300 copies of the book,
If Blindness Comes, 200 cassettes of Dr. Jernigan's speeches, fifty Future
Reflections magazines, and dozens of brochures on our NFB training centers around
the country. We were overwhelmed with the number of requests to receive the
Braille Monitor on cassette. I have enclosed a comprehensive list of
more than 450 names and addresses which are alphabetized according to the state
in which the individual resides.
Two of the southern California chapters had members actually participate in
the conference by attending the numerous seminars. Our job was to promote NFB
philosophy by speaking up during the discussion period of these workshops. We
also distributed many copies of the book, If Blindness Comes, along with
dozens of the NFB Braille alphabet cards. This task was definitely not easy.
At times it was very discouraging, encountering so many people that equated
blindness with hopelessness. We heard one story after another about how people
were going to give up their careers because they were going blind. Resistance
to learning Braille was prevalent, and others claimed using a cane was socially
unacceptable. There we were, seven Federationists among eight or nine hundred
people. I kept telling myself the harvest is great, but the laborers are few.
We valiantly hung in there all weekend, whether we were walking alone or marching
together.
My wife Theresa and I were asked to speak
at separate workshops which ran simultaneously on Saturday afternoon, November
19. They extended this invitation to us, not realizing we were members of the
Federation. We decided to make the most of this opportunity and tried to give
our listeners some hope. I have enclosed cassette copies of these two panel
sessions for your review. You will note that we covered much of the same material
in our presentations. I am extremely proud of my fully sighted wife, who put
her whole heart and soul into this presentation. Her delivery was so powerful
that there was not a dry eye in the room by the time it was over. I lost count
of the number of people who came up to her throughout the rest of the weekend,
thanking her for such an inspirational speech. Without a doubt she is a true
friend and staunch supporter of the NFB.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am very grateful for the existence of the
Materials Center at the National Center for the Blind. It has been an invaluable
resource for every project our chapter has undertaken. With our literature this
past weekend hundreds of people losing their eyesight found out for the first
time that it is respectable to be blind. There is no doubt in my mind that the
RP Fighting Blindness Foundation knows loud and clear that we, the Federation
family, are changing what it means
to be blind.
Sincerely,
David House
That was David House's letter; here is the transcription of Theresa's presentation to the RP Fighting Blindness Foundation. She was part of a panel of two wives, one husband, and a sister-- all of whom had loved ones with degenerative eye disorders. This is what Theresa said:
My name is Theresa House; I am thirty-years-old;
and I have been happily married for ten and a half years. I have four wonderful
children--three, five, seven, and nine. My husband David was diagnosed with
juvenile macular degeneration at the age of five. He is now thirty-seven and
has some remaining peripheral vision in each eye.
I knew my husband for several years before we actually began dating. His sister
was my best friend in grade school, and as a teenager I was a member of the
church youth group that Dave was in charge of. During the course of our friendship
I was always impressed to see that Dave would never let his blindness stop him
from anything he undertook. A good example of this determination was the high
school youth group of over a hundred teenagers that he managed for nearly four
years. Those years are very dear to me. That group had the reputation of being
one of the biggest and the best among the Catholic churches throughout San Diego.
At the same time that Dave was our church's youth director he was attending
San Diego State University.
After graduating from college, Dave made the decision to attend a residential
training facility for blind adults in northern California. This was to learn
Braille, cane travel, cooking, and independent-living skills. He believed that
it was very important to learn the alternative techniques used by blind people
before he lost his vision completely. Dave said that he was tired of faking
and bluffing his way through awkward situations using his partial vision. He
wanted to stop pretending that he could function normally in the sighted world
by denying his blindness.
A year later Dave returned home to San Diego, well-equipped with the skills
of blindness, full of confidence, and ready to hit the job market. By coincidence
we began dating the same month he was hired by Catholic Community Services.
This was February, 1982. One of the fondest memories I have of the early days
of our courtship was going out on dates riding double on my moped scooter. Dave
did not drive, and I didn't own a car at the time. I was eighteen, and he was
twenty-four. We still laugh today when we look back at that crazy and romantic
time.
