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.
More on the Iowa guide dog discrimination issue
I am writing to you concerning all the letters lately to the editor about Iowa and the guide dog issue.
I do not feel it has been fair for all the letters to be in against Iowa. If there are not any in favor there surely are other subjects written about that could be published.
I have been in the Iowa Council of the United Blind and the Des Moines chapter for some time. After reading all these letters, if I were a new member and thinking of coming to a national convention I would wonder what kind of reception I would get.
I know this has been an issue that has interested a lot of people, but many of the comments made do not tell everything. Many people do not know the whole story and are taking things out of context. This is not fair to Iowa. We sure do not feel that we blackmailed ACB as many keep saying.
I am planning to attend the Pittsburgh convention and am looking forward to meeting many new people. The only other convention I have been to was the one in Iowa.
Thank you for letting me say what I felt was necessary and hope you feel that this letter should be published.
-- Dee Clayton, Des Moines, Iowa
As a member of the Iowa Council of the United Blind and an alumnus of the Iowa Department for the Blind's Orientation Center, I was very displeased with the way Charlie Crawford handled the dog guide issue.
Crawford should have contacted ICUB for some input before going off and antagonizing everyone involved. Stephanie had several options which included the use of her dog. Neither ICUB nor the department has any objections to dogs; in fact, the department has several employees who use dog guides and they are present each and every day at their owners' work stations.
Perhaps it is actions like those of Crawford that have led to decreased contributions and a dwindling membership. When a member feels he or she has no say or input, they may feel that the organization no longer serves or listens.
The Orientation Center has been in operation for over 40 years and is considered one of the best if not the best rehabilitation center in the country. People have come from all over to train here.
The center operates on the contention that a blind person can be independent and helps change attitudes regarding blindness. You have to accept the fact that you are blind, something Stephanie apparently refuses to do. In a recent discussion, she referred to herself as "being like this." She apparently could not admit she was blind.
Stephanie was offered other alternatives at the Department for the Blind as well as help at other agencies which included her using her dog guide. These options should have been explored.
I am making an appeal to Mr. Crawford to seek the advice of any affiliate before taking action. For the good of the blind community, we must work together.
Thank you,
Dick Natale, Iowa Council of the United Blind, West Des Moines, Iowa
With reference to the case of Stephanie Dohmen, the young lady who wished to receive computer training accompanied by her dog guide at the Iowa Center, ACB board members contradicted ACB's "democratic principles and philosophy" by not supporting Dohmen's complaint, and also that of GDUI. The case has not only national implications, but this type of horrific discrimination and dictate to people could happen to any one of us. The days of discrimination are not yet over. Why is ACB taking such a passive stance in this matter? What about the civil rights of blind people? Other minorities would never have accepted such intolerance. They would fight for their rights as individuals and Americans. Is rehabilitation choice only a figment of my imagination?
It was a cross-disability group which actually assisted and advocated for Dohmen. Where is the democracy in ACB?
Such a postponement in her rehabilitation prolongs Dohmen's status of unemployment. If ICUB supports the "equality, security and opportunity" of blind people, well, Iowa has defeated its entire purpose.
The board's position is incorrect and out of order also, as the board and ICUB are all affiliated with the same organization. The board should have joined in the complaint. Forget this "local matter" nonsense. This is not local, it is national in scope! Is ACB more concerned with offending agencies which purport to serve blind people than advocating for one of its own?
What other horrendous violation will blind people face now that the ACB board is so passive and weak? By attempting not to offend blindness agencies, the ACB board and ICUB, as well, have succeeded in offending us! Where can a blind person turn to get help in a situation such as this, if neither ACB nor an agency will support him or her?
It is a sad commentary on our society that this young lady had to turn to a disability rights organization whose mission and purpose don't include blind people as their first priority. Where are the priorities of the "organized" blind?
-- Lucia Marett, New York, N.Y.
I think it would be helpful to get an explanation from the ACB board as to the reasons for their position on the case in Iowa.
I was interested to read in the Forum that at one time at the Iowa Department, they were telling people that guide dogs make people look dependent. I'm reminded that about 1923 there was an article in a national magazine by a blind man telling blind people to toss away their canes because they were a sign of dependence. He argued that people could travel very well with hearing and feeling, no need for a cane. I don't think many folks would take that position today.
-- Walt Stromer, Mount Vernon, Iowa
A Student's Point of View
I read "The Braille Forum" and all the articles in there. We are an organized blind movement that advocates for itself. We want to be as independent as possible, and we can do it. I use a cane, and the bus system, wherever I go.
Things in Bakersfield, and California, are not good. Our governor is cutting the number of teachers at Bakersfield Community College which I attend, and other services and programs, including help with affording medical prescriptions, are being cut.
Who knows what the governor will cut next? The elderly are going to suffer more than others. California Council of the Blind is going to do all it can to prevent such cuts. We are going to work as a unit, and we are going to achieve our goals. We can do it!
-- Walter Chavira, Bakersfield, Calif.
Regarding Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Dear Editor,
I am writing to respond to Jennifer Ekern's letter in the April "Braille Forum." She says she is opposed to the APS because they are dangerous. She also says she can cross streets confidently. While crossing streets may not be a problem for Jennifer, or for me, she forgets that there are many blind people who have less than perfect hearing. There are many blind people who, regardless of how good their travel skills are, have trouble with today's traffic.
She seems to think that we are trained to use the APS as an indicator to tell us when we can cross the street at the proper time. I've never been told that. I wish to remind Jennifer that sighted people have the SAME indicator in place, the Walk / Don't Walk signal. Shall we lobby to remove those as well? That would indeed put sighted people on the same playing field as blind people. But wait a minute here. Isn't that exactly WHY we need the APS? To put US on the same level playing field as sighted pedestrians? Isn't the point of "reasonable accommodations" to help us do things the sighted population takes for granted? So why are APS different?
Jennifer says, "However, with proper training, a person can easily determine when the light and traffic have changed." While the statement may be true in an idealistic world, in the real world, it does not fit. She also says when she hears an audible signal, she ignores it. That is her right. But please, Jennifer, do not ignore OUR right to use tools that benefit us.
Accessible pedestrian signals are not dangerous. Neither are the vehicles dangerous. It's the drivers who ignore the traffic laws and kill pedestrians. Even sighted pedestrians become road kill. What chance do we have?
-- Robert Clark, Portland, Ore.