According to the dictionary a 'monitor' is a person who 'advises, warns, or cautions.' A Braille monitor is one who carries on this function for the blind, and this is the pledge of the editors of this magazine.
So wrote the first editor of the Braille Monitor in the inaugural issue of the monthly journal in July, 1957. Editor George Card's announcement somewhat blurred the significance of the event by presenting the Monitor not as a brand new periodical which in fact it was but as the continuation under a new name of an already existing publication of a very different kind. That was the All-Story Braille Magazine, a publication of the American Brotherhood for the Blind which was reasonably faithful to the promise of its title by publishing mainly short fiction with a limited space reserved for a Federation News Section. Now all that would be changed, said the editor:
Beginning with the next monthly issue the name of this magazine will be changed to the Braille Monitor. We have been fortunate to be able to return to a monthly [from a quarterly] issue. This is made possible by a subvention from the National Federation of the Blind. The Federation News Section has become increasingly popular. Many of our readers have written in to request that more space be devoted to this feature. Program and other developments concerning the blind many of which are of the utmost importance to the blind men and women of this country have been emerging in profusion. Even with the return to the monthly issue, a major fraction of the space of this magazine must be devoted to the coverage of these developments if our people are to continue to be informed.
Before the birth of the Monitor in 1957, as that inaugural statement indicates, the organized blind movement lacked a full set of lungs with which to vocalize its message of Security, Opportunity, and Equality. Limited as it was in this respect to the back pages of a fiction magazine, the fledgling Federation found other ways to convey its message during the seventeen years from its founding to the advent of the Monitor. The most effective of those ways was also the most basic: the typewriter/mimeograph combination. From the earliest penny-pinched days in 1940 and 1941 when the entire national organization was seemingly contained in a shoe-box flat next door to the University of Chicago, the word of Federationism was spread primarily by means of bulletins, flyers, and broadsides which were devised and dictated by Jacobus tenBroek, typed by Hazel tenBroek, and cranked out by both of them on that granddaddy of Xerox: the mimeograph machine.
But the will to find their own full voice, and the dream that would one day be realized in the form of the Braille Monitor, were there from the beginning in the minds of the founders. Almost immediately after the initial National Convention at Wilkes-Barre in 1940, an exchange of letters (which clearly followed earlier discussions) took place between NFB President tenBroek and Perry Sundquist, then the Executive Secretary of the American Brotherhood for the Blind, which published the All-Story Magazine. Sundquist opened the exchange with this overture:
For some time I have been searching for some means by which the American Brotherhood could use its slender resources to a more vital purpose and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps some arrangement could be made whereby it could publish a monthly bulletin or magazine of the Federation purely as a service to the Federation in advancing its purposes among the blind of the member states and of other states. As you know, Pennsylvania puts out, quarterly or so, a little paper entitled We the Blind and doubtless this is a potent means of furthering the organization. Well, the Federation could put out a national magazine.
It certainly would be a godsend, wrote tenBroek in reply, if the National Federation of the Blind could have at its service a magazine devoted to a discussion of the legislative problems of the blind. Such a magazine would be especially important if it gave us a monthly contact with our members and if it were directly available to them in Braille. He went on to emphasize the vital importance of a regular channel of communication with reference to the NFB's social and political objectives: One of the immensely difficult problems that the National Federation has to face is that of communication with the blind throughout the nation, and that communication needs to be fairly frequent if not constant with respect to the activities of the organization which will deal almost wholly with legislative and administrative problems.
That emphatic, no-nonsense stress upon the public agenda of the Federation as the dominant concern of any magazine it might initiate reflected the serious, not to say grim, earnestness of the early leaders in the face of the political and economic urgencies of their time: the grinding poverty of nearly all the adult blind, the uncomprehending and indifferent attitudes of most public officials, the blithe complacency of professional workers for the blind who viewed themselves proudly as the guardians and caretakers of a hopeless minority doomed to physical immobility, cultural illiteracy, and economic irrelevance.
Jacobus tenBroek and his colleagues of the first generation might also have felt grim concerning the prospects of the infant Federation within a wartime economy in which communications and travel were severely restricted for all civilian groups and nonmilitary purposes. It was evidently with some reluctance that these leaders accepted the compromise arrangement of a Federation supplement in the All-Story, which blind readers turned to less for education than for entertainment. In 1942 Raymond Henderson, then Executive Director of the Federation, issued a bulletin to the membership which contained this wistful and even rueful report on the quest for a journal:
BRAILLE FEDERATION MAGAZINE
The All-Story Braille Magazine is continuing to print almost every month three or four pages on legislation for the blind edited by Dr. Newel Perry. We need a small magazine devoted to the work of the Federation. However our finances are still insufficient and the difficulties in securing metal plates and paper for printing may delay the establishment of such a magazine. We are informed that our mimeographed bulletins are read and discussed at the meetings of many of the local clubs of the blind. The Executive Director of the National Federation of the Blind would be interested in having opinions as to the desirability of such a Braille publication. However we must again remember that in the present situation it may prove impossible to secure the printing of such a publication even if our finances could stand the strain. In this as in so many other things we must all be patient but we must not allow our interest to flag.
Their interest in a small magazine devoted to the work of the Federation certainly did not flag during the remainder of the war years; but even after the war the hopes of the early leaders for a full-fledged independent journal of their own gave way to reluctant acceptance of the status quo (somewhat expanded). In the fall of 1945, less than two months after war's end, Jacobus tenBroek sent a letter to all the blind on his mailing list announcing a significant enlargement of the Federation's section in All-Story and urging their subscription to the magazine. He made a point of mentioning that the Federation's pages were under the editorship of the man who was his own mentor and the pioneer of blind self-organization in California: Dr. Newel Perry. His letter follows:
National Federation of the Blind
Office of the President
October 9, 1945
Dear Friend:
A discussion in Braille of national and state legislation affecting the blind and other items of interest to blind persons is now available to all blind readers of grade two. The American Brotherhood for the Blind, publishers of the All-Story Braille Magazine, have now enlarged and put upon a systematic basis the section of that magazine dealing with legislation. The magazine is published monthly and may be secured by simply dropping a card to the American Brotherhood for the Blind, 117 West Ninth Street, Los Angeles, California.
The editor of the legislation section is Dr. Newel Perry, 6441-A Colby Street, Oakland 9, California, who is the venerable leader of the blind in California and whose work in the National Federation of the Blind is known to all. Readers of the legislation section are thus assured of an authentic analysis of legislative and other problems of the blind, treated from the viewpoint of the blind themselves.
In the past, the blind have been greatly handicapped in their efforts to improve the conditions under which they live by the absence of adequate means of communication among the blind and between the representatives of the blind and the persons represented. The obvious remedy for this condition is the legislation section of the All-Story Braille Magazine. It will serve as a continuous means of contact among the blind, as an instrument for the dissemination of information vitally affecting their welfare, and as a clearing house of their activities in supporting favorable and seeking to defeat harmful legislative or other action.
In the interests of the welfare of the blind, I urge you to apply for and become a regular reader of the All-Story Braille Magazine and to send items of interest to Dr. Perry.
Yours sincerely, Jacobus tenBroek President
The National Federation continued to speak with that muted voice for another dozen years before it could exercise its full lung power. The title page from a typical monthly issue of All-Story (October 1949) read: THE ALL-STORY BRAILLE MAGAZINE with Legislative Supplement; The 'Supplement' is the Official Mouthpiece of the National Federation of the Blind. And the contents of another issue during that year suggested the low priority given to NFB materials in a journalistic context dominated by fictional romance and melodrama. Here is the contents page of the March 1949, issue:
"Married This Morning," by Irene Kittle Camp (reprinted from the Good Housekeeping Magazine)
"The Storm," by Laurence Critchell (reprinted from Collier's)
"Star Boarder," by Libbie Block (reprinted from McCall's)
"Legislation for the Blind," by Dr. Newel Perry
The transition from All-Story to the Braille Monitor was preceded by a series of strategic shifts apparently designed to prepare readers for the advent of a No-Story Braille magazine devoted exclusively to Federation concerns. In 1955 a special feature was announced by All-Story Editor George Card which dramatically changed the layout and the character of the venerable journal for that special issue from a literary to an organizational purpose. Clearly the editor and his colleagues were testing the waters to ascertain the tolerance of readers for a new kind of magazine: a voice of Federationism that would speak not of fantasy but of truth, and would explore in its pages not the never-never land of imagination but the barren landscape of the here and now the world of harsh reality (of broomcorn and sawdust, ridicule and rejection) in which the blind must somehow make their way and find their place, by their own exertions, or else fall back upon the charity and pity of their overseers and lighthouse keepers.
That special (February-March, 1955) issue of All-Story also introduced a new feature which was destined to become a permanent and integral part of the Monitor, continuously upgraded through the years but never altered in format. This is how the innovation was announced:
Editor's Note
Who Are the Blind Who Lead the Blind (Special Feature)
Legislation for the Blind, by Dr. Newel Perry
Editor's Note
We are proud to present in this issue a special feature, Who are the Blind Who Lead the Blind? which has just been released by the National Federation of the Blind. This consists of short biographies which undoubtedly will be of great interest to the readers of All-Story. Because of the importance of this feature, it is being included in this issue in the space which would ordinarily be allocated to short stories.
There was another subtle change in the format of the Federation supplement in this premonitory (pre-Monitor) period; the title page of the February-March, 1956, issue of All-Story reflected a slight but significant expansion of the scope of Federation information; now it was not just legislative and other official material that was carried but Federation News, suggesting a wider interest in general news that was to become more and more prominent over the years in the evolution of the Braille Monitor.
Under the headline "All-Story Gets a New Name", Editor George Card tactfully announced the advent of the Braille Monitor in the issue of July, 1957. As noted earlier, he indicated that the change in format and content was responsive to reader demands as well as to a grant from the National Federation of the Blind. And he was careful not to rule out the future inclusion of stories altogether; here is his meticulous circumlocution: It therefore seems appropriate that we should now change the name of the magazine to one that does not state or imply that all of the contents are stories. Stories will continue to be republished to the extent that space is available.
When the first issue of the Braille Monitor under its new name appeared the following month (August, 1957), it was all news and contained no stories. The point had been made; from now on the Monitor would be primarily devoted to Federation news and it would be truly a monitor one who advises, warns, or cautions. The leaders of the movement had named their journal well; it was destined to advise the membership, warn the agencies established to give service to the blind, and caution the world. It was not to be all at once everything it could be; that would come in the fullness of time, with growth and maturity. But from the outset the Braille Monitor showed its potential; it showed its colors; and it showed its teeth. There would be no truckling to the dominant interests in the field, whether of the government or of the private sector. Thus the July, 1957, issue (announcing the name change) proclaimed on page one that An attitude of arrogance and hostility was displayed toward the organized blind on the part of the highest officials of the Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the course of a Washington conference between NFB and HEW. The unsigned article (clearly reflecting the prose style as well as the sentiments of President Jacobus tenBroek) went on to assert that the atmosphere of the 'discussion' may be briefly and accurately summarized as chaotic and disorganized; the attitude of the federal officials as intemperate and hostile; the results as wholly negative and discouraging.