One of the more challenging aspects of our relationship was my family's prejudice
about blindness. My parents did not approve of our courtship. They felt--and
they still do, even though he has proved them wrong--that a man who is going
blind does not have a bright future ahead of him. All this only convinced me
that people's attitudes about blindness can be more of a problem than the actual
loss of eyesight.
In 1983 we became engaged with plans for a June wedding in the following year.
My family continued their resistance to my fiance. They constantly reminded
me that any of our possible offspring could be blind as well. I told them that
I was well aware of this possibility. I said that, if Dave could function successfully
with his blindness, my children would have the perfect role model to emulate
in their father. Even after we were married, I remember visiting my grandparents
one day. They were holding our first-born, who was still an infant. I saw my
grandfather wiggling his fingers in front of my two-month-old- son's face, trying
to decide whether he could see. It was one more reminder to me that blindness
was very much feared and misunderstood by my side of the family.
When we got married in 1984, we were both working forty hours a week. I had
a great-paying job as a medical unit clerk in our local hospital. Dave had obtained
his broker's license and was in the process of making a career change from social
work to real estate. A year later David, Jr., was born, and I cut my work schedule
in half, to twenty hours a week. In 1987 our second son Christopher was born,
and I reduced my work schedule to sixteen hours a week. Then in 1989 our third
son Patrick was born. I decided to stop working completely to be a full-time
mother and homemaker. I made this decision in the confidence that my blind husband
was quite capable of being the sole bread-winner in our family. My confidence
was further reinforced in 1991, when we decided to have a fourth child. I was
determined to fulfill my lifetime dream of having a daughter. My wish came true
that year, and we named our beautiful little girl Veronica. For the past five-and-a-half
years I have not worked outside the home because my husband has done such a
great job of supporting us financially.
In our home, raising the children is truly a fifty-fifty partnership. After
our youngest was born, Dave urged me to find a hobby so that I could take a
well-deserved break from the kids in the evenings. For three years I took martial
arts, earning a second-degree green belt in Tong So Do Karate. I am at the halfway
mark of becoming a black-belt, which I intend to accomplish. Also I am going
to college at night, working to become certified as a floral designer. I plan
to operate my own business out of my home doing floral arrangements for weddings.
None of this would be possible without the full support of my husband. Dave
serves as an evening and weekend babysitter whenever I have outside activities.
My husband is no slouch when it comes to taking on his share of the chores and
responsibilities at home. Each day he helps me get the children ready for school
by waking them up, feeding them breakfast, and preparing their baths. This allows
me enough time for exercise each morning. I enjoy jogging. While Dave is getting
ready for work, I make the lunches, help the children dress, and take them to
school.
In the evenings after work, Dave assists me in getting the kids through their
homework. While I am preparing dinner, he unloads the dishwasher and sets the
table. After supper he clears the table, takes out the trash, and feeds the
dog. In the meantime I am doing the dishes. Together we tuck the children into
bed and then do paperwork, like paying bills and going through the mail.
My husband has found that keeping household items organized and orderly cuts
down drastically on the frustration that can accompany vision loss. He has certainly
proven this true by taking charge of the laundry for our family of six. Dave
has used his Braille label-maker on the washing machine and does a great job
of keeping the clothes clean and neatly sorted. My job is to fold and put them
away.
David makes blindness his responsibility and not an undue hardship on the family.
For example, at home he has the choice of using his cane or possibly tripping
over toys, shoes, or anything else inadvertently left on the floor. (We encourage
our children to pick up after themselves, but in reality this does not always
happen.)
Since I am the only driver in our family, I have been unanimously elected the
family chauffeur. Dave himself makes it a point not to rely on me as his only
mode of transportation. He makes his own arrangements to get to and from work,
and he uses public transportation whenever necessary. He also enjoys walking
places to stay in shape.
Dave no longer uses large print for reading because it is too much of a strain
and too time-consuming. He says that, by learning Braille, he has kept himself
from becoming illiterate. There are countless examples of how Dave uses Braille
in his daily life. I have already mentioned the Braille label-maker, which he
uses both at home and at work. My husband orders stories, called Twin Vision
Books, which have both Braille and print as well as the illustrations. He really
appreciates having the ability to read these books to our younger children.
