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.
In Reply to ‘Because of the ADA’
I wish to comment on Ray Campbell’s article, “Because of the ADA,” which appeared in the September 2002 issue. In his article, Campbell states that the Americans with Disabilities Act has opened up many things to him. He cites paratransit service as one example. He also cites the detectable warnings on subway platform edges, the brailling of elevator buttons and restroom doors, and bus drivers’ having to call out stops, as well as other benefits resulting from the passage of the ADA. He says that now, waiters in restaurants are obligated to read the menu due to the ADA; that in stores, he can now be assigned to work with a shopper. And he says he can get a transit schedule in accessible format, as well as an agenda from “my village board of trustees.” While all this is true, the ADA still leaves much to be desired.
While it is true that the ADA has opened some doors to blind and visually impaired people, the law is weak and has served some disabilities better than others. People often believe that the glass is half full. I believe it is half empty. Let’s not get too complacent, trusting and optimistic.
Campbell stated that, “Because of the ADA I can interview for a job and know that I will be judged strictly on my ability to perform the job. ... I can know that accommodations that I may need will be provided.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If purchase of accommodations in the form of equipment is involved, employers would much prefer to hire a sighted person. Just because I got lucky enough to have a talking computer and Kurzweil reading machine on my job does not mean that the next guy, who was not as fortunate, is lazy or unmotivated. The fact that 75 percent of working-age blind people are unemployed should not be dismissed. All 75 percent can’t be lazy or unmotivated for work. Let’s not fall asleep at the switch of complacency; let’s make accessibility and the ADA better than they are today.
— Lucia Marrett, New York, N.Y.
In Reply To ‘Woofers, Whackers, And Where Do We Go from Here?’
To The Editor:
This is one of those letters I’ve been putting off and hating to write, but finally I just have no further options for expressing myself. I was intrigued by the title, “Woofers, Whackers and Where Do We Go from Here?” in the November “Braille Forum.” Seeing that this article was by executive director Charles Crawford was even more intriguing. To say that I was highly disappointed by the use of language in the article is a gross understatement.
Let me say up front that I know Charlie Crawford is a strong advocate for guide dog related issues and that his heart, if not his stylus or keyboard, is in the right place and his logic is sound. I would readily go to him for advice and counsel. I also trust him to represent me as a member of ACB on national issues.
What I so strongly take issue with is the use of humor and overly familiar or “cutesy” terms when discussing such a vital issue as access to rehabilitation services for guide dog handlers. Such words as “woofers,” “whackers,” “doggies” and “pups” disrespect the serious nature of issues related to our mobility. “Pups” are juvenile dogs and therefore, not applicable to references of service animals as the dogs used as guides are no longer considered juvenile animals. Terms such as “doggies” and “pups” also reduce the guide dog to that adorable attachment we have with us. I cannot even address the use of “woofers and whackers.” I would only hope people who use white canes are equally offended by the denigration of their mobility choice.
Too technical and picky, you may say, but the impression conveyed by such phrases as “folks using the doggies,” “guide dog users cannot be as independent or self-reliant if they use their pups” and “before we all answer the question and get on our backs for a big belly rub” turn what is otherwise an outstanding article about choice and responsibility into a joke. This type of language makes it difficult for the non-dog handler to see more than just a cute little story in this otherwise well-written article that is the first shot across the bow of what will prove to be a very important national situation. It reduces our highly trained mobility aids, dogs though they may be, to cute puppies whom we bring along with us so we might make good puns in conversation.
These dogs are tools in the language of access law. I would hope that anyone writing on such an important topic would at least use terminology that reflected this point, if for no other reason than to put the discussion in perspective for, say, a rehabilitation worker reading our magazine and wondering what all the fuss was about. There is a time for humor and a time to write in a professional manner to address the behaviors we expect from professionals, including our dogs and ourselves. Again, I respect immensely the work Charlie Crawford does on my behalf as a blind person, but humor is not always the vehicle to use to soften difficult subjects, especially in the organization’s national magazine and other correspondence.
