by Charles H. Crawford
I suppose it had to happen sometime. Maybe I just was not prepared for it, but there it was in black and white. The United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office of Civil Rights had drawn its conclusion for all the world to see. The State of Maryland, the letter said, had not discriminated against the blind by denying us accessible pedestrian signals, due in part to the fact that there was disagreement between the two blindness organizations on the matter. Sure, ACB will pursue this on legal grounds and we have every expectation that we will win, but something happened here that all blind people should think about and think about a lot!
What that letter really said was that government officials who are responsible, in part, for the safety of pedestrians’ crossing state highways can excuse themselves of any responsibility because our own community is divided on the issue. How did this happen and is there a way to prevent it from occurring again? The collision of two philosophies is not a simple academic event, in this case; the consequences are real and the safety of blind pedestrians continues to hang in the balance.
The reasoning for an opinion like the one frequently offered by Federationists in the matter of accessible pedestrian signaling must be revisited as a philosophy that has, in many important aspects, gone out of date since its first articulation decades ago. It is important to consider the fact that all philosophies are defined in a given time, and, while they may have long-standing value for certain purposes, the context in which they were created can and does often change. The result is that a philosophy which may have, at one time, accurately described a set of circumstances and the ways in which men and women interact with such circumstances can become outdated, and — as in the case described above — downright dangerous!
We must ask ourselves if the current interpreters of NFB philosophy have extended it beyond its logical application or diverted it away from its original intent of motivating blind people to take mobility cane in hand and go out and face the traffic and the world, to a place where the safety of people who are blind is now at risk.
It is fair for ACB to ask the above question since we took those positive aspects of NFB philosophy with us when we left that organization almost 40 years ago. Who can argue with the precept that as blind people we need good training and opportunities to succeed in the choices we make? Who can disagree with the tenets that state the need for alternate techniques such as the use of a cane or a dog or braille literacy, all of which can and do make an enormous difference in the quality of our lives and our ability to live independently, and well? Clearly, doing what we can for ourselves not only reinforces a positive self-concept, but also informs the rest of society about our abilities.
However, philosophies can and do produce diminished returns as times change or the consequences of these changing times are not recognized. ACB understands this and recognizes that environmental accommodations such as detectable warnings on subway platforms and accessible pedestrian signaling are needed to compensate for an increasingly hostile and complex system of street and intersection designs. Furthermore, ACB has recognized the fact that not all blind people have the same levels of capability, that we all make errors in judgment which should not cost us our lives, and that drawing a philosophical premise so narrowly as to exclude people is counterproductive to our blindness community at large.
Given this split in how the two organizations have moved forward from the same roots, the critical question becomes what responsibility must the organizations take for acting exclusively upon their philosophical orientations? It’s one thing to disagree where the result yields no likely serious harm to a person, but it’s quite another to contemplate representing the interest of “blind people” in a way that expressly disagrees with advocacy measures being taken for the safety of us all. This is especially true when blind people have died where accessible pedestrian signals in some cases, and detectable warnings in others, could have meant the difference between life and death.
ACB cannot demand that the Federation think in a certain way. That is for the Federation to decide for itself. However, when we feel the entire community is placed at risk, we can point out the consequences of where we see aspects of Federation philosophy taking a wrong turn. In so doing, we afford Federationists with a chance to understand the harm that is being done and an opportunity to redefine their views in a more productive direction.
ACB could simply ignore the attempts of certain Federationists to almost totally eliminate accessible signaling, because we are convinced we will succeed since the safety measures we are advocating for are a matter of public safety, but we have obligations as well. We must not only make every effort to educate Federationists about the issues as we see them, but we must also listen to their points and make adjustments to our positions as we deem appropriate. We have done both. Only in this way can we reasonably assert that our positions foster safety, because we know that we have gone out of our way to understand the state of the art, and that our advocacy reflects the best interests of our larger blindness community.
Having established the all-too-brief foundation above without going into a number of other important factors, I want to state unequivocally ACB will continue to struggle for a blind-friendly built environment that serves the needs of all people. We invite the Federation to join with us as partners in speeding the day when no blind person will remain at home for fear of trying to use the pedestrian system that was built for everyone.
As this is being written, it’s only been two weeks since the last blind person and his guide dog were killed after going to the same place for breakfast they had traveled to, every day, for two years. The chilling questions remain: could a campaign of both organizations have prevented this tragedy? How many more will die despite ACB’s best efforts before we reach our goal? This is the tragedy that fills the heart with sorrow more than any Federal Highway ruling we can and will overturn.