THE BRAILLE MONITOR November, 1986 Kenneth Jernigan, Editor Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, and cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT National Office 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, orders for NFB literature, articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor should be sent to the National Office. * * * * Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ISSN 0006-8829 NFB NET BBS: (612) 696-1975 WorldWide Web: http://www.nfb.org CONTENTS NOVEMBER 1986 MESSAGE TO THE MEMBERS by Kenneth Jernigan IN MEMORIAM--LAWRENCE (MUZZY) MARCELINO by Kenneth Jernigan MUZZY MARCELINO, MAN OF INTEGRITY by Hazel tenBroek SCHOLARSHIPS CONFRONTATION WITH THE AIRLINES INCREASES by Kenneth Jernigan UNITED AIRLINES EXPOSED--SHARON GOLD AND OTHER CALIFORNIANS ARRESTED CHARGES DROPPED UNITED AIRLINES DISREGARDS PASSENGER SAFETY CAUSES LIFE THREATENING SITUATION TWA BEHAVES AS USUAL--FRED SCHROEDER ARRESTED MORE ABOUT TWA--BARBARA PIERCE WRITES A LETTER AIRLINE BEHAVIOR--LIQUOR, INCOMPETENCE, AND EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR by John W. Smith NO TROUBLE WITH THE EXIT ROW HOW DO THEY DETERMINE WHO IS BLIND? NEW YORK AIR PRACTICES ROUTINE RUDENESS REPUBLIC AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVE SHOWS ENLIGHTENMENT UNITED AIRLINES: EXCESS LIQUOR, WHIMSICAL BEHAVIOR AND LACK OF CONCERN FOR SAFETY by David Ticchi OF SPIDERS AND OTHER THINGS OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION IN 1986 HAVE YOU HEARD??? THE ROMANCE OF BLINDNESS by Lauri Klobas THE ROCKY ROAD OF THIEL by Kenneth Jernigan PLEASE SAVE ME THE EXIT ROW SEAT A FIRST TIMER'S LOOK AT A NATIONAL CONVENTION by Dan Barrett A READER COMMENTS ON "MR. SUNSHINE" MR. SUNSHINE--AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND GETS INTO THE ACT JEFFREY TAMBOR COMMENTS by Kenneth Jernigan PROCLAMATION FROM A RECENT LETTER FROM GERTRUDE WARD BILL GRIMM AND COMPUTER AIDS CORPORATION MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright, National Federation of the Blind, Inc., 1986 MESSAGE TO THE MEMBERS by Kenneth Jernigan As Federationists know, we are in the process of remodeling the facilities at the National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. Of course, this is not new. We have been at it ever since we purchased the Center in the middle of 1978. However, something which is about to happen is quite new and of immediate importance to Federationists throughout the country. We have now completed renovation of the space on the ground floor level of the Johnson Street wing. This means that we can move our aids, appliances, materials, and literature from the fourth floor (where they are now housed) to the ground floor level. This will save the labor and inconvenience of taking new shipments to the fourth floor, processing them there, and then bringing them back down to the loading dock to be sent out in response to orders. But the task of taking everything off the shelves, getting it from the fourth floor to the new space in the Johnson Street wing, getting it processed and inventoried, and putting it back on the shelves is going to be overwhelming. When we moved our operations from Des Moines to Baltimore, nine semis were required for the job. What we had then was nothing compared to what we have now. We have at least ten times as much--maybe more. It will take all of the man- and woman-power and all of the skill and energy we can muster. In this connection Ray McGeorge will be in the National Office for a ten-day period early in October (this is being written in late September) to help with the work. So what is all of this leading to? Just this: When we are in the process of moving, we cannot fill orders. Therefore, we want to give everybody as much notice as we can so that as little inconvenience as possible will be caused. We will not process any orders for aids, appliances, literature, or materials between December 15, 1986, and February 1, 1987. Moreover, during that time we will have very little opportunity to deal with long telephone calls of explanation about the matter. We want the moving to take as little time as possible, so between December 15 and February 1 we will be spending all of our effort getting through with it. We know that Christmas is coming. We know that it is an inconvenience for the service to be interrupted. We know that there will be items which people will forget to order and need to have during the interim. Nevertheless, the decision has been made. It is a necessity, and there can be no exceptions or bending of the rule. Otherwise, the period of moving and interrupted service will be prolonged, causing expense to the Federation and inconvenience to the membership. Please pay heed to this announcement-- and help us spread the word so that all who need to know will be informed. If we receive an order (not if it is postmarked but if we actually receive it) before December 15, 1986, we will try to process it. If we receive it after December 15 (yes, I mean even if we receive it at eight o'clock on the morning of December 16, 1986), we will hold it until after February 1, 1987. All orders which reach us between December 15 and February 1 will be dealt with after February 1, which means that there will be a log jam to process. In other words the fact that we have an order in hand does not mean that we can send it out on February 1. It means that we will work as hard as we can and send it as soon as we are able. Incidentally, we are considering finding someone whose popularity we wish to enhance and appointing him or her to handle all inquiries and complaints about this matter. This person would, of course, be responsible for all delays, mix-ups, and other problems. If you should wish to apply for the job, let us know--but not between December 15, 1986, and February 1, 1987. IN MEMORIAM LAWRENCE (MUZZY) MARCELINO by Kenneth Jernigan The ranks of the blind of the first generation of the National Federation of the Blind are thinning, but the recognition of their contribution continues to grow with each passing year. They came to maturity at a critical time in the history of the blind, and only now (with the perspective of almost half a century) is the full magnitude of their accomplishment beginning to be understood. They were dedicated, determined, and resourceful--and none was more so than Lawrence (Muzzy) Marcelino. He would not have thought of himself as a pioneer, but he was. I reflected on these and many other things when Sharon Gold called me on Sunday, September 14, 1986, to tell me of Muzzy's death. I had known and worked closely with Muzzy for over thirty years--and suddenly he was gone. As I talked with Sharon, there was of course a feeling of sadness, but this was not the predominant emotion. Muzzy had led a long and full life; his last day was filled with the kind of activity he would have chosen if he could have planned it; and his death was not prolonged with pain and suffering. Most of all, as I talked with Sharon, I remembered. I first met Muzzy in Nashville in 1952. It was the convention of the National Federation of the Blind--my first, but not Muzzy's. He was part of that group of California leaders (first generation NFB but second generation California) who put the National Federation of the Blind together and spread it throughout the country. He was in Tennessee, and I was state president, but he was not like most of the blind people I knew in the Tennessee of that period. He had about him an air of purpose, of being at the center of things, which distinguished the California leaders of the early fifties. From the time I moved to the Bay Area of California in 1953 to the time of Muzzy's death in 1986 we were closely associated on a continuing basis. In 1953 he was a state rehabilitation counselor and I was a member of the faculty of the California Orientation Center. He helped me learn about the California laws affecting the blind and about the details and structure of the Federation in the state. In the summer of that first year there were many meetings at Dr. tenBroek's home in Berkeley--meetings about California and also about the Federation in other parts of the country. At every one of them Muzzy was present. It was only by degrees that I learned some of the details of Muzzy's background. He was born in Livingston, California, June 2, 1913, so at the time of his death he was seventy-three. He attended the state school for the blind and later the University of California at Berkeley, graduating in 1938. He was married in January of 1953, and he and his wife Frances had a daughter (Holly), who was born in 1956. In 1942 Muzzy moved to San Diego to take a job as a social worker in the county welfare department. He immediately became active in the local affiliate of the Federation and fought to help eliminate the visual acuity requirement for the position of Field Service Worker for the Blind (home teacher). "The chief proponent of this requirement was the then Superintendent of the Training Center for the Adult Blind in Oakland. Muzzy and his cohorts stirred up a great deal of opposition to that requirement, which was finally discarded by the State Personnel Board. . . . After leaving the San Diego County Public Welfare position, Muzzy spent a year as a Rehabilitation and Education Aide for the U.S. War Department at Dibble Hospital in San Mateo, followed by a year as a Training Officer for the Veterans Administration, then twelve years as a Rehabilitation Counselor for the Blind in the State Department of Education. Form 1961 to 1980 Muzzy was employed as a broker by the Mutual Fund Associates of San Francisco." [Footnote 1] I believe that Muzzy attended his first NFB state convention (the affiliate was then known as the California Council of the Blind) in 1943, and it is said that he probably missed only one during the rest of his life. Of course, he attended countless conventions in other states during the years, and he was very actively a part of every national convention. He arrived early and stayed late. I am not sure when Muzzy was first elected to the Board of the National Federation of the Blind, but he was elected Corporate Secretary in 1970. He served in that capacity until the early 1980's, at which time he asked that his name not be placed in nomination for another term. He became a member of the Board of the American Brotherhood for the Blind as early as the 1950's and continued until the time of his death. From 1969 he served as Second Vice President of the Brotherhood. He was also one of the original incorporators of the Jacobus tenBroek Memorial Fund and was serving, at the time of his death, as Secretary-Treasurer. There was no task too difficult or too humble for Muzzy to undertake. Muzzy was active in the Unitarian Church. He was also (something which would surprise many who knew him only in his capacity as a Federationist) an avid participant in the Rose Society of San Francisco. He loved flowers and, particularly, roses. He loved good food and good restaurants. He loved to visit his friends. He loved the Federation. He loved the action and bustle of working to get legislation passed and bring new members into the movement. In short, he loved life--and now he is gone. He died of a massive heart attack at about three o'clock on Sunday morning, September 14, 1986, and the following day he was cremated. He was a member of the Neptune Society, which handled the cremation and scattered his ashes over the Pacific Ocean. On September 22 a memorial service was held for him at the First Unitarian Church in San Francisco. He was much loved, and several hundred people came to the service to mourn his death and show respect for his indomitable spirit. President Marc Maurer was there representing the National Federation of the Blind, and after the minister had conducted the service President Maurer spoke. Among other things, he said: "I first met Muzzy in 1969. He was a seasoned veteran in the battle of the blind for independence, already having more than a quarter of a century of service in the National Federation of the Blind to his credit. He was tough, plain spoken, gentle, and generous. He was a man with a warm heart and a kind word. He was a man to be trusted--one who never wavered. He was rock solid in his commitment and understanding. Thousands of blind people throughout the nation knew and loved him because of his work in the National Federation of the Blind. We will no longer hear that resonant voice which cried out for justice, but the spirit which evoked the voice will always be with us--still alive, still vibrant. Muzzy, we are your brothers and sisters, and we will not forget." Gary Mackenstadt, a member of the Board of Directors of the American Brotherhood for the Blind, was present and spoke of Muzzy's many years of dedicated service as an officer and Board Member of the American Brotherhood for the Blind, helping provide Twin Vision books so that sighted parents and blind children or blind parents and sighted children might read together, and making information available to the deaf-blind. All of this (and more) was part of Muzzy's work with the Brotherhood-- scholarships for blind college students, business loans for the blind, and direct assistance to those who would not otherwise have had it. The next to speak was Sharon Gold, President of the National Federation of the Blind of California. She reviewed Muzzy's work in the state affiliate and his efforts in the California Legislature. She talked of his commitment and dedication and voiced the grief of the blind of California at his death. She went on to say: "I last spoke with Muzzy on Saturday morning, September 13, and we made plans for him to go to Sacramento during the following week to perform his duties as Treasurer of the NFB of California. Muzzy told me of his plans to attend our Bay Area Chapter meeting that afternoon, a plan which he completed and which included meeting a blind person at a designated place along his public transportation route and bringing this person with him to the meeting to become a new member of the Federation. "When we think of Muzzy we shall remember his joyous greetings and his proud carriage of his white cane, which he frequently called his 'horse.' We shall always remember how he sought out blind students and spoke with them of the importance of education and encouraged them to learn and use the alternative techniques of blindness, including Braille, and the endless value of the slate and stylus; further, we shall always remember how Muzzy likened the Federation to an army and how he taught us to be soldiers in the trenches; and finally, we shall always remember Muzzy's lesson to us that it is respectable to be blind." The next to speak was Hazel tenBroek, the widow of Dr. Jacobus tenBroek, who founded the National Federation of the Blind. She talked movingly and eloquently of Muzzy's dedication to the movement and his work to make life better for the blind. She gave particular emphasis to his integrity and steadfastness of purpose, both in good times and bad. Her remarks are printed elsewhere in this issue of the Monitor. As I have already said, the memorial service was held on September 22. On September 23 the California Senate adjourned in Muzzy's memory. In a letter to Sharon Gold Senator Henry Mello, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, said: "Enclosed is a copy of the Senate Journal with the adjournment in memory of Lawrence (Muzzy) Marcelino. Muzzy was a helpful presence in the Capitol over many years and will be greatly missed." The memorial service is now finished, and the tribute from the California Senate has been given. Muzzy's ashes have been scattered at sea, and his voice will no longer be heard in the legislative halls or on the convention floor. How difficult it is to accept the fact emotionally that Muzzy is gone. Courage has been defined as fear faced with resolution. If that is a true definition, then Muzzy was an extremely courageous man, for he was often afraid--but he was never a coward. He never ducked unpleasant tasks. He never asked others to do what he was not willing to do himself, and he had more genuine humility than most of the people I have ever known. It has not been easy to write this article, for I loved Muzzy as a brother and a colleague. He was one of my closest associates and friends. His passing reminds me of my own mortality. I shall miss him terribly--and so will the blind of the nation. FOOTNOTES: 1. A History of the California Council of the Blind 1934-1969, by Perry Sundquist. MUZZY MARCELINO MAN OF INTEGRITY by Hazel tenBroek Oscar Wilde once noted that "most modern calendars mar the sweet simplicity of our lives by reminding us that each day that passes is the anniversary of some perfectly uninteresting event." For Muzzy Marcelino (heaven help the poor wretch who might address him as Larry) there were no such days. His passion for bringing the justice due under first-class citizenship to every blind person in the country clad the most commonplace chore with excitement. He served individual blind people, the local chapters of the National Federation of the Blind, the state organizations, and the entirety of the National Federation of the Blind with joy. Not that Muzzy was a saint. He did his share of grumbling but usually at the method or about his unnecessary self-doubt in meeting a challenge. He was sent on many missions for the National Federation of the Blind to almost every state in the Union, including Alaska and Hawaii, and he went-- sometimes with fear and trepidation about the traveling. But fear or no, he went. He tramped the halls of the national capitol and the state legislature tirelessly. In Sacramento Muzzy was a legend in his own time. Secretaries, aides, legislators, and waitresses all addressed him by name and with affection. In the long years that he edited the organization's publication in California, his preference for elegance, clarity, and correct usage in language was apparent. Muzzy's most outstanding trait was his gentle soul. He was frequently angry, but rarely on his own account. He preferred to say yes rather than no. He wore the crown of leadership uneasily. He knew well that he was a good lieutenant, and he would rather follow orders than give them. Sometimes this led to difficulties, but usually his good humor took command. For the period that he served the California affiliate as President, we were all giving him advice. For the most part, we wanted him to be successful for his own sake, as well as for the sake of the organization. Two good friends, one in the north and one in the south, took him in hand. He christened them Nagatha North and Nagatha South. At times he felt beset and George Canning's lines came to mind: Give me the avowed, erect, and manly foe, Firm I can meet,--perhaps return the blow! But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save, oh, save me from the candid friend! But though he complained and fussed, it was done with love on all sides. But Muzzy was a leader whether he held office or not. Many turned to him for personal or career advice, and he gave them what he perceived to be a truthful reply--the best that his knowledge and experience had to offer. Muzzy was, most of all, my friend--a steady hand, a shoulder on which to rest a weary head, an arm on which to lean when overcome with grief, and, always, an understanding and compassionate mind with which to work out all manner of problems and against which to try ideas. For Muzzy, too, could be candid. He did not withhold his thoughts or his feelings, but gave all he had. Much has been written about friendship. Nicholas Grimald wrote: "Of all the heavenly gifts that mortal men commend; what trusty treasure in the world can countervail a friend." And Ecclesiasticus says: "A faithful friend is the medicine of life." But Ralph Waldo Emerson summed it up well: "A friend may well be reckoned the masterpiece of nature." Muzzy Marcelino was, indeed, such a masterpiece. SCHOLARSHIPS In 1984 the National Federation of the Blind dramatically upped the number and size of the scholarships which it awarded. The 1985 and 1986 programs were substantially increased. The same is true for the coming year. In 1987 twenty-five outstanding blind students will receive scholarships from the Federation totaling $67,000 in case plus payment of their expenses to the National Federation of the Blind convention in Phoenix during late June and early July. Ten scholars will receive awards of $1,800; one scholar will receive an award of $2,000; ten scholars will receive awards of $2,500; three scholars will receive awards of $4,000; and one scholar will receive a $10,000 scholarship. The Federation's commitment to excellence and achievement is long-standing. We have made this commitment real through our many Federation programs and projects. No Federation activity spotlights excellence and achievement more than our scholarship program, through which we honor and encourage America's distinguished blind students. The Scholarship Committee for 1987 (their terms expire December 31, 1987) consists of the following thirty people: Peggy Pinder, Iowa, Chairman; Russell Anderson, Indiana; Adrienne Asch, New York; Jan Bailey, Minnesota; Michael Bailiff, California; Steve Benson, Illinois; Jacquilyn Billey, Connecticut; Suzanne Bridges, Louisiana; Charles Brown, Virginia; Tami Dodd, Michigan; Joanne Fernandes, Louisiana; Priscilla Ferris, Massachusetts; Norman Gardner, Idaho; Sharon Gold, California; Charles Hallenbeck, Kansas; John Halverson, Virginia; Allen Harris, Michigan; David Hyde, Oregon; Scott LaBarre, Minnesota; Gary Mackenstadt; Washington; Ronald Matias, Indiana; Darrel Nather, Alaska; Homer Page, Colorado; Barbara Pierce, Ohio; Mary Ellen Reihing, Maryland; David Robinson, Nebraska; Fred Schroeder, New Mexico; Karl Smith, Utah; Ramona Walhof, Idaho; and Ehab Yamini, Georgia. Our Scholarship Application Form (copy reproduced at the end of this article) consists of a single legal-sized page with printing on both sides. It will be noted that the form lists only twenty- four scholarships. We did not have the data in time to list the twenty-fifth scholarship on the form. It is the Francis Urbanek Memorial Scholarship. This scholarship (in the amount of $1,800) will be awarded at the 1987 NFB convention. It is being given by Joe Urbanek, who is a member of the board of directors of the NFB of South Carolina, in memory of his brother Francis, who died in January of 1986 at the age of eighteen. Only blind high school graduates entering their freshman year of college are eligible for this scholarship. Even though the Francis Urbanek Scholarship is not listed on the printed form, all eligible applicants will be considered for it. We are making an initial printing of thirty thousand of our scholarship forms. They will be sent to every college and university in the country, every agency doing work with the blind, every Congressional office, every NFB state president, and every member of the Scholarship Committee. They will also be sent to anyone requesting them. These are worthwhile scholarships, which will be of real assistance to blind students. The news about our scholarship program should be disseminated as widely as possible. To receive forms or to obtain further information contact Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue, Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112; (515) 236-3366. Forms can also be had by writing to: Scholarships, National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Here is the Scholarship Form: -------------------- National Federation of the Blind 1987 Scholarship Program Each year the National Federation of the Blind offers a broad array of scholarships. These scholarships are bestowed at the Federation's Annual Convention in early July and are given to blind persons pursuing or planning to pursue a full-time post-secondary course of training or study. We are currently offering the following: 1. Ezra Davis Memorial Scholarship. A scholarship, in the amount of $10,000, has been endowed by Ezra Davis through his last will and testament and by the American Brotherhood for the Blind, a private agency which works to assist blind persons. Applicants for this scholarship must be legally blind and studying (or planning to study) at the post-secondary level. There is no restriction as to gender, graduate or undergraduate level, or field of study. 2. National Federation of the Blind Merit Scholarships. Eighteen of these scholarships (three in the amount of $4,000; seven in the amount of $2,500; and eight in the amount of $1,800) will be given this year. Applicants for these scholarships must be legally blind and studying (or planning to study) at the post-secondary level. There is no restriction as to gender, graduate or undergraduate level, or field of study. 3. Howard Brown Rickard Scholar- ship. This scholarship, in the amount of $2,500 this year, is awarded annually. Only students in certain fields of study are eligible because the donor of the scholarship wanted to encourage the blind to enter those fields. The scholarship was established by Thomas E. Rickard in honor of his father, Howard Brown Rickard. Any legally blind university student in the professions of law, medicine, engineering, architecture, or the natural sciences, including undergraduates in these fields, is eligible to apply. 4. Hermione Grant Calhoun Scholar- ships. Two of these scholarships (each in the amount of $2,500 this year) are awarded annually. Dr. Isabelle Grant established the Hermione Grant Calhoun Scholarships in memory of her daughter. These scholarships are awarded to legally blind female students for education at the college level. 5. Frank Walton Horn Memorial Scholarship. A scholarship in the amount of $2,000, known as the Frank Walton Horn Memorial Scholarship, has been given by Mr. and Mrs. Charles E. Barnum, the mother and stepfather of Catherine Horn Randall. Applicants for this scholarship must be legally blind and studying (or planning to study) at the post-secondary level. There is no restriction as to gender, graduate or undergraduate level, or field of study, but preference will be given to those studying architecture or engineering. 