To help our older son, Dave orders a book in Braille that we can also find in
the public library in print. This allows my son to practice reading aloud while
my husband follows along in Braille, correcting him whenever necessary.
One favorite family outing is trips to
the Price Club. My husband always brings an itemized grocery list in Braille
to prevent us from spending too much money. Dave also receives the Sunday mass
readings in Braille, which he takes to church each week. He is a voracious reader,
and between Braille and cassette
recordings he manages to read a weekly newspaper, three monthly magazines, and
a couple of books a month. I firmly believe that my husband is a living example
of how blindness can be reduced to the level of a physical nuisance. In the
event that total blindness comes, I know that he will be well prepared.
Dave is competent in the skills of blindness, and he certainly has the right
attitude. I have a gift for each of you here today. It is a large-print book
entitled If Blindness Comes. It is published by the National Federation
of the Blind. My husband is quite active in the Federation, which has over fifty
thousand members across the United States. I can honestly say that the NFB has
been instrumental in making my husband the self-confident, independent, capable
individual he is today. The benefits and support Dave has derived from this
organization have done wonders for his self-image and self-esteem. I would highly
recommend the National Federation of the Blind to anyone who is struggling with
losing eyesight. There is a table in the exhibit hall with all kinds of free
literature about blindness. The representatives there would be more than happy
to listen to your personal story and experiences and answer any questions about
the NFB. Be sure to check the table out.
I have really appreciated the opportunity to speak with you
this afternoon. If I could pick only one thing for you to
remember from my talk, please don't ever forget that it is
respectable to be blind.
[Photo: Portrait. Caption: Tom and Carol
Lemieux]
ANOTHER
WIFE SAYS WHAT'S ON HER MIND
by Carol Lemieux
From the Editor: At the 1994 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Connecticut last fall, one of the agenda items was a panel presentation by sighted partners of blind Federationists. All of the presenters were themselves active Federationists, a fact which undoubtedly accounts in significant part for the excellence and good sense of their remarks. Carol Lemieux was the panel moderator and one of the presenters. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Hartford Chapter of the NFB of Connecticut. Her husband Tom is chapter Treasurer. Both are longtime, knowledgeable Federationists. Here is what she said:
On November 17, 1994, Tom Lemieux and
I will celebrate our fifteenth wedding anniversary. Either to our faces or behind
our backs, everyone said it wouldn't last. Well, our marriage has lasted, and
we are very happy.
When I married Tom, I didn't give much thought to what people would think of
us. I guess I was young and idealistic. Though I'm no longer young, I think
I am still idealistic. But back then we spent more time worrying about and figuring
out how to pay the rent and the bills than worrying about what people thought
of us.
But, as time passed, I started to realize that people were looking at us and
saying things that sounded kind of crazy. We didn't hear of the Federation until
the early eighties, and I guess we both just tried to grin and bear the remarks.
Looking back and even today, I can divide the public into two groups. The first
think I am a saint. They are usually older people or, more precisely, people
from the old school of thought, who think blind people are the most helpless
group of people to roam the earth. I have heard more "God bless you's"
than I can count and have been told how great and what a saint I am so many
times that I'm tempted to believe it! But those who know me know I'm no saint.
The second group of people we encounter on a regular basis I find much harder
to accept because most of them should have better sense. Here are a few examples
of the type I mean: This past spring Tom and I were at a dinner where we met
a psychiatric nurse from the Institute of Living. After chatting for a few minutes,
she asked Tom which group home he lived in. She thought I was a group home worker
who had brought Tom out for the dinner.
A few years ago Tom got a new counselor from the state vocational rehabilitation
agency. Without knowing either of us, the counselor, who was blind, walked into
the room and said to us (but I think really for my benefit), "If you want
a sighted counselor, say so right now."
Or there was the woman, who herself used a wheelchair, who asked me if I got
up every morning to dress my husband for work. And my former boss, who wanted
to know what I'd do with my husband if I were to travel on business, which probably
explains why I never went out to a field office.