The tone set on that opening page with reference to government officialdom was matched the following month in an article (again unsigned but easily identifiable) concerned with actions of the two most powerful private agencies in the blindness system. Headlined AAWB and AFB Initiate Attacks On Blind Right to Organize Bills, the editorial article struck back vigorously at agency statements in opposition to the Kennedy Bill protecting the right of the blind to organize and to be consulted on programs affecting them. In its totality, the Monitor said of a resolution from the American Association of Workers for the Blind, this statement adds up to a graphic and unmistakable expression of the anti-democratic custodial philosophy espoused since ancient times by those who have considered themselves the masters of their incompetent blind wards. Again: even if this blatantly authoritarian theory of government were to be accepted, a stark factual question would remain of the real extent of `professional' competence possessed by these antiquarian custodians and lighthouse keepers.
That tone of aggressive defense of the rights of blind persons, and of untiring vigilance against the foes of liberty in all the seats of power, was to remain through the years a defining characteristic of Monitor journalism under a succession of editors and leaders. What is striking in retrospect is the remarkable note of confidence of self-assertion born of self-esteem expressed by the Monitor at a time when the organized blind movement was still in its adolescence and the condition of the blind still shrouded in insecurity and dependence. It was as if (to recall an earlier episode of crisis leadership in the nation) President Jacobus tenBroek of the National Federation of the Blind was announcing to all the blind in all the sheltered shops and blind alleys of America:
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
In order to get the message to that national constituency, however, more was needed than a Braille publication. Some even of the totally blind did not read Braille; most who were partially blind did not. Efforts began immediately to add to the Braille edition an inkprint version of the Monitor, and as soon as possible a recorded edition as well. In fact it appears that a tape-recorded version came first, if only in partial form. As early as July of 1957 an NFB Bulletin announced (and the September Braille Monitor restated):
NFB TAPE PROGRAM BEGINS
A lending library of tape recordings, designed to give as wide coverage as possible to National Federation news and activities, is presently in process of development. Tapes will be available shortly for a two-week loan period, without charge, to affiliated clubs, chapters, or members of the National Federation of the Blind. The first tape recordings available will cover the 1957 National Convention, either in whole or in part (selected speeches and reports). The Federation News Section of the Braille Monitor (formerly the All-Story Magazine) will also be available on tape recording. These recordings may also be purchased at two dollars a tape.
Given the difficulties of reel-to-reel tape recording in those pre-cassette days, however, efforts to secure a spoken version of the Monitor also took another direction. Following the 1958 Boston convention, the Monitor reported that the Executive Committee had adopted a motion by Kenneth Jernigan that the cost of recording each issue of the Braille Monitor on disc records, which could be played on the standard Talking Book machine, be investigated, and that each local affiliate and state organization be informed of this cost, in terms of a twelve-month subscription. The Monitor went on to report that: If 100 subscriptions should be received, with payment in advance, the Federation would then proceed to enter into an arrangement for the regular recording of each monthly issue. Finally, if the required number of paid subscriptions should be received, the first batch of recordings should be sufficiently large so that each state and local affiliate could be sent one sample recording.
Whether the paid subscriptions for this venture fell short of the number required, or for some other reason left unexplained, the disc-recorded edition of the Monitor was delayed a full decade and did not make its appearance until July, 1968 in time to record a special memorial issue, Jacobus tenBroek: The Man and the Movement, and to make it available to the membership at the National Convention in Des Moines that month.
Fortunately the inkprint edition of the Braille Monitor was not similarly delayed, although it remained in jeopardy for a time due to the costs it imposed. The first print edition actually produced and distributed was the issue of January, 1958, (although later transcriptions were to give the impression, still retained in bound volumes, of an earlier publication date). Here is the announcement as it appeared in that initial print issue:
BRAILLE MONITOR INKPRINT EDITION
It has at last become possible to issue an inkprint edition of the Braille Monitor. The demand for such a publication has become overwhelming. For the time being, the publication of the inkprint edition will be experimental. Members of the NFB who are now on the mailing list will automatically receive the inkprint edition. Other friends of the Federation and interested persons may have their names placed on the mailing list by writing to NFB Headquarters, 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley 8, California.
The costs of off-setting and mailing are high. These costs should be met by the readers. The normal way of doing this would be to charge for subscriptions. On the other hand, all Federation members and friends who do not read Braille and who can read or have read the inkprint edition should have an opportunity to gain first-hand acquaintance with Federation news. All readers who wish to do so should send $3.00 to Federation headquarters to help meet expenses. Contributions should be made payable to Braille Monitor Inkprint Edition. If not enough people do so, we may have to discontinue the inkprint edition.
For three years, from mid-summer 1957, through December, 1960, the Monitor appeared every month without interruption in both Braille and print with the American Brotherhood for the Blind continuing to function as publisher of the Braille edition while the Federation published the print version. What happened then was as chaotic as it was catastrophic: the abrupt cessation of publishing in any format, the disappearance of the Monitor for four and a half years, the emergence and short (four-year) life of the Blind American, the travail and departure of the original editor. It is a story of civil war reflected in columns of print. The events of the war itself have been recounted in Chapter Three of this volume; the salient events of the paper war can be briefly summarized.
When the Braille Monitor was born in 1957 its editor was George Card, who was also the First Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind (from 1948) and a veteran field organizer for the movement. Card had previously been the editor of The All-Story Braille Magazine and was accustomed to retaining sole control over the contents of his publication; but with the advent of the Monitor as the official channel for communication of the full range of Federation activities, this was no longer possible.
The center of activity was at the national headquarters, in Berkeley, where the President resided and where the print Monitor was to be published; whereas Card lived in far-off Wisconsin, traveled almost continuously on organizing trips, and was no longer on the cutting edge of policy formation or even of major writing efforts. In these circumstances there was bound to be strain, and it began to show almost from the beginning. In the third issue of the Monitor (September, 1957), Card openly expressed his displeasure at the new division of editorial labor, while recognizing its necessity and taking care to praise the contributions of President tenBroek. The first item on page one of the September issue read as follows:
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
As many of you know, I was engaged in field work nearly all of the time between mid-February and late June. This, of course, necessitated my turning over my editorial duties to others. The May and June issues contained only a few items which were mine. I had no part in the preparation of the July number. Last month I wrote the account of the New Orleans convention, but the rest of the material was prepared by others. Much of the writing during this four-month period was of the highest excellence and I should have been proud to have been its author. The fact remains, however, that I was not the author and I think you should know this. I have received a number of letters containing undeserved compliments and a few of the other kind. I have only now had the privilege of reading Dr. tenBroek's brilliant and devastating analysis of the AAWB resolution and the American Foundation attack on our Right to Organize bill. If any of you missed this section, for heaven's sake go back and read it right now. It is a superlative bit of writing, and it will make you rejoice if you are a member of an organization which has such a leader and spokesman.
It is my hope that in the future, whenever I am away and others prepare the Braille Monitor, they will use their own bylines.
George Card.
Again in the December, 1957, issue Editor Card prefaced the contents with an entry entitled Setting the Record Straight. This time he was concerned to identify others who had contributed major articles to the November Monitor (but had not followed his counsel to use their own by-lines). I was absent in the East during the time the November issue was being prepared, wrote Card. The extremely well written articles`Was It Really Passed Unanimously' and the two dealing with the support of the Kennedy bill by the Western Conference of Home Teachers, were by Kenneth Jernigan. The 'Bulletins' were the joint product of the Washington and Berkeley offices. I believe Dr. tenBroek wrote or assembled most of the rest of the material. My only contribution was the 'Journal.'
The next development in this personal/editorial saga came in December of 1958 with a lead article entitled Monitor Editor Resigns NFB Office, carrying the by-line of Jacobus tenBroek. The Federation President announced that George Card had resigned his position as First Vice President due primarily to the stresses of the civil war then raging within the movement. He continued: George's services will not be wholly lost to us as a result of his decision. As reported elsewhere, the Federation will take over publication of the Braille edition of the Braille Monitor. George will now continue his functions as editor of the Braille Monitor and as finance director, and will thus be enabled to carry forward much of his invaluable work and contribution to our common cause as a member of the paid staff of the Federation.
In an accompanying letter of resignation, Card wrote in part: Now that the Monitor has become so large and important, it is demanding more and more of my time. I feel it is a part of my job to read all Braille periodicals published in the English-speaking world and to have all inkprint periodicals in our field read to me, so that I can pass on important matters in the columns of the Monitor. Each month the volume of correspondence with Monitor readers and contributors increases. But he went on to declare that the major reason for his resignation from elective office was the storm and stress of civil war: The ruthless and lacerating attacks made by a small, disgruntled group during the past fifteen months have taken all the joy out of it for me. Watching the organization which I love so much split into warring factions has made me heartsick.
Despite Card's denunciation of the small, disgruntled group of dissidents, and his despair at the Federation's split into warring factions, he was soon himself to join the dissident faction and to declare his own private war upon the President and the administration of the NFB. That story has been told earlier in these pages (Chapter Three) with reference to the civil war; but it is pertinent here to trace the narrower events which led to the replacement of Card as editor of the Braille Monitor and to a new phase (and a new look) in the evolution of the Voice of Federationism.
In September of 1960 the NFB President Jacobus tenBroek responded to a mounting series of hostile actions on the part of Card by announcing his termination as Monitor editor (although tenBroek even then could not bring himself to fire Card outright but merely reduced his workload and placed him on semi-retirement). Thus, wrote the President, The Braille Monitor has been placed under new editorship. We are fortunate that Kenneth Jernigan has consented to undertake this function on a volunteer basis. The September (and possibly the October) issues will again be prepared in the Federation's Berkeley headquarters, but as soon as possible the new editor will take over this responsibility. Therefore all items or material intended for the Monitor should be sent in the future to Mr. Jernigan.
In the subsequent (October) issue of the Monitor, two related events were given prominent attention. The first was the bitterly announced resignation of George Card from what was left of his staff position; and the second was a statement by the new Monitor editor, Kenneth Jernigan, enunciating his own editorial policy and philosophy. That 1960 declaration was to take on unusual significance in light of Jernigan's future role in directing the evolution of the Monitor into the single most influential and widely read periodical in the blindness field. Presented in the form of an Open Letter to Monitor Readers, this was his proclamation of principles:
OPEN LETTER TO MONITOR READERS
In assuming the duties of editor I would like to say a few words to all Monitor readers. First, this: My success or failure as editor will largely be determined by you. I know that I need not dwell upon the troubled times in which the Federation finds itself or the difficult circumstances under which I assume this task. I also know that the members of the Federation throughout the country will, as they always have, respond to the situation. I will need your comments and criticisms. I will also need material for publication.