— Jenine Stanley, Columbus, Ohio
In response to 'Communicating Computers'
I am writing in response to your editorial coverage of circumstances surrounding Communicating Computers, a computer training program in South Dakota, and the issue of proper accommodation for dog guide users.
I will begin by stating that I am a member of the advisory board of Communicating Computers, and have been acquainted with the Calessos for several years. I admit that I was aware of the Calessos’ attitude relative to having dog guides or any other dogs in their home. I also admit that I was mistaken in my understanding as to how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applied to activities in a person’s home. I now realize that ADA provisions do cover activities in a home in which a business is being conducted. I regret that I and the other members of the board of directors were not as informed as we should have been regarding such rules.
Just as much, if not more, I regret the manner in which the editor of “The Braille Forum” handled the Communicating Computers situation. I received no less than 10 e-mail messages relating to the situation, which included copies of the original editorial well before the publication date. I was shocked at the tone of the original editorial, and the attacking approach taken by the editor. I felt that the original editorial was written in an almost NFB style ... one of attack, condemnation, and assassination.
After getting over the initial shock of the very critical attack, I contacted the Calessos and urged them to contact Charlie Hodge and others who are knowledgeable in the provisions of the ADA to seek a resolution of this misunderstanding by attempting to find the most effective method of accommodating dog guide users in their home. The Calessos did contact Charlie, and fortunately the original editorial was withdrawn. Unfortunately, the subsequent replacement editorial contained and made reference to the same critical, condemning views of the Forum editor.
I have been a member of ACB for more than 30 years, and have been active in support of the organization and what it stands for. I have found ACB and its members to be open-minded and fair in dealing with people who are blind or otherwise disabled. They have always been fair and positive in finding solutions to situations which are incorrect or improper as they relate to the treatment of individuals with disabilities.
I do not agree with the condemning, hostile attitude taken by the editor of “The Braille Forum” in the Communicating Computers situation. Even the replacement editorial, which was published in “The Braille Forum,” made reference to statements from the original editorial. It was obvious that the editor had no desire to change her original attitude, one of criticism and condemnation.
I only hope that the attitude of the editor does not reflect a new attitude on the part of the American Council of the Blind in its continued effort to improve the lives of people who are blind or visually impaired in a more positive, constructive manner.
— Donald C. Michlitsch, Rapid City, S.D.
Regarding the Iowa guide dog case, part 2
I have observed the controversy brewing between Stephanie Dohmen and the Iowa Department for the Blind with great interest. As a result of the controversy, ACB has tried to proceed while two affiliates — Iowa Council of the United Blind (ICUB) and Guide Dog Users, Inc. (GDUI) — have taken opposite stances. I feel I have a unique perspective, as I have been in close contact with all of the aforementioned organizations.
Two things which are very important to many Iowans are roots and traditions. As many know, the roots of the Iowa Department for the Blind go back to its administration by National Federation of the Blind (NFB) leader Kenneth Jernigan. He instilled his philosophy of blindness in all aspects of the department and headed the agency for over 20 years. Today the agency follows many of the same precepts which he put into place over 40 years ago. Based on the comments of Iowans on all sides of this controversy, I assume that the Iowa Department for the Blind is not very different from the way it was 12 years ago when I underwent training at the Orientation Center. Some of my observations and opinions are based upon these premises.
As I understand it, Stephanie Dohmen wanted computer and braille training. Department officials said they would train her only if she left her dog at home. This is when Dohmen brought in entities to uphold her civil right to use her guide dog under the Americans with Disabilities Act. GDUI President Debbie Grubb and ACB officials met with ICUB members and officials closely tied to the department, but no compromises were reached at that meeting. Thus, GDUI lodged a complaint with the Department of Justice on Dohmen’s behalf.
