The contents of this column are a reflection of the letters we have received at the time of publication, June 15, 2003. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, not those of the American Council of the Blind, its staff or elected officials. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, style and space available. "The Braille Forum" is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein. We will not print letters unless you sign your name and give us your address.
Regarding transportation
I found the real-life situations you described in your article on transportation issues/problems to be most painful, as I have experienced nearly all of them in my almost 40 years of being visually impaired and legally blind. I am at this moment still greatly hindered by lack of transportation.
As I have grown older, I find it harder and harder to distinguish between the blind and visually impaired, the disabled and the elderly when it comes to issues of transportation: its importance, availability, reliability and safety. I believe your article has addressed the most important and missing link in our pursuit of independence: transportation. And it all rests in the hands of the people, mainly the sighted, the able-bodied and non- senior population.
All efforts made on our behalf -- changing laws, voting accessibility, streets, sidewalks, ramps, lights, restrooms, social opportunities, support groups, etc. -- are useless without the concern, understanding and empathy of those less challenged. We fight for our independence from the age of 2 until forever. That is what transportation is all about. It isn't saying, "Help me." It's saying, "Help me help myself."
Without the acknowledgement of the importance of transportation, without its availability, reliability and built- in safety factors (and there is a person behind each one of these concepts), we become GREATLY HANDICAPPED. We become unable to get to our jobs, schools, unable to attend to our own basic personal needs. There are too many who consider and determine that our only real transportation needs are for employment and medical appointments. They do not consider grocery stores, drug stores, laundromats, banks, the post office, support groups, social opportunities, etc., as legitimate needs for transportation. Our well-being, self-esteem, sense of purpose, our reason sometimes for getting up, getting dressed, going out and breathing fresh air -- exercise, not only our bodies, but our independence -- these things too often are overlooked, not considered necessities and put on the back burner. Aren't all these things relevant to good mental and physical health? Without these things seriously addressed, we have only two choices: either to become a further burden and responsibility to our close family and friends (already going out of their way for us), or we can turn inward, stay quiet, alone, reclusive. We can learn to go without, deny ourselves our basic needs and human rights and let our minds twiddle their thumbs and pray we do not get depressed. Either way, it shouldn't be too long before we DO require some kind of medical care.
I hope that you will continue to include articles about transportation issues, needs and problems in "The Braille Forum," and that you start sending your articles to every agency, association and organization for the blind and visually impaired, as well as every office for the aging and the disabled, and to every major newspaper in this country, so that the people can begin to become aware of and truly understand what it is like to live without transportation. I hope it reminds them that tomorrow, or next year, or ten years from now, they could be standing in our not-too-often-used shoes.
Thank you for caring about us all.
Dianne Baumgartner, Pawling, N.Y.
More on the Iowa guide dog case
I have been reading the articles that have been written lately regarding the Stephanie Dohmen case and after reading the last edition of the Forum, I felt that it was time that I wrote in. I have been upset about the things that are being said when readers are not aware of what is going on here in Iowa.
First, I would like to tell the membership that I was with you in Des Moines when you elected Donna Seliger to the position of national secretary. At that time you had confidence in regard to her performing her duties knowing that she was Iowa's state president. If you had enough faith in her and trusted in her integrity at that time, the membership should continue to have that faith. And I ask that you remember also what the Bible says: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
In regard to the case here in Iowa, Seliger's role in this has only been as that of state president. She has only presided over the proceedings, choosing not to have a vote or share her opinion on any decision that we have made regarding this. I would also tell you that the board's decision was not in defense of Allen Harris, but based on the fact that the Department is recognized nationwide as one of the premiere centers for training for the blind and that Iowa has received students from throughout the United States as well as the continent of Africa.
With regard to Dohmen, she did not come to members of ICUB asking for assistance from the membership before she initiated this action with the Department of Justice and the Human Rights Commission. The first that the members were aware of this issue was the fact that Seliger was called and told that this was going on and that ICUB should get on board and support Dohmen in her efforts to bring her dog with her into the Iowa Department for the Blind program.
At that time Seliger called a meeting of the board letting us know that this issue had come forth. It was decided at that time that a meeting with national president Gray and any other interested parties should be convened in Iowa so that we could try to resolve this without having it go into litigation with Human Rights and the DOJ. All who attended the meeting questioned Dohmen as to the circumstances of her blindness and any training that she has so far received; at that time she stated that she had previously attended the Iowa Department for the Blind and that she had successfully completed all aspects of training. I say that it should not take two attempts to accomplish what I myself and others have been able to successfully complete after our first attempt.
In closing, I ask you as you get ready to attend convention, to speak to one of the Iowa delegation if you still have any questions and I am sure that you will be happily received.
-- Gloria O'Neal, Waterloo, Iowa
I am downright weary and disgusted at the interorganizational name-calling, from both the NFB and the ACB. After over four decades of this, when will both organizations realize that the civil war in the American organized blind movement is over, that each has assets which the other doesn't possess, and that compromise and cooperation will only strengthen, not weaken, the organized blind movement? Many in both organizations believe that compromise would only weaken us. Neither realizes that each organization has developed programs and principles that work, nor do they realize that compromise and cooperation would make the American organized blind movement more powerful than it ever has been. The key to compromise is that both the NFB and the ACB accept and welcome each other. Each organization must accept the other, whether its constitution calls for term limits or not; whether degrees for rehab people are supported or not; whether blind people are rehab professionals or not; whether sleep shades are supported or not. In short, they must agree to disagree! The NFB must recognize that private rehabilitation agencies serving the blind have their prerogatives, but that they must not force- feed NFB philosophy to students; that people should be given the freedom to think for themselves; that ideally, agencies should allow students to bring and use guide dogs; that no I-am-better- than- you attitude should permeate the organized blind movement. The ACB needs to recognize that sleep shades, blind rehab professionals with no fancy degrees, and using the slate and stylus work; that the organized blind movement should emphasize blindness, rather than cross-disability issues, and that the long cane and excellent orientation and mobility training should be promoted by both organizations.
Rehabilitation agencies for people who are blind should not only allow handlers to bring their dog guides with them, but should permit them to use them during the program. As good as the Iowa Department's program is, I am dismayed that it does not do the latter. I do believe the Iowa Department for the Blind's Orientation Center should have allowed Stephanie Dohmen to use her guide dog during its program. However, I also believe Allen Harris was very kind in revealing to Stephanie alternatives which she could have chosen for learning Braille and computer and job development skills, where she could have still kept and used her dog guide.
So, why are so many of you making such a fuss in Letters to the Editor and elsewhere that the ACB board elected not to join GDUI in protesting about the Iowa Department? I saw at and since last year's national convention, that GDUI is unquestionably large and powerful. Why do you need the ACB to join you? Why don't you protest on your own? Why are you not aware that the rest of us also have rights to join you or not, if we wish?
-- Jeff Frye, Overland Park, Kan.