6. Melva T. Owen Memorial Scholar- ship. This scholarship, in the amount of $1,800 this year, is given annually. This scholarship is given in memory of Melva T. Owen, who was widely known and loved among the blind. She and her husband Charles Owen became acquainted with increasing numbers of blind people through their work in the "Voicepondence" Club. In the words of Charles Owen, "There shall be no limitation as to field of study, except that it shall be directed towards attaining financial independence, and shall exclude religion and those seeking only to further their general or cultural education." Applicants must be legally blind. Criteria. All scholarships administered by the Federation are awarded on the basis of academic excellence, service to the community, and financial need. Membership. The National Federation of the Blind is an organization dedicated to creating opportunities for all blind persons. In furtherance of this goal, we have established our scholarship program. Recipients of Federation scholarships need not be members of the National Federation of the Blind. Deadline. Applications for National Federation of the Blind scholarships must be submitted by March 31 of the year in which the scholarship is to be awarded. Applications for scholarships will be accepted through March 31 for scholarships to be awarded next July. Making Application. To apply for National Federation of the Blind scholarships, complete and return the application on the reverse side of this sheet. Multiple applications are unnecessary. The Scholarship Committee will consider each applicant as a candidate for all scholarships for which he or she qualifies. Please provide all the information requested where applicable to you. Please attach to your application all the additional documents requested on the application. Send the completed application and attachments to: Miss Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue, Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112; (515) 236-3366. Reapplication. In the past we have often awarded scholarships to persons who were applying for the second or third time. Applicants must re-submit their applications each year by March 31 to be considered for scholarships to be awarded in July. Persons who have previously applied are encouraged to apply again. Winners. Each year our Scholarship Committee reviews all applications and selects the top candidates as scholarship winners. These winners, the same number of winners as there are scholarships to award, will be notified of their selection as winners by June 1 and will be brought to the National Federation of the Blind convention in July at Federation expense. This is in addition to the scholarship grants. Regardless of precisely which scholarship a winner receives, it is a mark of distinction and an honor to be chosen as a Federation scholarship winner. The winners are America's finest blind students. The National Federation of the Blind Convention is the largest gathering of blind persons (more than 2,000) to occur anywhere in the nation each year. You will be able to meet with other blind students and exchange information and ideas, and you will also be able to meet and talk with blind people who are successfully functioning in your chosen profession or occupation. Federal officials, Congressmen and Senators, and the makers and distributors of new technology attend Federation Conventions. Above all, a broad cross section of the most active segment of the blind population of the United States will be present to discuss common problems, exchange information and ideas, and plan for concerted action. It is an interesting and exciting week. Awards. The day before the Convention Banquet the Scholarship Committee will meet to determine which winners will receive which scholarships. The scholarship awards will be made during the Banquet. -------------------- National Federation of the Blind Scholarship Application Form Please read carefully the reverse side of this form for instructions and an explanation of how the scholarship program works. This form may be photocopied, but only if the reverse side (containing rules of the scholarship program) is included. To apply for a scholarship, complete this application form, providing all the requested information applicable to you and attaching all the requested documents. Mail the completed application and attachments or address any questions to: Miss Peggy Pinder, Chairman, National Federation of the Blind Scholarship Committee, 814 - 4th Avenue, Suite 200, Grinnell, Iowa 50112, (515) 236-3366. DEADLINE: MARCH 31, 1987 Name (please include any maiden or other names by which you have been known): Date of birth: We want to know how to reach you. Please give your current addresses and phone numbers for home and school. School address: School phone number: Home address: Home phone number: Institution being attended in the spring semester of 1987, with class standing (freshman, senior, third-year student, etc.): Cumulative grade point average at this institution: Institution to be attended in fall of 1987, with class standing. (Please provide this information by separate letter if you are admitted to your school of choice after submitting your completed application): List all post-secondary institutions you have attended with highest class standing attained and cumulative grade point average: High school attended and cumulative grade point: Vocational goal: State your major: Awards and honors (attach list if necessary): Community service (attach list if necessary): Please attach the following documents to your completed application: 1. Applicant's Letter. Along with your application, send us a letter: What schools have you attended? What school do you plan to attend during the coming year? What honors have you achieved? What have you done to deal with situations involving your blindness? What are you like as a person? What are your goals and aspirations? How will the scholarship help you? 2. Two Letters of Recommendation. 3. Transcripts. Provide a current transcript from the institution you are attending as well as transcripts from all post-secondary institutions you have attended. If you have not yet attended an institution of higher learning or have not completed one year of study at such an institution, provide a high school transcript. 4. Letter from Federation Officer. Include a letter from a state officer of the National Federation of the Blind evidencing the fact that you have discussed your scholarship application with that officer. It is preferable but not mandatory that you discuss your application with the State President of the Federation. If you do not have the name and address of the Federation President in your state, we will provide it to you upon request. CONFRONTATION WITH THE AIRLINES INCREASES by Kenneth Jernigan Until a few years ago, the blind had very few problems with the airlines. We bought our tickets, boarded the planes, and rode like anybody else. If assistance was needed in boarding or deplaning, it was asked for and given without any fanfare. It was simply part of the normal routine of flying. But that was another time, almost another world. Today there is growing confrontation, and there is every sign that it will increase greatly (very much greatly) before it gets better. For the past several years (and, especially, since the infamous case involving Steve and Nadine Jacobson in the summer of 1985--see August-September, 1985, Braille Monitor) we have been reporting the cases involving abuse of blind persons by airline officials. Now, the abuse has reached a new peak of viciousness. Since several thousand blind people attend the convention of the National Federation of the Blind each year and since blind persons are more and more determined to resist custodialism and second-class treatment, the period from late June to early August is the time when the incidents multiply. Traveling to and from this year's convention, blind persons experienced massive and widespread abuse by employees of the airlines. Several people were arrested for violating federal regulations which did not exist, and others were subjected to treatment which would hardly be believed if it were not described in detail and verified by witnesses. In this issue of the Monitor we present a panoramic view of airline conduct as it has been for the past few months and as it continues today. As the facts are set forth, the situation is certainly not reassuring--not just for the blind but for anybody who travels by air. There is no consistency--no rationale for what is done. A passenger is arbitrarily moved from a nonexit row seat into the exit row and then verbally abused and threatened because his cane is allegedly blocking the exit row aisle. Liquor carts are parked in that same exit row aisle, blocking it; and a passenger is told by a flight attendant that if he intends to drive when he arrives at the airport, she will not sell him another drink. He gives her his word, and she pours more liquor for him. A plane is delayed. A flight attendant goes into an emotional tantrum and has to be taken off. In the meantime free drinks are poured to compensate for the delay (a customary practice), and many of the passengers get drunk and live it up with airline complicity. When the whim strikes, blind passengers are treated like normal human beings (even when they are seated in exit rows) and everything is peaches and cream. A female ground agent tries to make a blind businessman ride in a golf cart instead of walking, and when he courteously declines, she treats him like a little child and seeks to jolly him along by telling him how pretty she is. With understandable annoyance he lets it be known that he is not a candidate for seduction. There are uglier incidents. United Airlines officials insist that there are federal regulations preventing blind persons from sitting in exit rows. They lie to the police, incite other passengers against blind passengers, and try to get blind passengers to deplane by lying to them about whether the flight is being canceled. Flight attendants remove their name badges so that they cannot be identified as they intensify their abuse. After inciting the passengers, airline personnel do nothing to try to stop physical attacks upon blind persons who are guilty of nothing but refusing to move from the seats to which they were assigned. While sanctimoniously talking about obeying the law, airline officials violate the law themselves. They sign blank complaints against blind passengers, the complaints being filled out by the police after the airplane in question has gone. Airline employees undertake to make blind persons move from an exit row so that they may place a frail, elderly lady in it. They do not identify blind people as being blind. They make blind people move from exit rows while knowingly permitting people who are unable to walk to remain seated there. The air conditioning in the airplane fails; the compass fails; and the integrity fails. Going home from this summer's convention in Kansas City, Sharon Gold and other Californians were badgered by United Airlines officials and placed in a situation where their very lives were in danger. The danger was created by United Airlines employees, who deliberately tried to incite other passengers against the blind. Fred Schroeder, Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind, was also arrested. So was Jan Uribes of California. Jan Uribes is diabetic and needed food. At Bakersfield, California, United Airlines employees caused her to be removed from a seat which she had occupied all the way from Denver. They left her in the Bakersfield airport without money for food and refused to honor her ticket for the remainder of her trip to Fresno. Larry Krejci, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, is relatively new to the Federation. He attended his first national convention this summer in Kansas City. When he and his wife Olga, along with their small baby, went to the Kansas City airport, they were assigned seats in the exit row of the airplane. They had not asked for these seats, and they were obviously blind. After they were seated, the usual badgering and abuse began. Larry asked Olga to take the baby and move to another part of the plane. He told her that he would stand his ground and that she should meet him in Chicago, which was the next stop on their trip. A man and a woman, who identified themselves as Kansas City police, came to Larry's seat and told him they were placing him under arrest and removing him from the plane. They were not Kansas City police but airport security agents. The woman ultimately agreed with Larry and told him that if she had been in his situation, she would have behaved exactly as he behaved. He was ultimately able to book passage on another flight to Chicago, where he met Olga and the baby and continued home to Hawaii. It must be emphasized that the material contained in this issue of the Monitor is only a fragment of the total picture. It is not exaggeration to say that the blind of the nation are now in crisis and that nothing less than physical safety, our right to be free, and our dignity as human beings is involved. We are at a critical stage of confrontation with the airlines, and we will now make a major breakthrough and go forward or fall far back down the ladder we have been climbing. It is certain that we cannot stay where we are. This is a call to conscience and action. What we do during the next year will have far-reaching implications. It may well be a key factor in determining whether we go on to full citizenship or fall back to the fear and superstition of fifty years ago. Every person who reads this article and the ones to follow should determine what he or she must now do and what we the organized blind movement must do. The decision is ours to make. Let us hope that we have the courage, the intelligence, the determination, and the moral commitment to make the right decision and to see it through to the end. UNITED AIRLINES EXPOSED SHARON GOLD AND OTHER CALIFORNIANS ARRESTED CHARGES DROPPED Returning home on July 5, 1986, from the convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Kansas City, Sharon Gold and other Californians were arrested under circumstances which are reminiscent of the worst abuse heaped upon blacks during the bleakest part of the civil rights struggle of that minority in the 1950's. The facts are well documented, and serious consideration is now being given to legal action against United Airlines. Five affidavits follow. They tell the story and require little comment. It will be noted that a fifth boarding pass is mentioned in the affidavits. The person in question was sitting near the front of the plane and not involved in the incidents which are recounted in the affidavits: Affidavit of Sharon Gold I, Sharon Gold, hereby swear and depose: 1. My name is Sharon Gold. 2. I reside at 1233 47th Avenue, in the City of Sacramento, which is located in the County of Sacramento, California. 3. I am legally blind and at all times carry and use a long white cane. 4. I am a frequent flyer and participate in the United Airlines Mileage Plus Program, having logged 64,875 miles through June 30, 1986. My United Airlines Mileage Plus Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. On July 5, 1986, I was a passenger on United Airlines flying from Kansas City, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, with a change of planes in Denver, Colorado. My ticket receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 6. Prior to boarding United Airlines flight #403 to fly from Denver to Sacramento, I approached the flight check-in counter located at Gate B-5 at the Stapleton Airport and requested my boarding pass and seat assignment and the boarding passes and seat assignments for four of my traveling companions from a lady gate attendant. At this time I also requested confirmation that my United Airlines Mileage Plus account had been credited with my flight miles. 7. The lady took the five tickets from me, checked four of us into the flight, separated the tickets from the receipts, marked the ticket jackets with seat assignments, appropriately stuffed the validated tickets into the ticket jackets so they would serve as boarding passes, and returned four tickets to me along with a receipt for the fifth ticket for which she was unable to issue a seat assignment because of a reservation error. 8. Approximately fifteen minutes before flight time I returned to the gate check-in counter to receive the fifth ticket with seat assignment. 9. On both occasions when I approached the gate check-in counter I was carrying and using a fifty-five-inch long white cane, which was visible over the top of the check-in counter. 10. At approximately 5:00 p.m. I boarded the plane and proceeded to my assigned seat, which was 11-D, while three of my traveling companions took their assigned seats--11-A, 11-B, and 11-C. My ticket jacket, bearing my seat assignment, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 11. Shortly after I sat in Seat 11-D, a flight attendant approached me and in a loud voice told me that I could not sit where I was sitting because it was an exit row. 12. The flight attendant turned to a lady who was sitting in 10-D and loudly asked her if she would trade seats with me. The lady in 10-D responded affirmatively, and I noticed that the lady's voice was obviously that belonging to a very elderly person. 13. The flight attendant turned back to me and demanded that I change seats with the lady to which I responded that I was sitting in my assigned seat and that I was perfectly comfortable. 14. A man approached me, identified himself as Mr. Peterson (a ground agent), and explained that I was sitting in an emergency exit row and that I must move. I replied that I did not know any reason why I needed to move and that I was sitting in the seat to which I was assigned. 15. I was next approached by two policemen. One policeman, who identified himself as Officer Reeve of the Denver City Police Department, informed me that I was in violation of an FAA regulation by sitting in an exit row. 16. I explained to Officer Reeve that I am familiar with the overwing exit and am capable of opening it in an emergency, that there is no FAA regulation prohibiting blind persons from sitting in the exit row, and that a recent mandate had been issued to the airlines by Elizabeth Dole (Secretary of the Department of Transportation) ordering the airlines to cease claiming FAA regulations where none exist. Following this explanation, Officer Reeve left. 17. I later learned that Mr. Peterson, the ground agent described in paragraph 14, was standing behind Officer Reeve, and as I was explaining about the absence of an FAA regulation, Officer Reeve would look at Mr. Peterson, who shook his head to indicate that I was wrong and that there was an FAA regulation concerning the seating of blind persons in an emergency exit row. 18. Officer Jernigan of the Denver City Police came to row 11 and repeated that I was in violation of an FAA regulation by sitting in my assigned seat. 19. Additional policemen and airline officials came to my seat and the seats of my traveling companions alternating between requesting me to move and begging my companions to explain to me why I could not sit in my assigned seat. 20. One airline official came and informed my traveling companions of the existence of an FAA regulation, but he was followed by a second airline official who agreed with me and with my companions that it was not an FAA regulation. 21. The airline official described in paragraph 20 herein said that I could not sit in the exit row because of a United Airlines policy, to which I replied that other airlines do not have such restrictions but instead allow blind persons to sit throughout the aircraft. 22. At one time an airline official came to my seat and accused me of deliberately requesting row 11 with knowledge that it was the exit row. I replied that I did not request or choose to sit in row 11, that I have sat in row 11 on many aircraft, that this was the first time I knowingly had been on an aircraft where row 11 was located at the window exit, and that I was surprised to find row 11 to be an exit row when I boarded this plane. 23. During the time that all of the airline officials and the Denver City policemen were coming to my seat, flight attendants were circulating throughout the plane and telling passengers that I was preventing the plane from flying. They would point at me and make loud and unkind remarks. One flight attendant even brought a passenger to my seat to bawl me out. 24. A uniformed man came from the front of the plane, apparently out of the cockpit, walked to the rear of the plane, spoke to some of the passengers, opened the tail section of the plane letting in jet fuel exhaust fumes, and then returned to the front of the plane. 25. Shortly after the deck crewman returned to the front of the plane and still while the rear of the plane was open, people began angrily shouting at me. 26. One of the male passengers called for volunteers to help to carry me off of the plane. Kevin Harris, who was sitting in seat 11-C, stepped into the aisle to shield me from four men whom I later learned were actually coming up the aisle toward me. 27. Following this, a ruckus ensued, and Officer Reeve finally came to settle the passengers while the tail section of the plane was closed by someone. 28. Officer Reeve then told me that the situation was resolved and that we would be leaving shortly. 29. While Officer Reeve was speaking to me, a flight attendant went to seat 11-C and spoke with Kevin Harris asking him if he would move into seat 11-F so that he would be sitting by the window exit. Mr. Harris said that he would move and promptly moved to seat 11-F. 30. More time passed, and passengers began asking airline personnel why we did not leave since the airline had been accommodated by Mr. Harris' move from seat 11-C to seat 11-F. 31. We did not leave and remained on the ground in Denver for another hour. 32. Some time after seven o'clock, and more than two hours after boarding the plane, the flight crew announced the cancellation of the flight and the passengers were requested to leave the plane. Neither my three companions nor I left. 33. As the passengers filed out of the plane, they made derogatory remarks aimed at me and behaved in such a manner that Kevin Harris, who was now sitting in seat 11-F, pulled me toward him and raised his body so as to shield me from any outbreak of violence. 34. A man came to me, questioned me as to why I was not leaving the plane, and ordered me to leave because he said the flight was canceled. I replied that he knew and I knew that the flight was not canceled and that United Airlines only intended for me to leave the plane so that the passengers could be reloaded to fly. 35. The man insisted that the flight was canceled and that United Airlines intended to take the plane to the hangar. 36. Policemen came to my seat and repeated that the flight was canceled ad that the plane was going to the hangar, to which I replied that they knew and I knew that the flight was not canceled. I pointed out that the luggage had not been removed from the plane. 37. One officer said that I was now in violation of three statutes--Denver Revised Municipal Code 38-115(a), trespass; Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-114, hinder public transportation; and Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-115, endangering public transportation; but that if I would voluntarily get up out of my seat and leave the aircraft, I would not be arrested. 38. I unbuckled my seat belt and stood up, as did my other three companions. I moved into the aisle and the others followed. 39. The policeman blocked my path preventing me from going forward while one officer said that he did not want any disturbance created when we got out among the passengers, to which I replied that I had not created the disturbance in the plane and that I would not create a disturbance in the terminal. 40. The officer then placed all of us under arrest. 41. Two policemen escorted me and two of my three traveling companions out onto the runway where we were transported by automobile to another part of the airport, where a police office was located. My third companion, Kevin Harris, was escorted on foot through the terminal to the police office. 42. At the police office Officer Treidel refused my request to make a telephone call to my lawyer. 43. Officer Treidel served me with a General Session Summons and Complaint to appear in the County Court in and for the City and County of Denver on July 25, 1986. The Summons and Complaint was signed by Charles Fowler and was apparently signed in blank prior to my arrest. The Summons and Complaint was completed and signed by Officer Treidel and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. I later learned that Charles Fowler was the Captain of United Airlines flight #403. 44. My three companions received similar summonses. We were all then released and instructed to return to United Airlines where we were rescheduled to fly to Sacramento on United Airlines flight #897 with a 9:01 p.m. departure time, which was delayed for more than one hour. 45. My traveling companions and I did not arrive in Sacramento until 11:45 p.m. California time, which was five hours and fifteen minutes beyond our originally scheduled arrival time of 6:28 p.m. 46. In Sacramento I retrieved my luggage from United Airlines flight #4743, which I learned was the rescheduled United Airlines flight #403 for July 5. 47. At no time during the incident described herein did I ever raise my voice or lose my temper. 48. On July 23, 1986, two days before my traveling companions and I were to appear in the Denver Municipal Court, I was notified by the office of the Denver City Attorney that the City Attorney was dropping the charges and refusing to prosecute the case. Affidavit of Sheryl Pickering I Sheryl Pickering, hereby swear and depose: 1. My name is Sheryl Pickering. 2. I reside at 1233 47th Avenue in the City of Sacramento, which is located in the County of Sacramento, California. 3. On the afternoon of July 5, 1986, I was a passenger on United Airlines and flew from Kansas City, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, with a change in planes in Denver, Colorado. My ticket receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. I was traveling in the company of five other persons, three of whom are blind. I am sighted. 5. Following our arrival at Denver's Stapleton Airport, Sharon Gold, who is blind and was carrying a long white cane, took the tickets of five of us to the check-in counter to check us into United Airlines flight #403 to fly from Denver to Sacramento and to obtain our seat assignments and boarding passes for this flight. 6. During the time which Ms. Gold was at the check-in counter, I was standing beside her. Ms. Gold's white cane, which is long enough to extend from the floor to above her chin, was standing upright on the floor and was resting against her shoulder. The cane extended well above the check-in counter and was in clear view of the United Airlines ground personnel working at the counter. 7. After Ms. Gold was given four of our seat assignments and validated tickets, she departed the counter and then returned some ten to fifteen minutes later to pick up the fifth ticket and seat assignment. Again, Ms. Gold's long white cane was in clear view of the personnel working at the check-in counter. 8. At approximately 5:00 p.m. I boarded United Airlines flight #403 and took my assigned seat in 11-B. My ticket jacket, which indicates my seat assignment, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9. Ms. Gold, who is described in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, took her assigned seat in 11-D. 10. Besides Ms. Gold and me, two others of my friends were assigned to seats in row 11. David Estes, who is blind, was assigned to seat 11-A; and Kevin Harris, who is sighted, was assigned to seat 11-C. 11. Shortly after the four of us were seated in row 11, a flight attendant approached Ms. Gold and informed her that because she is blind, she could not sit in an emergency exit row. 12. The flight attendant then turned to an elderly and frail old woman sitting in seat 10-D and asked her to change seats with Ms. Gold. The elderly woman agreed to make the exchange. 13. The flight attendant then turned to Ms. Gold and ordered her to change seats with the old woman. Ms. Gold calmly and politely told the attendant that she would remain in her assigned seat after which the flight attendant left row 11 to return to the front of the plane. 14. After the flight attendant left Ms. Gold's seat and before any flight attendant re-entered the mid section of the plane, the flight attendants took off their uniform jackets; thus, they were no longer wearing identifying name badges. 15. A ground agent wearing a badge bearing the name of Dennis Peterson, approached Ms. Gold and asked her to move, and she declined. 16. Ms. Gold was approached by two policemen. Officer Reeve, the spokesman, told her that an FAA regulation prevented Ms. Gold from sitting in the emergency exit row. 17. A United Airlines ground personnel stood behind Officer Reeve and nodded his head in approval of Officer Reeve's statements concerning alleged FAA regulations and in disapproval of Ms. Gold's statements that there was not an FAA regulation preventing her from sitting in the emergency exit row. 18. Police and airline personnel asked me if I was traveling with Ms. Gold, alleged an FAA regulation concerning the seating of blind persons in an emergency exit row, and asked me to persuade Ms. Gold to move to a nonemergency row. 19. I tried to explain that I knew there was no FAA regulation concerning the seating of blind persons in the emergency exit row, and I was rudely informed by Officer Jernigan that he had read the FAA regulations and that I had obviously not read them. I responded that I had read the FAA regulations relevant to the carriage of blind persons aboard aircraft and suggested that he get them so that we might read them together. 20. A man in a uniform of the cockpit crew walked to the rear of the passenger cabin, speaking to the passengers along the way. 21. Soon after the man described in paragraph 20 went to the rear of the plane, there was a change in the air flow within the cabin, as if a rear door or vent had been opened, and the smell of jet fuel exhaust began to permeate the cabin. 22. After five to ten minutes the man left the rear of the cabin and returned to the front of the plane, apparently returning to the cockpit. 23. A male voice from the rear of the plane shouted and asked for three volunteers to help remove Ms. Gold from the plane. 24. Passengers became rowdy, call bells for flight attendants began ringing, and Officer Reeve came to the mid- section of the plane to settle the passengers and then left the area again. 25. Officer Reeve returned to Ms. Gold and announced to her loudly enough that many of the surrounding passengers could hear that the problem was solved and that we would soon be on our way. 26. A woman airline official spoke to Kevin Harris, who was sitting beside me in seat 11-C, and asked him to move to seat 11-F so that he would be sitting next to the window exit and so that we might leave. Mr. Harris agreed to move and did move to seat 11-F. 27. We continued to sit on the ground and not leave the gate. Nearby passengers began asking questions of the flight personnel as to why we were not departing, since Mr. Harris had moved to seat 11-F and thus the request of the airlines had been fulfilled. 