This, too, I would like to say: I shall do the best that I can to report to you factually and fairly events as they occur. This does not mean, of course, that I am, or intend to become, a neutral in the civil war which now besets our organization. I believe in the Federation and the principles for which it stands. I believe that our organization is, and that it always has been, democratic and progressive. I believe that our President is a devoted man and not a thief or a scoundrel.
Since I do believe these things, my editorial policies will inevitably be governed accordingly. To say otherwise would be less than honest. Furthermore, I do not believe that it should be the function of the Monitor to have no views and no policy at all. Rather, I believe the magazine should follow the policies established democratically by the delegates at Federation conventions. Differing viewpoints have a legitimate place in the magazine but not unfounded charges of slander and vilification, which can only serve to weaken our movement. The purpose of the Monitor should be to build the Federation, not to destroy it.
Finally, I would like to say this: Even if an editor tries, it is impossible for him not to have an editorial policy. Consider the Free Press, for instance. It claims to present all points of view and to be open and unbiased. Yet, almost every article it prints is an attack upon the Federation and its leadership. By the very virtue of what he selects to be printed an editor establishes a policy and espouses a cause.
I pledge to the members of the Federation that I will do my best to see that they get a factual and fair account of what is occurring throughout the nation, but I also pledge that I will do everything possible to strengthen and build the Federation through the pages of the Monitor, keeping the members informed of what the minority faction is doing and promoting the policies established by the majority at conventions.
Again I say that I shall need the help of all of you if the task is to be a success.
Kenneth Jernigan
Almost exactly a score of years after that open letter in the June, 1980, issue of the Monitor Kenneth Jernigan published another Report to the Members in which he found himself reflecting on the twenty-year cycle which had brought him back once more to the editor's chair. He was now working, he said, as a sort of co-editor of the Monitor along with Jim Gashel. The last time at least in an official way that I had anything to do with editing the Monitor (it was also the first time) was from September through December, 1960. We were in the midst of the Federation's civil war, and those were troubled times. After four months of my editorship, the Monitor went out of business. (I hope it was the overall problems of the times and not my editing that did it.)
In fact it was not just the overall problems of the times but the specific problem of the dearth of finances, as Jacobus tenBroek was to put it, that was responsible for the suspension of Monitor publication at the end of 1960. When it came out again nearly four years later with the August, 1964, issue its editor was Dr. tenBroek, then the President Emeritus of the Federation. This is how he described the comeback in that issue:
THE REVIVAL OF THE BRAILLE MONITOR
The revival of the Braille Monitor comes in the nick of time. The last issue was published in December, 1960. The suspension was caused by the dearth of finances which resulted from the internal warfare of the Federation. During the spring of 1961 the American Brotherhood for the Blind received a handsome bequest. The Brotherhood, therefore, was able to take over where the Monitor had left off. In August, 1961, the Brotherhood began the publication of the Blind American, in form and content the replacement of the Monitor. These and other heavy drains on the treasury of the Brotherhood, alas, are now exhausting its reserves. It had already reduced to a quarterly issue and will now suspend altogether. The announcement of [NFB] President Kletzing at the NFB Phoenix convention that the income of the Federation would now permit the revival of the Braille Monitor thus could not have come at a more opportune moment.
The moment was opportune in more than a fiscal sense, tenBroek said: As the Monitor suspended at the peak of dissension within the Federation, so it revives with the restoration of harmony, good feeling, and mutual understanding. Thus the rebirth of the Monitor coincided with the dawn of an era of good feeling in the movement compounded of renewed stability, steady growth, and the vitality of an oncoming second generation. All this was to be reflected in its pages in the years to come. But the Monitor would also prove to be more than a mirror of the movement; it would become as well a catalyst for change, a learning center, and a kind of monthly town meeting for the nationwide community of the organized blind. It would provide a source of comfort and a source of anger; it would alternate philosophy with polemics, education with agitation. In short it would give increased devotion to the commitment implicit in its title of Monitor: one that advises, warns, and cautions.
And it would find a voice an oral dimension to supplement the tactile and visual dimensions of Braille and print. Coincident with the revival of the Monitor in 1964 came the announcement (carried in the October issue) that a tape edition was now available upon request the taping through the generosity of the Kansas City Association of the Blind, and the technology by courtesy of Ways and Means of Augusta, Georgia. Meanwhile, as noted earlier, continuing efforts toward a disc- recorded version (widely preferred because of the availability of Talking Book machines) bore fruit finally with the production of the first recorded edition of the Monitor in July, 1968. Over the next years the recording process was to be progressively improved and upgraded; and in December, 1970, the recorded edition took on a distinctive sound as Larry McKeever began a long career as the Voice of the Monitor. McKeever would continue until 1988, when the NFB began recording the Monitor in its own studios at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. Meanwhile the competitive audio technology of the tape cassette was improving to the point where the Federation could begin producing the Monitor on four-track cassettes (as of January, 1987). By the time of the golden anniversary year of 1990 with the multiple editions in Braille and print, on disc and cassette some 30,000 copies of the Monitor were in circulation every month. Unmistakably, the voice of the movement was heard in the land. And the voice was rising.
It had been a steady, if sometimes difficult, ascent to that high plateau of recognition and influence. After the revival of the Monitor in 1964, there were to be just four years left of the tenBroek editorship. The death of the founder in early 1968 necessitated a replacement at the helm of the journal no less than at the head of the movement. Kenneth Jernigan, who was elected to succeed Dr. tenBroek in the presidency, moved immediately to fill the vacancy at the Monitor, choosing a veteran leader of proven devotion and ability: Perry Sundquist of California. In an Open Letter to Monitor Readers in the May, 1968, issue, the new President praised Sundquist as one of Dr. tenBroek's closest associates and oldest friends [who] has always been among the staunchest and most steadfast members of the organized blind movement. He continued: The Monitor will continue to be assembled and printed in the Berkeley office, and Mrs. tenBroek will handle the details of the operation. During Dr. tenBroek's illness her courage and steadfastness were truly tenBroekian. Over the years Dr. tenBroek had been the principal focus of her life, and toward the end she was constantly at his bedside. Yet she found the time and the strength to carry forward the work of the Berkeley office and impart strength to those around her.
That Monitor editorial team made up of Editor Perry Sundquist, Associate Editor Hazel tenBroek, and Publisher Kenneth Jernigan continued to work together for the next eight years to build the magazine into a journalistic force to be reckoned with. In 1977 the partnership came to an end as both editors retired from their positions (but not from the movement) and the entire editorial operation was shifted from California to the NFB's national headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa. The staff change was announced in an Open Letter to Monitor Readers from President Jernigan (January, 1977):
When I became President of the Federation in 1968, two of the key people who formed the team that helped me start my presidency and build for the future were Perry Sundquist and Hazel tenBroek. I asked Perry to serve as editor of the Monitor and Hazel to serve as associate editor, as well as manager of the Berkeley office. Both accepted the call to serve, and both have been essential ingredients in the success of our publication, a success unparalleled in the history of periodicals for the blind.
With this issue Perry and Hazel cease their editorial relationship with the Monitor but not, of course, their work in the movement or their warm relationship with the President. That is a lifetime involvement.
In a second Open Letter this one to Perry Sundquist and Hazel tenBroek President Jernigan further summarized the joint accomplishment of the two editors over the years: I will simply say that with you, Perry, as editor and you, Hazel, as associate editor, the Braille Monitor has been tremendously effective and important in improving the lives of the blind. During your tenure we have more than doubled our circulation, increased public awareness, brought changes to the agencies, and stimulated the blind to a greater sense of determination and self-realization than ever before in history. Not bad for eight years. He went on to quote from earlier correspondence with Sundquist in which their professional relationship had come under discussion. In one of those letters the President had written:
This brings me to the question of the relationship of the three of us. As I see it, your function is that of editor that is, working within the policy laid down by the publisher; to write articles; select and reject material; and plan the overall pattern of publication for the months ahead. Your initiation of the series Meet Our State President and Our State Affiliate is a good and constructive example of this. You receive articles, correspond with members and affiliates about the Monitor, and stimulate a flow of information. As I see it, my role corresponds to the one ordinarily assumed by the publisher of a newspaper or magazine that is, I lay down the policy as to the kind of editorial positions we will take. Carrying out this function, I may decide, for instance, that we want to exclude a given type of article or that we want to emphasize a given situation to try to achieve an organizational purpose. From the beginning of time, publishers have also assumed the prerogative (much to the annoyance of editors) of vetoing a given article which they don't like often on pure whim if they feel like it. Also, publishers have, since the memory of man, insisted on inserting articles which they have taken a fancy to or which they themselves have written even if such articles have been possessed of no literary merit at all and have upset the plans and the ulcers of the editor. In this respect I call on you to read the history of the stormy relationship existing between Joseph Pulitzer and a whole series of saintly souls. Editor and publisher should serve as a balance wheel to each other. Each must try (as gently as possible) to keep the other from going off the deep end, from damaging the publication with the more obvious madnesses, and from settling into a dull routine.
Having said all this, let me now come back to the specifics of the articles. I believe that you, Hazel, and I make a good team. The three of us balance each other quite well. If Hazel had her way (and she usually does not get it), the Monitor would be a learned tome, full of scholarship and dust, disturbed by nobody. If you had your way (and you sometimes get it), the magazine would be a stringing together of popularized human interest stories with a good sprinkling of generalized welfare articles, read by some but not getting across the substantial organizational message. If I followed my natural bent (and I very often don't), I would make the magazine a solid stream of preachments exhorting people to get in and work in the organization. It would appeal to the hard core and convert some but lose the value of the audiences that both you and Hazel would tend to stimulate.
All of these approaches have their problems, but when you put them together, we have a darned good magazine the best one I have seen in the field of work with the blind. The fact of the success of our editorial policy and teamwork is to be found in the great organizational upsurge which we are experiencing and in the growing mailing list of the Monitor. I think there is little doubt that our magazine has more influence than any other periodical in the field today and that the enthusiasm for it is continuing to grow.
In another Open Letter addressed to Monitor readers, Jernigan announced the appointment of a new editor: He is Don McConnell, who has been associated for many years with the Federation and the Monitor. He learned his Federationism under Hazel's tutelage in the Berkeley Office. To Editor McConnell we say: `The task you undertake is formidable. You are now editor of the most influential publication in the field of work with the blind, but we have confidence that you will bring the Monitor to new heights of excellence. Be aggressive; be sensitive; be resourceful; and never hesitate to tell the truth, regardless of what the cost may seem to be. The rest will follow.'
Two and a half years later, President Jernigan found himself reluctantly addressing another Open Letter to Monitor readers in order to announce the resignation of Editor McConnell. Recalling their years of association, Jernigan wrote: It was the beginning of a very successful series of Monitor editions. It was also the beginning of a very productive and harmonious relationship.Mr. McConnell is a good writer; he has editorial capability and perspective; and he is a knowledgeable and dedicated member of the movement. His participation in the movement will, of course, continue, but it will be difficult to find his equal as an editor. Jernigan went on to note that, pending the employment of a new editor, Jim Gashel and I will pool our efforts to produce the Monitor. I hope this will be a very brief interlude, for the editing of the Monitor is a full time and demanding job.
