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.
In reply to Mitch Pomerantz
I wish to respond to Mitch Pomerantz’s letter in the November 2000 issue of “The Braille Forum.” His was a response to my letter in the August 1999 issue. Pomerantz says that he “takes exception” to everything I wrote. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted almost everything I wrote. There is discrimination, there is prejudice, there is bias, there is injustice. What I tried to say in that letter was that though blind people may have good hygiene, may be competent, good travelers and “exhibit good grooming,” these attributes are not sufficient — because blind people still won’t get the jobs.
I think I am the Al Sharpton of the blind, but if I am not, somebody better be. We need one. I know that some blind people have successful careers. I am happy there are blind mechanics, as well as those in other successful careers, but these (jobs) are few and far between. Many blind people work in what I call the blindness system, or have very high partial vision. It is true that I am bitter and cynical, with a “victim mentality.” I will never attempt to speak for ACB, but the attitudes of many blind people who have achieved success seem to be that they have successful careers, and if other blind people do not, it is their own fault. This is not true. “Good hygiene and good grooming” are not enough! Social skills and other skills notwithstanding, there is intolerance and bigotry out there!
Second, the sheltered workshop is not a career, and must never be misconstrued as one. The sheltered workshop, even 40 years ago, was never a viable option. How could it be, when wages were so low?
I commend Paul Edwards, for I share his “nightmare.” He and Charles Goldman are wise. Take heed of what Edwards says; his message is, in fact, long overdue! It should have been stated “boldly and starkly” a long time ago.
I’m right, Mitch! There is bias, intolerance, prejudice and discrimination!
— Lucia Marett, New York, N.Y.
If Lucia Marett purports to be the Al Sharpton of the blind, she would be well advised to take a page from the good reverend’s book and familiarize herself with how her fellow members of the blind community actually live and work within the blind community.
Marett asserts that professions cited by William Lewis in his August 1999 article cannot, in fact, be held by blind people. She could not be more mistaken.
There are several blind engineers and scientists working today. One blind astronomer has had his accomplishments documented in the Wall Street Journal. He has also been profiled at least once in “Reader’s Digest” and several times in the weekly academic journal “Science News.” The work of a blind oceanographer has been well documented in a book he wrote, which has enjoyed wide circulation among both the academic and mainstream communities.
Marett seems to have a problem with the notion that blind people (yes, friends, totally blind people) could function as radio journalists, editors for print publications, or writers in situations where sighted people would have to read our work. I have served successfully as a radio news anchor for much of the past 15 years. I was fortunate enough to have produced number one ratings at every station I served. Presently, I serve as editor of a publication which puts out a print edition. Yes, I use assistive technology and sighted help when needed to get the job done.
Admittedly, instruction in using some of the technology that’s available doesn’t focus on what’s really needed to use it effectively. But a bit of initiative on the part of the blind person seeking to enter a specific profession can do wonders.
Just because one person doesn’t know how he or she would function in a particular setting if that person were totally blind does not mean that others aren’t functioning, and functioning well, in that particular situation on a daily basis.
I agree that we have much to do in eradicating the prejudice against blind people that exists today. But reactionary cries for revolution yanked willy-nilly out of the ether will only shorten the strides that we have made over the past 70 years.
I would suggest that Marett and those who agree with her do more reading on the lives of successfully employed blind people. Perhaps enrolling in a quality rehabilitation program that emphasizes good blindness skills with real-life application experience might also be helpful.
Lucia, honey, get with the program!
— W. Kent McGregor, Saint George, UT
I was particularly disappointed with the long-winded vitriolic tone of Lucia Marett’s letter to the editor in the “Braille Forum’s” August issue regarding careers in which we blind people do (or do not) engage, and Mitch Pomerantz’s condescending response in the November issue. I fear that Marett’s irritating tone obscured the valid questions she was raising, and that Pomerantz’s dismissive tone will only drive more blind folks into the victim mentality that he rails against.
First, while I agree with Pomerantz’s assertion that “employers hire applicants for their ability and positive attitude, not their disability and ‘poor me’ outlook,” we all view the same behavior differently; thus, while he might never hire Marett, she IS currently employed. And while we blind people should be cognizant of hygiene, grooming, mobility skills, and so forth, the unemployment/underemployment rate among blind people — whether it be 70 percent, 65 percent, or 55 percent — clearly demonstrates the discrimination we face during our encounters with the workplace.
Next, the connections among the severity of the visual impairment, its onset, and the “work situation” in which we blind people find ourselves are extremely complex, and we ignore them at our peril. For example, Pomerantz cites someone who served as a nurse until s/he became blind after which s/he maintained the nurse title but does the “non-traditional” nurse function of discharge planning (usually done by hospital social workers).
While I congratulate both the employee and employer for making the necessary adjustments, I wonder how many people with severe visual impairments are hired as nurses (and, for that matter, engineers, chemists, physicists, and track coaches). In my experience, most people in these “non-traditional” professions either are legally (but not totally) blind, and/or lost a large amount of their visual acuity during adulthood. I also wonder what causes most of us employed blind folks to be working either for the government or for a not-for-profit organization dealing with disability issues, while most of my sighted colleagues work in the for-profit sector.
I believe that Marett and Pomerantz agree more than they disagree on this contentious, complex, and underdiscussed issue. I suggest that they work together to develop a seminar for an upcoming ACB convention or an article for an upcoming issue of the “Braille Forum,” as this would have the potential for unleashing more of our collective talent and energy on career issues. I would be happy to assist in such an endeavor.
— Peter Altschul, Washington, DC