28. Flight attendants scowled, pointed at Ms. Gold, and snarled that we were not leaving because she was continuing to sit in the emergency exit row in seat 11-D. 29. In about one hour, and after more than two hours had passed since boarding the aircraft, United Airlines flight personnel announced the cancellation of United Airlines flight #403. 30. Passengers immediately began leaving the plane. As they filed past row 11, passengers scowled, stared, and made nasty, derogatory remarks aimed at Ms. Gold. 31. Police and airline personnel began questioning Ms. Gold as to why we were not leaving the plane. She responded that she was well aware, as were the police and airline officials, that the plane would fly on to Sacramento and that we wished to go on the flight. They would only respond that the plane was going to the hangar and that we were unwelcome to go with it. 32. Three police officers then approached us. Sergeant King informed Ms. Gold that the four of us were in violation of three Colorado statutes and that, if she would voluntarily leave, there would be no arrest. 33. Ms. Gold stood up and stepped forward into the aisle. We each fell in line behind her. The officers blocked our passage from the plane. 34. One officer harshly informed Ms. Gold that he wanted no trouble from us when we entered the gate waiting area inside the terminal, to which Ms. Gold calmly and quietly replied that she had not caused the trouble in the airplane and she had no intention for us to cause trouble in the waiting area. 35. The officer then said that we were under arrest and three of us were taken down the stairway from the jetway to the runway and then transported by a police vehicle to another part of the terminal where we were taken upstairs to a Denver City Police Airport Security Office. 36. After getting into the police vehicle, I questioned the officers about the fact that the luggage compartments on the aircraft being used for flight #403 were not open and that the luggage was not being removed from the canceled flight so that the plane could go to the hangar as the officers and flight personnel had claimed. The officers did not respond to me; however, Officer Reeve turned to Officer Jernigan, who was driving, poked Officer Jernigan's leg with his hand, and exchanged a nonverbal acknowledging response to my question regarding the unremoved luggage. 37. In the security office Officer Jernigan completed a General Court Summons and Complaint for me. The blank Summons and Complaint had been signed by Charles Fowler and was then completed in the police office and signed by Officer Jernigan. The Summons and Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 38. I was then released along with my three friends to return to United Airlines and to obtain a seat on the next flight to Sacramento. 39. According to the summons, I was to appear in the Denver Municipal Court on July 25, 1986, to answer a charge of criminal trespass. 40. I landed in Sacramento at 11:45 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, which was approximately five hours and fifteen minutes later than my scheduled landing of 6:28 p.m. 41. In Sacramento I went to the United Airlines counter on the ground floor of the airport to claim my baggage. I spoke with a woman wearing a United Airlines badge bearing the name of Sandy Weeks. 42. After receiving my luggage I asked Ms. Weeks when my luggage arrived in Sacramento and on which flight. She advised me that the luggage arrived on United Airlines flight #4743. 43. I questioned Ms. Weeks further concerning flight #4743 since it was not listed on the board immediately behind her as a scheduled United Airlines flight. She advised me that it was the rescheduled United Airlines flight #403 at which time she became very hostile with me and made derogatory remarks about "our blind lady friend," obviously making reference to Ms. Gold. 44. At no time during the incident described herein was David Estes, who was sitting to my immediate left in seat 11-A and who is blind and described in paragraph #10, requested to move from the emergency exit row. 45. At all times during the incident described herein, Ms. Gold maintained a courteous manner and never raised her voice or lost her temper. 46. On July 23, 1986, two days before my traveling companions and I were to appear in the Denver Municipal court, I was notified by the office of the Denver City Attorney that the City Attorney was dropping the charges and refusing to prosecute the case. Affidavit of David Eldon Estes I, David Estes, hereby swear and depose: 1. My name is David Eldon Estes. 2. I reside at 1215 Q Street, Apartment 11, in the City of Sacramento, which is located in the County of Sacramento, California. 3. I am legally blind. 4. I was a passenger on United Airlines on July 5, 1986, flying from Kansas City, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, with a change of planes in Denver, Colorado. 5. Upon arrival at the airport in Denver, Sharon Gold, who is blind and was carrying a long white cane, took the tickets of five of us, who were traveling together, to the check-in counter to obtain boarding passes and seat assignments for our flight from Denver to Sacramento on United Airlines flight #403. 6. I boarded the plane at approximately 5:00 p.m. and located my seat in row 11, seat A, which was at the window exit. 7. Sharon Gold, who is described herein in paragraph 5, was seated across the aisle in row 11, seat D. 8. A flight attendant approached Ms. Gold and loudly told her that she could not sit where she was seated because she is blind. 9. The flight attendant turned to an obviously elderly lady sitting in front of Ms. Gold and again in a loud voice asked the lady if she would exchange seats with Ms. Gold. The lady said that she would. 10. The flight attendant told Ms. Gold that she was to exchange seats with the elderly woman and Ms. Gold refused, saying that she was comfortable where she was sitting. 11. A man, who was apparently an airline official, came to Ms. Gold's seat and informed her that an FAA regulation required her to move because she is blind and was sitting in an emergency exit row. 12. When Ms. Gold declined, the man said he would summon the police and have her arrested. The man then left. 13. Two policemen approached Ms. Gold. One told her that there was an FAA regulation that prevented her from sitting in an emergency exit row. Ms. Gold explained to the policeman that there was no FAA regulation preventing her from sitting in the emergency exit row. 14. The police officers and airline officials continued to come to Ms. Gold telling her that there was an FAA regulation requiring her to move. At one time they even asked the three of us sitting in Seats 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C to persuade Ms. Gold to move. At another time an officer threatened to arrest all of us since Ms. Gold would not move and we were traveling with her. 15. Two airline officials came. One was carrying a radio. The one not carrying the radio again told Ms. Gold that an FAA regulation prevented her from sitting in her seat. When the rest of us repeated that there was not an FAA regulation preventing Ms. Gold from sitting where she was assigned, the official with the radio agreed that there was no FAA regulation and alleged that it was a United Airlines safety policy. 16. Airline officials circulated throughout the plane talking to the passengers. The passengers became riled up, and some even resorted to yelling at Ms. Gold. 17. At one time a man called for volunteers to help him carry Ms. Gold off of the plane. The police were required to settle the passengers. 18. A policeman went to Ms. Gold and told her that the problem was solved and that we would be leaving soon. 19. While the policeman was speaking to Ms. Gold a flight attendant approached Kevin Harris, who was sitting in Seat 11-C, and asked him to move to seat 11-F. Mr. Harris agreed to move and did move from seat 11-C to seat 11- F. 20. We remained on the ground and flight #403 did not fly as promised. 21. After we had been sitting for more than two hours, flight officials announced that the flight was canceled and requested the passengers to leave the plane. The four of us did not leave the plane. 22. Airline officials went to Ms. Gold, questioned her as to why we were not leaving the plane, and then demanded that we leave. Ms. Gold said we were not leaving because we wanted to fly to Sacramento and that she did not believe that the flight had been canceled. 23. The airline personnel insisted that the flight was canceled and that the plane was going to the hangar. 24. Policemen approached row 11, and one told Ms. Gold that we were in violation of three Colorado statutes. The policeman told Ms. Gold that if she would voluntarily get up and leave the plane she would not be arrested. 25. Ms. Gold got up out of her seat and proceeded into the aisle to leave the plane and we followed. 26. Three policemen stepped in front of Ms. Gold so that we could not pass. One policeman told Ms. Gold that he did not want any trouble when we got out among the other passengers. Ms. Gold quietly said that she did not create the disturbance in the plane and that she did not intend any disturbance to be created inside the terminal. 27. The policeman then said that we were all under arrest. 28. Two policemen took three of us from the plane and out on the runway where we were transported by automobile to a part of the airport where a police office was located. 29. At the police office Officer Treidel filled in a blank General Session Summons and Complaint which had been previously signed by Charles Fowler of United Airlines. My General Session Summons and Complaint is attached hereto. 30. According to the summons I was to appear in the Denver Municipal Court on July 25 to answer a charge of criminal trespass. 31. I was instructed to return to United Airlines where I was rescheduled on the next available flight to Sacramento. 32. I finally landed in Sacramento at 11:45 p.m. California time, which was approximately five hours and fifteen minutes later than my scheduled landing of 6:28 p.m. 33. At no time during the incident described herein was the fact that I am blind raised as an issue nor was I requested to move from the window exit seat to which I was assigned, seat 11-A. 34. At all times during the incident described herein Ms. Gold maintained a courteous manner and never raised her voice or lost her temper. 35. On July 23, 1986, two days before my traveling companions and I were to appear in the Denver Municipal Court, I was notified by the office of the Denver City Attorney that the City Attorney was dropping the charges and refusing to prosecute the case. Affidavit of Kevin DeShay Harris I, Kevin DeShay Harris, hereby swear and depose: 1. My name is Kevin DeShay Harris. 2. I reside at 1813 Capital Avenue, Apartment 7, in the City of Sacramento, which is located in the County of Sacramento, California. 3. On July 5, 1986, I was a passenger aboard United Airlines flying from Kansas City, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, with a change of planes in Denver, Colorado. 4. I was traveling in the company of five other passengers, three of whom are legally blind. I am sighted. 5. At the Stapleton Airport in Denver, Sharon Gold, who is blind and was carrying a long white cane, took the tickets of five of us to the check-in counter to check us into United Airlines flight #403 and to obtain our seat assignments and boarding passes for the flight from Denver to Sacramento. 6. I boarded the plane and located my assigned seat of 11-C. 7. I sat in my assigned seat of 11-C while Ms. Gold took her assigned seat of 11-D; David Estes, who is blind, took his assigned seat of 11-A; and Sheryl Pickering took her assigned seat of 11- B. 8. A flight attendant went to Ms. Gold's seat and told her that it was against FAA regulations for a blind person to sit in an emergency row and that she would have to move. Ms. Gold declined to move, saying that there was not an FAA regulation stating that she could not sit in the emergency exit row. 9. The flight attendant asked an elderly lady, who was sitting in the row in front of Ms. Gold, if she would trade seats with Ms. Gold. The elderly lady agreed to move. 10. The flight attendant then turned to Ms. Gold and ordered her to change seats with the elderly lady. Ms. Gold declined, saying that she was perfectly comfortable in her assigned seat and that she was capable of handling the emergency exit window. 11. After the flight attendant left Ms. Gold's seat and before any flight attendant re-entered the mid section of the plane, the flight attendants took off their uniform jackets; thus, they were no longer wearing identifying name badges. 12. The police were summoned and a police officer came to Ms. Gold's seat, requested that she move, and told her that she was in violation of FAA regulations by sitting in the emergency exit row. Ms. Gold explained that there was no such regulation and that there was no need for her to move. 13. Police officers and airline officials took turns going to Ms. Gold's seat and requesting her to move. 14. One flight attendant came and asked the three of us sitting in seats 11-A, 11-B, ad 11-C as described in paragraph 7 herein if we would persuade Ms. Gold to move. We declined saying we were not her guardians and that we knew there was not an FAA regulation requiring that Ms. Gold not sit in an emergency exit row. 15. A man in uniform with shoulder boards walked to the back of the plane, talked to passengers along the way, opened the back door, and then returned to the front of the plane. 16. Passengers behind row 11 became angry. One person hollered out to throw her off the plane, another yelled to get her off so we can go home, and still another called out to throw that "blind bitch" off of the plane. 17. Another man in the back of the plane called out for three people to help throw "that woman" off of the plane so that we could go. 18. Four men stood up in the back of the plane and began walking toward Ms. Gold. 19. I stepped in the aisle standing between Ms. Gold and the approaching men and told them that they would have to go through me first. The men went back to their seats. 20. A man came up from the back of the plane, put his face down in mine, and asked why I was defending Ms. Gold. I told him to get out of my face. A police officer then came from the front of the plane to row 11 and ordered the man to return to his seat at the rear of the plane. 21. The police officer then returned to row 11 and told Ms. Gold, loudly enough for me to hear, that the problem was solved and that we would be leaving soon. 22. At the same time that the police officer was speaking to Ms. Gold a flight attendant approached me and asked me if I would move to seat 11-F so that I was sitting next to the window exit. 23. I agreed to move and did move from seat 11-C to seat 11-F. 24. Despite the promise that we would leave if I moved to seat 11-F, the plane remained on the ground. 25. After another hour passed, and about two hours after the plane had been scheduled to leave the Denver airport, the flight personnel walked through the plane and announced that the flight was canceled and ordered the passengers to leave the plane. 26. The passengers filed out of the plane, some displaying obvious anger and hostility toward Ms. Gold. 27. I pulled Ms. Gold toward me and over the empty seat between us. I raised my body to shield her from possible physical abuse. 28. Airline officials came back to the four of us, who were still sitting in our seats in row 11, and one man began questioning Ms. Gold as to why we were not leaving the plane. 29. The man described in paragraph 28 ordered Ms. Gold and the rest of us to leave the plane because he said the flight was canceled. We did not leave. Ms. Gold told the man that they both knew that the flight was not canceled and that she believed that United Airlines only intended to get us off of the plane so that the passengers could be reloaded to fly. The man insisted that the flight was canceled and that United Airlines intended to take the plane to the hangar. 30. Four police officers came to row 11, and one informed Ms. Gold that we were in violation of local and state statutes. 31. Ms. Gold asked for the allegedly violated statutes and was given the code numbers. 32. The officer told Ms. Gold that if she would voluntarily leave her seat she would not be arrested. 33. Ms. Gold unbuckled her seat belt, stood up, and moved into the aisle. The rest of us followed Ms. Gold. 34. As Ms. Gold stepped forward to leave the plane, three of the four officers blocked the aisle to prevent her from passing. 35. One officer told Ms. Gold that he did not want any trouble when we went into the passenger waiting area, to which Ms. Gold responded that she had not created the trouble in the plane and that she did not intend to cause trouble in the terminal. 36. The officer then announced that we were under arrest. 37. The officer described in paragraph 36 then reached up and pulled papers out of his hat which I later observed were blank complaints signed by the airlines and which were completed by the police to levy charges against the four of us. 38. Ms. Gold and two other occupants of row 11 were escorted out of the plane and onto the runway by two of the officers. 39. The other two police officers escorted me through the gate waiting area, parading me before the passengers who had just deplaned flight #403. 40. As I walked alongside one policeman with the other walking behind me, the crowd of passengers booed at me and neither of the policemen did anything to step the disorderliness. 41. At the police office Officer Jernigan filled in one of the blank General Court Summons and Complaint forms which had been signed by Charles Fowler of United Airlines and which is herein described in paragraph 37. 42. According to the summons I was to appear in the Denver Municipal Court on July 25 to answer a charge of criminal trespass. 43. The police officers instructed me to return to United Airlines where I was rescheduled to fly on the next flight to Sacramento. 44. I finally landed in Sacramento at 11:45 p.m. California time, which was approximately five hours and fifteen minutes later than my scheduled landing of 6:28 p.m. 45. Once in Sacramento I went to the United Airlines counter on the ground floor of the airport to claim my baggage. There I learned that my luggage had arrived on United Airlines flight #4743, the rescheduled United Airlines flight #403. 46. At no time during the incident described herein was David Estes, who was sitting in seat 11-A and who is blind and described in paragraph 7, requested to move from the emergency exit row. 47. At all times during the incident described herein Ms. Gold maintained a courteous manner and never raised her voice or lost her temper. 48. On July 23, 1986, two days before my traveling companions and I were to appear in the Denver Municipal Court, I was notified by the office of the Denver City Attorney that the City Attorney was dropping the charges and refusing to prosecute the case. Affidavit of Warren Todd Elzey I, Warren Todd Elzey, do hereby swear and depose: 1. My name is Warren Todd Elzey. 2. I reside at 75 Rio Vista, Oakland, California 94611, which is located in the County of Alameda. 3. Prior to July 31, 1986, I resided at 714 Easton Avenue #C, San Bruno, California 94066, which is located in the County of San Mateo. 4. I am legally blind and at all times carry a 61-inch long white cane. 5. On May 1, 1986, I purchased airline tickets from Unitours of San Bruno to travel from San Francisco to Kansas City, Missouri; from Kansas City to Columbus, Ohio; and from Columbus to San Francisco, California, by way of Chicago, Illinois, and Sacramento, California, all of which travel to be on United Airlines. 6. At the time I was ticketed by Unitours, I was issued seat assignments for all flights. 7. I began my travel, leaving San Francisco on June 27, 1986, and I returned to San Francisco on July 20, 1986. 8. On July 20, 1986, I went to the Port Columbus International Airport and checked into United Airlines flight 889 to fly from Columbus to Chicago and United Airlines flight 839 to fly from Chicago to San Francisco by way of Sacramento. 9. The agent at the United Airlines ticket counter issued a boarding pass to me for flight 889 assigning me to seat 6-A, which was the same seat to which I was assigned by my travel agent. However, the agent at the United Airlines ticket counter changed the seat to which I had been previously assigned on flight 839 and reassigned me to seat 17-E. My ticket receipt and United Airlines ticket jacket, which indicates my seat assignments on flights 889 and 839, are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. 10. In Chicago I boarded United Airlines flight 839 and proceeded to my assigned seat in row 17, seat E, where I took my assigned seat and stowed my white cane on the floor. 11. Row 17 was located at the overwing window exit and thus referred to as the emergency exit row. 12. I sat in row 17, seat E, while the plane flew from Chicago to Sacramento and from Sacramento to San Francisco. 13. At no time did any United Airlines official or any other person approach me concerning my seat assignment or request that I cease to occupy seat 17-E. UNITED AIRLINES DISREGARDS PASSENGER SAFETY CAUSES LIFE THREATENING SITUATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO Affidavit of Jan Uribes I, Jan Uribes, being first duly sworn, depose and say: 1. My name is Jan Uribes. I reside at 3757 E. Dakota, Apartment H, City of Fresno, County of Fresno, State of California 93726, with my husband, Michael. I am an independent business person. I am legally blind and use a long white cane to move about independently. 2. I have diabetes. This means that I must carefully watch and regulate my eating schedule. When on a trip and changing time zones, I must take extra special care to make sure that I do not suffer an imbalance which could be life threatening. 3. In late June and early July, 1986, I traveled from my home in Fresno, California, to Kansas City, Missouri, and back home. All my flights were on United Airlines and my experience, setting aside the Bakersfield incident, was uniformly unpleasant. On every single flight a flight attendant tried to take my white cane and stow it in the overhead compartment even though federal regulations specifically permit me to retain my white cane by my seat. On each flight I firmly stated I would keep my cane with me and no flight attendant ultimately made an issue of the matter. When passing through Denver on the way to Kansas City, my incoming flight was very late and I thought I might miss my outbound plane. I asked United for assistance to get from gate to gate on time, and I'm sorry I did. My outbound flight was also delayed, and I had plenty of time. The woman assigned to talk with me from gate to gate brought a wheelchair and would have insisted that I use it except that I insisted more vehemently that I would not. So she dragged the wheelchair behind her as we walked. She walked very slowly, obviously believing that I could not move quickly though speed seemed to be necessary to make my connection. When we arrived at my next gate she would not leave me, stating that it was her job to stay with me until I went on to the airplane so that I did not "fall and hurt myself." I walked away from her and asked a fellow passenger if I could simply walk out to the plane with him to which he readily and pleasantly agreed. A male United official came up to us and rudely informed me that I was not to speak to the other passengers; that it was United's job to take care of me and not the job of any fellow passenger. Though the other passenger had been perfectly willing to help, he wasn't going to get into a fight with United and left. A second passenger who had observed the entire incident came up and offered her assistance, and we boarded together. It is obvious to me now that I would have changed gates quicker and experienced no patronizing and condescending treatment if I had simply done the whole thing on my own. 4. On Sunday, July 6, 1986, I was traveling from Kansas City, Missouri, to Fresno, California, on United Airlines. I had completed the Kansas City-Denver portion of my trip and connected with United flight 687 bound from Denver for Fresno with an intermediate stop in Bakersfield, California. I was scheduled to arrive in Fresno at 11:25 a.m. local time. This involved a two-hour time change from Kansas City time. We were late departing from Denver due to delays caused by traffic and weather. 5. I received my seat assignment on flight 687 at the same time I received seat assignments for other portions of my trip from a Fresno ticket counter agent at the beginning of my entire trip. On flight 687 I asked to have my seat assignment changed. I did so because I wanted to be sure I had a window seat so that I could easily store my cane by the wall. Since I was not certain whether my seat assignment of flight 687 would be a window seat, I approached the podium in Denver using my white cane and asked for a different seat assignment. I specified that my new seat should be by a window. I made no other request about the seat and was willing to take whatever window seat I was given. I was given a new seat assignment in response to my request. I was assigned seat 11-F. I boarded flight 687 and sat in seat 11-F. Several flight attendants spoke to me in the course of my boarding and settling myself. Since I used my white cane when boarding and since I stowed my white cane by the wall next to me, all these flight attendants knew I was blind. 6. I sat in seat 11-F during the Denver-Bakersfield portion of the flight. 7. While we were on the ground in Bakersfield, a flight attendant approached me and asked me to move to a different seat. The flight attendant stated that United had "made a mistake" in my seat assignment. The "mistake" was that I had been sitting in an exit row all the way from Denver. 8. I replied that 11-F was the seat I had been assigned and in which I had been sitting for the entire flight thus far. I stated that I did not choose to move from my assigned seat. 9. A person identified as a "supervisor" then came to my seat and insisted that I had to move from 11-F. The supervisor tried to convince me to move one row forward. She stated that if I would move up one row, there would be no more problem. 10. Both the flight attendant and the supervisor stated that I was breaking the law by sitting where I had been sitting for the entire flight thus far. Both stated that the Federal Air Regulations (they called them FAR's) prohibited blind persons from sitting in exit rows as I had done all the way from Denver. I asked for a copy of this FAR and was never provided with one. 11. Next, a person who identified himself as the Captain came to my seat. I asked for his name and he replied that it was Dave Meik. Captain Meik was very firm in insisting that federal regulations prohibited me from sitting in the exit row I was then in. I asked Captain Meik for a copy of this federal regulation and he left, returning with a manual in his hand. I asked a fellow passenger to read what the Captain had brought. The Captain had brought a copy of United's company policy regarding passengers. I knew that there was no federal regulation such as the one every United official pretended to rely upon. 12. Next, United officials offered to seat me in first-class for the remainder of the flight as an inducement to move. I declined this offer, preferring the seat I had been assigned. Even though United officials could only produce their own company policy to justify their assertions, they continued to insist that I was breaking federal law by sitting where I was. 13. At this point the supervisor came back and informed me that I would have to be taken off the plane by security officers since I was breaking federal law and would not move. The supervisor stated that I was delaying ninety-six other passengers. She stated that the ninety-six other passengers could not understand why I was refusing to cooperate with United. Of course, all the airline officials' statements were made while they were standing in the aisle near row 11 where many other passengers could hear them. I was seated and only the passengers in my row could hear my replies. United deliberately used its authority and uniforms and positioning during our conversations to prejudice other passengers against me. Their continued insistence that I was breaking federal law when their own documents proved otherwise is ample evidence that they had decided to publicly brand me a criminal. 14. A security officer then came to my seat. He informed me that he and his partner were going to take me off the plane. I agreed to walk off with them. They did not formally arrest me but I am sure that they would have done so if I had not agreed to walk off. 15. As I was leaving the aircraft, I heard the head flight attendant making an announcement to the rest of the passengers. She told the passengers that United Airlines was sorry for the delay and inconvenience caused by the blind person. 