Don McConnell, the retiring editor, penned his own farewell in the form of an Open Letter to Federationists which was published in the next issue of the Monitor (July-August, 1979). Observing that his years at the national headquarters were the two most eventful and dramatic years of my life as well as the most rewarding, McConnell presented a thoughtful recollection of the Federation, its members, and its leaders which sought to define and illustrate certain salient characteristics of the movement in its active phase:
OPEN LETTER TO FEDERATIONISTS
by Donald McConnell
As I reflect on my years working for the NFB, a number of characteristics of the organization strike me. The Federation has many faces. If you visit local chapters, it can appear to be an organization of bake sales and committee reports. During the social times at conventions, it is a huge and friendly family. But when the large core of active Federation leaders go into action, the striking feature of the NFB is its cohesiveness and the ability of Federationists to act as a team. Two examples in particular come to mind: the White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals and the FAA demonstration last July. During the ill-starred White House Conference, a group of about three dozen Federationists completely out-maneuvered the Conference staff expensive consultants and all and organized a coalition of handicapped consumers that all but took over the Conference. At last July's convention, with fewer than 48 hours' notice, 1,000 Federationists were on the street in front of the Federal Aviation Administration. Even though the day between the decision to demonstrate and the demonstration itself was a national holiday, the pickets carried printed picket signs and even had box lunches on the buses coming over from Baltimore. And we were met in Washington by a massive turnout of the Washington press corps.
After both of these occasions, we were accused of having planned our action weeks in advance. The White House Conference staff told the press that it was obvious we had come to Washington prepared to disrupt the Conference, and they implied we had acted in bad faith. The same complaint came from the FAA. In neither case was it true. They just couldn't believe an organization (and one of blind people at that) could act with such unity and effectiveness.
I have one other reflection on my experience with the Federation, and it concerns a quality of our activity that explains all the rest. It has to do with the kind of people who are in the movement. There are plenty of blind persons who for one reason or another choose not to be part of the Federation. But it is my experience that the best blind people do belong. People call the NFB just one more special interest group, but there is an important difference. Despite the tangible gains we have made for the blind the liberalization of Social Security rules, for example the people who benefit are in general not those who put themselves on the line. The blind persons who institute civil rights lawsuits know in advance that whatever the outcome, they will personally bear enormous burdens with little in the way of reward. But they know that the legal principles they establish will help all those who come after. The blind who jeopardize their jobs by demonstrating in front of a repressive lighthouse are in general not the lighthouse employees who will benefit from the action. Many of the most active Federationists have already made it; they could isolate themselves and leave their fellow blind to do the best they can. But they don't do this. Federationists realize that, however it may look, they did not make it on their own; and they acknowledge the responsibility this puts on them. This widespread acknowledgment of responsibility and the obligation to act on it no matter what the personal consequences makes the National Federation of the Blind almost unique in the world. It is what, for me, has made it an honor and a privilege to have been given a chance to have a part in it. Without question the Federation has changed my life and in a way that I will always be grateful for.
Kenneth Jernigan, in his 1979 letter to Monitor readers disclosing McConnell's resignation, expressed the hope that his own editorial involvement with the magazine would be a very brief interlude. That was to turn out to be one of Jernigan's less accurate anticipations; more than a decade later he would still be occupying the editor's chair. In the first year after his assumption of the editorship, Jernigan wrote in a Monitor report that: I am working with Jim Gashel these days as a sort of co-editor of the Monitor. It's fun, but it crowds a busy schedule even further. He recalled that following his previous tenure as editor the Monitor had gone out of business: Anyway we didn't start publication again until 1964. This time I have already been at it for more than four months, and there seems to be no indication that we are about to close shop; so I guess that shows progress.
The progress of the Monitor then and in the decade to follow was much greater than that diffident remark suggested; and the progress came fast. In his 1983 Presidential Report to the Kansas City convention, Jernigan could say: We have expanded the distribution of our magazine, the Braille Monitor. It now goes to every congressional office and to every agency doing work with the blind in the country. It is beyond question the most influential publication in the field today.
To be sure, not every reader of the Monitor either inside or outside the movement approved of the way in which the magazine was being run. One fairly new reader (and NFB member) wrote a sternly critical letter to the editor protesting nearly everything he had read in the Monitor over the five months he had known of it. Perhaps to his surprise, the letter received a long and thoughtful reply from Co-editor Kenneth Jernigan. Following is that correspondence as published in the December, 1983, Monitor:
October 1, 1983
To The Editor of the Braille Monitor:
I am writing this letter after five months of reading the Monitor in Braille. I wish to comment on the content and the format of the magazine. This letter is not addressed to a specific person, because nowhere in the Monitor does it say who the Editor is.
A major problem in producing materials in Braille is the cost. Therefore, it is very disturbing to see how much space is wasted in the Monitor. Three of the first six pages of Part I of the August-September issue are blank. Often between articles, an entire page is wasted before the next article begins. I hope this will be corrected.
Sifting through the contents of the Monitor makes it apparent that NFB is dealing with important items and doing good work. However, these issues are so buried in NFB rhetoric and biased reporting as to be lost to the reader. Why is it not possible to label editorials as editorials, and separate them from facts and news. Are the people in the National Office viewing the average NFB member as not capable of taking the facts and determining who is right without being led by the nose? This goes against what NFB supposedly stands for. The Monitor is read by people in the blindness field who could become friends of the Federation. Some do not because articles in the Monitor supposedly reporting on important issues and accomplishments of the Federation, are headed with exceedingly biased headlines, and filled with hateful comments. This hurts the cause of the blind persons in the Federation and those who are potential members.
The Monitor is not well organized, in contrast to almost every other magazine I have read. Articles appear in random order with no relationship to one another. In other magazines there are sections in which articles on similar topics or of the same degree of importance are grouped together. Both in the Monitor Miniatures (and in the Monitor in general) articles just appear one after another with no rhyme or reason. This makes it difficult to read.
I hope you will give my comments serious consideration. They come from someone who is a Federation member and supports what the Federation wants. But I see a lot in the Monitor that is confusing, disorganized, and biased. I would like this to change.
Sincerely,
October 24, 1983
Dear Mr.:
I have your letter of October 1, 1983, and I thank you for it. The reason that certain parts of pages are left blank in the Braille Edition of the Monitor is so that the metal plates may be used to make reprints of articles. The American Printing House for the Blind does the formatting, not the people in the National Office of the Federation. The Printing House also Brailles a great many other magazines. Perhaps they could do it more judiciously, but in the circumstances I doubt it.
Let me now turn to your comments about the tone and substance of the Monitor. I do not agree with you that the reporting is biased, but my reasons for feeling that way probably spring from the same source as your reasons for feeling that bias exists. In other words I agree (and, of course, I would since I do much of the writing) with what the Monitor says. When you find a particular article with which you disagree (especially if the disagreement is strong) you are likely to feel that the article is based on prejudice.
You suggest that editorials should be labeled as such and that news should be reported without comment. If you will reconsider the matter, you may conclude that our practice is more honest than that which many publications claim to follow. It is not possible to publish so-called facts without expressing opinion and editorializing. By the very virtue of what you select to print, you create a pattern, editorialize, and exercise censorship.
Once you select the subject, you further editorialize by what facts you print and what you leave out. You editorialize by where you place material in the article and even by the subordination of sentences. Finally, you editorialize by your choice of words: He stated he alleged he declared he insisted he protested he averred etc. All of these verbs might be used interchangeably to express the same action; but oh what a difference in impression. In short, what editorializing! Yet, if you are to write the article at all you must use one or another of these verbs or something else equally slanted. And this does not even take into account the adjectives and adverbs, which abound and proliferate. Read the average newspaper story or magazine article, and see whether what I am telling you is the truth.
The Monitor uses straight language, but I believe that it scrupulously tells the truth. When we make a mistake (as everybody sometimes does), we do not wait for somebody to insist that we print a retraction. We do it immediately and ungrudgingly. Furthermore, we print the retraction as prominently and as fully as the original erroneous statement. I can show you evidence from the pages of the Monitor to prove it.
This in no sense takes away from the fact that our language is sometimes quite blunt. We have, for instance, said in a number of cases that this or that individual has been guilty of stealing money intended for the blind. Should we have pussyfooted around and said that the individual misappropriated, borrowed, or purloined the money? I think not. In the instances I have in mind the individuals were convicted by courts of law and sent to the penitentiary. I think we would have been editorializing (and in a very dishonest and destructive manner) if we had used any other words than the ones we chose.
To the best of my knowledge no other publication in our field reported these incidents at all. Yet, they knew about them. I have proof that they did. By neglecting to report these stories did these magazines not editorialize? Yes, they did but they will not be accused of it. They will be regarded as very genteel. I have another word for their conduct, and it is probably one that you would regard as editorializing.
The fact that we report bluntly and truthfully and that we do not avoid controversial topics does not mean, as you suggest, that we demonstrate hate (a word, by the way, which itself carries editorial connotations). We do not hate the people who exploit the blind, but we certainly do deplore their actions; and we have every intention of exposing such actions and such people for what they are. Let those who like it like it, and let those who dislike it dislike it.
In my opinion the National Federation of the Blind has done more to improve the lives of blind people than any other single entity or force which has existed during the twentieth century, and I think that one of the principal reasons is our willingness (no, our insistence) that the truth be told and things be called what they are regardless of controversy or bitter personal attacks against us or attempts to silence us by trying to destroy our organization. Let us not confuse lack of courage with morality, or blunt truth-telling with hate. I remind you of the words of George Bernard Shaw: I am firm; you are stubborn; he is pigheaded.
Let me now leave the subject of editorializing and deal with some of the other points you raise. First I would like to comment on the matter of whether Federationists can be led around by the nose. It cannot be done, whether from inside or outside, whether by friend or foe. The agencies cannot do it; the public cannot do it; you, by the comments in your letter, cannot do it; and, for that matter, I cannot do it. The Federation members are a very sophisticated population, more so than any other group concerned with blindness. They cannot be flim flammed or bamboozled and they will not be stampeded. They can distinguish rhetoric from opinion and opinion from fact, and they are not so immature or lacking in self-assurance that they are likely to be disturbed by somebody else's view concerning their method of locomotion.
You say that you are a Federationist and that you have been reading the Monitor for five months. This would indicate (and it is clear from the tone of your comments that such is the case) that you have not yet attended one of our National Conventions. Several thousand of us come together for a week of discussion and decision making, and we speak our minds and have our say. The convention is the supreme authority of the organization. It makes the policies, and the elected leaders follow those policies. Otherwise, they will stop being the elected leaders, and somebody else will replace them.
