by Penny Reeder
This is an account of an editorial that almost was. Fortunately for the many blind guide dog users who might be in the market for some computer training with a free refurbished Pentium computer thrown in, an editorial which was slated for publication in the September "Braille Forum" does not need to appear. Here is what happened.
A few weeks ago, I received a phone call from my friend, Bob. Communicating Computers for the Blind, about which information had appeared in the June "Here and There" column, Bob said, had not only refused to accept him as a student if he came to South Dakota with his guide dog, but their representative had been extremely rude to him on the telephone. Bob was upset. I told him I would look into the matter.
But, before I had a chance to track down their phone number, I was contacted by a representative from Guiding Eyes. It seems a graduate of theirs had contacted Communicating Computers for the Blind and asked about coming for their training, with his guide dog. The student was reportedly told, not only that he couldn't bring his guide dog to class, but also that he -- with his 20/800 vision -- shouldn't even have a guide dog in the first place. I told the representative that we would investigate and print some kind of disclaimer in the Forum if these allegations turned out to be true.
On the day before we were slated to go to press, I called Communicating Computers for the Blind. As I dialed their number, my intention was to check out the facts which had been given to me, and if they were borne out, to print some kind of disclaimer, either at the front of the magazine or at the top of Billie Jean's "Here and There" column. I was planning to say that it had come to our attention that Communicating Computers for the Blind did not welcome guide dogs in their training facility, and so "The Braille Forum" regretted ever having promoted their establishment within the pages of our magazine -- or something to that effect.
However, when I called the foundation and my questions were met by a stream of invective about smelly, hairy unkempt guide dogs, irresponsible guide dog handlers, and the foundation's unequivocal refusal to admit any student who wanted to attend their facility with his or her dog, my mild-mannered intentions flew out the proverbial window. I told Lou Calesso, who, with his wife, runs the foundation, that not only was I planning to write an editorial expressing my outrage at their not allowing guide dog users to take advantage of the services their foundation offers, I was also filing a complaint with the Department of Justice.
My fingers flew across my computer's keyboard. Where were these people for the last dozen years? I asked. Didn't they understand that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to them? Even though they offer their training services from their home, they still have an obligation to serve blind people who come with guide dogs the same services they would offer any other blind people, no matter what mobility aid they choose to use -- even if the Calessos themselves don't necessarily welcome dogs into their home.
I wrote the editorial. I sent a copy to the Calessos at the same time I sent a copy to the board of GDUI and the Department of Justice. When I wrote to the Department of Justice, along with the text of the editorial, I supplied the name, address, and telephone number of the foundation, and I stated that I was filing a formal complaint against the foundation for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was not required to inform Communicating Computers for the Blind about the complaint I had filed against them, but, because Lou Calesso had asked to see a copy of the article which would go into the Forum, I sent him a copy of the editorial.
As the presses were about to roll, the Calessos, who are long-time members of the ACB, contacted the chair of the ACB Board of Publications. They told Charlie Hodge that they have contacted the Department of Justice and have requested that the department send a representative to South Dakota to instruct them in how they should alter their business practices in order to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Bravo!
As we go to press, and I withdraw the original editorial I wrote, I can only hope that the Calessos are as good as their word to Mr. Hodge. I am glad that they were motivated by -- what? The threat of my complaint, or the possibility of some decidedly uncomplimentary publicity in the pages of "The Braille Forum" -- to rethink their policy of denying services to guide dog users.
I want the Calessos to know that "The Braille Forum" will follow up to see just how sincere they are about learning what the Americans with Disabilities Act means for every person with a disability.
We are taking a very unusual step, pulling our editorial from the pages of the magazine on a day when we expect the blue lines to arrive from the printer and the presses to roll. Stopping the presses, pulling the editorial, and informing readers that the situation seems to have changed for the better is a fair thing to do. It also represents a leap of faith -- that the Calessos will begin offering their seemingly very attractive training package to guide dog users on a non-discriminatory basis. And it is a celebration of policies changed, compliance (however belatedly) with the law achieved, and justice served.
In an issue which seeks to honor the memory of Justin Dart and to keep our promises to him to overcome injustice where we find it, I do not regret having written the original editorial or taking the time to file a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice. I am pleased, though, to replace the anger in my original piece with hopeful words about changed minds and fair treatment. Let justice prevail.