16. I was escorted into the terminal by the security officers who then left me. I went to the United ticket counter to arrange for my transportation on to Fresno. I had had a valid ticket for the entire trip and expected United to book me on the next flight. I also expected that they would take extreme precautions to make sure that I was not seated in an exit row. 17. The woman at the United ticket counter informed me that I had, in effect, forfeited the remainder of my ticket by refusing to move to first- class. The woman told me that since security had removed me from the plane, United would not honor the last portion of my ticket. It was then about 1:30 p.m., and the next scheduled flight departed at 7:40 p.m. The additional ticket would cost me $25. I did not have $25 with me. I had planned my cash very carefully during my trip away from home and was planning to arrive at the Fresno airport with just enough money to get to my home. I had no extra money for another ticket nor any for the additional food that I needed in order to eat on schedule. 18. I was compelled to borrow money from a relative of a friend who was kind enough to come out to the airport for the purpose of making me a loan. I then ate and bought a bus ticket with this loaned money. I arrived at my home at about 7: 10 p.m., almost eight hours later than I had expected to get there. TWA BEHAVES AS USUAL FRED SCHROEDER ARRESTED As Fred Schroeder and a large group of other Federationists were returning home from the national convention in Kansas City on July 5, 1986, incidents occurred which should be brought to the attention of the blind of the nation and the general public. Fred Schroeder was arrested for sitting in a seat to which he had been assigned while other blind persons were permitted to sit in exactly the same type of seat. Not only were they permitted to sit in a similar seat, but they were knowingly permitted to sit in it. The tension which is building between the blind and the airlines is intensifying, and unless airline officials can be brought to some semblance of sanity, there will almost certainly be an explosion. The following three affidavits tell what happened: -------------------- State of New Mexico County of Bernalillo Affidavit of Fredric K. Schroeder I, Fredric K. Schroeder, being first duly sworn, depose and say: 1. My name is Fredric K. Schroeder. I live with my wife and two small children at 439 Ash NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106. I am employed by the State of New Mexico as Director of the state's Commission for the Blind. I am blind and use a long white cane to move about safely. 2. On Saturday, July 5, 1986, I went to the Kansas City Airport to begin my return trip to Albuquerque. I possessed a ticket on TWA Airlines. I was scheduled to depart Kansas City at 2:53 p.m. on flight #502 destined for St. Louis. I was later to connect with flight #845 out of St. Louis to Albuquerque departing at 6:45 p.m. 3. I was traveling with a group of thirty-one people. I was assigned seat 5-F, which is a bulkhead seat. Prior to departure I spoke with Mary Willows. Mrs. Willows and her husband James are both blind and were traveling with their two small children. They were not part of the group traveling to Albuquerque. Instead, they were destined for San Jose, California, via St. Louis. Mrs. Willows told me that she and her family had been assigned seats in row 14 even though they had requested bulkhead seating because of their children. 4. The flight was approximately one hour delayed. Airline officials announced that there was a delay in "getting the plane ready." At approximately 3:40 p.m. we began to board the flight. Mrs. Willows and her family went on ahead of me. When I got to the door of the plane I found Mrs. Willows with one of her children standing on the jetway. She told me that row 14 to which they had been assigned was an emergency exit row. She stated that the flight attendant would not allow them to take their seats since Mr. and Mrs. Willows were blind. 5. I spoke with the flight attendant and told her that I had been assigned a bulkhead seat and would be glad to give it to the Willows in hopes that enough seats would be vacant in the bulkhead row so that their family would not have to be separated. I offered to exchange my seat (5-F) for one of theirs. The flight attendant told me that I could not exchange a seat with one of the Willows since row 14 was an exit row seat and therefore she could not allow me to sit there either. I urged her to give my seat to the Willows and see of she could keep them together in the bulkhead row and find for me another seat which would not be restricted. 6. The flight attendant left and returned shortly to say that the Willows had been placed in the bulkhead row and that I had been assigned seat 15-F. I boarded the plane and took my assigned seat. The emergency exit row was immediately in front of me in row 14. The exit row had no seat adjacent to the window. Therefore, there was no seat immediately in front of me. 7. After the plane pulled away from the gate, a flight attendant came and told me that I would have to move to another seat. She told me that a federal regulation prohibited blind people from sitting in an exit row. I told her that it was my belief that no such federal regulation existed and that I intended to stay in the seat to which I had been assigned. The flight attendant told me that she had to notify the captain of my unwillingness to move and then she left. 8. Seated in the emergency exit row ahead of me (14-E) was a TWA pilot. He told me that in an emergency he would handle opening the emergency exit door. He told me that he would talk to the flight crew about it and that I should not have to move. He then said that the worst that would happen would be that I might have to move to the middle seat in my row so as not to be immediately adjacent to the exit door. 9. The plane taxied to the runway and the flight attendants gave the briefing concerning emergency procedures. Just as the plane was about to leave the flight attendant again came to me and said I would have to move back three rows before the plane could take off. I again told her that I intended to remain in my assigned seat. 10. The TWA pilot seated in front of me told the flight attendant that he would assume responsibility for handling the emergency door. She said that she would notify the captain and asked his name. He said to just tell the captain that Gordon said he would take responsibility. 11. The flight attendant left and returned with the copilot. He told me that I would have to move. I explained that I was in my assigned seat and believed there was no reason why I should be required to move. He told me that it was an FAA requirement. I responded that it was my belief that no such FAA rule existed. He assured me that it was an FAA regulation. Again I responded that I intended to remain in my assigned seat. He asked me if I was refusing to move. I replied that it was my intention to remain in my assigned seat. He left to notify the captain. 12. Shortly thereafter, Captain Brent came and identified himself to me. He, too, told me that FAA rules required that I move. I again said that I believed no such FAA rule existed and that I intended to stay in my assigned seat. He told me that if I refused to move he would have to return to the gate and have me deplane. I again stated that I would remain where I was. 13. Captain Brent left and quickly returned with his TWA manual. He read to me from the manual a section which specifically stated that blind passengers could not sit adjacent to emergency exit doors. I told him that it was my understanding that TWA policy prohibited blind passengers from sitting in exit rows but still believed that it was not an FAA policy. He told me that he understood my position but that I was fighting the point with the wrong people. He said that the problem was with the policy makers and that he had no alternative but to enforce the policies he was given. He offered to write and sign a statement that he had required me to move if I would agree to take another seat. I told him I would stay where I was. He then left, stating that he had no choice but to return to the gate. The flight attendant returned and again asked me to move. I told her that I had been assigned the seat I was in and that I intended to stay where I was. She told me that what I said was not true. She told me that I had been assigned the bulkhead seat and that I had requested to be moved. I told her that I had given up my bulkhead seat to a family with small children and that I had been assigned seat 15-F with the flight attendant's full knowledge that I was blind. Since she was the flight attendant who had assigned me 15-F in the first place, I reminded her that she had given me 15-F specifically because I was blind and therefore not allowed to sit in row 14, which was the exit row. 14. When we arrived at the gate a TWA official named Leonard E. Dwyer came to me and told me that FAA regulations required that I move. I told Mr. Dwyer that I planned to remain in my assigned seat. He told me that I could not remain where I was. He stepped aside and another gentleman addressed me stating that I would have to move. When I told him that I would not, he told me that he would remove me from the airplane if I did not cooperate. I asked him whether he was a policeman and he indicated that he was. He told me that I was violating an FAA regulation to which I replied that I believed he was mistaken, that it was my understanding that there was no such FAA rule. He told me that he knew his job and that I was breaking the law. I again stated that I planned to stay where I was. He told me that he was going to take me off the airplane and that I should come with him. I asked whether I was under arrest. He stated that I was being removed from the plane and that if he were to arrest me, I would be held in custody and questioned by the FBI and FAA officials. I said that if I was not under arrest, then I would stay where I was. He then stated that I was under arrest. He then asked me to get up and when I did not, he unbuckled my seat belt, took hold of my left arm and the back of my jacket, and lifted me out of my seat. He then took hold of my left arm at the wrist and above the elbow and led me off of the plane. 15. While I was being led off, other members of my group argued with TWA personnel about my arrest and took pictures of me being led off the plane. When I got onto the jetway, I was turned over to a policewoman who escorted me back into the terminal. 16. The policewoman told me that I could leave. I then told her that the other officer had placed me under arrest. She seemed surprised and indicated that I should wait for his return. In the meantime the TWA official, Mr. Dwyer, took my boarding pass and left to schedule me on a later flight. When the first police officer returned (Officer L. Hosmann, badge #526), the policewoman (Officer V. Bean, badge #529) asked him if he had placed me under arrest based on the captain's word that I was violating an FAA regulation. He went on to state, "Now they're telling me it may not be an FAA regulation." He stated that, "the chief" was looking it up. He said that if it was not an FAA rule, then the captain was guilty of providing false information to the police officer and that he would "get him" the next time the captain was in Kansas City. 17. The TWA official, Mr. Dwyer, returned to tell me that I had been assigned a seat on another flight which would be departing shortly. I told him that I could not leave since I was under arrest. He turned to Officer Hosmann and asked whether he had arrested me. Officer Hosmann replied that he had, based on information given him by the pilot. He again stated that he was having the chief check to see whether I had violated an FAA regulation and that if I had not, TWA was "going to be in a lot of trouble." Officer Hosmann had given the chief the phone number of the phone at the ticket counter and was waiting for the chief to call him back. 18. A few minutes later the chief came on Officer Hosmann's radio stating that the phone number at the gate was busy and asked for another number to call. Officer Hosmann asked whether he had found an FAA regulation concerning the matter. Instead of replying to the question, the chief asked again for a number to call. In a few minutes the phone cleared and Officer Hosmann went off to talk with the chief. 19. Upon his return he told me that there was no FAA regulation concerning the exit row. However, he said that TWA's policy on the matter was approved by the FAA and therefore had to be followed. He said that by refusing to follow an FAA approved airline policy, I was violating an FAA regulation concerning "interfering with a flight crew." He then told me that TWA did not wish to press charges. I asked him if he was telling me that an airline could dream up any rule it wished and that if I did not follow it I was breaking the law. He replied that it was their airline and that they could do whatever they wanted in the same way that if I walked on his property he could have me removed. I asked him if he thought it would be legal to say that sighted people could walk on his property but not blind people. He replied that he was not a judge. 20. I then asked what would happen next. Officer Hosmann told me that I was free to go. I asked if I was still under arrest and he indicated I was not. I then asked if I understood correctly that I had been arrested and was now being unarrested. He said that was correct. I then took the names of the two officers and their badge numbers and asked the TWA official for his name and name of the pilot. 21. I then departed on TWA flight #249 at 4:40 p.m. and arrived in St. Louis in time to rejoin my group. 22. A friend and former fellow employee, Susan Benbow, was traveling from Kansas City to Albuquerque in the same group with which I was traveling. We had seat assignments together for the return journey to Albuquerque. She was originally assigned 5-E in the bulkhead row and also gave her seat to the Willows family. She was reassigned seat 15-E when I was assigned seat 15-F. Ms. Benbow is sighted. She wa with me at all times in the boarding area, on the aircraft, and while I was dealing with the police and had the opportunity to hear and see all of the events involving my seating and removal from flight #502. State of New Mexico County of Dona Ana Affidavit of Geetha Pai I, Geetha Pai, being first duly sworn, depose and say: 1. My name is Geetha Pai. I reside at 1589 Imperial Ridge, City of Las Cruces, County of Dona Ana, State of New Mexico. I own and operate two restaurants offering the foods of my native India. Mostly I manage the restaurants but occasionally I enjoy doing the cooking for the customers myself. The two restaurants, both named Tandoor Indian Cuisine, are located in my home city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and in Denver Colorado. I am sighted. 2. On Saturday, July 5, 1986, I was traveling with a group of thirty-one persons from Kansas City, Missouri, to New Mexico. We were scheduled to start on TWA flight 502 departing at 2:53 p.m. from Kansas City. Mr. Fred Schroeder was part of my group. 3. Mr. Schroeder was seated in the row immediately behind an exit row on the aircraft. As we were nearly ready to take off, the airline crew insisted that Mr. Schroeder was not allowed to sit in his seat because he is blind. The captain drove the plane all the way back to the terminal where a policeman got on and removed Mr. Schroeder. 4. The flight was late getting started. We did not board until almost an hour after we were supposed to leave. Mr. Schroeder's removal from the plane caused an additional delay. I noticed what appeared to be a family seated in row 21 on the right side of the plane as you look forward. This group consisted of an adult man, an adult woman, and two small children. I sympathized with the two adults and two children whose trip was being lengthened by these delays. I spoke to the woman, stating that I was sorry for the delay but that someone had to stand up for the rights of blind people. I explained that the airline's policy discriminated against blind people and that it was unusual to have a group together which could defend blind people's rights as we did today. 5. The man interrupted this statement by telling me that I did not need to tell him what was going on. He said he worked for the Department of Transportation and intended to testify "against you." He then told me to "sit down and keep your mouth shut." 6. Later in the flight I noticed one of the children writing "Brian R." on a piece of paper. 7. When we arrived in St. Louis the two adults and two children stayed on the plane as a group. The plane was going on to Cincinnati. I checked with a TWA agent in the terminal to find out who was sitting in those seats. The names of the persons assigned to row 21 D, E, and F were Sherry Hauck, Paul Mayer, and Brian Reinshegen. 8. I know that some of the seat assignments originally made were changed at the gate. I do not know if these are the names of the persons who actually sat in row 21, though the child's name is almost certainly correct. The rude and ungentlemanly manner of the man who stated he worked at the Department of Transportation caused me to believe that he would make any inquiry about his name a very unpleasant experience. 9. Vicky and Richard Trujillo were also part of my group. They are both blind. They were seated in a row identical to the row occupied by Mr. Schroeder. They were not removed from the plane. They sat in their seats from Kansas City to St. Louis, though Mr. Schroeder was not allowed to occupy a seat in an identical row for the same trip. State of New Mexico County of Bernalillo Affidavit of Vicky Trujillo I, Vickie Trujillo, being first duly sworn, depose and say: 1. My name is Vicky Trujillo. I reside with my husband and family at 322 56th Street S.W., City of Albuquerque, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. I am totally blind. My husband is legally blind. I use a white cane to move about safely. My husband does not use a white cane. 2. On Saturday, July 5, 1986, I was traveling from Kansas City, Missouri, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a group of thirty-one persons. Mr. Fred Schroeder was also part of this group. My husband, my young teenage daughter, and I were assigned to seats 17-D, 17-E, and 17-F for the Kansas City-St. Louis portion of the trip on TWA flight 502 scheduled to depart at 2:53 p.m. After about an hour's delay, the plane was ready and we boarded, taking our assigned seats. 3. Our three seats were located immediately behind a row with an emergency overwing exit. The seat right next to the window exit had been removed so there were only two seats ahead of us. We sat in our three adjacent seats. Two rows in front of us, in a row laid out exactly like ours, was Fred Schroeder. 4. When we were out on the runway, a series of airline officials tried to make Mr. Schroeder move from his seat. Mr. Schroeder declined, and the captain drove the plane back to the gate. A policeman came onto the plane and removed Mr. Schroeder. 5. I couldn't understand why Mr. Schroeder was being removed. My husband and I, both blind, were seated in exactly the same kind of row as Mr. Schroeder. I and others of our traveling group protested Mr. Schroeder's removal. Some of us considered getting off the plane with him. We rose from our seats and then declined, according to Mr. Schroeder's wish to remain on the plane and go home. When we returned to our seats, other passengers occupied them. 6. We protested to the airline people that other passengers had taken our seats. We insisted that we wanted to sit in the seats assigned to us and the seats we had already been occupying. The crew replied that they thought we were leaving and had allowed other passengers to have our seats. After some confusion, the crew moved the other passengers out of our seats and we again sat down in row 17, seats D, E, and F. 7. Across the aisle from us in seat 17-C was a woman who had been brought onto the plane by the airline in a wheelchair. She occupied seat 17-C from the time she was placed there by airline personnel in Kansas City until the time she was removed by them in St. Louis. 8. We occupied our seats from the time we regained them in Kansas City until we deplaned in St. Louis. The flight crew fussed a little at us for sitting in row 17 after Mr. Schroeder had been removed. But they did not insist that we move. In fact, they helped us regain our seats from the other passengers. One official commented that it was all right for us to sit in row 17 so long as our sighted young teenager was in the row with us. MORE ABOUT TWA BARBARA PIERCE WRITES A LETTER Oberlin, Ohio July 18, 1986 Dear Dr. Jernigan: I have been thinking a lot recently about the letter Nadine Jacobson wrote to you almost exactly a year ago. Her words moved me when I first read them, but I did not really think that I would ever find myself in a similar situation. Now, having been through my own arrest experience, I can testify to how much it means to be part of a movement in which other people stand ready to support one. I can also say that Nadine and Steve's dignity and courage in the face of strong provocation somehow lent me strength and calm. I traveled to the convention this year on TWA. Our itinerary had us change planes in St. Louis to TWA flight 323 June 26. Judy Nichols and I arrived early at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport. There were problems with the scheduling of our return flights, and we had been told to make certain that we really were on the proper flights for the return. The ticket agent certainly realized that I was blind. She made the usual flustered efforts to point out where my baggage should be placed. She then gave each of us four boarding passes, telling us that these insured that we would have no trouble on the return flight. Would that she could have insured the same for the flight that evening. We had no difficulty on the first leg of our trip. I did take advantage of having an open-minded sighted person at my disposal to study carefully the safety information card in the seat pocket, an opportunity I rarely have since I do most of my air traveling alone. When we landed we learned that our connecting flight was an hour and a half late. We boarded the plane and took our seats. At that point I discovered that our seats 18-A and B were in the exit row. Recognizing that there could be trouble, I was scrupulous in stowing my cane in compliance with FAA regulations. I then familiarized myself with the hand hold and the handle on the door and made certain that I knew what instructions were printed there. These consisted of the word "Pull." Judy and I discussed whether it would be advisable to bring the door into the cabin as airline personnel are taught to do or better to throw the door out where exiting passengers might land on it. I tell you about this conversation to demonstrate how seriously I took my responsibility as a person seated in that row. A female flight attendant soon arrived to inform us that we would have to move to row eight. I asked why, and she explained that the row could not be blocked. When pressed to explain in what way the row was being blocked, she said that it was a federal law that "people with your handicap can't sit in exit rows." We then had the discussion that has become tiresomely common. She assured me that an FAA inspector on board had told her that it was a law. He would not come speak with me, but he did eventually confirm my contention that the rule in question was a TWA policy filed with the FAA. I should say that all this time the temperature in the cabin and passenger tempers were rising. The air conditioning was out of order. I am happy to say that I remained calm. In the first moments of the confrontation I noticed that my pulse was racing, and I could feel adrenalin spurting through me. But I soon calmed. It helped more than I can express to have Judy beside me and, by the greatest good luck, to have Pat Eschbach in the seat immediately in front of me. Since Bob had to spend a few extra days at his job, Pat was traveling alone. She got busy converting her seat mate and the nun in front of her. That was the extent of the sympathy I had in the passenger list of 156. A parade of officials came to my seat, as well as a few stray passengers, like the man who had the bright idea of putting me in first-class. He had the grace to leave again as soon as he recognized that my stand was being made on principle. Other passengers shouted from time to time that I should defend my principles on my own time. I did my best always to articulate my regret that so many people were being inconvenienced by TWA's adherence to a foolish policy, but only one man on the plane came to understand the importance to me of my refusal to be degraded by moving. As one might have anticipated, he was black; and though he began by denying that this was a question of civil rights, he sat down to talk with me. He never was thrilled with the delay, but mercifully, he stopped harassing me. A woman, alleging that she was an attorney, tried condescendingly to persuade me to see my lawyer tomorrow, because, "Honey, you don't understand that this is going to cost you thousands." When I explained that one of my lawyers had himself been carried off a plane a few months before, she accused me of "getting the idea from him. You wouldn't be trying this stunt now if he hadn't put the idea into your head." I am afraid that I was rather firm with her at this point. She whirled and told a member of the crew that she would help carry me off. The member of the cockpit crew who sallied forth to do battle with me was the only TWA staff member who was truly courteous. He admitted that I was clearly competent to deal with an emergency but said that this was not the point. The problem was that the pilot would not take off knowingly in violation of a TWA policy. At this point I told him, if so, there was only one thing to do. They must have me arrested because I was not going to move. The pilot eventually came to assure me that they could not put the lives of 156 people at risk, and I assured him that violating this policy would not do so, but that if he were morally compelled to comply with an unjust policy, he could save a lot of time if he would arrange for my arrest. The police had already made one appearance, which abruptly ended when the female officer in charge of the band of three learned that a TWA agent had assigned my seat knowing that I am blind. With great disgust she announced, "We're out of it. This is between TWA and this passenger." When TWA actually made the complaint of peace disturbance at the police station, this group of three did return, but the woman officer refused to arrest me. She said hotly that she had received no direct order to do so, and she would have nothing to do with it. Officer Mahon made the arrest and processed the paperwork. He was very courteous and made no bones about disliking TWA. As he took my statement, he commented that he himself had never prepared for sitting in an exit row. Without actually saying so, he left me with the impression that he thought TWA's stand was foolish. When I was released I learned that I could still catch a flight to Kansas City. When we got to the gate we realized that it was flight 323 with 154 unhappy passengers who were not delighted to see me again. The compass had failed at about the time that the air conditioning had been repaired, and eventually TWA decided to transfer the passengers to another plane. Most of the people contented themselves with dirty looks directed at Judy and Pat since they could appreciate them fully. There were, however, a number of young students returning from Europe. They had led the applause and jeers as I was taken off the plane. They now formed a line for me to pass along as I walked to the jetway. They made a number of scathing and condescending comments for my benefit. Remaining silent at that moment was almost the hardest part of my ordeal. At the jetway our tickets were snatched and new boarding passes substituted. Fleetingly I wondered if I should object, but I was nearly at the end of my rope. I made my way to row twenty, where a stewardess was waiting to insure that I did not try to take my old seat. She then engaged in the most thorough and demeaning lecture on the safety features of the plane that I have ever endured. I can usually turn these monologues off, but all I succeeded in doing was eliciting a shrill, "I'm only doing my job." Somehow I managed to doze on the flight, but I roused as the crew were bringing around the complimentary drinks. I