One of the most persistent myths which our agency opponents continually try to perpetuate is that the elected leaders of the Federation (and particularly I as President) do not truly speak for the membership and do not accurately reflect their desires and feelings. Not only is this total nonsense but it is also wishful thinking. Let those who doubt it come to the convention and put it to the test. No one steamrollers Federationists into going where they do not wish to go, and they know precisely and exactly what their goals are and how they intend to achieve them.
As an example, the Monitor is edited just the way the overwhelming majority of Federationists want it edited. If it were not, there would be changes. The articles are not scattered through the magazines without, as you put it, rhyme or reason and in random order. There are patterns and purposes. The fact that an individual has not yet perceived or understood those patterns and purposes does not mean that they do not exist.
You say that no one is listed as Editor of the Monitor. If you had been in the Federation longer, you would have more background on this point. In 1979 the person who was editing the Monitor resigned, and it was announced that James Gashel and I (along with help from a few others) would do the editing until and unless we found someone else to do it. That is still the arrangement; although, it must be said that I have come to do more and more of the work as the months have gone by to the point that, if you have any quarrels with how the magazine is edited, the responsibility is probably mine. I guess I should go on to say that I rather enjoy the job and will probably keep doing it (always keeping in mind what I said about pleasing the majority of the membership or getting kicked out). In the meantime I keep doing the work and finding it fun. Let me deal with one final point. You say that the Monitor is read by people in the blindness field who could become friends of the Federation and that they do not because of the way the magazine is written. Perhaps this gets at the very heart of what we are discussing. If we were to write the Monitor in such a way as to please those people in the blindness field about whom you are talking, most of us would feel the Federation was of little further value. Our movement was not established simply to be one more bland pretense, one more means of living easy and avoiding stepping on toes, one more preacher of pious platitudes. Regardless of the consequences, we have remained true to our purpose, and this is why we are the strongest force in the affairs of the blind today. It is no mere slogan or catch phrase when we say: We know who we are, and we will never go back.
Very truly yours, Kenneth Jernigan, President National Federation of the Blind
P. S. How many other organizations or groups in this field do you know that would be willing to print (unedited, unaltered, and without deletion) such a letter from one of their members? Think about it. It will tell you a lot.
From its maiden issue in the late fifties, the Braille Monitor was unapologetically an activist publication, reflecting the urgent social purposes of the movement it served. To the best of their abilities its early editors and writers reported on the hot spots and trouble spots in the field of work with the blind; but of necessity their range was limited and their coverage narrow. For one thing, funds were scarce in those days; for another, the Monitor was a different kind of animal, journalistically, and its role and character were not yet clear. There were few precedents for what the National Federation of the Blind was doing in the world; and there were fewer still for what the Monitor was seeking to do in its pages. It sought, among other things, to combine the intimacy of a community newsletter with the broad sweep of a national news magazine. It sought also, on one hand, to step back from the fray and reflect philosophically on its meaning, while on the other hand taking the plunge and joining the fight without equivocation. In time these differing purposes would come to be accommodated as complementary rather than contradictory elements in a novel editorial pattern: what might be termed a participative journalism of engagement, a town meeting on the page. At that future time the Braille Monitor would come fully of age.
The stages of journalistic evolution through which the Monitor would pass before it reached maturity can be traced in the files of bound volumes stretching from the fifties through the eighties. In the earliest issues the contents were taken up almost exclusively with organizational matters as witness the table of contents for the edition of September, 1957, which contained a total of seventeen items in a grand total of nineteen pages (small even for that period). The titles, largely self-explanatory, were listed as follows: Setting the Record Straight Current Developments Postal Inquiry Dropped The Helpless Blind Misconceptions Bill Taylor Gets the Axe NFB Pins A Highly Significant Clarification NFB Tape Program Begins Illinois' Loss-Nevada's Gain A Resolution Financial Support to This Magazine A Great Loss Legislative Success in Illinois Oregon Legislative Report State Conventions Here and There.
Apart from the modest size of that Monitor issue, it displayed a considerable scope and variety of subject matter, ranging from the political to the personal. The contents demonstrated the range of the Federation's activities, but the major emphasis was on legislative programs and internal matters. Nearly all of the items were brief notices of one or two paragraphs, a format which may have reflected both financial stringency and the exclusively Braille publication of that opening season. Within months the print edition was to make its appearance, and the role of President tenBroek and the Berkeley office to take on greater significance.
The nature of that significance was not to be fully appreciated until the sixties when tenBroek became the primary editor and steadily imposed his own personality and style, as well as his philosophy, upon the Monitor. By 1967, a full decade after its inauguration and the final year of tenBroek's career, the NFB's monthly magazine was thoroughly identified with its editor and guiding spirit. Here is the table of contents for a typical issue during that year:
THE BRAILLE MONITOR AUGUST, 1967 CONTENTS
Convention Roundup London Blind Workers' Demonstrations End In Victory
IFB Executive Committee Meeting
NFB Testifies In Congressional Hearings
by John Nagle
Tom Joe Goes To Pennsylvania
National Federation of the Blind Student Division News
by Ramona Willoughby
Minnesota Scores Gains
Agencies For The Blind And Tuning
by Stanley Oliver
End Of Social Dislocation Of Leprosy Patients
by O. W. Hasselbled, M.D.
Aloha To Hawaii
by Anthony Mannino
The WCWB Executive Meeting
Blind Student Stereotype Tested
Monitor Miniatures
Are We Equal To The Challenge?
by Jacobus tenBroek
The Blind In Argentina
by Hugo Garcia Garcilazo
The Collecting Box In The Welfare State
by Douglas Houghton
NFB Testifies On Rehabilitation Amendment Of 1967 Statement
by John Nagle
What stands out from that 1967 table of contents, as contrasted with the titles of a decade earlier, is the greater range of topics (especially in geographical terms) and the larger size of the edition 52 pages compared with 19 in the 1957 issue. Short items still appear, but the articles have become substantial even apart from Dr. tenBroek's memorable last banquet address at the Los Angeles convention: Are We Equal to the Challenge? There is a distinctive international flavor to the contents (four articles); the Federation's testimony before Congress is reported in two episodes by the Chief of the Washington Office, John Nagle; the Los Angeles convention is covered in both breadth and depth; and there is a noteworthy report of elections in the year-old NFB Student Division, written by a student leader named Ramona Willoughby (who was elected secretary alongside a second vice president named Chuck Walhof, whom she was later to marry).
One decade later, in 1977, successions were occurring both in the presidency of the NFB and in the editorship of the Monitor but the face of the magazine remained unruffled and its contents displayed only continuity and progress. An attentive reader might, however, have noted a new degree of emphasis devoted to the concerns of civil rights. In a typical issue of that year (July, 1977), article after article virtually without exception dealt with an array of insults and injuries inflicted upon blind persons in their professional and personal lives, and with the measured responses to all of them undertaken by the National Federation of the Blind. This is how they appeared in the table of contents:
THE BRAILLE MONITOR JULY, 1977 CONTENTS
Note
The NFB Goes To Court To Defend Blind Vendors: The Jessie Nash Case
Civil Rights For The Handicapped: Potentials And Perils For The Blind
by James Gashel
The Light At The End Of The Tunnel: Another Invitation From NAC
New Hope For Justice In The Bohrer Case
by Ramona Walhof
AFL-CIO Launches Sheltered Shop Union-Organizing Campaign, While The AFB-NAC-ACB
Combine Argues Equality Can Only Hurt BlindPeople
by James Omvig
Progress In The Classroom: Overcoming Discrimination In The Teaching Profession
Gurmankin Decision Upheld By U.S. Court Of Appeals
O NAC, Where Is Thy Sting?
Recipe Of The Month
by Josephine Araldo
Monitor Miniatures
With the exception of the last two items in the contents standard entries both the entire table consisted of current issues immediately affecting the lives and livelihoods of blind Americans: in their business enterprises (the Jessie Nash case); in the classroom (the Gurmankin case); in the conduct of child care (the Bohrer case); in the sheltered shops (as reported by James Omvig); in the legislature (as reported by James Gashel), and in the continuing campaign against the agency gadfly known as NAC (two articles). This concentration upon civil rights issues affecting the blind was a graphic indication of changing times and oncoming generations in the organized blind movement of the shift away from traditional problems of subsistence and survival to the concerns of dignity and equality, of opportunity and access, of the rights and immunities of citizens. The Monitor, like a social seismograph, registered the tremors emanating from these sources of disturbance; it not only registered but documented them, providing a context and explanatory framework, building a record and preparing a brief. That was what it meant, in 1977, to be a monitor.
During the decade of the seventies, with the exception of a single year (mid-1977 to mid-1978), Kenneth Jernigan was the President of the Federation. But he was not the editor of the Monitor until 1978. Unquestionably his impact, as the leader of the movement, had been felt in the magazine during the seventies; but it was in the following decade that he moved into the foreground and placed the stamp of his personal style and character, directly and unmistakably, upon the Monitor.
The signature of the Jernigan style was to be displayed most prominently in two distinctive literary forms: those of investigative reporting and of the personal essay. Neither appeared for the first time in the eighties; the former had been foreshadowed by accounts of discrimination and repression in the days of the fight to organize, and the latter was anticipated by editorial jottings and ruminations in the earliest issues of the magazine. It remained for Jernigan as editor to inaugurate a policy of investigative journalism and for Jernigan as editorialist to exercise a penchant for the familiar essay.
Both of these journalistic forms, the expressive and the expository, were represented in a typical Monitor issue of 1987 a decade after the one last examined above. Once again the table of contents is worthy of reproduction for its evidence of the range of concerns then prevalent in the journal and the movement.
THE BRAILLE MONITOR JUNE-JULY, 1987 CONTENTS
Of Braille And Memories And The Matilda Ziegler
by Kenneth Jernigan
United Airlines Continues To Harass Blind People
Congressional Momentum In The Airline Controversy Increases
The Future Of A Blind Guy
by Gary Wunder
Building My Piano Business
by Al Sanchez
Payoff Speaks Nancy Squeaks
by Kenneth Jernigan
The Three Barretts Growing In The Federation
by Ramona Walhof
Jim Moynihan Responds To Professor Eames And Ms. Gardner
Blind Of Milwaukee Produce Television Program
David Stayer Statement Of Principle
Low Vision As An Alternative Technique
by Richard Mettler
Blood, Signatures, And Safety
by Marc Maurer
On The Nature Of Budgets, Controversy, And Censorship
Another Barrier Falls: Victory In IRS Employment
Monitoradio
The lead article in this richly packed and diversified issue Of Braille and Memories and the Matilda Ziegler was vintage Jernigan in his essayist mode. (The complete text of the essay is reprinted in Chapter Seven of this volume.) The next two articles were illustrative of the editor, and the Federation, in the attack mode; they presented two contributions in a long-sustained campaign to secure the rights of blind airline passengers. The following two entries, by Gary Wunder and Al Sanchez respectively, were personal stories in what used to be called the human interest vein. The more extended article, Payoff Speaks Nancy Squeaks, by Kenneth Jernigan, exemplified the method of investigative reporting and editorial exposure which was coming more and more to characterize the journalism of the Braille Monitor in the decade of the eighties. In this instance the topic was a politically inspired appointment to the directorship of the Iowa Commission for the Blind which had become unraveled through the hard-hitting media coverage of the Braille Monitor and TV's Sixty Minutes, among others. Something of the flavor of the Jernigan article may be gleaned from its opening paragraphs:
In the recent sorry history of the Iowa Commission for the Blind no episode has been more grubby than the story of Nancy Norman. When John Taylor was fired as director in 1982, the Governor's office and the Commission board made a great to-do about the fact that they were instituting a nationwide search to get the best possible candidate. After much fanfare and window dressing an unknown named Nancy Norman was given the nod. This was done despite the fact that there were qualified applicants and that Ms. Norman had no experience at all in the field of work with the blind.