Numerous times people ask if I'm Tom's sister or, even worse, his mother. I
am three-and-a-half years older than Tom, but I don't think I look old enough
to be his mother!
Generally speaking, people believe that blind people never get married or only
marry another blind person. All of us in the Federation know better. And as
Federationists we have taken on the responsibility of educating the public so
blind people can exercise their rights to opportunity, security, and equality.
Now let me tell you the truth about being married to a blind person. My husband
is multi-handicapped. In addition to being blind, he has traumatic brain injury.
While his intellect is not impaired, his short-term memory and cognitive skills
are affected to some extent, and he is not a fast person because of the TBI.
His blindness is a result of the TBI as well. He has between one and three degrees
of tunnel vision. The blind skills Tom has are good. Since he hasn't worked
in several years, Tom has taken on most of the housework. He makes his own meals
during the day, travels around the Hartford area on public transportation, and
goes alone to his own doctor appointments whenever possible. He also goes grocery
shopping with me and on all the errands we need to do.
Tom didn't marry me to be his caretaker or his chauffeur. He does need a little
extra help sometimes because of his memory loss, especially when learning a
new route he has to travel or in strange places, such as this hotel. Believe
me, there are many times I wish Tom could jump in the car and run an errand
or pick me up at work when I don't feel like waiting for the bus. But he can't,
and that's okay.
I often feel hurt when people think I married Tom to attain sainthood or because
I have some deep psychological need to take care of people. I feel pain when
someone makes a ridiculous remark, even though it's well intentioned, because
it makes me look like a shallow person.
The National Federation of the Blind has taught me to stand up for what is right.
I try not to be rude to or embarrass people when they treat Tom and me as if
we were something different. But neither can I stand in silence and let people
think that the blind need caretakers and will marry a sighted person to ensure
a life of pampering and supervision.
The NFB has taught us not to grin and bear the ridiculous remarks made by the
public. Rather we both try to educate people about blindness. We had to tell
the deacon at our former church that blindness is not an infirmity, as he told
the whole congregation in church one weekend; we have made it clear at the restaurants
we frequent that I don't order for Tom and that he can read the menu. We've
also had to make it clear that, when Tom pays for something in a store, he gets
the change, not me. When Tom was working, I could have driven him to work and
back each day, but I didn't. And, in fairness, I take the bus whenever possible.
I suppose that being married to a blind person is no different from being married
to a sighted person. Yes, I do wish Tom could find a job and make a good salary
or could relieve me of some of the driving responsibilities. But generally we
have a balanced marriage--each of us sharing in the responsibilities and
chores that go along with every marriage. And each of us shares in the companionship
and joy that should also be a part of every marriage.
So, while I am certainly no saint for marrying a multi-handicapped, blind person,
I am blessed.
[Photo: The main hall of the International Braille and Technology Center displaying many of the Center's equipment workstations. Caption: The International Braille and Technology Center]
THE
OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION PC-BASED READING SYSTEMS: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW
by David Andrews
From the Editor: David Andrews is the Director of the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind at the National Center for the Blind. In the August, 1993, issue of the Braille Monitor he offered his evaluation of stand-alone reading machines. This is what Mr. Andrews now has to say about PC-based reading systems:
In mid-1993 the International Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind conducted comparative reviews of stand-alone
reading machines--that is, computer-like devices that scan printed pages and
turn their contents into synthesized speech. At that time we found that for
simplicity of operation and ease of comprehension of the spoken word, the Reading
Edge was probably the best buy. If, on the other hand, the user needed to read
more complex documents with difficult layouts and a range of font sizes and
print clarity, An Open Book was probably the best choice. This summary of our
evaluation results is oversimplified and does not take into account the fact
that updated software for a third machine, the Readman, is now available, which
might change our conclusions if the assessment were repeated today.
Now we have completed reviews of the three major PC-based (as opposed to stand-alone)
reading systems sold today for use by blind people. We will review all three
in this article: An Open Book Unbound from Arkenstone, Inc.; OsCaR from TeleSensory,
Inc.; and the Reading AdvantEdge from Xerox Imaging Systems, Inc. One additional
system has been shown at the past two NFB conventions, the Rapid Reader from
Blindness and Visual Systems of Baltimore, Maryland. We ordered this system
over a year and a half ago and still have not received delivery. It is impossible
to review a system which you don't have and unwise to recommend a company with
such unreliable business practices.