needn't have bothered; we were not offered anything. As Judy and I left the plane, the only member of the crew to speak to me was the officer in the cockpit who had acknowledged that I was competent. I ask myself now what has been accomplished. When the head of security for TWA in St. Louis called me to say that the charges had been dropped, our conversation demonstrated clearly that he still believes that I violated a federal law and that blind people have no right to sit in exit rows because they will impede rapid evacuation of the plane. The other passengers for the most part are now hostile to our cause. Most of the crew and ground personnel are in the same condition. On the other hand I did not waver from the course I knew to be right. I conducted myself with dignity under difficult circumstances. More importantly, people who were not involved have heard about what happened to me. My hometown newspaper carried the story on the front page, and a number of people have gone out of their way to tell me of their support. Several members of Congress have already heard my story and are disturbed at the injustice of what we face. Most of all, we are stronger--all of us. Just as all of us are diminished when any one of us is forced to break faith with principles, all of us are energized when any one of us finds the courage to stand by our principles. The National Federation of the Blind enabled me to stand up for myself and for all of us. I know that we will win this battle for self-respect and equality. We are right, and the justice of our cause will give us the strength we need. Cordially, Barbara Pierce AIRLINE BEHAVIOR LIQUOR, INCOMPETENCE, AND EMOTIONAL TANTRUMS by John W. Smith We flew on USAir from Philadelphia to Kansas City, with a change in planes in Pittsburgh, Friday, June 27th. Despite our fears of arriving at the airport later than desired, we discovered our flight from Philadelphia would be delayed an hour due to weather out West. They did tell us at the desk at the gate that they had no seats for us, though we'd had reservations in for a month. Eventually, since there were more non- smokers than smokers, they made the entire plane non-smoking and we were issued seats soon afterward. They said that it was a federal regulation to declare a flight non-smoking if the majority of passengers want non-smoking seats. I was tempted to ask their definition of "federal regulation." Our flight to Pittsburgh was uneventful otherwise. Again, we experienced weather delays of about an hour and a half in Pittsburgh. We sat on the plane part of that time. The Blumes from New Jersey, Connie Wood, and Jim Sofka were also on board. There may have been other conventioneers from New York. Some were preboarded with their dogs, and the Blumes were asked to hand in their tickets to be reassigned bulkhead seats but declined and apparently were not hassled during the flight. The same was not true for me. As I've often done when flying, I placed my cane in my seat, between Carol and me, and strapped in securely by my seat belt. A stewardess came by objecting to this and ordered me to put it in the overhead compartment. Carol and I both said it was okay where it was. She sad if I would not comply she would get the captain. I kept quiet. She said she would get the captain. Soon, another stewardess came back, apparently accompanied by an official. Upon talking with her in the presence of the first stewardess, I decided to place my cane on the other side of Carol, secure by the window. The first stewardess was still upset and told me not to ask her for anything during the flight. She left and the second stewardess expressed some dismay, having only met the first stewardess five hours before and not knowing what to do with her. I was content things worked out as they did. In ten to fifteen minutes, while we still waited due to a weather delay, the first stewardess came back to apologize. With her apology she admitted she'd had a long, stressful day and that she had the safety of 110 other passengers to consider first. We had no special privileges and Carol was not trained in safety as she was. Carol had defended me in our earlier hassle. In fact, when this stewardess first came back she thought the cane might have belonged to Carol until I straightened her out. In any event, I was content to let things rest despite her hostilities. However, when a man across the aisle tried to get her attention by touching her she scolded him for touching her, saying not to ever do that again, and that he, too, should not ask for anything from her on the flight. She then stormed to the back of the plane. The other two stewardesses eventually came back separately to make sure all was okay and to learn what happened. The first stewardess, while still in confrontation with us, refused to give her name or flight employee number claiming it was nobody's business and that we had no right to know. The second, kindly stewardess also refused to give any information, including her name, urging us to let sleeping dogs lie. We assured her that she, herself, was in no trouble. By the way, this was flight 347 from Pittsburgh to Kansas City. During the delays, the stewardess served free drinks and folks in the back got pretty well lit before take-off. A party atmosphere developed and passengers got friendlier to one another. Soon the first hostile stewardess stamped to the front of the plane with baggage. The plane began moving and passengers cheered, only to be told by the captain on the PA system that another flight attendant was coming on board in about forty-five minutes. He apologized for the inconvenience. The friendly stewardess was reluctant to say anything, except we overheard her say to a row further back that the first lady needed help. Soon the other stewardess was gone. When the replacement came we had to wait ten more minutes for the ice man, since we had used the first supply. The stewardesses were asking how our day had been in light of the hostile stewardess' mention of a stressful day. Finally we took off--three hours later than scheduled. The flight went without incident. The senior stewardess did announce that their names were Freda (or Rita, I'm not sure which), Trixie, and our replacement was Myra. After all that, when we landed, several passengers were without part of their baggage. We were missing a garment bag which arrived late Saturday night. Something in me just knew it would happen. I've never lost luggage until then. We were glad when it was all over, especially since we kept Carol's parents waiting at the airport three and a half hours. We arrived at approximately midnight. As for our flight back, we went on Ozark airlines. We discovered upon sitting down that we were in an exit row--row 14, seats A and B. Carol sat by the window and I had my cane between us strapped in by the seat belt. We were flying to St. Louis to change planes. Despite tense feelings, absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happened. No one approached us about my cane or the fact that we were in an exit row. When we were in the air after takeoff I told Carol I dared them to try to move us then! The remainder of our flight home went as smoothly as could be expected. We were grateful and relieved. It's strange that such a smooth flight should happen on Ozark in light of the behavior of the Ozark official at our convention a few days before. However, we've never had any problems at all in the several times we've flown on Ozark. One just never knows what to expect next. Our flight to Kansas City was our first flight on USAir. Needless to say, we weren't impressed. It is the first time I've ever heard of a stewardess being ejected. It makes one wonder and count his blessings all at the same time. NO TROUBLE WITH THE EXIT ROW HOW DO THEY DETERMINE WHO IS BLIND? Grand Forks, North Dakota July 10, 1986 Ms. Peggy Pinder Attorney at Law Grinnell, Iowa Dear Ms. Pinder: This letter is in response to our recent conversation at the NFB convention in Kansas City regarding my seating on a Northwest Airlines flight from Fargo, North Dakota, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 28, 1986. I am legally blind and use a folding white cane when traveling. On June 28 my companion, Kathleen Brakke, and I were booked on Northwest flight 304 from Fargo to Minneapolis. The plane we were to fly out of Fargo on was grounded due to mechanical problems, and a Northwest plane flying from Bismarck to Minneapolis was diverted to Fargo to pick up the passengers there. Prior to boarding the plane we were told that the seating arrangement wold be open--that is, there would be no preassigned seats. We boarded the plane and located two unoccupied seats, which happened to be over the wing on the left side of the aircraft. Dr. James Schobel, President of Mayville State College, Mayville, North Dakota, was the third passenger in our row of seats. We observed that the row in which we were seated was the emergency exit row and thought no more about it. During the course of the flight Dr. Schobel informed us that he, too, was visually impaired, being blind in one eye and having only partial vision with the other. We were not asked to move by any of the airline personnel on the flight and remained in our seats until the plane landed in Minneapolis. I was not aware at the time of the extent of the discrimination against the blind by the airlines, so I did not think that sitting in the emergency exit row was very significant until I arrived in Kansas City for the convention of the NFB. Enclosed you will find the remains of our airline tickets. I am sorry that we had already discarded the boarding passes although as it worked out they were immaterial anyway. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Earl W. Anderson NEW YORK AIR PRACTICES ROUTINE RUDENESS Bay St. Louis, Mississippi June 18, 1986 Customer Services Department New York Air Dear Sirs: On Saturday, April 26, 1986, I was on New York Air flight 262 from New Orleans to Newark for purposes of going to obtain a Seeing Eye dog. I feel that the treatment I received at the hands of well meaning but misinformed flight personnel cannot be overlooked. I was patiently awaiting the call to board when a flight attendant on flight 262 (who later identified herself only as Gayle) asked if I wished to preboard. I politely declined but she kept insisting until I had to be more firm in my resolve. She then informed me that if I did not preboard I would have to wait until all other passengers were on the plane. Since I was seated near the front of the plane, which was the last group to be called, I had intentions of boarding with my proper group. When my group was called I took my place in line and was quite competently following the person in front of me, doing just fine, when Gayle grabbed my arm and said "He can't go down without flight personnel." She then immediately proceeded to walk down with me, declining to use the correct procedure of allowing me to take her arm, and informed other flight personnel that she had a blind man and three U.M.'s, which we all know stands for "Unaccompanied Minors." When I got on board, another flight attendant named Tony tried to take my cane away. I only got out of that one because, for reasons of my own, I had my collapsible cane with me. All this occurred in spite of the fact that, according to my research, your own policy says that preboarding and bulkhead seating are optional. Also, a "Special Service Advisory" was attached to my ticket when I checked in without my knowledge or consent. On the return flight, flight 251, May 22nd, New York Air personnel attempted to change my advance seat selection from #A to a bulkhead seat 1F without my knowledge. It was only due to the presence of a Seeing Eye instructor that I avoided that one. Blind people are tired of the harassment we have received from airline personnel. I do not wish special forms on my ticket; if I decline preboarding I want my wishes respected; I am not a child and bitterly resent being treated like one and classified in the same grouping. Also, FAA regulation 121-589 specifically reads that we may keep our canes at our seats. I hope that New York Air will take steps to correct these problems in the future and have a word with the flight attendants involved. In the meantime, however, I have recommended to Seeing Eye that it avoid using New York Air whenever possible. Also, a copy of this letter is being sent to Kenneth Jernigan, President, National Federation of the Blind, and to Trent Lott, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., for whatever actions they may wish to take. All we wish is to be treated as any other passenger and to be left in peace to get to our destinations. We don't need the arrogant attitude of overbearing flight personnel who believe themselves to be experts on blindness. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Harvey Heagy REPUBLIC AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVE SHOWS ENLIGHTENMENT As Federationists know, Karen Mayry is President of the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota and of the Diabetic Division of the National Federation of the Blind. Her recent experience with Republic Airlines is a refreshing contrast to the treatment which blind persons have come to expect when they travel by air. Here is what she says in a recent letter to Peggy Pinder: -------------------- Rapid City, South Dakota June 9, 1986 Dear Peggy: During my recent flight to Hibbing, Minnesota, from Rapid City, South Dakota, via Republic Airlines, I sat in the exit row from Rapid City to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Hibbing. I chatted with the Republic representative in the Hibbing Airport regarding exit row seating and he stated that "you as a blind person, have a right to sit in the exit row if you desire." I have never requested that particular row, but I have been assigned the exit row both when I book through a travel agent and when I have purchased the tickets at the airline counter. I am happy to report the progressive attitude that I have experienced when traveling by Republic. Very truly yours, Karen S. Mayry UNITED AIRLINES: EXCESS LIQUOR, WHIMSICAL BEHAVIOR AND LACK OF CONCERN FOR SAFETY by David Ticchi In my position as International Marketing Manager for the Kurzweil Reading Machine, I do a great deal of around-the-world traveling. People often ask me if I have any fears of flying, terrorism, or concerns about doing business in different countries. Frankly, I don't have any fears about air safety. I am mindful of terrorism, and I would not travel to any area where I believe I would be incurring great risk. I feel completely comfortable doing business with our distributors in different countries and, in fact, Kurzweil Computer Products would not pay me to do so unless I was competent. My greatest concern about air travel, whether domestic or international, is how I am going to be treated by the airlines. From the time I set foot in an airport and until I pick up my luggage and leave I have no clear idea of how I am going to be dealt with. Therefore, I try to prepare myself for any situation which arises: mandatory rides to the gate, required pre or post boarding, special seat assignments, purchasing of headsets, pre or post departure, and in general a full range of attitudes toward the blind. This does weigh on my mind and adds to the tedium of air travel. It is unfortunate and unnecessary. There is no reason why blind people should suffer the indignities, demeaning behavior, and hassle which we face every day when traveling by air. I would like to tell you of an experience I had on a recent business trip. I am responsible for a number of distributors around the world. Early in May I made a standard business visit to our distributor in Hong Kong. I found my travel there to be most enjoyable: Business was successful, and Hong Kong was a fascinating place to visit. On my return to the states, I stopped in Hawaii for two days of R & R. My itinerary called for a flight from Honolulu to Seattle to visit with an old college friend and a flight from Seattle to Boston. On May 6, 1986, I arrived at the Honolulu International Airport to take United Airlines flight #32 to Seattle Washington. I first proceeded through the agricultural station where inquiries were made regarding fruits and vegetables purchased for return to the mainland. Then I checked some of my luggage with a baggage handler. I told the skycap that I had a ticket and a seat assignment but I wanted to reconfirm my booking. He said a ground agent would handle this for me. A young woman arrived on the scene and identified herself as a United ground agent. I explained to her that I wanted to reconfirm my seat assignment. She said she would do so and that she would give me a ride with others in a golf cart to the gate. I reiterated that I only wanted to reconfirm my seat assignment and find out from what gate flight #32 was scheduled for departure. She insisted on my riding in the cart. I steadfastly refused. She then said, "I am really very pretty, you know." I responded, "And I'm not easily seduced." She then went to reconfirm my seat assignment. The skycap, Joe, and I chatted. He said she really was very pretty, and I replied that I was more concerned with principle than beauty. The ground agent returned and said, cheerfully, that I had been assigned to seat 31-H, but since that was so far back in the plane she had moved me to seat 18-H. This would be easier for me to walk to. Frankly, I prefer to sit farther back in the plane, which is why my travel agent had requested that seat. I did not make an issue of this. I smiled and shrugged and said that I would walk to the gate. I had ample time before departure, and I would enjoy the walk in the fresh air of the wide open Honolulu Airport. Joe offered to walk with me as I had a garment bag, attache case, and a good supply of macadamia nuts as carry-on luggage. So we walked together to the gate. Along the way I discussed with Joe my chagrin over the change in seat assignment. He seemed to understand my reasoning that service ought not to be imposed but that a paying customer ought to have some options. When we arrived at the gate Joe and I had a brief relaxed conversation. I gave him a tip, we shook hands, and said goodbye. I listened to a Walkman as I waited for departure, feeling relaxed and satisfied and with a sense of accomplishment for completing successful business. Evidently the departure gate for flight #32 had been changed. An agent came over to me and asked if I had a ticket. I explained I was leaving on flight #32. He said it had begun boarding and he'd be happy to walk me on board. I grabbed my carry-ons and walked to the jetway, handed in my boarding pass, and boarded the plane, a DC-10. When I stepped aboard I exchanged greetings with an attendant and realized the agent had followed me on board. I explained I was quite familiar with DC-10's and would have no problem finding my seat. My only question was the location of the closet nearest to seat 18-H in order to hang my garment bag. I proceeded across the plane and down the aisle, agent and attendant in procession behind me, and arrived at 18- H, an aisle seat in the exit row. There was a closet in the galley directly across from the exit. I hung up my garment bag, placed my attache case by my seat, and since the overhead compartment was full, an attendant stowed my macadamia nuts in the rear of the plane. I hung my jacket in the closet and sat down. I asked the person beside me if I could place my cane between the arm of her seat and the fuselage, as I normally do. It wasn't possible. I thought about placing it in the closet in the galley since it was only two steps away, but an attendant told me it was an elevating closet. I decided to buckle it in with me in the seat belt. The plane began to taxi out. The flight attendant directly across from mein a jump seat by the exit said I would have to give up my cane as it was sticking out in the exit path. I replied that I intended to keep it with me as the cane is my mobility and independence. She said that in an emergency someone might trip on it. I told her that in an emergency I intended to be using it. She evidently got up and then returned with a woman who identified herself as Nancy, head flight attendant. I added that there was no regulation that said I had to do so and, in fact, the National Federation of the Blind had filed suit with airlines, United included, on this issue and if this went to court "you will lose." The plane continued to taxi out to the runway and my cane was buckled in with me and firmly in my grasp. Nancy said she would talk to the captain. She returned and informed me that if I didn't give up my cane, the captain would turn back. I answered, "Turn back." A few seconds later I felt some change in the plane's motion. I honestly don't know if we were then moving forward, in reverse, or motionless. At this point my mind was racing; I was incredibly angry; but I was determined to keep my composure and to be smart, not to be mad. I felt there was a lot at stake here. I was proud to be a Federationist as I sat waiting. I felt I was prepared. A man arrived on the scene and squatted by my seat, at my level, and said, "Good morning, I understand we have a problem with your cane." I responded, "I guess we do." I reiterated that my cane was my mobility and independence and I had no intention of giving it up. He stated that I might not be able to move as quickly as others. I retorted that that was a matter of pure speculation. He asked me if I had any problems with sliding my cane under my seat toward the rear of the plane and if I would be willing to hold onto it during take-off and landing. I responded that I had absolutely no problem with that arrangement. He returned to the front of the plane and we began again to taxi out for take-off. The entire incident had been centered on my cane, not my sitting in an exit row. The flight attendant across the aisle from me and I had a pretty cool discussion. I really don't remember all the details. She said that if "I'd done this to begin with as she suggested, there wouldn't have been any problem." I told her it was my understanding that she had wanted me to give up my cane. If I had been mistaken, I apologized for the misunderstanding. In fact, that was not the case at all. Shortly after we were airborne the attendants sold headsets for the in- flight entertainment. I told the flight attendant who had been sitting across the aisle from me that I wanted to buy one. She responded that I could have one since I wasn't able to watch the movie. I told her that when I go to the movies I pay for my seat like anyone else. She replied, "Well, after all the hassles, we'd like to give you one." I suggested she give me a drink instead. She insisted on giving me the headset and I paid for my only drink on the flight. The rest of the flight was uneventful although the crew as very cool to me. It should be noted that the bar was set up in the galley by me and the exit. Business at the bar was quite good. I overheard an attendant asking a gentleman if he was being met at the airport or was driving home. When he answered that he was being picked up, she gave him another drink and told him she wouldn't have served him another drink if he planned to drive. When we arrived in Seattle I picked up my garment bag, attache case and jacket, an attendant brought my macadamia nuts, and I walked to the front of the plane. An attendant asked if someone would be meeting me and I responded yes, most likely. She then said something to the effect of "Do you know your way around the airport," and before I could answer she giggled at her own words. I should add that I find Seattle to be one of the easiest airports in the world to learn and get around. As I was stepping onto the jetway a man, unidentified and possibly a crew member or ground staff, asked if I needed a hand with my carry-ons. I appreciated his offer and gave him one of my pieces. I met my friend at the end of the jetway. I had an enjoyable time in Seattle. The Boston Red Sox won the game at the King Dome. And Northwest flight #76 to Boston on May 8 was one of the most pleasant I've ever been on; not just because of the contrast with United Airlines flight #32 but because the service was offered and not imposed. It manifested the inconsistencies in the ways that airlines deal with blind people. The Northwest flight was an example of the way things should be done when blind people are flying. I requested to speak with the head flight attendant so I could compliment the crew. My experience on United flight #32 is illustrative of a simple fact--that many of the problems which blind people face are created by organizations and individuals who "know what is best for us" and who pay little attention to customers and consumers. This is not only true with airlines but for each of us in our everyday lives. I did not ask for assistance to the gate--I was TOLD I had to ride in a golf cart. I did not ask to change my seat--my seat was changed and I was TOLD this would be easier for me. The new seat, coincidentally, was an exit row seat. When I told the crew I would not need any assistance in locating my seat, I was not taken at my word--I was TOLD that someone would assist me, and two people followed me down the aisle. I was not asked to reposition my cane--I was TOLD I had to give it up. I was not permitted to purchase a headset for entertainment--I was TOLD that I was not capable of watching the movie. Flight #32 was very unpleasant. As I mentioned, I felt prepared for dealing with this type of experience because I read the Braille Monitor. I have also spent time discussing these problems with Federationists and nonFederationists. The NFB philosophy is vitally important for the future of all blind people in all areas of our lives as a source of pride, strength, and sustenance. I am thankful that I am part of the organization. OF SPIDERS AND OTHER THINGS (Comments by Kenneth Jernigan: This article appeared in the Summer, 1986, edition of Barricades, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa. It summarizes and presumably brings to a conclusion the story of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. During the sixties and seventies the Iowa Commission for the Blind did a great deal to shape state and federal programs and to pioneer a better way of life for the blind. As the agency passes out of existence (even if perhaps keeping its name), it will hopefully be remembered more for what it accomplished than for these final sorry chapters of its history. But, of course, there are still blind people in Iowa who need training, library services, and employment; and there are those who will need such assistance tomorrow--the newly blinded and today's children. What will it be like for them? Barring a miracle, the prospects are bleak. However, the blind of the state have courage and determination, and the heritage of good programs is firmly rooted. Regardless of the odds, the National Federation of the Blind will continue the struggle for improvement and a return to quality. Next year the blind will go back to the legislature, and in the meantime the Executive Branch of government and the general public will be constantly reminded of what has happened and what must be done to change it. The blind of Iowa and the members of the staff of the State Commission for the Blind who stood for so long in the vanguard of the march to opportunity for the blind will not be content to stagnate forever in a backwater and sink into anonymity. In the meantime one can only view with sadness the dismantling and destruction of Iowa's programs for the blind.) This issue of the Barricades is dedicated to the spider, that creature whose habits have caused mankind to reflect upon itself so realistically. As Shakespeare put it: Ah, what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive. BEING YOUR OWN BOSS Many of us work for a boss. We have learned the hard way that the boss is always right. Even if the boss isn't right, the boss is boss and can fire or discipline us. Many of us have wished we could be our own boss. We could then set our own work rules, establish our own performance standards, determine whether we have met these standards, all without fear of being fired by ourselves. For most of us it doesn't work that way. But Nancy Norman isn't like most of us. She is now her own boss. When the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa fought so hard to maintain the Iowa Commission for the Blind as an independent agency in the 1986 Iowa Legislature, none of us dreamed this would result. We were simply trying to preserve the governmental structure that had long since proven its usefulness in serving blind Iowans. With the active assistance of Nancy Norman and John Taylor, the legislature eliminated the Commission for the Blind as a separate agency. Mrs. Arlene Dayhoff, chair of the former Commission for the