As the full scenario began to be revealed, the story was even worse than it had first appeared. Ms. Norman's husband was the law partner of the man who was then chairman of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. Moreover, her husband was also a heavy contributor to the war chest of Iowa's current Governor, who was at that time a candidate and running hard. So the much ballyhooed search was simply a disgusting charade, and the appointment was nothing more than a political payoff and (in view of the law partnership) a sort of secondhand nepotism. Under the circumstances it is not surprising that the results were a failure.
Each of the remaining articles in this representative 1987 issue of the Monitor contributed to the overall balance of the contents. Ramona Walhof (nee Willoughby) presented the real-life domestic drama of a young Federation couple, Pat and Trudy Barrett, and their successful struggle to adopt a child: thus, The Three Barretts Growing in the Federation. Indirectly that story was also about Ramona Walhof and her capacities as a leader and friend; but this sub-theme had to be read between the lines. Another very personal, and inspirational, article touching on the deeper meanings of Federationism in the lives of many members was A Statement of Principle, by David Stayer (well-remembered by convention-goers for his ringing tenor delivery of the invocation in song). A definite shift in perspective from the personal to the professional was provided by a controversial but authoritative article on Low Vision as an Alternative Technique, by Richard Mettler. Next, as if to assure an even greater stretch in the Monitor's coverage, there was a lurid-sounding entry carrying the by-line of NFB President Marc Maurer Blood, Signatures, and Safety which turned out to be an account of determined efforts by Federationists in Minnesota, led by the redoubtable Judy Sanders, to participate in a blood plasma project despite the prejudice of program professionals. The NFB's President also reappeared in the contents with a patented Maurer article dealing with Federation involvement in litigation concerned with the rights of blind persons in this case, the right to sue under terms of the 1973 Amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the June-July issue of the Monitor rounded out its coverage with an astute set of guidelines, written by Patti Gregory of the NFB of Illinois, for blind job seekers facing the specter of an employment interview. There was truly something for everyone in that edition of the magazine; it fulfilled, with room to spare, the requirements laid down for a proper monitor to advise, to caution, and to warn. It also found time, more than once in those seventy pages, to inspire as well.
Toward the end of the decade the emphasis upon investigative reporting, introduced by Editor Jernigan, became more prominent and ambitious in its reach. Particularly instrumental in the implementation of this activist journalism was Barbara Pierce, whose appointment as Associate Editor was announced by Jernigan in the December 1988, Monitor. His introduction was accompanied by these remarks:
I have been looking for a long time (ten years, to be precise) for an associate editor and I am pleased to tell you that I have now found her. Beginning with this issue, Barbara Pierce, president of the National Federation of the Blind of Ohio and long-time leader at the national level, joins the Monitor staff.
Of course, Barbara is no stranger to Federationists or readers of this publication. She directs our national public relations campaign, participates prominently in National Conventions, and is sometimes seen at NAC demonstrations. She wrote the Monitor convention articles for the 1987 and 1988 National Conventions and is a frequent contributor to these pages. I believe she will do an excellent job as associate editor. I suppose I don't need to say that, for if I hadn't believed it, I wouldn't have asked her to serve.
So what will she do in her new position? She will read state and division newsletters to glean items for publication. She will do research on assigned topics for articles. She will think up topics on her own and do original writing. And she will serve as a sounding board, a copy girl, a workhorse, and an ambulatory and auditory adjunct for the Editor. It would now appear that she will spend something like every other week in Baltimore and the remainder of her time working at home. A big order? Yes, but that's how we are.
The increased accent on investigative journalism in the Monitor found full and formidable expression early in 1989 with the first of what was to be a series of powerful articles probing and exposing abusive, shabby, and criminal practices in various institutions bearing the NAC seal of approval most notably and shockingly in the schools for the deaf and blind of Florida and of Alabama. In the March, 1989, issue of the Monitor, readers were confronted with an astonishing litany of crimes, misdemeanors, and shoddy practices at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. Here is what they read:
FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND: A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR CHILDREN
The National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC) prides itself on its assertion that the public can count on
the NAC seal of approval as an indication of the excellence of the agency displaying
it. Twice in recent years the National Federation of the Blind has had occasion
to warn Floridians that the NAC seal, far from being a hallmark of quality,
is more often an indication that the institution in question is not serving
its constituents well. In the last year the citizens of the state have learned
with tragic clarity what we meant.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) enrolls 530 students from
as young as four years of age to twenty-one. Roughly 300 are students in the
department for the deaf; almost 100 are enrolled in the department for the blind;
and the remaining 128 are either deaf-multihandicapped or blind-multihandicapped.
The number of the multihandicapped was 129 until October 13, 1988, when Jennifer
Driggers, age nine, was scalded to death in the shower room at Vaill Hall, the
residence of 39 multihandicapped children.
On April 26, 1988, a twenty-two-year-old residence supervisor and Boy Scout
leader was fired and arrested for sexually assaulting seventeen deaf boys. He
is currently standing trial on twenty-four counts of sexual abuse. Four other
male staff members (including the father of the man currently standing trial)
have been prosecuted for criminal offenses against students of both sexes. One
of these four was a teacher in the department for the blind, and his offenses
were against blind girls enrolled at the School as students.
Tragedy and abuse have been a way of life at FSDB for several years. In September
of 1982, a fourteen-year-old student, Christi Eddleman, fell from her infirmary
bed and suffocated in the plastic trash basket liner beneath the bed. She died
of complications several months later. About two years ago a blind student,
James Thomas, was fatally injured while wrestling with a friend. In addition,
at least nine suicide attempts have been made by students at the school during
the past year, and abuse of children by other students and staff is widespread.
How could all this have happened in a school with an annual budget of eighteen
and a half million dollars and accreditation in good standing for its department
for the blind from NAC (the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving
the Blind and Visually Handicapped)? Is it that the staff members are irresponsible
and evil? Is it that the parents are heartless and uncaring? Is it that NAC
was too loose with its accreditation and lulled the public and officials of
state government with its seal of good standing and its assurance that the school
was providing quality services?
With respect to this question, there can be no doubt, for the sex offenses committed
by the teacher in the department for the blind occurred almost a year ago and
received publicity in the press. There was a court action with all of the trappings,
but the NAC accreditation was not withdrawn. At the time of this writing (January,
1989) NAC accreditation has still not been withdrawn. Only after (as detailed
later in this article) the Associate Editor of the Monitor called and asked
probing questions did NAC indicate that it might consider possibly perhaps taking
some sort of undefined action. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind
(a school riddled with student deaths, suicide attempts, and widespread sex
abuse of students by staff) is accredited with NAC's stamp of approval, and
that accreditation and approval still continue. Children die; children are subjected
to nightmarish unbelievable abuse; yet, NAC accreditation is not withdrawn.
If the defense by NAC is that it was unaware of the situation, that is almost
as damning as if it had known and failed to act. If the claim is that NAC knew
but was powerless, that is equally damning. If NAC (like Pontius Pilate) should
try to wash its hands of guilt by saying that the offenses have occurred in
the department for the deaf and not in the department for the blind and that,
therefore, NAC has no responsibility, that is perhaps most damning of all. Can
one department of an institution be pure while the other departments in the
overall structure are corrupt? Can a piece of an apple be sound and the rest
of it rotten? And what about the sex abuse in the department for the blind?
As we have probed into this house of horrors, we have repeatedly been told of
a feeling of despair on the part of the students, a fear to speak out. The revelations
are enough to make one weep with outrage, frustration, and sorrow.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind was founded a little over a hundred
years ago, and until 1979 it educated students in either the department for
the deaf or the department for the blind. That year the school accepted its
first multihandicapped students, and as a result (or, at least, this is the
claimed reason), its budget has increased by about thirty-two percent each year
since. The 1980 cost for educating each student at the School was reported as
$10,944. The cost in 1989 will be $34,943. Yet, each year since 1983 the school
has gone to the legislature, warning of dire consequences if it did not receive
even larger appropriations than it was given. Despite these predictions of doom,
the school (at least, so far as we can determine) has never had to refuse a
child because of overcrowding.
When asked, an FSDB official described the institution as being like a private
boarding school. Yet, the funding comes from the legislature. A seven-member
board of trustees runs the school and answers to the Governor's Cabinet, which
is also the State Board of Education. Although the Commissioner of Education
is one of the Governor's Cabinet (and is, therefore, a member of the State Board
of Education), this is the only connection between the School and the Department
of Education (DOE), which has no direct jurisdiction over the School. The School
has consistently argued that provisions of Public Law 94-142, the Education
of All Handicapped Children Act, do not apply to it.
Both blind and deaf children can qualify for admission to the School only by
meeting very specific medical criteria. Multihandicapped youngsters, on the
other hand, are designated as such by parents and FSDB officials and then enrolled.
If the staff cannot immediately determine whether a child meets the institution's
criteria, the practice has been to enroll him or her for (depending on which
official you believe) either thirty or ninety days while conducting an exhaustive
evaluation. It is not surprising that the natural inertia of the situation results
in the School's deciding to keep students who are already enrolled regardless
of the test results. Whether or not the local school district believes that
it is able to educate the child, the parent can choose to have a multihandicapped
youngster placed at FSDB if the school agrees.
Those close to the School report that since the passage of P.L. 94-142 and the
resulting mainstreaming of many handicapped children, the student body (even
in the Departments for the Blind and the Deaf) has changed. For example, about
eighty percent of the youngsters currently enrolled in the department for the
blind receive counseling of some kind. Relatively few students graduating from
the School go on to college.
