The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for content, style and space available. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, not those of the American Council of the Blind, its staff or elected officials. “The Braille Forum” cannot be responsible for the opinions expressed herein. We will not print letters unless you sign your name and give us your address.
Regarding “Dori”
I can appreciate the concerns raised by Audley Blackburn in his response to my April article, although I had no intention of communicating any criticism of the Seeing Eye’s daily schedules. My purpose for writing this series of articles has been, solely, to share my own experiences and provide a glimpse into what retirement of one dog and transition to a new dog have been like for me.
Although I might have wished that my Seeing Eye schedule could have included more unscheduled hours in a day, I believe that all of the elements of the schedule are necessary in order for us as dog users to gain the maximum benefit from training. However, realizing this does not change the fact that the schedule is extremely busy and in many ways draining, especially for someone who is dealing with additional health concerns.
My discussion of a typical day in class was included merely to illustrate the kind of schedule which trainees typically experience, not to provide any opinions about the reasoning behind the rigors of such a program. I dislike getting up at 5:30, but I also recognize that there are few alternatives which would permit a better waking hour and still allow time for interaction and relaxation in the evenings.
The only appropriate context for reading this series of articles is as reflective of my personal experience. People frequently ask me about my experiences at the school. The truth is the training one receives at the Seeing Eye, or any other guide-dog school, is hard work — a very different kind of hard work from what we do when we bring the dogs home.
I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings or perceived misrepresentations in my article.
— Sarah J. Blake, Anderson, Ind.
Regarding “Professions and Vocations”
This is in response to those who touted the article by William Lewis (August 1999) called “Professions and Vocations Held or Studied by Blind People in Kansas and across America.” In this article, Lewis misrepresents the facts with a plethora of misleading misinformation. Falsehoods are replete throughout this long-winded infinite manuscript.
He stated that in the 1940s, when vocational rehabilitation was created, one “career” held by blind people was that of worker in a sheltered workshop. This is not a career, since the rates of pay offered in these sweatshops are sub-minimal wage, which reduce workers to a state of hidden slavery, and force them to live below the poverty level. He proceeds to cite what he terms as occupations held by “blind” people — “engineers, aerospace, biomedical, civil, electrical, general, industrial, mechanical, metallurgic ... Astronomer, biologist, chemist, geneticist, geophysicist, oceanographer, physicist, physiologist, theoretical chemist, ... track coach ... editor, media administrator, ... teacher of biochemistry, biostatistics, chemistry, careers in nursing ...” Who would hire a blind person as a nurse? Early childhood specialist: again, who would hire a blind person? Special ed teacher, food service worker: where are they hiring? Restaurant owner/manager: are we crazy? They won’t even let us into some restaurants. Administrator, case manager, mental health worker, probation officer (I know two), chiropractor, genetic counselor (where? In Lewis’ dreams or what?), health aide, paralegal (with an Arkenstone?), nurse aide instructor (are we #!@ crazy?). Lewis cites psychiatrist as a career. Yes, there is one! Dr. David Hartman. Hello! Lewis is not being honest with us. He is not citing typical careers blind people are allowed to pursue.
Not that blind people should not have initiative and be venturesome and realize their dreams. The few in these occupations happened to have been lucky, however! Lucky just as I am to have been privileged enough to work with Lady Evelyn. Lewis also cites blind people in careers such as radio and television, “print media copy editor” (again, how do they manage the print?), “radio and television writing, journalist.” There is one. He goes on with “actor, artistic director” (how is this possible), “auto detailer, owner of women’s clothing store ...” How is this possible? Enlighten me. “President of television production company,” he says. Who? Where? How? Why not us?
Although I am the Al Sharpton of the blind, this does not mean that even I know everything. I am always open-minded enough to want to know how a blind person can perform the duties, tasks and functions of a particular job, instead of being relegated to the workshop, which is not a career.
But Lewis is in error, as usual. Out of all those people who allegedly hold those careers, how many are what I call “high (very high) partials?” According to Lewis, nothing’s wrong. According to me, and 75 percent of blind people nationwide, we have a whole lot of work to cover. Discrimination, prejudice, ignorance, bias, and intolerance are alive and well. In fact, they are at a premium. This is not to say that blind people could not perform the duties, tasks and functions of some of the careers mentioned in Lewis’ specious, spurious “reasoning.” In conclusion, “I think I can, I think I can” does not hold water. I did, but I had Evelyn and the EEOC. I will not abandon the downtrodden, oppressed blind people who lack family support, which I was fortunate enough to have.