Blind's board, has gone out of her way on several occasions to praise Norman and Taylor for what they did in this year's legislature. We don't agree with the praise, but we certainly agree these two are responsible. The legislature created a Department of Human Rights and placed the former Commission within it as one of the divisions. The old law (now gone) gave the Commission for the Blind the authority to hire and fire the Director. It also listed certain basic services which were to be provided to blind Iowans, and specified that all these services be provided by the same agency--for example, a library for the blind, home instruction, an orientation center, and vocational training in general. The new law specified none of this. The Division may continue to provide all these services but is not required to; and if the services are provided, they need not necessarily be in one single agency. Even the legislators were so unsure of their creation that they decided to "sunset" it in a year. Under the new law the overall department has a coordinator to head it; the divisions will be headed by administrators. The Governor appoints them all. The Governor appointed Mrs. Norman as coordinator of the overall Department. Then came startling rumors, now confirmed as truths. The Governor also intended to leave Mrs. Norman as the administrator of the Division for the Blind. The department coordinator has certain departmental responsibilities. The administrator is responsible for the day to day operations of the Division for the Blind. Mrs. Norman will perform both jobs. The coordinator is to coordinate among divisions, reconcile budget among divisions, and approve hiring decisions. Mrs. Norman will do these tasks for the Department while holding the position as the administrator of the largest division. She'll be her own boss. Wouldn't you like to do that? THE POWERLESS POLICY MAKERS One of Mrs. Norman's attempts in the 1986 legislature to bring about radical change while disguising it as preservation was her advocacy for retaining the old Commission policy-making board of three commissioners under the old name "Commission for the Blind." Preservation of the name was Mrs. Norman's particular touch. She insisted that, if the name were kept, then things would go on just the same. In reality, she hopes that, with the "Commission" name still in use, the blind of the state will not notice that the agency structure has been radically changed. We all know the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf. The Wolf dressed up like grandma in hopes that he could fool Little Red Riding Hood into coming close enough to be eaten. The same way, Mrs. Norman hopes to dress up the Division for the Blind in its old name so no one will notice there has been a change underneath. ("My, what big eyes you have.") Mrs. Norman goes on and on about how she kept her promise to the blind by preserving the "Commission for the Blind." ("My, what a big nose you have.") She has now taken this fiction one step farther, insisting that no one will run the Division for the Blind but the "Commission" board as usual. ("My, what big ears you have.") Of course, everyone knows that policies are made by the person who has the power to hire and fire. That's why we would all like to be our own boss; we'd never face the fear of being fired. The legislature endowed the "Commission" board with the power to make policy for the Division for the Blind. But it transferred the power to hire and fire the Division administrator to the Governor's hands. The "Commission" then can make whatever policies it likes. The administrator can do as the administrator likes, so long as the administrator pleases whom? Not the so-called policy-making board. The administrator can't be fired by them for disobedience. The administrator must please the Governor, who can do the firing. When you hear someone insist there has been no change, that the "Commission" board is still there, and that the "Commission" board still makes policy for services to the blind, the most responsible response is: "My, what big teeth you have." IOWA ABOVE THE LAW But surely, you might say, the Division for the Blind must follow federal law. Even if its administrator is her own boss, even if the "Commission" board can't run the place, still federal law applies. After all, we all learned in grade school federal law is the law of the land. State law can vary from state to state; federal law is single, unified, and equal in its application across the land and brushes aside any inconsistent state enactments. Surely the Division will be governed by the minimum federal legal requirements. Unfortunately, services to the blind in Iowa seem to fall into a Bermuda Triangle of sorts. Nothing is what it seems to be. Good old bits of everyday wisdom disappear to no-one-knows-where: If something is working fine, why meddle with it? A person shouldn't be his or her own boss for that is like setting the fox to guard the chicken house. Things should be named by their true names, or there is bound to be lying and deceit among men and women. All these bits of wisdom have disappeared. And along with them has gone the former truth that federal law is supreme and runs throughout the land. On May 29, 1986, Mrs. Norman wrote to Mr. Isaac Johnson, Regional Commissioner of the Kansas City federal regional office of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, which is the immediate supervisor of the Division for the Blind in its expenditure of about $2,000,000 of federal funds (about two-thirds of the Division's budget). Mrs. Norman referred to the long-standing federal rule that administrators of programs for the blind must work full time on one job and inquired if she could simply ignore the rule. She stated that the Governor of Iowa wanted her to and asked for Johnson's help in doing so. One would think that a federal official would be justified in responding sharply to such a piece of impertinence. Mr. Johnson wrote back on June 3, 1986, in very even-tempered prose (see reprints after this article), stating that the Governor's wish did not comply with federal law and laying down the rule that Mrs. Norman could not be her own boss for a period longer than sixty days. Then the fun began. Various staff members in the Governor's office have stated repeatedly that Iowa has a letter from the federal government allowing Mrs. Norman to be her own boss. When questioned about the letter, they refer you to the June 3 letter written by Mr. Johnson which says exactly the opposite. A part of the Governor's office seems to have strayed into the Bermuda Triangle. Mrs. Norman herself has repeatedly stated that Mr. Johnson has told her it would be all right for her to be her own boss for at least a year. Of course, by the mere effort of opening her mouth and emitting controlled sounds, Mrs. Norman can literally say anything. Mrs. Norman's startling assertions that a federal regional official has specifically approved a violation of federal law have been backed by no stronger evidence. But she insists that Mr. Johnson is ready and willing to do the Governor of Iowa "the courtesy" of allowing him to run his state as he pleases. Citizens, watch out. When a governor can do as he pleases without the restraining hand of law, then it is time to bar the door. WHAT DAY IS IT? Mrs. Norman states she will spend one day in five working on the Department of Human Rights matters, and four days in five on the Division for the Blind. That is, except for phone calls and other necessary business of the Department, which she will handle whenever she must. She says that Wednesday will be her Department coordinator day, but you can be sure she will go to a legislative hearing, budgetary session, and any other meetings she likes to represent the Department on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. In other words, Mrs. Norman has thought up her own eighty-twenty match and carefully qualified it so that she could simply do as she pleases. Observers of Mrs. Norman's work habits say that it is more like fifty-fifty and has been that way for quite some time. How could it be otherwise? Since December of 1985 Mrs. Norman has been working (against the strong and effective work of the organized blind) to bring about the destruction of the Commission and its blending into the Human Rights Department. Since the legislature created the Department, Mrs. Norman has been working to bring it into being. And she has never liked the day to day work of running the state agency for the blind anyway. That was always the task of her deputy. Since the deputy left, the job of running the agency for the blind has been left to the gremlins. Mrs. Norman has been glad for excuses not to fuss with the boring details at the Division for the Blind. What she likes are the opportunities to rub shoulders with other state officials as head of an important agency and the opportunity to receive compliments from persons working at the Division. She also likes to come in late and leave early. Don't try to find her in her office before 9:00 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. You'll be disappointed. With enough time budgeted for rubbing shoulders and receiving compliments between 9:00 and 4:00, she can spend the rest of her days on overall department work without disturbing her schedule much. Fifty-fifty should be about right. WHO PAYS THE BILLS? An interesting question has arisen concerning Mrs. Norman's remuneration for all this work. She states that she told Ed Yelick, the Governor's reorganization man, that she had been doing the work of departmental coordinator since December of 1985 and that she is glad now to be paid for this work, starting July 1, 1986, when the Department officially came into existence. In light of such a statement, some have speculated that Mrs. Norman should return her salary from the Iowa Commission for the Blind from the period of December, 1985, through June, 1986. If she has not been doing that job and has been doing some other, it is only fair for her to be paid by that other boss, the Governor, and to let the money mistakenly paid by the Commission come back to blind people for use in improving their lives. The authorized salary for the administrator of the Division is $41,000. The authorized salary for the coordinator of the Department is $44,000. Does she therefore get $85,000 for the added difficulty of being her own boss? THE STAFF While Mrs. Norman wrestles with this difficulty, the Division staff are in quite a different kettle. Staff who are classified as "nonprofessional" are now covered by the snares and tangles of the state personnel law. They may or may not be automatically members of the state employees' collective bargaining unit. Nobody is sure about this, but they may be unionized without ever voting on it. They are now subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act and its six-minute rule. You can't work more than an eight-hour day any more. You can't volunteer. You can't even eat lunch in your office. You can't come in early or leave late, even if you want to. You have six minutes' leeway, and that's it. After that, you're in trouble. Otherwise, you will qualify for overtime compensation, and the Division isn't about to pay that. If you want to work overtime or want to change the configuration of a particular day's work, you have to get permission from a supervisor two weeks ahead of time. So supervisors at the Division, in addition to their other duties, must now control desks and work areas and enforce the dread six-minute rule. It makes for wonderful working relationships and does amazing things to dedication and the desire to complete one's job. The professional staff, on the other hand, will not be covered by the Department of Personnel unless there is an agreement between the Division and Personnel to cover them. Mrs. Norman has already shown great elasticity in her makeup. She vowed to keep the Commission as an independent agency. It isn't. Now she vows to keep the professional staff from coverage by Personnel. I'd worry if I were there. As an indicator of her success in keeping Personnel away from professional staff, Mrs. Norman will tell you that the Director of the Department of Personnel has no "immediate" desire to extend coverage to the professional staff. "Immediate" itself is a pretty elastic word. We've already heard of several persons who intend to leave the Division for the Blind as soon as the conveniently can. They don't intend to mess around with State Personnel and the six-minute rule and its hypocritical elasticity. IN-SERVICE--OUT OF SERVICE In the past several years, under Mrs. Norman's direction, we have noticed a fantastic upsurge in the number of days devoted to in-service training of Division staff. One can expect an in- service every other week or so. If this seems improbable, consider the training given, and planned, for the Division staff in the current federal fiscal year: 12/19-20/85--new staff seminar; 12/13/85--in-service by EDUTEK, Field Operations and general staff meetings; 1/22-24/86--in-service by American Foundation for the Blind, Field Operations and general staff meeting; 2/24- 28/86--training seminar, Rehabilitation Administration Management, Norman, Oklahoma; 3/17-18/86--in-service covering individualized education plans, computerized law library at Drake University, civil rights, and Iowa Client Assistance Program, and staff meeting; 3/20-21/86--regional seminar for field supervisors; 4/11/86--"Brag and Steal Day"; week of 4/21/86--hands on data processing training at South Dakota Library for the Blind; 5/7-8/86-- diseases of eye seminar, Field Operations and general staff meeting; 7/17- 18/86--training in dictating, Field Operations and general staff meetings. In addition, staff members attended a workshop on interviewing and interpersonal relations held by the University of Wisconsin; the manager of the Business Enterprise Program attended two BEP-related seminars, one a five-day seminar held by the National Braille Association; twenty-six staff will attend thirty-one training sessions held by the Iowa Management Training System; four staff have taken or are taking basic computer courses; three staff are taking graduate courses in public administration; one staff member is or will take courses leading to a Master's Degree in job development and job placement; one is taking a secretarial course; the Field Operations Program Manager attends Regional Training Council meetings; the Independent Living Program holds monthly in-service training sessions; and an in-service on head injuries is planned for late summer or early fall. These in-service programs are usually scheduled in the middle of the week for the convenience of Mrs. Norman and the presenters. This has the effect of wiping out an entire week for each field staff member who must attend. There are three possible explanations for this extensive training. One is that training is a substitute for supervision. If everyone is told by an expert (paid good money) what things are supposed to be done, then the things will get themselves done and the supervisors won't have to mess with the untidy details of knowing, encouraging, assisting, and otherwise inducing staff to do what needs to be done. Another possible explanation is that a general indisposition for work has grown up at the Division and these in-services allow apparent work without the reality of result. Instead of being out there in the homes of blind people and the offices of employers, staff can sit around in air-conditioning and doze while somebody or other talks about something or other. It's much easier than working. Yet, a third possible explanation is that the Division staff are so hopelessly stupid at this point that they must continually be retrained or they won't have the slightest idea of how to do their jobs. No, it is quite obvious that none of these is correct. You can't supervise by remote control. The staff (or most of them) are not lazy. The staff are not stupid. And yet the in-service spiral continues to the tune of over $17,000 a year. One thing's for certain: With all the time devoted by staff to training, at least one staff member needs more. The Division's Program Manager for Field Operations, who directs staff training, had to submit and resubmit the training grant application three times before he got it right. "Physician, heal thyself." EQUALITY At a recent staff meeting a Division supervisor made a startling and beautiful suggestion. Many staff members, she said, some of whom had been ill, were having financial problems. An emergency assistance program for the staff (a kind of welfare program) was needed. After all, she said, the staff should have the same services that clients have. That's right. You read correctly. Division staff should receive the same services that clients do. We're certainly for that. Our only quarrel with the suggestion is that it didn't go far enough! We see a small problem in implementation, but we believe equality can be achieved one day by beginning now to use some rather crude tools and refining them as time goes along. Here's how it should work: The Division staff as a whole should be paid on the average what blind Iowans on the average receive in monthly income. Equal, isn't it? But it'll be hard to do at the beginning. So let's start equalizing with known, already available statistics. Let's use, instead of the entire blind population, just those closed rehabilitated in the most recent fiscal year. That's easy enough to determine. While the real beauty of this proposal is its equality, there are other attractions as well. First, to implement equality completely, we'll need to start gathering statistics on blind people, but these statistics are not now readily available. We can start with the rest of the Division's clients. It should be fairly easy to set up a system to record income and changes in income for clients. This could be factored into the equation as soon as the data come on line. Next, we'll have to arrive at a method of fairly determining the income of blind Iowans not on the caseload. This would include former clients who were closed as rehabilitated prior to last year. One method of determining the annual income of all blind Iowans would be to survey everyone every year. Of course, we would have to include the blind people in this state who do not work at all. The more accurate gathering of statistics is not the only attraction of this equality proposal. The other charm of the proposal is that it ties the for tunes of Division staff more closely to those of the blind community. It's like the theory of employee stock ownership. When employees themselves are part owner of a company, they'll work harder to make sure the company does well since this will insure that they themselves will prosper. In the same manner, the Division staff's average salaries will be tied to the prosperity of the entire blind community. The sky would be the limit. Once the equality commitment is made in earnest, it must be kept forever. As the income of the blind rises due to hard work of Division staff, then the income of Division staff will rise as well. If the rise is slower or even more nonexistent, the Division staff's salaries will be correspondingly affected. There is much talk these days of privatizing the public sector. We think the Division's supervisor has found an even better way. Bring private sector incentives into the public sector under the great and glorious goal of equality for all. Mrs. Norman, we think the staff supervisor who brought up this idea should get a raise. Or, rather, her salary should be classed higher than most in the new equality matrix. After all, we wouldn't want to pay all the staff the same. Merit must still have its due. FOR WHY? With all this to examine, someone might react by asking: "For why? Why do these people engage in such contortions of logic and common sense? What is their goal? Why?" It is a valid set of questions. Why allow someone to be her own boss, misrepresent governmental structure, flout federal law, spend what time she pleases being paid as she pleases? Why compel staff to adhere to the six-minute rule and be governed by State Personnel and attend interminable and useless in- service training sessions? There is a simple answer to it all, attributed to Wordsworth: "For why? Because the good old rule Sufficeth them--the simple plan That they should take who have the power And they should keep who can." The following is correspondence between Mrs. Norman and Isaac Johnson: -------------------- Des Moines, Iowa May 29, 1986 Isaac K. Johnson Regional Commissioner Rehabilitation Services Administration Kansas City, Missouri Dear Mr. Johnson: The Governor has asked me to serve as the Head of the Department of Human Rights. . . . Enclosed is a rough copy of the reorganization bill. It is the Governor's intent that I retain the duties of Director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind. Because Federal regulations say that the Vocational Rehabilitation State Plan must state that there is a full-time Vocational Rehabilitation Director, I need your advice as to how to meet with the Governor's wishes and stay in compliance with the regulations. Perhaps the Governor could appoint me as the Acting Director, and an Acting Deputy Director could be appointed at some time in the future. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Nancy A. Norman, Director Commission for the Blind cc: The Honorable Terry E. Branstad -------------------- Kansas City, Missouri June 3, 1986 Dear Ms. Norman: We are responding to your letter of May 29, 1986, indicating that Governor Branstad has requested you to serve as the Head of the new Department of Human Rights and also retain your duties of Director of Iowa Commission for the Blind. You requested assistance from this office on how to meet the Governor's wishes and remain in compliance with the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Regulations. You are correct on your interpretation of 34 CFR 361.8 which requires a full- time director for the VR Program. Should the Governor wish to appoint you as interim or acting coordinator of the new Department of Human Rights, we recommend that an acting administrator of the Division for the Blind be appointed within 60 days of your assuming duties as interim or acting coordinator of the Department. If we can be of further assistance to you or the Governor, please let us know. Sincerely, Isaac K. Johnson Regional Commissioner cc: The Honorable Terry E. Branstad OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION IN 1986 (This article appeared in the Summer, 1986, Barricades, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa.) In some states rehabilitation counselors, ever on the lookout for status 26 case closures, tend to get a bit nervous when the fiscal year is drawing to a close and they don't know what to do with a particular client. All of a sudden a client is likely to find that his or her vocational goal has been changed to that of "homemaker" so the counselor can close the case before the end of the year and get credit for the "rehabilitation." Of course, this never happens in the (pick one): --Iowa Commission for the Blind --Division for the Blind of the Department of Human Rights. Or does it? On May 30, 1986, a client who had planned to be a teacher found that her goal was changed. Excerpts from the amendment to her Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program follow: Vocational Objective: Homemaker (in her own home) 5999 To Be Attained By: 9/1/86 Planned Services: Service Category-- Placement and Follow-Up; How Provided-- Client/counselor; Effective Date--Begin 5/86, end 9/86 Counselor Remarks: Health problems and non-acceptance into the [college] has compelled a change of vocational direction. At present the client is using learned skills to be a homemaker. Client Views: "I am taking care of myself, and trying to get my college credits straight. Right now I'm keeping house for myself and my friend." (A handwritten note by the counselor referring to the client remarks states "not direct quote--gist of conversation.") The document was signed by the counselor and the program manager of the Division's Field Operations Department. What had happened was this: The client in question, who had not been visited by her counselor for some time, received a letter from the counselor in late May stating the intention to close the client's case unless the client contacted the counselor. (Choosing this particular method of communication instead of a personal visit or simple telephone call says a lot about this particular counselor.) When the client telephoned, her counselor stated that a letter had not been received from [college] stating that the client had been accepted. The counselor also told the client that the Division for the Blind had paid an extra $152 for the client's [medical] bills and, "in order to justify it, I have to make you into a homemaker." Federal law requires that the Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program and amendments to it be developed jointly between the client and the counselor. Yet, this client was met with a fait accompli; the counselor said there was no alternative but to put her into homemaker status. For this client the rehabilitation process is coming to an end, despite the fact that she is trying to get her college credits straight, despite the fact that she plans to attend college when she has done so. Because the Division for the Blind paid extra for her medical expenses, and because she keeps house for herself and her roommate, she will henceforth have the vocational goal of "homemaker"--no matter what she wants. The client has never agreed to this change in goal. This drastic change was simply imposed upon her. The counselor neither proposed nor indicated a willingness to consider alternative vocational goals. This is not the only instance of this type of thing, and it is not just one counselor who is at fault for doing something like this. (For example, it's a little known fact, but counselors at the Division for the Blind have also closed as working and rehabilitated clients who had "volunteer" jobs for which they received no pay.) There is a temptation in this instance to fix all the blame on the individual counselor(s). However, it is only fair to note that counselors within the Division do not receive intensive training in rehabilitation law and regulations, nor do they receive adequate supervision by persons knowledgeable about these laws and regulations to keep such incidents from occurring. They do not receive the right kind of leadership from the administrator of the Division, who seems to have little interest in the internal workings of her own agency and no commitment to the just treatment of the agency's clients. There are those at the Division for the Blind who maintain that nothing has changed, still use the old name of "Commission for the Blind," and still claim that quality services are provided to Iowa's blind people. Things have changed. The change in agency structure, from that of independent commission to division of a larger agency, serves only to highlight the fact that Iowa's agency for the blind of the 1980's, unlike its counterpart of the 1970's, is neither exemplary nor unique. HAVE YOU HEARD??? (The following items appeared in the Summer, 1986, Barricades, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa.) What Goes Around Comes Around: Her own staff recently took Mrs. Nancy Norman, the Division for the Blind Administrator, to task for purchasing yet another Xerox Memorywriter for the agency's Field Operations Department. At least a year ago staff members recommended that Mrs. Norman not purchase any more of the devices, and she promised not to do so. It turns out that the Memorywriter, a word processor. can't be adapted for either speech or Braille output, and Xerox has shown no inclination to make it more adaptable. This caused a crisis for a local blind typist, who argued against purchase of the device by her employer, only to be overruled because "the Commission for the Blind just bought a number of these, and they should know." (The literature of public administration teaches us that a major characteristic of a good administrator is the ability to judge long- term, as well as the short-term consequences, of an action.) "Is Anybody There?"--Part 1: Visitors to the Division for the Blind these days are frequently met by an empty switchboard, containing a sign (useless to blind visitors) directing them to the front office. In days past this highly visible position was staffed by a blind switchboard operator, who greeted visitors, answered their questions, and directed them to the agency's various departments, thus making an important statement about the capacities of blind people in employment. Now, sighted clerical personnel take turns staffing the switchboard--when it is staffed, that is. "Is Anybody There?"