But the 128 children designated as multihandicapped are not, for the most part,
profoundly disabled. Most are either blind or deaf and, in addition, exhibit
a behavioral or emotional disorder. Some are mentally retarded, but the retardation
is usually mild. It is clear from the catastrophic problems FSDB has had in
the past several years that supervising the students outside of school hours
presents staff with serious difficulties. Roughly 80% of the youngsters' time
is spent in their dormitories. We were told that the position of live-in house
parent was eliminated shortly after William T. Dawson became president of the
institution in the early 1980's. Differing reasons have been given for this
action. Some have said that the live-ins wanted to be moved on the campus not
for the good of the students but for their own convenience, but others have
said that there seemed to be concerns about abuses by staff if they spent long
periods of time with the children and that this is why the position of live-in
house parent was discontinued. Be this as it may, FSDB has paid a steep price
for its decision. The current practice is to have three eight-hour shifts of
residential supervisors, and the youngsters have no opportunity to form strong
relationships with house parents since every shift brings new supervisors into
the dormitory. There are also many more staff members to hire, train, and supervise.
According to an official state report, school administration and staff supervision
costs have grown until thirty-three percent of salaries are paid to administrators,
and twenty-seven percent of all School personnel have no day-to-day contact
with children. Whether as a result of the staff problems or for other reasons,
dismaying things have (according to the official report) happened in the dormitories.
Deaf-blind students have sometimes spent as much as seven hours without a staff
member nearby who could communicate with them. Children have been left for shockingly
extended periods of time (up to ten days) in seclusion, and even though the
staff-to-student ratio is one to six, children frequently abuse one another
without intervention or sometimes even without staff recognition (until later)
that injury has taken place.
The residential component of the School's program is not integrated with the
two educational departments. So, for example, the principal of the department
for the blind has (except tenuously) no involvement with the students in his
residential school except when they are engaged in academic pursuits. When we
interviewed Dennis Hartenstine (NAC's executive director), he said that NAC
could not comment on any part of the School's program which it did not accredit.
Presumably, therefore, if dormitory life is not considered part of the department
for the blind, NAC (as the accrediting body for the department for the blind)
might take the position that it is not involved in what goes on in the dormitory.
One can reasonably infer from the comments Hartenstine made in our interview
with him that this is the line of defense NAC will use if confronted with its
failings in Florida. Not many people would understand or give credence to such
hair-splitting distinctions. Most who have considered it at all have undoubtedly
assumed that the dormitory arrangements for blind children have been evaluated
and accredited along with the academic program in the department for the blind.
Jennifer Driggers was nine years old at the time of her death last October.
She was deaf, had some vision problems, and had an IQ of about thirty-five.
She functioned at a mental age of between two and three years. She seems also
to have had difficulty getting along with other children and staff. She frequently
exhibited aggressive behavior although no other student seems to have been injured
by her punching, pinching, and hair-pulling.
Jennifer arrived at the school five years ago and caused problems there throughout
her short life. In November of 1987 the members of the School staff who worked
with her recommended that she be transferred to another facility. Her disabilities,
they had concluded, were too profound for FSDB to manage effectively. The administration
did not sign this recommendation. In fact, record-keeping procedures at FSDB
are so faulty that senior members of the administration apparently did not even
know of the recommendation. At least President Dawson is reported to have seemed
genuinely shocked when he learned of this assessment at the hearings after Jennifer's
death.
Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind officials have been concerned because
members of the press have painted their institution in lurid colors. They urged
the Braille Monitor to be fair and even-handed in its treatment of the story.
Here, therefore, is the list of abuses against Jennifer Driggers culled from
staff notes in FSDB's own records. They were compiled and printed in the report
produced by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services:
11-22-85 A handful of Jennifer's hair was pulled out by another student.
11-15-86 Jennifer was hit by another student and found with blood on her face
and shirt due to a nose bleed. Also on 11-15-86, she was pushed by another child,
causing a bruise on her head.
01-25-87 Jennifer received a cut lip when she was hit by another student.
02-28-87 A blind boy called Jennifer an animal and pushed her.
04-09-87 Another student took Jennifer's clothes off while she was in bed and
beat her with a clotheshanger.
04-10-87 Another student hit Jennifer in the head and caused her to bleed.
05-27-87 Jennifer was involved in a fight with a boy was pushed down and this
resulted in severe bruises on both of her legs.
09-14-87 Jennifer was found to have severe scratches, her arms were bleeding,
there was broken glass found by her bed, and another child was thought to be
involved.
10-07-87 House parent left Jennifer to continue dressing herself, and when she
returned Jennifer was crying there were marks, bruises and open welts all over
her body. These injuries were determined to be inflicted by K.C. by using a
shoe and a coat hanger.
02-20-88 Another student hit Jennifer with an umbrella and caused her nose to
bleed.
03-26-88 Another student hit Jennifer and caused her to have a bloody nose.
06-06-88 Jennifer was kicked in the clavicle by another student.
09-10-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by another student.
09-12-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by another student.
09-13-88 Jennifer was bitten on the arm by another student.
09-16-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by another student.
09-21-88 Jennifer received a bloody nose after being hit by another student.
Additionally we found the following notes made by staff on the daily comment
sheets:
05-29-88 Staff stated, Can you believe Jennifer had no skills, cannot help herself
in any way, and has the nerve to try and be stubborn and hit someone! The nerve
of her!
09-09-88 Jennifer cries a lot. Children are pretty rough.
09-15-88 Staff had to push Jennifer slightly - then she accepted where she had
to be led.
09-16-88 Jennifer was pestered by other kids - cried. She is too lonely to be
here.
09-20-88 All these girls can hurt her bad if they blow up. She was lucky that
I was in every fight.
09-22-88 Jennifer needs closer supervision to prevent other kids from beating
her - happens a lot - kids can't stand her.
09-22-88 Jennifer being rejected by kids and staff (most). Getting more and
more bruises from kids. Staff member feels sorry for her.
09-23-88 Jennifer is a mess - bumps and bruises - starts when she hits or pulls
hair. Other kids hit back. Jennifer looks like a punching bag. Other kids okay.
Based on infirmary records and daily comment sheets, the following are incidents
of unexplained injuries to Jennifer:
11-20-84 Jennifer was found to have unexplained marks on her back.
10-15-85 Jennifer was referred to the infirmary for having redness and edema
on her face that was unexplained.
10-30-85 Jennifer was seen in the infirmary for a rash and red swollen face.
11-10-85 Jennifer was taken to the infirmary by dorm parent with unexplained
bruise on her left shoulder.
01-12-86 Jennifer was found to have an unexplained bruise on her left upper
hip. A notation was made that she had wet the bed and smelled bad.
02-13-86 Jennifer was found to have scratches on her face and neck with no explanation.
02-17-86 Jennifer was found bleeding from an unexplained laceration on her head
that had to be sutured at Flagler Emergency Room.
05-06-86 Jennifer was found to have abrasions on her arms, shoulders, and around
her neck with no explanation for these injuries.
05-20-86 Jennifer was found to have a bruise on her buttocks with scratches.
The house parent stated she did not know what happened but felt like she had
sat on something or had been jabbed with something. Later that same day she
was found to have an unexplained bruise on her cheek.
11-15-86 Dorm parent found an abrasion on Jennifer's elbow, bumps and abrasions
to the child's forehead while the dorm parent was giving her a shower.
11-20-86 The dorm parent found a bump and swelling on Jennifer's forehead. Severe
enough for the child to be taken to the Flagler Emergency Room with no explanation
for the injury.
05-09-87 Jennifer was found to have abrasions on her back. They were diagnosed
as rug burns with no explanation.
10-07-87 Jennifer was found to have a bruise on her forearm.
01-08-88 Jennifer was found to have scratch on her forehead with no explanation.
02-12-88 Jennifer was found bleeding from the mouth. A tooth was missing - the
tooth could not be located.
02-17-88 Jennifer had abrasions across her abdomen. Doctor diagnosed them as
a rug burn.
02-18-88 Jennifer was found to have a black and blue mark on her upper arm with
no explanation.
04-21-88 Jennifer was found to be bruised on her buttocks with no explanation.
09-22-88 Jennifer was found to have puffiness on right eye, curved mark on her
cheek - school questions whether this may be a belt mark - many bruises on her
legs.
09-30-88 Several round marks described as hickies on Jennifer's face and neck
and cuts and scratches with no explanation.
10-30-88 Jennifer was found scalded and unconscious in a shower in Vaill Hall,
which resulted in her death.
One hardly knows how to react to such a document. Granted, FSDB officials did
not have the advantage of reading a tidily written report before this child
was fatally injured, but the data were there. The staff knew that serious problems
existed. Something is profoundly wrong in a system that has no mechanism for
preventing what happened to this child.
Precisely what did happen is not clear. Jennifer suffered from a complicated
intestinal problem, to combat which she was to be given a high-fiber diet. She
was then to be placed on the toilet in a comfortable position for thirty minutes
at a time. She was to have things to amuse her while she sat. The Health and
Rehabilitative Services report states that no change was made in her diet. She
apparently was placed on the toilet without the use of a footstool for comfort
and was given neither toys nor books. The supervisor had to attend to other
children who were decorating for Halloween, so she left two mildly retarded
girls, ages twelve and seventeen, to supervise Jennifer. What happened next
will never be known. At some point Jennifer vomited, but whether this was while
she was still seated or after she was in the shower room seems to be in dispute.
She removed her clothes and went (or was taken) into the shower area. One shower
head did not have tempered water. All the others were adjusted in such a way
that the water could not get too hot. In this one, however, the water temperature
was eventually measured at 139 degrees fahrenheit. The staff reported that Jennifer
Had a propensity for turning on the hot water in the showers and tubs. But her
mother said that Jennifer was frightened of hot water. The two girls have said
that they felt the vibration when Jennifer fell. They looked into the shower
area and tried to remove her but could not. They then went for help, and the
staff were eventually able to remove the child. Testimony before the grand jury
indicated that the supervisor was away for only about eighteen minutes. But
a source close to the situation told the Braille Monitor that the medical examiner
reported she must have been exposed to the hot water for at least thirty minutes
for her flesh to have been as thoroughly cooked as it was.
To one reading the bald facts of this tragedy, it seems incredible that the
grand jury found no one at fault or even negligent in this situation. According
to one source, the School was able to make its case convincingly that there
was simply not enough money to provide adequate supervision. The supervisor
on duty did not seem to have broken any rules, and apparently no one was prepared
to place blame on the two retarded students. But even if the grand jury was
not willing to find the School negligent, it did make recommendations. Here
they are:
Dormitory staff members need training in recognizing and reporting abuse, aggression
control and sign language communications.
A central filing system for all injury reports should be maintained. Appropriate
dorm staff-to-student ratios should be established for multihandicapped students.
The grand jury found 10 to 17 multihandicapped students have routinely been
left alone with a single staff member for an entire shift. Dormitory staff members
should get emergency training. Dormitory teachers should be made aware of the
medical condition of each multihandicapped student in their care. A position
at the school should be established to get parents of students quick information
about their children. Regular reviews of programs at the school should be started.
The 911 emergency system should be updated to pinpoint the exact location of
school buildings.
That is what the grand jury recommended, and we wonder again about the NAC accreditation.
