The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, 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” is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein. We will not print letters unless you sign your name and give us your address.
Re: The Transportation Survey
To the Editor:
I just completed your transportation survey this morning. I think it is about time one of the consumer organizations embarked on a project like this; it is long overdue and is the only way to address long-standing transportation challenges. However, with that said, I need to offer up a bit of constructive criticism; the survey did not attempt to gauge the transportation needs of those of us with low vision, nor did it provide a mechanism to address the sentiments of those of us with a solid base of mobility training. Was anyone with CCLVI even consulted before this survey was posted? Here are a few examples of things I noticed while completing the survey:
1) The “how do you find your bus stop” question included responses for those who find their stops through use of tactile signs or large landmarks (benches and shelters) that can be found with a white cane. However, there was nothing on finding bus stop signs visually, which is the manner in which I locate bus stops. It would have been nice to see a survey question on how easy it is to find the signs with low vision techniques.
2) Bus and train signage: Again, the survey was geared to the totally blind user. Many of us who have low vision have enough residual vision to read transit signs. However, their legibility varies greatly. The large pitch and bright background on newer buses is easy for many of us to spot (even without low vision aids), while the older signs are often illegible to us. Similarly, many of us with low vision have an easier time spotting signage on LRT and subway vehicles if the signage is both on the front of the train and on the sides (as opposed to just the front). I would have liked to have had the opportunity to add input here. The same goes for signs in train stations, bus stations and at major “transit centers.”
3) Training: Many of us with usable “travel vision” — and I suspect a fair number of totally blind people as well — are self-confident, have good map skills and/or possess an extremely good sense of direction, and we do not need to be “oriented” every time we move to a new metropolitan area or a new section of an area where we already reside. We received good overall O&M instruction in our youth or shortly after the onset of blindness and can (and do) use those skills to orient ourselves to new surroundings. On the question of “would you like to receive training,” I would have liked to have seen a response that read something like “I do not feel I need training on the use of my transit system.” Knowing who does and does not need to be oriented to their surroundings can serve a valuable purpose; it can help ACB in determining an overall strategy on transportation issues.
While I think the survey can use some tweaking, I think that conducting the survey is a very positive step by ACB and look forward to seeing the results in the not too distant future. Hopefully, the information gathered in the survey can be used to advocate for better transportation funding!
This initiative is to be commended.
— Robert R. Robbins, St. Louis, Mo.
Not a Fan of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Editor,
As a friend of mine was reading to me the 2003 February issue, I was appalled by the article titled “Accessible pedestrian signals in South Carolina.”
Accessible pedestrian signals? Are you kidding?! Those are very, very dangerous. All they do is inform you as to when the light has changed, nothing more. However, with proper training, a person can easily determine when the light and traffic have changed. Some people unfortunately think that when they hear those audible signals, it’s OK to cross at that moment. It’s far more often not OK to cross right then. I am completely against any type of audible traffic signal. I’m blind, by the way. Every time I approach an intersection and I hear an audible signal, I simply ignore it. I confidently cross when I know it is safe to cross. Thanks for taking the time to read my statement.
— Jennifer Ekern, Kent, Wash.
To The Editor:
I received my braille version of the winter 2003 “Braille Forum” today. As usual, I eagerly opened it to begin reading the latest happenings in ACB.
I am absolutely appalled at the results of the emergency board of directors meeting held in November 2002 regarding Stephanie Dohmen’s situation with the Iowa Department for the Blind. As a dog guide user, I will uphold a dog user’s right to use their dog in almost all situations, even when attending a rehabilitation facility whose leadership apparently believes they know best for all blind people. However, other factors of this situation are of more significance to me.
I am astonished that the Iowa Council of the United Blind took such an unbending stand toward a blind citizen of their state! It is very surprising to me that a group of blind and visually impaired people would agree with what seems to be a “canned” approach to adjustment to blindness training. The Department of Veterans Affairs rehabilitation centers, who without doubt provide the best rehabilitation training for the blind in this country and probably in the world, allow blind veterans to bring their guide dogs to training if they agree to take orientation and mobility training with a cane. Even so, no rehabilitation program for the blind is perfect and the “canned” approach to training is not acceptable to me. I have a master’s degree in rehabilitation teaching and have worked in the rehabilitation field for over 26 years. It is my opinion that the training should meet the needs of the person receiving it instead of the other way around.