What is a PC-Based Reading System?
A PC-based reading system is similar to a stand-alone reading machine in that it scans the page (takes an electronic picture of it), analyzes that picture, and converts the text on the page into synthesized speech. Unlike a reading machine, a PC-based reading system, however, can do other things because it is based on an existing computer. All of the systems reviewed here require at a minimum a 386 computer with at least 8 megabytes of memory and adequate hard disk storage space to store the program and scanned documents. We recommend a minimum of twenty-five megabytes of free hard disk storage as a starting point. More free space is desirable since documents, image files, and swap files can get quite large.
While a 386-based computer will do the job, a 486 will be better, and a Pentium-based system will be better yet because the reading process consists of three main steps. First, an electronic picture of a printed page is taken by the flatbed scanner. Second, this electronic image is transferred to the PC and analyzed, and any text is extracted. Finally, this text is converted into synthesized speech, refreshable Braille output, or large print output by the user's access device. The second step, the analysis of the image, is the difficult one--the one that relies on the power of the PC. So the faster the processor, the more quickly the analysis will take place.
Using a Hewlett Packard Scanjet IIp
flatbed scanner (the most common scanner around today), the scanning phase takes
approximately fifteen seconds. A faster computer will not speed up this step.
On the other hand, the page analysis can take anywhere from a second or two
to several minutes. Factors
affecting the length of time include the speed of the computer, the quality
of the printed page, the amount of text on the page, the number of fonts employed,
the size of the print, the presence or absence of graphics, the complexity of
the layout, and more. Processing times on a 386 computer will seem painfully
slow when compared to a fast 486 or a Pentium. We found that, when we used a
ALR Pentium 90 with thirty-two megabytes of RAM, most pages had been processed
and were being read before the HP scanner had returned the scanner head to the
home position, and no page analysis took longer than about ten or fifteen seconds.
If you are going to do a lot of reading, get the fastest computer you can afford.
You will spend much less time waiting for the computer to process pages. With
the use of the new Pentium computers, the scanning stage, not the analysis,
becomes the time-consuming step. It used to be the other way around.
For most people there are a number of advantages to using PC-based reading systems.
If you already have an adequate computer and an adaptive access system, it saves
money. If you wish to scan documents and save them as files for archival or
editing purposes, then PC-based systems have an advantage over dedicated reading
machines. PC-based systems allow you to use whatever access device or devices
you already have--speech synthesizers, refreshable Braille displays, or large
print display software and hardware. With most systems it is even possible to
use multiple display methods simultaneously such as speech and refreshable Braille,
or speech and large print. If you already have an adequate computer and an access
device, it is clearly cheaper to purchase a PC-based system. Even if you don't,
but you are prepared to shop wisely and take advantage of falling computer prices,
you can still save money starting from scratch with a PC-based system rather
than investing in most stand-alone reading machines. Moreover, you will have
a fully functional computer that can be used for other purposes such as writing,
doing your finances, or accessing the information superhighway. Finally, when
manufacturers update their systems, PC-based reading systems are easier to upgrade
than most stand-alone reading machines.
Why A Special System?
In the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind, we are often asked, why do blind people need special reading
systems like An Open Book Unbound or Reading AdvantEdge? Are they as good as
the commercially available scanning products used in most offices? The answers
to these two questions are related.
Virtually all of the commercially available optical character recognition (OCR)
software--the part of the package that extracts text from the page image--runs
under Microsoft Windows. Until recently blind people have not been able to run
Microsoft Windows. While there are now six Windows access programs on the market
(with others due out in the near future, possibly even by the time you read
this article), the programs have some rough edges and are still experiencing
growing pains. Running an OCR system under one of them, while possible, would
be difficult or impossible for the average user. The access companies (including
Arkenstone, Xerox, and TeleSensory) have taken commercially available OCR systems
and written their own control software that is speech-friendly. This is the
software
through which you initiate scanning, set and change options, read documents,
etc. All of the companies use commercially available OCR engines. Arkenstone
uses software from Calera Recognition Systems, which is also used in Calera's
Wordscan Plus. The Reading AdvantEdge uses the same engine found in Xerox Imaging
System's Text Bridge, and TeleSensory uses Omnipage Professional Version 5 from
Caere Corporation in its OsCaR product. So systems for blind users offer the
same OCR capabilities as their commercially available counterparts used by the
sighted but are easier for us to use.