Stephanie Dohmen’s case highlights department officials’ belief in their right to conditionally distribute services while encouraging their philosophy and discouraging other beliefs. I saw this firsthand as a student. We had a class called “the business of blindness” where we were unequivocally told that the use of dogs as guides promotes a negative view of blindness. Our instructor explained that the public sees dog guide handlers as less independent than cane users. According to this thinking, the public perceives that the dog does everything for its handler because the dog has sight and the handler does not. We were told that blind people have an obligation to conduct ourselves publicly in ways in which stereotypes and/or assumptions are minimized if not eliminated. Blind people also should do things in a matter-of-fact way that calls no more attention to ourselves than our sighted counterparts. Yet if attention is attracted, it should be to the blind person — not the dog guide. Since dogs are attractive to most of the general public, they distract attention away from the blind person. To summarize, because of the public stereotypes about dog guides and the attention dog guides draw from the public, people who use dog guides damage the blindness movement.
According to the Iowa philosophy, dog guide users feel that they can function only because of the dog’s vision. People who believe in the Iowa philosophy assert that the most independent blind person is the person who uses absolutely no vision at all. Based on these assumptions, the cane is the more independent and thus better means of travel for blind people. When I was a student at the Iowa Department, I was still afraid of dogs, so that part of my training didn’t bother me. As a dog guide user today, I’m infuriated that people who are trying to figure out the best path for themselves are subjected to a training philosophy that actually closes off some of their options. At the very least, Stephanie Dohmen’s case suggests that the agency is serving clients on the condition that they function by doing things only the way department officials wish. As one who always fought the student indoctrination, I applaud GDUI and Stephanie Dohmen for standing up to the predominant Iowa philosophy.
Department officials have said that they welcome anyone into the building to use whatever mobility method works as long as they are not undergoing training at the Orientation Center. I beg to differ. I remember seeing a man visit the department for services on several occasions whom department officials called “the whistler.” He didn’t use a cane or dog but simply whistled as a sort of sonar. The staff put him down in front of us students, saying he had a poor attitude and projected a negative image of blindness. Whistling wouldn’t be my preferred travel method, but different strokes for different folks. Agency staff should not be making such value judgments about other blind people with their students. I haven’t been back to the department since I have become a dog guide handler, but Dohmen’s treatment affirms that all blind people are not treated equally under the law.
I received scholarships from ICUB when I was in college and know that they care about blind PEOPLE. In order to appreciate their support of the department, one must understand the strong ties between the two. According to department director Allan Harris on a recent ACB Radio program, both ICUB and NFB of Iowa hold meetings in the department’s banquet room. Many current and former staff in the department are members of one of the consumer organizations. Based on these facts, it is not surprising that members of both of Iowa’s consumer organizations have adopted the department’s philosophy as their own. Thus it is understandable that ICUB supported the department’s position.
ACB is a democracy, and though I vehemently disagree with ICUB’s stance, I’d be the first to stand up and protest if anyone talked of kicking ICUB out of ACB. However, I believe that ACB board members contradicted the basic principles of the national organization by choosing not to take action to directly support the complaint by GDUI, a national affiliate. The Dohmen case has national implications, but to placate the Iowa affiliate, nothing directly supporting GDUI was approved by the ACB board.
I wonder what might have happened if ACB would have signed on or at least attached a letter of support to the complaint. Would ICUB leave? I’d hate to see them go. But if I were given the choice between ACB’s fighting for civil rights for the blind nationwide versus having an affiliate in Iowa, I would choose the former. This inaction has brought up a lot of questions for me about the beliefs of the national organization. Do we truly believe in consumer choice and those 13 principles we have outlined, or do we pay those principles only lip service? Maybe consumer choice is contingent upon all affiliates agreeing? Which one has priority — affiliate membership or blind people’s civil rights? I am thankful that GDUI is willing to fight for guide dog handlers’ civil rights without ACB. Yet I still remain strongly bonded to the organization.
— Rebecca Kragnes, Minneapolis, Minn.