It also surprises me that ICUB leadership would say that Miss Dohmen could receive training at another facility, so the Iowa Department of the Blind is not wrong in taking the stance it has taken. This is rubbish! Separate but equal attitudes were outlawed in the U.S. over 50 years ago!
It is also my opinion that our national leadership of ACB are a bunch of wimps! I can’t believe that they caved in to a group of blackmailers. ICUB should be ashamed of themselves. Are they afraid to take a stand against their state rehabilitation agency or what? President Gray is always referring to ACB as one big family. Well, do family members emancipate themselves from the family when there is a disagreement? No, they stay in the family and continue to work in the family with the issues they agree upon. If ICUB is so unwilling to stand and fight for one of their fellow blind citizens, then so be it. They should allow other people to stand up and fight for them. If our national leaders are too weak to fight for a blind person against a state agency, then maybe we should replace them with stronger, more effective leaders. GDUI did the right thing in this situation and I am proud to be a member of such a strong organization.
By the way, I usually make a financial contribution to ACB. However, I think this year’s contribution will be given to GDUI.
Thank you for letting me speak my mind.
— Patsy Jones, President, ACB of South Carolina, West Columbia, S.C.
To the Editor and the President of ACB:
I am a member of Guide Dog Users, Inc. and also a member of the newly formed affiliate of GDUI, Maryland Area Guide Dog Users (MAGDU). I am greatly disturbed about some decisions that have been made by ACB’s national board regarding the Stephanie Dohmen situation.
Dohmen’s situation is not unique. Here in Maryland, a similar access problem is being dealt with regarding a guide dog user having trouble gaining access to some services offered by Blind Industries and Services of Maryland (BISM). The MAGDU president, Gary Norman, is working with this individual to try to resolve the problem.
I am certain that from the national board’s point of view, it would be nice to keep peace in the camp and not ruffle any feathers (in this case, the feathers of the Iowa Council of the United Blind). They and GDUI obviously have a difference of opinion as to how the matter should be viewed and handled. But the rights of an individual are being violated, and I do believe that Guide Dog Users, Inc. is taking the proper step by helping Dohmen file a complaint against the Iowa Department for the Blind with the Justice Department.
I also share the dismay felt by GDUI regarding the national board’s decision not to join in on the complaint. Rather than standing on the philosophy of promoting equality and opportunity, it seems that the board catered to the whims of ICUB just to keep that particular affiliate from leaving. It is encouraging to know that the national office provided legal support and advice to GDUI, but I feel that a golden opportunity has been lost here. The national board of ACB had an opportunity to stand up and say, “We will not tolerate such blatant discrimination.”
The issue should not even be about the fact that two affiliates disagree with how the situation should be resolved. That is not what the board should have focused on. Instead, the board members should have taken the position that no matter who else is or is not involved, this person’s rights have been violated, and she needs help. The national board should have taken into consideration the fact that this was an opportunity to send a clear signal to ALL rehabilitation centers serving people who are blind that ALL blind individuals — cane users and guide dog users alike — are entitled to complete access to ALL of the available services regardless of what mobility aide they use. Yes, to have joined with GDUI to file this complaint may have cost the American Council of the Blind an affiliate, but in order to protect the rights of Stephanie Dohmen, it might have been a worthwhile price to pay. Instead, the board let itself be dictated to by an affiliate that threatened to leave if it did not get its way.
— Vanessa Lowery, Lutherville, Md.
Dear Editor,
I was not aware of the existence of Guide Dog Users, Inc. until about 15 months ago. I thought I might be traveling to Hawaii, a trip which did not materialize, and asked The Seeing Eye for information on the restrictions put on travel with dog guides. I was referred to GDUI. I am grateful for all the work that was done by the organization on behalf of dog guide users who wish to travel to Hawaii. Nevertheless, the process still seems burdensome and I hope that it can be streamlined in the near future.
After all the battles that have been won on behalf of dog guide users, it is shameful that another organization, the Iowa Department for the Blind, would turn 180 degrees and refuse to serve a dog guide user.
I have a friend in New York state who is a member of the American Council of the Blind, and she has told me of its very balanced approach to issues facing people who are blind. After my experience with the excellent information provided me by GDUI on the Hawaii access issue, I was impressed and joined the national organization. I am currently in the process of joining the Rocky Mountain affiliate.
