by Paul Edwards
Let me begin by saying that writing is a disease. I can no more stop writing than I can stop breathing. So, whether readers like it or not, here is another of my quirky articles for you to struggle through or enjoy. What finally got me to break my silence was a matter that I have had a lot to do with over the past year. I was one of those involved with the preparation of ACB’s voter accessibility guide (now available online at www.acb.org) and thus thought a lot about what the implications of accessible voting might be. Then I had the opportunity to actually use accessible voting equipment for Florida’s infamous primary election in September and again for our mid-term elections on November 5th, 2002. I must tell you that the elation over the privacy and secrecy of my ballot was substantially compromised by the fact that the primary ballot took me nearly half an hour to complete. Granted, this was partly because of my unfamiliarity with the system but it also had a lot to do with how inherently slow the system is. This experience got me to thinking about voting as just one example of the price we pay for independence.
Clearly, we can go faster if we use sighted guidance, especially when we are crossing lots of busy streets. Clearly, our ballot could be cast in far less time if we chose to use help. Clearly, we could get places quicker by using a friend’s car than we can by using public transit. So, what’s the point of building approaches to all these things that create the option of independence — at the cost of the time it takes to do them? Isn’t our time valuable to us? Doesn’t it matter that, for the sake of some illusory advantage measurable and relevant only to those radical consumer organizations, we are asked essentially, to “waste our time?”
There are huge numbers of us who, were we being honest, would admit that sometimes, we take the easy road. Even with voting, many people will still exercise their right to rely on sighted help rather than spend the time it takes to vote independently. I have railed against this group in the past and will probably do so again. For now, though, let’s cut them some slack and simply consider what the impact of their time-saving approach is.
Whether we like it or not, each of us has an influence on how those around us perceive people who are blind. When we choose to ask for help, we are making a statement. That statement, in essence, is that we do not feel competent to do on our own the particular task we are requesting assistance for. The Federation argues that we ask society to make too many accommodations for us. Could they be right for the wrong reason? Some of us are clearly asking for environmental alterations and then not using them when we get them. This may well send a less than flattering message about us as blind people and, if I were choosing sides, I might opt with the Federation simply so as not to be embarrassed by our failure to use the accommodations we have earned.
When you put the two arguments together, the situation gets even worse. When we fail to use the accommodations we have won and the Federation says that the accommodations are unnecessary for a person who is well trained, we are leaving ourselves wide open to the assumption that we don’t use the secret ballot, the accessible pedestrian signal or the described video at the movie theater, etc., because we can’t! Now there’s a show-stopper, ladies and gentlemen. And yet it isn’t very far-fetched as ideas go. We don’t wear arm bands identifying our consumer affiliation so the public doesn’t know that it is quite likely that as many of those who don’t use the accommodations are Federationists as are ACB members. And 90 percent of those people who don’t use accommodations aren’t members of either organization anyway!
The bottom line here is that what we do matters. When I have sore feet after standing up to vote for 25 minutes or when my heart beats faster as I try to cross a difficult intersection or when I am soaked to the skin waiting for a bus that is late, I will think of what my actions mean. I am not only justifying and validating the accommodation. I am also making a statement about what blind people can be. If that statement happens to bolster a Federation notion, so be it! They can’t be wrong all the time!