There is an expression I do not like, but I have to use it anyway. It goes “free, white and 21.” When will blind people, particularly these conservatives, stop and realize that we are merely free and 21? We are there with all other oppressed minorities, not ahead of them by much. If we don’t help ourselves, no one will. And if a blind person does not make it, it is not his fault, but the fault of those who discriminate against us.
There is a book available at Barnes and Noble called “Cry in the Dark” by Michael Baisley. It states, briefly, that if a minority is a success, if he should be fortunate enough to be affluent, he is still viewed by the majority as a minority. This is why gentlemen are crying in the dark. When will blind people realize this, work together to combat discrimination, prejudice and bigotry and stop jumping ship like a bunch of rats? Why do blind people abandon their own? Worst of all, when will conservative, complacent, reactionary ... elitists stop claiming they “made it” and blame those who did not for their own misfortune?
Life is not fair. And when will blind people see that and stop placing the onus on themselves? There is a very old problem with taxi cabs refusing to take us, refusing to pick up blind people. There is unrelenting housing discrimination. When will blind people protest, organize, advocate for themselves and each other, and start a revolution?
When will blind people stop abandoning each other? If they continue to betray their own kind, what will we do? Where will we go? Blind people, particularly those who work for the “blindness system,” will never get another job if terminated. Blind people had better start crying in the dark.
— Lucia Marett, New York, N.Y.
The Sin of Ingratitude
We need to remind ourselves, or be reminded, of how much we have to be thankful for. I wonder if this is not particularly true of the blindness community, if we may call it that. Think about that when you think about independence. I think we will have to conclude that we are very interdependent.
“ACB seems to think that all is well, so let’s party.” Good comment, good observation. Last summer, this great organization completed another successful convention in Los Angeles. No sooner was that convention completed than we began reading in “The Braille Forum” of another one next summer in Louisville. So things have gone year after year for how many years now?
Would any of those conventions have been possible without the very generous and substantial contributions of folks outside of the American Council of the Blind? Of course, we all know the answer to that one.
Charlie Hodge, in his article “Right to Secret Ballot Fails Again,” comes up with the preposterous notion that the voters in Michigan have an obligation to provide blind and visually impaired voters with technology which would enable them to exercise their right to a secret ballot. Readers of the “Forum” are aware, I’m sure, that this battle has been going on for a very long time, much too long.
Never mind the fact that court battles in connection with this campaign have been ongoing for the past several months. Never mind the fact that such battles are very expensive. Someone has to pay for those battles. It would seem, however, that Charlie figures that is all right as long as he or ACB is not that somebody. It isn’t as though blind or visually impaired voters in Michigan are deprived of their right to vote. Even if that were the case — which it is not — it wouldn’t be worth the hassle that has already occurred over the matter. And the end is not yet in sight.
Two things seem to me to be regrettable and reprehensible in this matter: 1) Charlie Hodge isn’t even a resident of Michigan, if I am correctly informed; 2) He is a very active member of the board of publications of ACB.
I gather that the same situation exists in many if not all of the 50 states. I have cast my vote, for better or worse, in virtually every election since, or beginning with, 1940. I don’t remember ever having experienced any difficulty. Sure, I would like to be able to exercise my right to a secret ballot. Like most of us, I would like to be able to do a lot of other things as well. But how can I possibly justify asking my fellow taxpayers to put out thousands of dollars to make that possible? Is that really any different if we multiply me by a few hundred or thousand? Sorry, I simply can’t buy that idea.
Paul Edwards in one of his “President’s Messages” talks about gaining independence for blind and visually impaired people. He seeks to compare our struggle for independence with that of our founding fathers. It shouldn’t take much thinking to realize that his analogy is entirely without credibility.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot be independent, like it or not. But can you or I point to any member of our society who is independent, especially in this day and age? We all depend on others one way or another.
Let me hasten to add that we increase our independence, to say nothing of our self-esteem, by well-considered and constructive service to others. Heaven help us if one day our fellow members of society come to the point where they become fed up with our constant and all too often ridiculous demands. If that were to happen, we could well find ourselves independent. But who would really want or profit by that kind of independence? It’s a scary thought, but a real possibility.
— Dee E. Christensen, Salt Lake City, Utah