Last night I made a donation to GDUI for the purpose of assisting in the legal expenses which might result from the complaint to the Department of Justice regarding the blatantly discriminatory practices of the Iowa Department for the Blind. It would have been better had I been able to make this donation to ACB. However, I understand that ACB and its board voted at a meeting convened by its president, Chris Gray, in November, 9 to 4 against signing on to this complaint. I suspect that ACB has more members than GDUI and that the force which could have been brought to bear in this complaint would have carried even more weight with DOJ had ACB signed on.
There seems to be a concern that, if ACB signed on to the complaint, the Iowa affiliate would sever its affiliation with ACB. My response to that is this. My husband has been an Episcopal priest for 36 years. People often threaten that if their church doesn’t do what they want with their money, they will go elsewhere. They seldom do leave, and, when they do, the parish family is strengthened rather than diminished. If the Iowa affiliate refuses to uphold the rights of dog guide users, then they have no place in ACB anyway. They might want to consider affiliation with an organization which is more sympathetic to their views. Blackmail (let’s call it what it is) is dishonorable in whatever form it takes.
I am delighted to join this battle. I’m called the ADA Nazi in my little town. I wrote a complaint to DOJ regarding the inaccessibility of our town offices. Just the act of copying the town board back in 1994 was sufficient to get the offices moved to a lovely and accessible new location. I received a response long after the situation was resolved. I think, however, that the Iowa Department will not be as compliant as the Lake City Board of Trustees. Incidentally, as a result of my experience of demanding this disabled access to town offices, I decided to run for that same board in 1996 and am serving until spring 2004. These things often lead in directions we could never anticipate at the beginning of the journey.
I hope that this letter will help bring about a change in the attitude of the board of ACB. I am happy to be a part of GDUI, but I am not so sure about ACB.
Sincerely,
Mary Nettleton, Lake City, Colo.
The decision of the board of directors of the American Council of the Blind not to support Stephanie Dohmen in her complaint against the Iowa Department for the Blind is misguided and shortsighted. If a major national organization which purports to represent all blind people fails to support one of its members, it fails in its mission. I believe that the Iowa Council of the United Blind has a conflict of interest. The fact that the secretary of the national organization is an officer of that affiliate clearly presents a problem. She cannot serve two masters and should recuse herself from this decision. The agency in question and the affiliate are well grounded in the misguided and antiquated principles of the National Federation of the Blind. Independence is a wonderful thing, and that means freedom of choice. Stephanie was not asking for mobility training — she was asking to learn braille and to use the computer. Your failure to support her implies support for the ridiculous position of the state rehabilitation agency.
A state agency should never deny services based on one’s mobility choice. Whatever happened to tolerance for different methods and strategies for achieving our goals? I hope we’re not getting to a place where a certain few dictate what we do and try to ram a philosophy down our throats.
— Pauline Downing, Somerville, Mass.
In Response to Coverage of Blindness-Related Issues by Blindness Magazines
One of the basic premises for equality is the prevention of bias and prejudice. Those of us who are blind just want to be treated indiscriminately. However, we get back what we put forth. All too often, the very organizations which represent us create the same problems they are chartered to prevent.
As a blind individual, I review many of the publications published by disability groups. One of those is ACB’s “Braille Forum.” Another is a magazine printed by an organization appearing to be ACB’s arch rival. The difference between these two magazines is like night and day. One fosters a rhetoric of reasoning while the other seems aimed at programming thought.
How unfortunate it is that organizations can often act like bad religions. Their mission becomes one of condemning all who do not follow or profess their beliefs. In worst-case scenarios, they go out of their way to negatively influence opinions. This recently became quite vivid in an account of a NAC meeting. The author of this article made it a point to describe an ACB official as confrontational and abusive to those he dislikes.
A primary principle of conflict resolution is for parties to abstain from name-calling or finger-pointing. Not only is this behavior unprofessional, it undermines the business at hand. Having never met the ACB official being maligned, I would prefer to judge him by what he says and does rather than according to someone’s biased remark.
Disability organizations have got to understand that many prospective members want nothing to do with any group whose approach is routinely malicious or militant. Those of us striving for success cannot do so by carrying around such negative baggage. There are truly issues needing resolution within the blind community. However, what is needed most is a renaissance instead of condemnation in order to move forward. And by the way, I personally appreciate the sense of humor of the ACB official noted above, whose terminology includes woofers and whackers.
— Dan Sullivan, Wausau, Wis.