by Chris Gray
(Editor’s Note: The following article is based on a presentation delivered on April 27 at a meeting of the California Transcribers and Educators of the Visually Handicapped [CTEVH].)
Introduction
I want to say, from the very outset, that I always have and continue to believe in unifying braille codes. At the same time, it is also important for me to say that I believe if we adopt the Unified Braille Code as it is now proposed, we will abandon students, we will abandon readers, and we will very likely destroy braille as a system of reading and of writing in North America.
BANA’s Goals from the Beginning
In the early years of the Unified Braille Code project, we took care to emphasize in every major presentation about the Unified Braille Code (UBC) that the project was a “research project.” This emphasis on research was partly to allay the fears of our audiences, but the truth is that BANA undertook research into the UBC solely as research; we did not know if it was possible to unify braille codes. Today, 10 years later, we still do not know if unification is possible in any practical sense.
In those early years we set about trying to unify North American codes, because BANA wanted to gain an understanding of and possibly address the problems which we all recognized as a consequence of teaching and learning so many separate codes: literary; format; computer; Nemeth; and chemistry. We were asking ourselves: is such unification feasible? Many of us realized from the outset that what is possible may, in fact, not be feasible. I can, for example, if absolutely necessary, read Moby Dick over the weekend. However, such a plan, although possible, may not be entirely reasonable, and I might not get very much out of the book by approaching it this way.
From the beginning, we in BANA were very serious about our desire that complete unification be the goal of our endeavors. We wanted a single system of numbering. We wanted a vastly decreased set of rules governing the implementation of braille codes. We wanted a braille system that was simpler and made more logical sense. Such were our goals at the outset of this project. I made the motion that embarked us on the path of unification, and as a continuous supporter of braille unification, I feel complete confidence in this representation of the project at its beginning.
We Have Not Stayed the Course
I’m sorry to say that the story of our progress toward the UEBC is a story of failure on many levels. If allowed to continue unchecked or unchanged, there is no question that the unified braille code as constructed today will lead to the failure of many young children in their quest for knowledge and education. Remember that we are discussing changes to the very foundations of the reading and writing system for people who are blind. This systematic change cannot be taken lightly and its ability to improve braille as an entire system must be demonstrable when the code is compared against the highest standards which braille has achieved today. UEBC does not live up to the standards of today as a reasonable or justifiable departure from our present system.
Let’s first return to the idea of this code as a research project. In the spirit of research and open discussion, Dr. Abraham Nemeth wrote a formal paper for presentation at the International Conference on English Braille, held in England, in 1995. I was scheduled to present the paper on his behalf as an official delegate to the conference. The day before I was to deliver the paper, it was “disallowed” by the Executive Committee of the ICEB by motion of the United Kingdom representative.
I ask you now: What does the stifling of free expression, what does censorship, have to do with research? It was clear to me from that moment on that we had left the realm of research and entered the realm of political activity. Let me assure you: politics does not make good research or good braille!
ICEB moved further away from the concept of research when it approved in 1999 UEBC in concept though it did not even have a completed code to consider. With no proper testing and little evaluation, this research project had suddenly evolved into something that had the character and import of real code and if left unchecked could well be adopted as the mandated code of North America.
This possibility is as real as it is frightening. We have also lost our way regarding the nature of the work being done. Today, we are hopelessly mired down in a controversy over the unification of codes throughout the English-speaking world, and unification of Braille Authority of North America codes with Braille Authority of the United Kingdom codes.
The unification of codes between countries and the unification of BANA codes are two entirely different propositions. In fact, they may well be mutually exclusive propositions. An unintended but very real consequence of internationalizing the unified braille code project was BANA’s abandonment of North American braille readers and all other users of BANA codes.
In 1951, before I was born, a decision was made by the organization which was then BANA’s equivalent to employ a system of lower numbers for brailling math and science materials. The system came to be known as the Nemeth Code, and everything that is technical in North America has been based on this system since that time. The proposed UEBC reverses these 50 years of progress, and, with a wave of the hand, makes obsolete the materials prepared during these 50 years. I suggest to you that what is needed is not to turn the clock back 50 years as this proposed UEBC does, but rather, to think about the next 50 years during which students and adults must be more, not less, scientifically capable in their reading and writing.