--Part 2: Visitors to the Division for the Blind will notice that the glass-walled administrative office historically occupied by the agency's deputy director is vacant. We hear that it will be made into the file room for the administrative office. In the past the deputy director was seated in that high- visibility office for good management and security reasons--to keep track of who was entering and leaving the building, assist visitors, and solve problems (sometimes before they occurred). Recently the office was occupied by the administrative assistant to the agency's administrator, who could perform similar functions, but she's now moved to the back office. With switchboard and glass-walled office vacant, it's now possible for a thief to walk out the front door with an expensive piece of office equipment, unhindered (it's been tried before); and the visitors--what about them? They'll Be There--With Bells On: Earlier this year the U.S. Postmaster in Des Moines, ignoring 26 years of safe mail delivery to the Division for the Blind building, threatened to discontinue service unless the Division stationed staff to warn approaching blind cane travelers of the mail truck parked at the loading dock and extending across the Keo Street sidewalk. We hear that staff were originally assigned for that purpose but were withdrawn, and negotiations with the Postal Service opened, after a number of blind people and Orientation Center staff strongly objected. We also hear the Postal Service eventually reduced its demand: A staff person now has to watch while the truck is backed in--the truck itself will now have bells to warn approaching blind persons. It would seem that the former Commission for the Blind's unshakable belief in the capacities of blind people has now been exchanged for a reliance on bells and whistles. Another Principle Set Aside?: Some disturbing news regarding the Division for the Blind's Business Enterprise Program (BEP): Blind persons managing the agency's food vending operations may face "set-asides," money taken from their earnings to pay for management and other services provided by BEP staff. There's also been some consideration given to a separate "nominee agency" to manage the program. Several other states have recently decided to abandon their vending programs and use the money for other purposes. We fear such a trend to abandon blind vendors might take root in the fertile soil of the Division for the Blind, where the administration has not been personally committed to blind persons for years. Of course, blind Iowans will remember that the former Iowa Commission for the Blind prided itself on not charging "set-aside" to blind vendors and in providing remunerative employment for many blind entrepreneurs. THE ROMANCE OF BLINDNESS by Lauri Klobas (This article appeared in the July- August, 1986, Blind Missourian, the newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri. It was originally taken from the July-August, 1986, Disability Rag.) In The Light That Failed, an artist's masterpiece is utterly destroyed by his angry model--but he never knows it, for he's lost his sight. No one dares tell him his painting is a ruined mess. In Pride of the Marines, blinded veteran Al Schmid believes he is being picked up from the train station by a WAC in an official car. Unbeknownst to him, the driver is the girlfriend he claims he doesn't love anymore. She dupes him to force a showdown. In Night Song, a blind pianist attracts the attention of a rich society girl. He doesn't want anything to do with her. She pretends to be someone else, a blind young woman, and he falls in love, not knowing she is sighted. "Light of the Day," a Love Boat episode, features a blind passenger who mistakes another traveler for a fellow she had a crush on during college. The man doesn't tell her she is mistaken. Lionel Ritchie's video of the song "Hello" relays the story of a teacher in a school for the performing arts who falls in love with a talented adult blind student. He watches her from afar as she plays the flute, dances, and acts--and she never knows he's there. In Mask, a blind girl falls in love with Rocky, a boy whose face is so startlingly different that others think it's a mask. She is untainted by visual prejudice, a metaphor for love and innocence. Dramatically, each one of these pieces succeeded. We didn't want the artist to know his masterpiece was tragically ruined. We wanted Al Schmid to admit he loved his girl. We wanted the pianist to let down his walls and fall in love. We wanted the woman on the cruise to live out a fantasy. We felt the teacher's poignant want for the talented student and his fear of approaching her. We were happy Rocky found a girl who loved him. Despite the different stories, the effect is that blindness is--well, romantic. Without sight, the character is an innocent victim of some sort. They are vulnerable and we, the omniscient audience, feel a little wrench in our stomachs. "Mr. Sunshine," a sitcom currently enjoying a trial run on ABC, features a lead character who is totally blind, divorced, and a college professor. Paul Stark--Mr. Sunshine--also accidentally stumbles into his closet when leaving his apartment, mistaking it for the front door. He wears clothes sighted friends feel they must tell him are hopelessly outdated. The new, positive traits of an independent profession, so "in" on t.v. these days, are tempered by the vulnerability he sometimes exhibits--which is, again, romantic. What do these portrayals of onscreen blindness tell American couch potatoes and their families of little spuds? Characters who must continually seek assistance of some kind from people, who can be easily taken advantage of--no matter how good the intentions--fall into the "need help" category. As characters who don't see colors, sunsets, faces, and clothing styles, they draw out our emotions. We feel protective and drawn to them. I guess the story of a blind person who sues an employer for job discrimination isn't quite as romantic. THE ROCKY ROAD OF THIEL by Kenneth Jernigan As everybody in the field of blindness who cares to know is aware, Maryland Computer Services went on the rocks early in 1986 and was bought out by Lee Brown and others associated with Triformation in Florida (not Triformation Braille Services but the other Triformation, which was formerly joined with Triformation Braille Services). There were all kinds of spinoffs from the disintegration of Maryland Computer Services, including the loss of the right to distribute Thiel Braille embossers in this country. It is generally recognized that the Thiel is probably the best high-speed Braille embossing device for the money which can be bought (somewhere around $20,000 or under). In short, Hans Thiel (the inventor of the device) is a good technician, but he seems to do less well when it comes to negotiating. In March of this year he came to Baltimore to try to get the National Federation of the Blind to serve as his exclusive agent for the United States. We held lengthy discussions, but nothing came of them. Mr. Thiel wanted us to agree to buy at least five of his machines each month for a two-year period with cash on delivery, and the price was not correspondingly favorable. At the same time that he was talking with us he also talked to other groups, including Maryland Computer. After several days he returned to Germany with apparently very little accomplished. Then, in a telephone conversation he offered better prices, but we still did not sign a contract. In addition to the other reasons which I have given, there was something else: We were not at all certain that we wanted to become a major distributor of such a product with such heavy capital outlays. When Mr. Thiel was visiting with us, we discussed the possibility of his making a deal with Telesensory or VTEK (formerly Visualtek). Subsequent to his conversations with us he made an arrangement with VTEK, but our information indicates that the honeymoon was over almost before it started. In fact, our sources tell us that as of this writing (September, 1986) VTEK has purchased only five of the Thiel machines-- and these only for demonstration purposes. We understand that their contract calls for them to purchase at least fifty machines during the first year. We are told that Mr. Thiel is furious and has engaged legal counsel preparatory to a possible lawsuit. It is said that Thiel wants nothing more to do with VTEK and is urgently trying to find ways to break his contract with them. But this is not the only potential legal entanglement. Lee Brown and the Triformation group are said to be contemplating legal action against Thiel for what they regard as breach of his contract with Maryland Computer Services. Under the circumstances the following press release (issued by VTEK July 7, 1986) has wry significance: -------------------- VTEK TO DISTRIBUTE THIEL BRAILLE EMBOSSER Santa Monica, CA., VTEK has acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Thiel High-speed Braille Embosser in he United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. This device is generally considered to be the world's most reliable and widely used high-speed Braille printer. At 130 Braille characters per second, the printer generates as many as 4,000 pages of Braille information in a typical eight-hour work day. Identified as the Model BETA-X3, it is famed for its high quality Braille. An optional alphanumeric keyboard, user-controlled flexible parameters, and the ability to prepare tactile graphics such as structural pictures, diagrams, and curves further enhance the versatility and utility of this powerful printer. VTEK's Chairman, Larry Israel, personally negotiated this new arrangement with Mr. Hans-Joachim Thiel, and commented, "I'm pleased that VTEK and Thiel can be associated in this way. Thiel is clearly the world's premier producer of high-speed Braille embossing equipment, and VTEK is the world's largest sensory aid company. The relationship seems particularly appropriate because the reputations of the two companies for quality products and full service and support mesh so well." Isreal further noted that equipment is available for July delivery, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted stream of deliveries to meet the needs of American consumers. He also pointed out that the large number of units already installed is the best possible assurance to users that this is not unproven "development equipment" still requiring thorough testing and debugging. Demonstrations are expected to be conducted at three major conventions this summer: National Federation of the Blind, American Council of the Blind, and the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired. Approximately 100 of these superb devices have already been installed in North America, and they have a field- proven record for reliability and quality. VTEK will provide demonstrations and full installation and support services for the Thiel Braille Embosser. VTEK officials also noted that Thiel had previously announced a high-speed interpoint Braille embosser, currently undergoing field trials, which VTEK will distribute in the United States and some other countries. First deliveries of that interpoint embosser are expected in January, 1987. For additional information, contact your nearest VTEK field representative or the home office using toll-free telephone lines: 800-345-2256 (Continental U.S. and Hawaii); 800-521-5605 (California); in Canada and Alaska: 213- 452-5966. PLEASE SAVE ME THE EXIT ROW SEAT A FIRST TIMER'S LOOK AT A NATIONAL CONVENTION by Dan Barrett "I really think that you should try to attend the convention." Those were the last words I heard from the bright voice of Barbara Pierce late one Sunday evening in May of 1986. I had won a National Federation of the Blind scholarship. So what, I thought. I had experienced conventions for the blind before. Why, just last year I had attended the American Council of the Blind's national convention for a day as a scholarship winner. I was given coffee and donuts, a certificate, a pat on the head, and then sent on my way. Not knowing anybody can make one feel really out of place, I thought. I convinced myself that going to the convention would only hurt my summer school grades and give me a week of lonely feelings. How could I have known at that time how far from the truth I was? How could I have known how the NFB would change my life? Then, early one Saturday morning, I found myself traveling to Kansas City. I was still apprehensive, but I vowed to get involved. From the very moment I set foot in the Hyatt I could feel the momentum. In the check-in line I struck up many conversations and began to feel welcomed. By chance I met Peggy Pinder, the Scholarship Chairman, in line and spoke to her for a while. I just could not believe all the attention everyone paid to me, even without formal introduction. Soon meetings and convention sessions began, and I found myself glued to my seat. I never would have thought I could have been so entranced by a convention meeting. The topics were pertinent, the arguments logical, and the conclusions the best possible. At the close of the week the banquet was held. And what can be said about this climax that has not been said already? All I can say is that more than an event, the convention is an experience. And so to all of you who have never attended a convention, I urge you to attend. Any excuse you might have I had, and now I know differently. Maybe you cannot make it every year, but try to get to at least one; you will feel no regrets. From conservative to liberal, from reactionary to radical, there is something for everyone at a national convention. It is difficult to relate what is felt at a Federationist's first convention. Agian, it is more than an event. It is an experience. I thank the Federation for giving me the chance to attend. And I thank especially Steve Benson, Barbara Pierce, and Peggy Pinder for showing me a part of myself I did not know existed or did not know I had suppressed. Hope to see all of you on the plane to Phoenix in '87, and remember, PLEASE SAVE ME THE EXIT ROW SEAT!!! A READER COMMENTS ON "MR. SUNSHINE" 7709 S. Austin Burbank, Illinois 60459 September 14, 1986 Dear Braille Monitor: I, too, watch "Mr. Sunshine" with interest. My friend, the late Stephen Rogers, was an English professor at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. Not only was he tops in his field, receiving all kinds of awards for his teaching. But he was a well- adjusted, capable human being who participated in activities with his family, made most of his own home repairs, did beautiful woodworking, et cetera. I am not certain what Dr. Rogers (he preferred to be called Steve) would have thought of this program, "Mr. Sunshine." It certainly would not have been regarded as a biographical sketch of anyone we know. But, of course, Dr. Rogers is an exception to the rule. We know that television by its very nature and by the laws of our great country must always reflect the absolute truth in everything. Why, the networks would not have it any other way. "Sanford and Son," "The Jeffersons," and the "Bill Cosby Show" accurately reflect the lives of the average black people in America just as "Trapper John" and "General Hospital" show what real doctors are like. And since I watch t.v. a lot, I know that all people from Texas wear boots and play the banjo! And living near Chicago, I can tell you that the Blues Brothers and Big Al are waiting to say hello to all yous guys. Do you think this is silly? So are the folks who believe "Mr. Sunshine" is anything more than a damn poor effort to boost ratings for ABC. If people can't see through that, then they really have a problem. Maybe they play rock music backwards to get messages from the devil. But a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and if ABC needs the money so bad, why shouldn't they exploit (ugh, I mean expose) another minority! So go on, ABC! MAKE MY DAY! Paul Van Dyck MR. SUNSHINE AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND GETS INTO THE ACT JEFFREY TAMBOR COMMENTS by Kenneth Jernigan In the August-September, 1986, Braille Monitor we carried an article on ABC's television show "Mr. Sunshine." In one way or another most organizations and individuals related to the blindness field have expressed (either publicly or privately) opinions about this show. In the Summer, 1986, issue of AFB News the American Foundation for the Blind joins the parade. Apparently the Foundation interviewed Jeffrey Tambor, the actor who plays the part of the blind professor, "Mr. Sunshine." Here is what the AFB News printed: -------------------- AFB Talks to "Mr. Sunshine" by Fay Hava Jarosh On March 28, 1986, ABC-TV set a precedent in network television viewing with a new prime time comedy series featuring, for the first time, a blind central character. Produced by Henry Winkler/John Rich Paramount Network Television, the show stars Jeffrey Tambor. He plays Paul Stark, an acerbic college English professor whose wit and ingenuity have brought him through many crises, including the accident that left him blind. Tambor, who is sighted, is an accomplished actor whose 25-year career spans theater, films and television, including the highly acclaimed "Hill Street Blues." He feels "Mr. Sunshine: is not about blindness as much as it is about one man's way of handling an obstacle in his life. "Sitcoms are an integral part of our culture, and therefore it is appropriate that we feature a mainstream issue like blindness," Tambor told AFB NEWS. He said the depiction of Paul Stark as a witty and cantankerous character is essential to the show's point of view. "A man could approach being blind from different perspectives--be it tragic, comic or apathetic. Stark chooses comedy and it is through his wits that he endures," Tambor said. "The point of the show is that humor and ability to laugh at oneself are the ways to go in this life, whether or not you've got an impairment." Researching His Role Tambor prepared for his role by studying and observing at the Braille Institute for the Blind in Los Angeles. Feeling "more like a voyeur than an actor" researching his role, Tambor said it was difficult to achieve an objective student mode. "I was emotionally moved by what I saw--people coping with their impairment without sentiment or pity." Tambor was taught adaptive techniques at the Institute, such as traveling with and without a cane. Concerned about the accuracy of his physical portrayal of blindness, he reported that rehearsal periods were the most difficult sessions he had ever encountered. When asked about some of the techniques he adopted, such as the way he moved about the set, Tambor said he did make some personal choices which may not have been "by the book." "As an actor, I took some license in portraying Stark with his own unique personal style, something which everyone, blind or sighted has," he said. "Mr. Sunshine" has had a profound impact on Tambor as an actor and a person. "The intensive research period at the Institute taught me to listen in a new and more pronounced way and the encouraging outlook of the blind persons I studied inspired a more positive attitude toward life," he said. "More than anything else, 'Mr. Sunshine' prompted me to ante up my participation in life." -------------------- As frequently happens, it is hard to tell how many of the nuances of Tambor's comments the writer of the AFB article understood. Consider this passage, for instance: "'A man could approach being blind from different perspectives--be it tragic, comic or apathetic. Stark chooses comedy and it is through his wits that he endures,' Tambor said. The point of the show is that humor and ability to laugh at oneself are the ways to go in this life, whether or not you've got an impairment.'" Tambor says that a man could approach blindness from the perspective of being comic, apathetic, or tragic; but what he fails to say (and what the Foundation writer also fails to say is that there are other ways--more positive and, for that matter, more realistic ways. One could approach blindness from the perspective (assuming one got the right training and opportunity) of being simply one more trait in the totality of one's daily life. Blind people who laugh at themselves because of their blindness (just like fat people who make fun of their fatness or black people who make fun of their blackness) are not funny but pathetic. Of course, Mr. Sunshine can't be simply an ordinary, realistic blind person. Otherwise there would be no drama, no conflict, no excitement--and no good salary or high ratings. There would be no harm to it except for the damage it does to the lives of the nation's blind. Try putting on a program like that about blacks or women, and see how far you get before the outrage and fury drive you off the air. The fact that there is not general public outrage because of "Mr. Sunshine" is as damning as any commentary one could make. It is not necessary to go beyond the name of the main character to make the point. Try naming the main character in a show about a black man "Mr. Watermelon" or "Mr. Shoeshine," and see what happens to you. Perhaps the problem is the fact that Jeffrey Tambor got his training about what blindness is like from the Braille Institute in Los Angeles, a place which is certainly not noted for its pioneering outlook. Tambor says: "'I was emotionally moved by what I saw--people coping with their impairment without sentiment or pity.'" Again, the problem is with the nuances, the failure to comprehend. Properly understood and dealt with, blindness simply isn't like that. It requires no great courage to cope with the "impairment" without "sentiment or pity"--unless, of course, one is talking about the impairment imposed upon us by public attitudes--such as those being fostered by "Mr. Sunshine." Then, there is that passage which reads: "'The intensive research period at the Institute taught me to listen in a new and more pronounced way and the encouraging outlook of the blind persons I studied inspired a more positive attitude toward life. . . . More than anything else, 'Mr. Sunshine' prompted me to ante up my participation in life.'" If somebody wants to regard us as a source of inspiration and thinks it makes his life better, it may be all right; but not if he does it by making our lives worse--especially, if he does it so that he can get a lot of money and recognition out of it. That is not good acting. Better words would be hypocrisy and prostitution. One starts by trying to be understanding and fair about this so-called comedy, but as the message keeps sinking in and the detrimental results keep piling up, the mood changes. "Mr. Sunshine" is unadulterated trash, and what it says about blindness and blind people is an unmitigated lie. The fact that it tries to be funny simply adds grossness to it all. Let us hope that ABC has the decency to remove this throwback to the Middle Ages from the air. If they don't let us find a way to see that they do. PROCLAMATION State of South Carolina Office of the Governor Proclamation by Governor Richard W. Riley On National Federation of the Blind Month WHEREAS, for thirty years the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina has been committed to the goal of promoting equality, opportunity, and security for the blind citizens in the Palmetto State; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind has been the leading organization of blind citizens in the State of South Carolina; and WHEREAS, through public education, legislative advocacy, and support of blinded citizens, the National Federation of the Blind of South Carolina has advanced the rights of blind citizens in the Palmetto State. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard W. Riley, Governor of the State of South Carolina, do hereby proclaim the month of August, 1986, as: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MONTH in the State of South Carolina and ask all citizens of the Palmetto State to recognize the accomplishments of the Federation and its efforts to promote equality, opportunity, and security for blind citizens throughout South Carolina. Richard W. Riley Governor FROM A RECENT LETTER FROM GERTRUDE WARD (Note from Kenneth Jernigan: Gertrude Ward, who is a long-time Monitor reader, is a deaf-blind senior citizen. She has successfully raised her children, who in their turn are successful, contributing members of society. Gertrude has been writing to me for more than a dozen years, and as Monitor readers know, she has very definite opinions. Sometimes her comments are caustic, sometimes witty, and sometimes nostalgic--but one thing is certain: You never have any question about what she means or where she stands. You may not agree with her, but she wouldn't care if you didn't. She believes it. Otherwise, she wouldn't say it. Here are some comments from one of her recent letters.) My son Cameron is training to be an airline pilot. He said the stewardess is supposed to know how to open the emergency door and is supposed to sit there. Well, she doesn't do it. She seems to spend her time harassing the blind. I would tell her to mind her business and let me mind mine or else. . . . There should be specially trained teachers for the blind in lower grades. Mainstreaming has resulted in poorer education for blind children. Blind children are held back in public schools by people who do not know to teach or train them. . . . I have been thinking that when a blind person (just because of pride) pretends to see things he cannot, he is doing untold harm to the cause of the blind. . . . Kidnapping is a federal offense. Is NFB going to do something about it? There is no law that says you have to feed your baby in a highchair. I hope NFB brings that doctor to book. Personally I think the baby [she is referring to the article in the August-September, 1986, Monitor] was far underweight for her age, but they could have helped the mother instead of snatching her baby. I would like to tell that doctor what I think of such highhanded conduct. . . There is no law that forces blind people in this country to place themselves in custodial workshops. So is it not the blind's own fault that such places still exists? The blind do not have to obey the rehab (or is it "rehash") people. They never roped me in. I gave them hell more than once. After World War II the counselors analyzed a job and then trained the blind person to do that job. This was more effective in placing the blind in employment than what is being done today. Let's do it that way again. Cokes and burgers are not among my favorite foods. How about a good roast beef and salad? BILL GRIMM AND COMPUTER AIDS CORPORATION MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS Bill Grimm (who is blind and who is President and founder of Computer Aids Corporation of Fort Wayne, Indiana) issued a press release dated July 15, 1986. Computer Aids Corporation issued a press release dated August 27, 1986. Both of these releases deal with computer technology which may be of use to the blind. The Monitor expresses no opinion concerning the technology which is described, but we thought it would be of interest to those readers who are knowledgeable about computers and computer technology. Here in their entirety are the two releases: -------------------- New Spreadsheet Software for the Blind Uses Voice Output Fort Wayne. Bill Grimm recently released a spreadsheet program designed to work with popular voice synthesizers. Known as "Rapsheet," the program is being made available as "shareware." Versions have been written for both the Apple and the IBM PC. Grimm is President and founder of Computer Aids Corporation, a Fort Wayne, Indiana, based company that specializes in computer products for the blind and visually impaired. But Rapsheet is not a product of the company. Grimm explains, "I wrote this program for my own needs really, but I decided that it was good enough perhaps to be of value to others. It's a very simple program; certainly not Lotus 1-2-3, but it is functional, and if nothing else, it should be a good learning experience for those interested in getting involved with spreadsheets." Rapsheet can be passed around freely. The distribution disk contains a complete User's Manual, in addition to the actual software. Also, several financial models are given on the disk as examples. When you send a $35 donation directly to Grimm, he will send you the latest copy of the program, a print copy of the User's Manual, and a ninety-minute audio- cassette tutorial. "In the tutorial I've tried briefly to touch on spreadsheet concepts and show how they are applied through the design of actual models," says Grimm. "The tape is especially important for those just getting started with spreadsheets." Rapsheet can hold up to 132 labels, constants, and formulas with its six- column by twenty-two-row matrix. Operations include addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, summation, and exponentiation. Models