What Do You Get?
Arkenstone, Xerox, and TeleSensory wish
to sell you an entire reading system, which includes a flatbed scanner, an interface
card that goes inside your PC, and a cable to attach the two together, as well
as all the software needed to control the scanner, perform OCR tasks, read documents,
and set options. Each of the companies will sell you its software alone, which
may save you a few dollars. If this is the route you decide to go, you must
provide your own scanner, interface card, and cable; but these are all readily
available in the commercial marketplace.
Below we will describe each system, its layout, and operation. While not every
feature will be mentioned or described, we will try to provide you with descriptions
of the significant features and operations and to give you an overall feel for
the operation of the software. Many of the features are similar, and all the
systems scan fairly well, so some of the differences are subtle.
An Open Book Unbound
Arkenstone, Inc.
Arkenstone calls its PC-based system
"An Open Book Unbound" to differentiate it from their stand-alone
product, which is called "An Open Book." The two products are virtually
identical. An Open Book Unbound software-only package costs $995, while the
software with a Hewlett Packard Scanjet IIIp scanner costs $1590.
The Open Book Unbound system differs in one major way from its competitors.
It takes direct control of your speech synthesizer or Braille Display and does
not use your existing screen-review program or Braille-display control software.
An Open Book Unbound actually runs under Microsoft Windows Version 3.1, although
the user is never aware of this fact. The system provides him or her with speech-friendly
or Braille-friendly prompts and output and takes care of all matters dealing
with Windows itself. This is the reason, though, that conventional DOS-based
access products are bypassed. Consequently, you must use a speech synthesizer
or refreshable Braille display supported by Arkenstone. These include synthesizers
in the Accent, Apollo, Double Talk, and Keynote Gold lines, as well as all of
the Blazie products and the Audapter, DEC-Talk PC, Echo, Infovox, Sounding Board,
and transport.
The Artic SynPhonix line is not supported, although drivers have been promised
since the beginning. Jim Fruchterman, President of Arkenstone, has assured us
that Artic drivers are near completion. He says that they are waiting for software
from Artic Technologies that supports indexing--a way for a synthesizer and
its control software to communicate with each other about what each is doing.
He further says that Arkenstone has hired a consultant to create its own software
in the absence of software from Artic Technologies. Supported Braille displays
include models from Alva, Baum, E.H.G., Frank Audiodata, Pappenmeier, TeleSensory,
and Teiman. Fruchterman says that any Braille display that doesn't shut down
when Windows is invoked should work. Further, any large-print display system
that works with Windows should also work. Fruchterman says that they have made
changes to support the Zoom Text product from AI Squared.
An Open Book Unbound is controlled by using a series of menus. The functions
of the system are normally controlled by using keys on the seventeen-key numeric
keypad found on the right side of standard 101-key keyboards. Choices on Open
Book menus are accessed by using four keys on the keypad, which represent arrow
keys. The user moves up and down between items much as with many PC applications.
Once an item is selected, its individual choices are accessed by using the right
and left arrow keys. Choices are made by hitting what is called the Select Key,
which is the five key--the one with the raised dot in the middle of the numeric
keypad. The system has Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced menus. The Beginner
and Intermediate menus do not make all options available to the user and may
be useful to the new user since there are fewer choices to confuse him or her.
The sub-menus of the main menu include Read a Document; Library Options (where
documents are stored, converted, and exported to floppy disk); Scanning Options
(where contrast, page size, and the like are controlled); and Open Book Options
(where you choose the menu level, set voice characteristics, exit the system,
etc.).