Is it really conceivable that conditions were this bad in other parts of the
School and not bad in the department for the blind? How can one segment of an
institution (an institution with the problems of FSDB) be accredited in isolation
from the rest of the facility? The members of the grand jury were not the only
ones looking at the Driggers case and offering suggestions. Florida's newspapers
have been full of the case for months. On November 13, 1988, the St. Augustine
Record printed a story that dredged up old memories that the School would, no
doubt, have preferred to let rest. Here is what it said:
Driggers Death Mirrors
6-Year-Old D & B Tragedy
by Cynthia Beach
Change the time and place, and the deaths of 14-year-old Christi Eddleman and
9-year-old Jennifer Driggers are all too similar. Both girls died in bizarre
incidents six years apart at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind one
in a scalding shower, the other suffocating inside a trash bag. Both raised
questions about supervision at the state school. Each brought conflicting reports
of how long the girls were left alone. Miss Eddleman's case ended with a $125,000
out-of-court settlement. No media attention. No pickets or grand jury. And,
according to some, no answers.
The basis of the suit was negligent supervision, said Tampa attorney Robert
Banker, who represented Miss Eddleman's mother, Donna. I felt some confusion
among the people that were supervising the infirmary at the time.
I felt, yes, there was a lack of supervision in Christi's case, Banker added,
and I was ready to prove it. During Banker's preparation of the case, FSDB officials
were queried about staffing ratios. Banker argued if there had been additional
supervision, the brown-haired girl might still be alive.
Miss Eddleman was found unconscious under her infirmary bed by an aide around
10:15 a.m. Sept. 8, 1982. She suffocated from a garbage bag and garbage can
covering her head. She was found with her arms crossed over her chest. Suffering
from brain damage, the girl remained in a coma until she died on May 2, 1983.
I was very dissatisfied with the whole situation, Mrs. Eddleman said. They tried
to act like she committed suicide. We really didn't get any answers.
Miss Eddleman, who was blind from birth, slightly retarded, and epileptic, was
on medication and feeling nauseated when she checked into the facility.
With one nurse on duty and two other children in the infirmary, Miss Eddleman
was left under the supervision of a maid while the nurse was in a separate section
of the facility to tend to other children. FSDB officials said, however, the
woman was hired as a nurse's aide, in addition to a custodian. Robert Dawson,
president of Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, testified to Banker
that Miss Eddleman was left alone for five minutes. Banker said the time she
was left alone was never resolved, but evidence was submitted that she remained
alone up to 20 minutes.
Dawson refused an interview about the lawsuit. FSDB public information officer
Mary Jane Dillon replied to questions about the case with He (Dawson) had no
recollection of an allegation of neglect. Yet an attorney for Banker's firm
sent a letter to Dawson dated Nov. 17, 1982, saying an investigation conducted
into this matter indicates that Christi's injuries were caused solely by the
negligence of employees of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind.
Dawson met recently with officials of the state's Office of Risk Management
in Tallahassee, the agency which oversees civil lawsuits against state agencies.
Said Mrs. Dillon, In a meeting with an official with risk management in Tallahassee...
it was confirmed it was not an issue of neglect. An attorney representing the
state, Bernard McLendon of Jacksonville, responded to the suit in 1984 by placing
the blame on the girl. He contended the death was due to the carelessness and
negligence of the deceased.
Nurse Betty Frady, who was on duty at the time of her death, told Banker she
was short-handed in the infirmary at the time because another nurse who was
supposed to be on duty had called in sick. A replacement was not called in.
Only the maid would keep an eye on the students when she (Ms. Frady) was up
in the clinic, testified the infirmary's head nurse, Shirley Harvey.
The staffing standards had been compiled by the FSDB board of trustees, who
had no medical training, said Dawson, except one member who was a dentist.
Banker also questioned why the infirmary staff allowed the child to use the
bathroom alone, leaving her unattended with a tub, sink, shower, and mirror.
But, he added, My impression of that school was it's a good school. They do
wonderful things up there. Through no fault of their own, they probably didn't
have enough money to care for the kids. The death was investigated by the St.
Augustine Police Department, who ruled the death accidental after interviewing
staff members. Mrs. Eddleman told police she found a large bruise on her daughter's
right side.
As a result of her death, changes in the infirmary were implemented, according
to Dawson's testimony. We immediately took all the plastic bags out of the wastebaskets,
and the nurses were told, `From here on out, you're not going to have coffee
together,' said Dawson, according to court records. But the death of Miss Driggers
has resulted in more than a $125,000 settlement.
The St. Johns County grand jury is investigating, along with probes (ordered
by Gov. Bob Martinez) of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Those reports are expected
to be completed by December. Deputy State Attorney Steve Alexander said the
jury will reconvene when the Florida Department of Law Enforcement report is
completed, and a presentment will follow. Department of Education Commissioner
Betty Castor has allocated approximately $100,000 to the school for immediate
additional staffing at Vaill Hall, the dorm where Miss Driggers died. The jury
investigation also could look into requests made by FSDB trustees and allocations
given by the Florida Legislature relating to staffing.
If I don't get answers here, said Miss Driggers' mother, Robin Williams, I'm
not going to stop.
That was the November 13, 1988, story in the St. Augustine Record , and it is
easy to see why the reporter was reminded of the earlier tragedy as she worked
on the Driggers story. It is also clear that tragic lapses in staff supervision
of students at FSDB are not recent or isolated occurrences. The Department of
Education managed to find $100,000 immediately in order to provide ten more
dormitory supervisors for Vaill Hall. Though several months have passed since
the allocation was made, our information indicates that no additional personnel
have yet been hired. Even if (as some have alleged) the delay is more a matter
of bureaucratic inertia than laxness on the part of the School, those involved
are still culpable. The Department of Education's response to the School's lament
that eighteen and a half million dollars a year is not enough to run the School
was the first indication that the funding excuse might be taken seriously as
a mitigating circumstance. The grand jury's decision in December of 1988 was
the second. But not everyone was prepared to say that the School was blameless.
At FSDB, School officials seem to believe that the press has been unjust to
the institution. They say that the School has been the victim of bad luck and
that no one set out to harm these children except, of course, the five male
staff members who assaulted students and, after all, they were fired. The press,
however, was not the only body to criticize the School as ultimately responsible
for what happened to Jennifer and the others.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) was charged with
the duty of investigating the School in the wake of the Driggers death. On December
7, 1988, it released an exhaustive study. An independent organization called
Therapeutic Concepts, Inc. conducted the actual assessment of the facility,
and HRS officials wrote the final report, including eighty-five recommendations.
On December 8, 1988, the St. Augustine Record printed two stories about the
case, the HRS report, and the FSDB Board of Trustees' reaction. Here are both:
HRS Report Blasts FSDB: Agency Urges Dismantling of Trustees Board
by Cynthia Beach
Unqualified staff, an insensitive administration and excessive physical and
mental abuse of students at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind were
cited in a hypercritical report released late Wednesday by a state health agency.
Sweeping suggestions by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services for the state-run school include dismantling the board of trustees
and freezing student enrollment.
The school provides residential and academic programs for deaf, blind, and (on
an increasing level) multi-handicapped students. And although a dorm for multi-handicapped
students is dangerous for children, the report says, students are at risk of
abuse in all FSDB residential facilities.
In addition to nine suicidal acts by students during the past year, drug abuse
and depression may also be problems among FSDB students, it states.
An administration which receives 33 percent of the school's tax-funded salaries,
it says, has been uninvolved in the day-to-day operation of the school. A general
lack of accountability of school administration coupled with poor management
practices also was outlined. The report calls Vaill Hall, the dorm for multi-handicapped
students such as the late Jennifer Driggers, a poorly staffed, inadequate facility.
The findings and recommendations are part of a 100-page report completed by
HRS investigators and a private consulting firm, Therapeutic Concepts Inc. of
Jacksonville. The report was released Wednesday following a press conference
by Gov. Bob Martinez.
Martinez called for the probes following the Oct. 13 death of 9-year-old Jennifer
Driggers, a deaf, multi-handicapped dorm student. Miss Driggers died after being
left unattended in a scalding dorm shower.
HRS officials feel the school provides excellent overall classroom instruction,
but the health and safety of multi-handicapped children and other dorm students
have been largely overlooked. The report says about 80 percent of the students'
time is spent in dorms, as opposed to 20 percent of time in classrooms.
Aside from staffing inadequacies, HRS officials found poor sanitary conditions
for food preparation, fire code violations, a lack of security, inappropriate
disciplinary practices, and students who were afraid of reprisal if they reported
abuse. Close to 19 percent of the 530 students reported being abused since 1981,
with four abuse cases involving neglect at the school.
Miss Driggers, according to separate reports, had been the subject of physical
abuse numerous times while at the school, including being beaten by a coat hanger.
The report says some students appeared traumatized by the death of Miss Driggers,
but FSDB administration and staff appear insensitive to their mental health
needs.
The report, without a timetable, recommends:
· A review by the Florida Department of Education on a corrective plan
of action by FSDB staff.
· A review of the mission of the school.
· Placement of Vaill Hall under licensed supervision.
· Evaluation of all dorms.
· Establishment of licensing standards by HRS through legislation. Suggested
are the founding of a support program for abused children and improved reviews
of students' educational progress.
The report also concludes: adults who have committed sexual abuse on students
be tested for AIDS, a building for multi-handicapped students under construction
be checked for suitability, criminal history checks and abuse registry checks
for dorm staff, and further analysis of FSDB management.
Management, it suggests, faces problems of increased expenses per child and
high ratios of administrative costs to direct service costs.
Administration lacks a sufficient understanding at all levels relating to the
needs of the multi-handicapped.
HRS also found administration lacking in:
· A system to evaluate residential staff-to-student ratios. The ratios
go unchecked with only one supervisor to 25 dorm parents at night.
· Physician review of medical reports.
· Effective detection of potential abuse of students.
· Ongoing review of student services.
· Referrals of students by school districts. Currently, most of the students
are enrolled after referrals by organizations for the handicapped, and friends
and relatives.
· Training for residential staff in first aid, sign language, or mental
retardation.
· An appropriate boys' dorm staff following the placement of an all-female
staff after complaints of sexual abuse. Other problems found attributed to administration
are work orders being signed off by maintenance staff although not completed.
Bottlenecks in the flow of information of staff have permit(ted) problems to
go undetected or uncorrected..., it says. An increase in the annual cost per
student from $10,944 in 1980 to $34,943 in 1989, yet a high ratio of administrative
costs needs to be addressed. Students, the report says, lack proper placement,
with some hearing impaired students appear(ing) to be placed in multi-handicapped
units without clear evidence of handicaps, lack student advocates and suffer
from superficial contact between staff and parents.
Other problems for students include:
· Inadequate disciplinary practices, namely, students being placed for
up to 10 days in seclusion.
* Menus, room signs, microwave ovens and stoves not Braille labeled.
· A hopelessness by students of g