Thus far, we see research that essentially reflects only politics. A goal to unify North American codes has disintegrated into a goal of solving all braille coding problems for the entire English-speaking world. No wonder we are in trouble today; our context is shattered, and our goals are in complete disarray.
Replacing One Dual Numbering System with Another?
Out of such disarray it is not surprising that a code which has emerged contains many problems. Perhaps the single biggest problem with the Unified English Braille Code is that it is, in fact, NOT unified. There was to be a single set of numbers employed in the unified braille code. UEBC has two sets of numbers, one of which is wholly unfamiliar to North American readers.
What a bizarre situation this creates! We are being asked to abandon over 50 years of braille materials as well as all of our current codes that use a dual system of numbering for a different and clearly inferior code that uses a dual system of numbering. It’s a little hard to see the advantage in that, particularly when unification of numbering was one of the original motivations for the whole project.
Another major reason that the UEBC is fatally flawed is that it employs as a primary numbering system an upper-number-only system. Today in BANA-using countries, we have upper numbers for literary, general use materials, and lower numbers for mathematics and science usage. There is no English-speaking country in the world today whose codes contain an upper-number-only system of braille for technical materials. No country in Western Europe employs an upper-number-only system of braille for technical materials.
There’s a reason for that: such a system just doesn’t work! When judged against currently available materials produced with current codes, you will see that the proposed UEBC does not work.
The reason it doesn’t work is that it creates far too many extra braille symbols. The blind reader must read symbol after symbol that has no intrinsic meaning of its own. Instead of reading information, a student must wade through unnecessary clutter.
A college-level, freshman calculus book has been created to ascertain the level of this tactile disturbance. Dr. Nemeth has gone to the effort of transcribing one volume of the book in UEBC and another in an alternative code about which I will say more in a moment called the Universal Braille System (UBS). UBS is far more similar to the currently used Nemeth Code than is UEBC. This book shows you the incredible proliferation of symbols at the expense of real information that students would be subjected to with UEBC.
If one compares the two books, one finds immediately that 87 pages of lower numbered material increases to 97 pages of UEBC, which represents an increase in sheer length of 11.5 percent. This entire increase is caused by superfluous braille symbols. Stop and consider the vastly greater number of braille characters a student reading the calculus text in UEBC code must decipher in order to even begin the process of learning.
Proponents of upper number systems point to the need in lower-number systems for a punctuation indicator. In this entire braille calculus volume in UBS, there are only 159 punctuation indicators: less than two per page. Which concerns you more: a maximum of two punctuation indicators on one page, or 46 extra number signs and 32 extra letter signs; that’s 78 extra characters on a single braille page.
Organized Opposition to the UEBC
Several organizations in the United States have taken a firm stand that seriously questions and opposes the UEBC. The Braille Revival League of California and the California Council of the Blind have spoken out in sharp opposition to UEBC as it exists today. Each of these organizations asks others to join with them in their call for a more realistic proposal that meets the needs of BANA readers.
The American Council of the Blind has condemned any unified code that employs more than one numbering system. BANA and ICEB remain silent despite continuous requests for change and improvement.
The National Braille Association has spoken out vehemently against the UEBC code. Braille transcribers who produce technical material know that UEBC spells complete disaster for the young reader and the adult reader, as well.
It is time to take firm and decisive action, to lend our hands in the process of creating a code that furthers education rather than stultifies it. I urge you to stand up and be counted in this effort.
There is Still Hope for a Unified Braille Future
Let me now conclude by leaving you with some positive thoughts for the future. I still believe in the concept of a unified braille code. Unification is still possible, given a code that works.
Those of us who oppose UEBC are not content simply to be against something. We began this process in favor of code unification. In order to salvage the ideals of unification, we formed the Braille As You Like It group. Today, we represent over one hundred braille readers, transcribers, and educators. We have created an alternate version of a unified braille code that meets the needs of North America, that has only one system of numbering, that unifies all North American codes, that is computable, that is extensible, that leaves our current literary braille system virtually untouched. Thus far, BANA has refused to consider such a code.
With your encouragement, this could change. There is a future for a unified braille system in North America. But that system must be one that meets the needs of producers, transcribers, AND READERS.
Please help us make this happen as opportunities for making decisions come your way on this topic.