One drawback to this system, as it is currently designed, is that it takes a
number of keystrokes to change some items. One must select an item, move to
an individual choice, select that choice, and then press the Escape Key the
proper number of times to back out of the menu system. Unlike An Open Book,
An Open Book Unbound can also use regular keys on the alphanumeric keyboard.
You can, for example, hit "O" for Open Book Options, "s"
for Scanning Options, etc. You can also use the regular Escape Key for the Escape
function and the regular Enter Key as the Select Key. The use of the regular
keyboard is especially appreciated for typing document names, which is a tedious
process at best on An Open Book Unbound. Once you know the system, these shortcut
keys do help immensely.
An Open Book Unbound has three basic modes: the Reading Mode, the Scanning Mode,
and the Control Menus. When reading a document, one has to hit the Escape Key
to leave the Document Reader prior to hitting the Scan Key to scan another page.
Since the Scan Key is a dedicated key, it should be possible to go directly
from Reading Mode to Scanning Mode at any time, but it is not. In fact, it should
be possible to Scan at any time you are in the system. Jim Fruchterman, President
of Arkenstone, assures us that this and other problems will be addressed in
an upcoming Version 3. We were also assured by Arkenstone that some of the command
awkwardness and oddities would be addressed in Version 2.0, which did not happen.
In fact, changes have been promised since version 1.1. It is beginning to look
as though changes will never be made and as though the longer the time and the
more systems sold, the less likely are interface changes.
An Open Book Unbound does have the ability to control contrast automatically.
A Hewlett Packard Scanjet II or III series scanner is necessary to use this
feature. Arkenstone was the first to offer this feature, and it generally works
well and is very useful. You can also control the contrast manually for problem
pages. There are a hundred levels of adjustment available when you choose a
custom setting. There are also settings for Normal Contrast, Darken Page, and
Lighten Page. The unit can also determine the direction in which the print goes
on the page and read it, no matter what its orientation. This is a great time-saver
for a blind person working alone. While it adds a few seconds to the recognition
process, it is well worth the time to most of us, and the feature can be turned
off. Different voices can be assigned to indicate normal, underlined, bold,
and italic print. A different voice can also be assigned to the Menus.
The Arkenstone software also has provisions
for batch scanning--that is, one can scan (take pictures of) a number of pages
all at once, then have An Open Book Unbound do the character recognition at
a later time--like when you are at lunch. This feature can be valuable for big
jobs, on slower computers, or to people with automatic sheet feeders.
Once any text is scanned and recognized, it is automatically saved on the computer's
hard disk. It is then possible to name a document and save it in a category.
The software comes with a number of categories already set up, such as bills,
books, brochures, general, letters, manuals, and recipes. It is possible to
establish your own categories as well. The software should, however, be able
to save or export files to a floppy disk. A number of steps are now required.
In addition to batch scanning, An Open Book Unbound can scan and recognize a
page, then read it or use the Quick-Speech Mode, in which speech is supposedly
generated faster. However, it does not work very well. It is choppy and doesn't
save much time. While the initial speech starts more quickly, the pauses and
general choppiness use up any time savings.
The software can save files in a variety of word-processor and other application
formats--over fifty-five of them. One useful and unique feature of An Open Book
Unbound is the ability to adjust the speed of reading on the fly, while it is
reading a document, without losing your place.
On the whole, installation is not a problem with this software, with two possible
exceptions. The drivers for a number of speech synthesizers are on a supplemental
disk, which you mus put into the disk drive when prompted. You must then type
in the name of the proper driver, including any serial port needed. If you do
not know this information exactly, you can't proceed. Second, the installation
of a flatbed scanner will be a problem to some. For more information see the
"Strengths and Weaknesses" section at the end of this review.
The software comes with an adequate manual in print, on tape, on disk, and in
Braille upon request. The system also has a key-describer mode, which will be
useful to new users, and the help system is good.
OsCaR
TeleSensory, Inc.
TeleSensory, Inc., has just released
Version 4.0A of its PC- based reading system, OsCaR. This version offers a number
of improvements over version 3.0, including an improved menu structure, better
optical character recognition, and some interesting new features, most notably
the ability to correct individual words while reading a document.
The OsCaR software costs