once created can be edited, printed, saved on disk, and later reloaded. Special voice features allow cell contents to be reviewed, individual rows to be reviewed, and columns to be read vertically. Rapsheet is constructed to work with popular voice synthesizers and screen-reader programs. This includes the TexTalker program from Street Electronics with either their Echo II Plus or the Cricket. On a PC, Rapsheet works with Screen-Talk and the PC Talking Program combined with virtually any popular synthesizer. The Apple version requires an eighty-column Apple IIe or Apple IIc. Rapsheet can be obtained by contacting BAUD, a nationwide user's group for talking computer users. For duplication and mailing charges, $5 should be included with your order, and you must specify either the Apple or the IBM version. The address is: BAUD, 1158 Steward Avenue, Bethpage, New York 11714; (516) 433-0171. If you wish to make the $35 donation and receive the tape tutorial, send a check directly to Grimm along with a note specifying Apple or IBM. The address is: Bill Grimm, Post Office Box 10367, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46852. -------------------- New Solutions for PC Access By the Visually Impaired Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 27, 1986. Computer Aids Corporation announced the latest generation of screen-reading software for the IBM PC and compatible computers. Screen-Talk Pro includes a powerful macro capability that offers a solution to the problem of applications programs that write directly to the computer's video circuitry. Now programs such as Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, DBase, Turbo-Lightning, and others can be set up with Screen-Talk Pro to provide a completely voice interactive environment for visually impaired users through the use of Screen-Talk Pro and an attached voice synthesizer. Keith O'Neil, National Marketing Director of Computer Aids, explains: "Intercepting screen output at the DOS level isn't enough anymore. Too many popular programs bypass the DOS screen service routines, and thereby the software hook that would attempt to share this output with the voice synthesizer." O'Neil goes on, "With Screen-Talk Pro a completely interactive environment can be established by adding those desired voice responses to the applications program's existing command set." At a recent demonstration Bill Grimm, President of Computer Aids, illustrated this concept using Screen-Talk Pro with Lotus 1-2-3. Grimm said, "With Lotus the F5 key is used to move the cell pointer directly to any cell on the worksheet. When F5 is pressed, a prompt appears on line 2 of the screen asking for the address of the desired cell. What we can do is extend the function of F5 into a macro that will first give Lotus the F5 command, and then the Screen-Talk Pro command for reading the desired line on the screen." Grimm concludes, "The net effect is that by going through an application program and adding voice responses to the command set of the application we can simulate a totally voice-interactive environment." In addition to this new facility for dealing with otherwise silent applications programs, Screen-Talk Pro has many other new capabilities. First, for the macro processing, Screen-Talk Pro comes bundled with ProKey, the popular macro processor from Rosesoft. Other new features include the ability to recognize all monochrome and color video attributes, a "find" command for locating video attributes, and other strings of characters on the screen (either forward or backward from the cursor), and a special pre-boot procedure for working with the non-DOS disks such as the InfoCom series of adventure games. Text can be reviewed by word, letter, screen, or up to 10 windows may be created to customize the review. Screen-Talk Pro runs on an IBM PC and most compatible computers with at least 128K of RAM memory, and one 5-1/4 inch disk drive. Most popular voice synthesizers are supported, including Echo, Votrax, and DecTalk. Computer Aids adds Screen-Talk Pro to an already well established line of computer-based products for the visually impaired community. The list includes Small-Talk, the talking lap computer; Word-Talk, for word processing; Braille- Talk, for translating ASCII text into fully contracted Braille for embossing; and File-Talk, a new talking database manager for the Apple. Most of Computer Aids software products are available for both IBM and Apple computers. Screen-Talk Pro is available for $395. For complete information call toll-free: 1-800-647-8255 or write: Computer Aids Corporation, 124 West Washington, Lower Arcade Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802. **************************************** RECIPES **************************************** THANKSGIVING DINNER ROLLS by Gwen Rittgers ******************** (Note: Gwen Rittgers is a long-time Federationist from Missouri.) 3 cups flour 1-1/2 teaspoons salt 1/2 cup butter or margarine 1/4 cup evaporated milk 1/4 cup water 1 tablespoon sugar 2 packages active dry yeast 3 eggs, slightly beaten 1. Sift 1-1/2 cups of flour and the salt into a bowl. 2. Heat the butter, milk, water, and sugar to warm. Add the yeast, let stand two to three minutes, and stir to dissolve. 3. Add this mixture to flour. Mix well. Beat until smooth. Cover and let stand in a warm place for 20 minutes. 4. Add eggs and remaining flour. Beat vigorously. Knead the dough in the bowl until smooth and satiny. Add a bit more flour if dough is too sticky to handle. Cover and let rise until doubled in bulk, about one hour. 5. When dough is risen, knead down lightly and divide into 24 to 30 pieces. Form into small balls and place in greased pan. 6. Cover and let rise until doubled in bulk. Bake in a hot oven of 425 degrees for 15 minutes. Makes 24 to 30 rolls. ******************** LIGHT AND LEMONY PUDDING by Dottie Neely ******************** (Note: Dottie Neely is a member of the Jefferson City, Missouri, Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind.) 1 tablespoon unflavored gelatin 1 tablespoon cold water 1/2 cup sugar 1 cup boiling water 1/2 cup cold water 1/4 cup lemon juice (I prefer fresh juice) 1/4 cup non-fat dry milk 1/2 cup ice water 1 teaspoon grated lemon rind (optional) Soften gelatin in 1 tablespoon water. Add boiling water to dissolve. Add sugar, 1/2 cup cold water, lemon juice, and rind. Then chill until very thick, about 90 minutes. Chill a deep mixing bowl and beaters. Add dry milk, ice water, and 1/4 teaspoon lemon juice to bowl. Beat until fluffy, then chill. Break up lemon mixture with fork and add to the whipped mixture. Beat well with electric mixer until pudding is fluffy, but not too stiff. Pour into glasses and chill until firm. ******************** STUFFED BURGER BALLS by Robin Hauck ******************** (Note: Robin Hauck is President of the Student Division and a member of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland.) 2 pounds ground beef 1 box Stove Top Stuffing 1 small diced onion 1 slice of diced bread 1 can of beef gravy Cook stuffing per directions on box, keep warm. Mix egg and onions, then add bread crumbs. Pour the mixture over the beef and work it through. Pat beef down to be about 1/3 of an inch thick. Then form 3 large flat squares. Using warm stuffing mix, form 3 large, firm, solid stuffing balls. Take each square of meat and center it at the top of each ball, allowing the 4 corners to fall down each side of the ball. While leaving the ball stationary, with a flat bottom base, mold the beef securely around the sides and top of the ball. Bake in oven at 350 degrees for 45 minutes. When finished, turn upside down, pick apart with fork, and pour heated gravy over balls. Makes for a cheap, easy, and filling meal. ******************** PUMPKIN BREAD by Cynthia Handel ******************** (Note: Cynthia Handel is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania.) 2 cups sugar 3 eggs 2 cups flour 1/2 teaspoon baking powder 1 cup melted butter 2 cups pumpkin 1/2 teaspoon salt 1 teaspoon baking soda 1 teaspoon ground cloves 1 teaspoon cinnamon 1 teaspoon nutmeg Beat sugar and butter. Add eggs one at a time and beat until light and fluffy. Add pumpkin and beat. Then add remaining ingredients. Divide into two greased loaf pans. Bake in a 325 degree oven for one hour. Cool 10 minutes, then remove from pans to finish cooling. ******************** CHOCOLATE FUDGE CAKE by Cynthia Handel ******************** 3 squares unsweetened chocolate 2 teaspoons baking soda 1/2 cup butter 3 eggs 1 cup sour cream 2-1/4 cups sifted flour 1/2 teaspoon salt 2-1/4 cups packed light brown sugar 1-1/2 teaspoons vanilla 1 cup boiling water Melt chocolate in top of double boiler (or in microwave) and cool. Grease and flour two 8-inch pans. Sift together flour, soda, and salt. Beat butter until soft. Add brown sugar and eggs. Beat on high for five minutes. Beat in vanilla and cooled chocolate. With wooden spoon, stir in dry ingredients alternately with sour cream. Stir in boiling water. Bake at 350 degrees for 35 minutes. ******************** CHOCOLATE FUDGE FROSTING by Cynthia Handel ******************** 4 squares unsweetened chocolate 1 pound confectioners sugar 2 teaspoons vanilla 1/2 cup butter 1/2 cup milk Melt chocolate and butter in small heavy pan over low heat. (I use the microwave.) In medium bowl combine sugar, milk, and vanilla. Stir until smooth. Add chocolate mixture. Place bowl in pan of ice water and stir with wooden spoon until spreading consistency. ******************** SHOW-OFFS by Cynthia Handel ******************** 2 cups peanut butter 2 cups chopped nuts 2 eggs 2 cups confectioners sugar 2 cups chopped dates Mix together. Form balls about the size of large cherry tomatoes. Chill several hours or overnight. In double boiler mix a 12-ounce package of chocolate chips and 1/4 stick of paraffin wax. Dip balls into mixture. Set on waxed paper to dry. Makes about 5 dozen. ******************** MONITOR MINIATURES * * * * * * * **New Baby: Carol and Gene Coulter have been members of the NFB for ten years and are presently members of the Columbia, Missouri, Chapter. We recently received from them the following card: Happy, proud and glad--that's us! And here's the reason for the fuss: Her name is Elisabeth Jean Coulter; she arrived on July 17, 1986, at 1:35 p.m. She weighed 7 pounds, 11-3/4 ounces, and was 21 inches long. Proud parents: Carol and Gene Coulter; Proud Brother: Larry Coulter. **Alumni: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "We are trying to update and expand the membership list of the Alumni Association of the West Virginia School for the Blind. If your address has changed in the past couple of years and you have not received an invitation to the annual Alumni meeting, or if you attended the West Virginia School for the Blind and have not attended an Alumni meeting and would like to know about the 1987 meeting, please send your name and address to: Debbie Koester, 125 Regent Drive, Bel Air, Maryland 21014." **Married: Bonnie O'Day, Secretary of the Tidewater Chapter of the NFB of Virginia, sends us the following announcement: "The NFB of Virginia, Tidewater Chapter, is pleased to announce the marriage of Deborah Butler and Stewart Prost on July 13, 1986, at the Obicey House in Chesapeake, Virginia. Deborah and Stewart met at the annual convention in 1982 and have been keeping the airlines and telephone company happy with long distance calls and visits between Stewart's home in Minneapolis and Debbie's home in Portsmouth ever since. Stewart has located employment at the Portsmouth Psychiatric Institute. We wish them well." **For Sale: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "I have for sale: 2 soft-pack carrying cases for the Optacon, 1 with shoulder strap, 1 with hand strap, $35 each; 1 4- line metal slate, 27 cells, $5, $5.75 with stylus; 1 slate for marking Braille playing cards, $5, $5.75 with stylus; 1 slate for making cassette labels, $5, $5.75 with stylus; 1 interpoint slate (which means you can write on both sides of the paper), 18 cells, 8 lines, $10, $10.75 with stylus; 1 stylus and eraser set shaped like a pencil, $5; 1 French math slate that has 100 cubes marked in Braille (marked in such a way that it will give the numbers from 0-9, as we used this a great deal for calculations before the talking calculator came in); 4 plastic Braille bingo cards with pegs to cover the numbers, $5." For further information contact Sam Sitt, 1751 S.E. Jackson Street, Stuart, Florida 33497; 305-286-0005. **Elected: Albert Sanchez writes: "In August, 1986, the National Federation of the Blind of Washington, Spokane County Chapter, held elections for the upcoming year. Those elected were: Albert Sanchez, President; Paul Whipple, Vice President; John Croy, Secretary; Lissa Nash, Treasurer. Don Edwards and Gloria Whipple were elected to the Board of Directors." **NAPUB: Sharon Duffy writes: "At the NFB convention in July of 1986 NAPUB (the National Association to Promote the Use of Braille) met and elected officers. They are: President, Betty Niceley; First Vice President, Dr. Emerson Foulke; Second Vice President, Nadine Jacobson; Secretary, Sharon Duffy; and Treasurer, Victor Hemphill. "If you wish to join NAPUB or to renew your membership, please send one dollar along with your name, address, and phone number to Betty Niceley, 3618 Dayton Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40207. This will entitle you to a year's subscription to our newsletter in Braille (unless you request print). "If you wish to submit articles for the newsletter, please write to: Sharon Duffy, 3435 W. Berteau, Chicago, Illinois 60618." **Aprons: Dottie Neely, Fundraising Chairperson of the Jefferson City, Missouri, Chapter writes: "The Jefferson City Chapter has for sale 'Fundraising Aprons' made of white canvas with the NFB logo and the words National Federation of the Blind written in dark blue. These aprons have two pockets in them and tie about the waist. They sell for $4.00 each. Chapters or state affiliates wishing to purchase quantities would be offered a substantial price break. To order write to Dottie Neely, Fundraising Chairperson, Jefferson City Chapter, 201 A Dix Road, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 or call (314) 635-3032 or (314) 634-3865. These aprons even hold NFB literature during information picketing." **Bark Once For Red: This summer an Associated Press story was widely carried throughout the nation. It varied in detail but had the same theme. For whatever it may be worth, here it is: Every Dog Has His Drive Louisville, Ky.--William Bowen insisted that he couldn't be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol because he wasn't driving his car--his dog was. Bowen, 34, is legally blind. He was arrested April 26 after officers saw his car weaving. Bowen said he had an argument in a tavern with his girlfriend, who left him, and was stuck with the car and no way to get home for him or his guide dog, Sir Anheuser Busch 2d, also known as Bud. Bowen took the wheel and put Bud in the passenger seat. Bud barked to tell him the colors of each traffic light he approached. When reminded that dogs are color blind, Bowen said Bud had been trained to distinguish changing lights, barking twice for green and once for red. Bowen finally pleaded guilty. **Consumer Express: We have been asked to announce that those who wish to enter a business selling home products including foods, health foods, health care products, and other consumer items should contact Donna Hemp, 307 Fifth Avenue S.E., Rugby, North Dakota 58368. Consumer Express is a company building a nationwide network of sales outlets through personal sales representatives. Sales are made from the home, and many who have worked in this business are said to have made substantial commissions. **Comments on VersaPoints: Dr. T. V. Cranmer, Chairman of the Research and Development Committee of the National Federation of the Blind, writes as follows: "Telesensory Systems, Inc. asks that we announce the availability of their new Braille embosser called 'VersaPoints.' Members of our technical committees examined the embosser while it was on display in the exhibit room of our 1986 convention. Impressions of the printer are generally favorable given the circumstances for observing the machine in operation. It was not possible to judge accurately the noise level of the machine against the background sounds of the exhibit area. It would also be impossible to judge its reliability without more extensive tests. Our committees will pursue opportunities for further evaluation of this machine and other competitive products." **Crime Prevention for the Blind: Do the blind need adequate food? Yes. Does that mean that there should be a special program, special rules, or a special type of nutrition for the blind? Certainly the answer is no. The fact that one is blind and that one eats does not mean that the process is different from that which is followed by others. How about wearing shoes, shaking hands, or saying a prayer? Then how about crime prevention? Nobody would be so foolish? Consider the following letter: Wellington, New Zealand August 1, 1986 Dear Sir: I am the National Co-ordinator for Community Liaison for the New Zealand Police. The police have been approached by the New Zealand Association of the Blind and Partially Blind who have expressed concern about the growing harassment of blind people in urban streets in this country. Some blind people have been assaulted, and some have been theft and robbery victims. I can find no literature on crime prevention for the blind which would assist me in offering advice on this matter. I would be grateful if you could advise me on any source of crime prevention advice for blind people. Yours faithfully, Tom Nunan, Chief Inspector **Elected: The Douglas County Chapter of the NFB of Kansas recently elected the following slate of officers and board members: President, Cindy Hallenbeck; Vice President, Tom Anderson; Secretary-Treasurer, Robert Tabor; and Board Members Barbara Lumley and Sharon Luka. **South Carolina Convention: Frank Coppel writes: The 30th annual state convention of the NFB of South Carolina was held on August 8, 9, and 10 at the Holiday Inn in Columbia. Over 200 Federationists, representing twenty-six chapters and three statewide divisions, registered for the convention. Also in attendance was the newly elected President of the NFB, Marc Maurer, who was attending a state convention as National President for the first time. Two of the more interesting presentations made this year were a panel discussion presented by the newly organized Parents of Blind Children Division, which dealt with the purpose and need to have such a division in this state; and a report on the Children's Camp that was sponsored by the NFB of South Carolina during the month of June. One of the high points of the convention was the luncheon held on Saturday afternoon, at which Carroll Campbell, Congressman from South Carolina and Republican Nominee for Governor, spoke. At the Saturday evening banquet Mr. Maurer's moving address was heard by over 170 Federationists. On Sunday morning the following people were elected to office: President, Donald C. Capps; First Vice President, Robert R. Bell; Second Vice President, Jimmie Smith; Secretary, Mary Middleton; and Treasurer, Frank Coppel. **Article Published: The Summer, 1986, Journal of Experiential Education carries an article by Colorado Federationists Kennan Cole and Dr. Homer Page. Entitled "Growing Up Blind," the article talks about the effect on the lives of blind people of our annual March on Washington and on the impact which adult role models have on blind youth. The last paragraph of the article reads: "Blind adults and blind youth are bound together in spite of efforts of parents, teachers, or even blind youths themselves to deny this reality. Programs which bring blind youth and adults together are of major importance to the future opportunities of these youth to live fulfilling, successful, and truly productive lives." **Resource for Blind Diabetics: Ed Bryant, one of the leaders of the Diabetic Division of the NFB, has asked that we carry the following announcement: "If you are a blind diabetic, you may receive Diabetes in the News (DITN) on cassette tape at no charge. This is a bimonthly publication which deals with all phases of sugar diabetes. You should contact you state library for the blind and physically handicapped to receive this tape. If they do not provide this service, then you can contact the following for your complimentary tapes: Mr. Brian Lopez, South Dakota Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, 800 North Illinois, Pierre, South Dakota 57501; (605) 773-3514." **Elected: On September 6, 1986, elections were held for the Berks County Chapter, NFB of Pennsylvania, with John W. Smith re- elected as President, Tom Kehr as Vice President, Millie Jennings as Secretary, Jack Jennings as Treasurer, and John Nemec as Board Member. **Reviewers Wanted: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education, is expanding its register of technical experts and professionals to evaluate proposals and grant applications for the National Institute of Handicapped Research (NIHR), Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). For further information, interested individuals should contact OSERS by calling (202) 732-1723 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. EST or by writing: Field Reader System, OSERS, Mail Stop 2304, Switzer Building, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202." **Kurzweil for Sale: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "For Sale: Kurzweil Reading Machine, model 3, in good condition. All reasonable offers will be considered. Contact J. Klauber, Suffolk Cooperative Library System, 627 North Sunrise Service Road, Bellport, New York 11713; (516) 286-1600." **Brite Music Enterprises: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "Janiece Betker is now a distributor for Brite Music Enterprises, creators of lively entertaining and educational music for children. Music can be bought on cassette or LP records. Sing-along books, which are also coloring books, can be purchased separately. We also have activity books, wood puzzles, and boutique items. Inkprint information will be sent on request. For a cassette listing of titles and prices send either $1.00 or a C-60 or longer. For a demo tape of the music itself please send $2.00 or a good quality C-90. If you send $2.00 it will be refunded upon return of the tape or will be deducted from your first purchase upon return of the demo tape. Write to Janiece Betker, 1886 - 29th Avenue N.W., New Brighton, Minnesota 55112; 612-639-1435." **Catalog Available from Howe Press: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "Howe Press is pleased to announce that a new supply of catalogs has been received. The catalog includes Braillers, drawing and mathematical supplies, Braille paper, and slates. To receive the free catalog write to the address below and specify print or Braille. By signing up to receive the catalog you will be assured of receiving Howe Press mailings on a regular basis: Howe Press, Perkins School for the Blind, 175 North Beacon Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172l; 617-924- 3490." **National Scholarship Research Service: Jim Mitchell, President of the Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind, asks that we carry the following announcement: "The National Scholarship Research Service (NSRS) provides information on financial assistance for college students through a computerized search of organizational and foundation sources. NSRS provides information for undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral programs. Additionally, funding for international studies and for non-U.S. citizen students is also offered. This is the most effective and efficient way to identify sources of funds from the private sector. For students who are sponsored by a state rehabilitation agency, this provides an excellent opportunity to fulfill "similar benefits" requirements and supplement current levels of support. For the rehabilitation professional, this provides the simplest and least expensive route to insure that students are fully supported. The cost of a basic search is $45, with renewals processed for $10. For information and applications contact: Jim E. Mitchell, 2752 Middleton Avenue #29-H, Durham, North Carolina 27705; 919-383-2125. Inquire about volume discounts and special offers for groups." **Two Signatures: President Maurer writes as follows: "This morning, September 15, 1986, I received a telephone call from Vivian Cox of Beckley, West Virginia, who asked if it was legal for her bank to require two signatures on her check. She said that some months ago officials of the Beckley National Bank informed her that because she was blind she must have a sighted person countersign her checks. The bank didn't care who signed--a friend, a passing stranger, a Greyhound bus driver passing through--anybody. But it did insist that some sighted person must sign. Vivian said that this was inconvenient, and she stopped doing it. Now the bank has called to say that she hasn't been 'following instructions.' Vivian asked me what she should do. I suggested that she tell bank officials that they did not make the law. Requiring Vivian to have a sighted person sign her checks is a violation of the West Virginia White Cane Law, and it is probably a violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. I advised her to file a complaint with the West Virginia Human Rights Commission. Vivian told me that she would file the complaint and that she would refuse to be treated like a child or like a person who was retarded or deranged. If she needed more help, Vivian told me she would call. This is one more bank and one more case of discrimination. It is one more reason for the existence of the National Federation of the Blind." **For Sale: Jerry Hathaway, a member of the Salt Lake City Chapter, asks that we carry the following announcement: I have an old closed circuit Apollo brand reading machine. I am not able to use it with efficiency any more because of my visual condition, and I would like to sell it. I am willing to negotiate price and terms. Contact: Jerry Hathaway, 326 East 100 South, Apt. 201, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, phone 801-359- 7034. **Adroitly Combined: Disabled USA is a magazine published four times a year by the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. In a recent issue the testimony of the National Federation of the Blind given in March before the Senate Committee on Small Business Affairs on S 2147 by Director of Governmental Affairs James Gashel was reprinted with preliminary editorial comment. The Disabled USA editors said in part: "Testifying before the Senate Committee, the National Federation of the Blind registered objections to what the bill intends to do regarding sheltered workshops. Reprinting the testimony in Disabled USA should not be taken as an endorsement either for or against the bill. Instead, it is reprinted because it adroitly reviews an important area of controversy regarding employment and persons with disabilities (20 percent of employed working-age blind persons labor in sheltered workshops), and because it is a good model of how facts and opinions can be combined for effective testimony." **1986-87 Catalog Available: The 1986-87 Option Central catalog is available in all formats: large print is free, Braille costs $1.00, and cassette costs $1.00, or it is free if a blank C- 60 cassette is supplied. Catalog includes expanded housewares, writing products, and personal product categories. Contact: Option Central, Fred Sanderson, Proprietor, 1604 Carroll Avenue, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304; telephone (414) 498-9699. **Amway: We have been asked to carry the following announcement: "Introducing International Disabled Marketing Associates Amway Products Catalog Collection. This exciting six cassette/literature catalog collection consists of more than 5,000 Amway and Amway distributed products and services. The cassette and literature portions can be purchased separately or together. Please note that the cassette portion is updated annually free of charge for both customers and distributors. Six cassettes with album only cost $6.00. Literature with album only costs $6.00. Six cassettes with literature together cost $10.00. Make your check or money order payable to Mr. Jack E. Morgan and send it to International Disabled Marketing Associates, 438 Cypress Street, Lehighton, Pennsylvania 18235, or telephone 215-377-4650. Please feel free to call collect." **Commemorative Plates: Jan Ray writes: "For sale: Commemorative Plates of Dr. Jacobus tenBroek and Dr. Kenneth Jernigan. $15.00 per plate (includes shipping). Please contact: National Federation of the Blind of Iowa, 4035 Holcomb, Des Moines, Iowa 50310; phone 515-274-1341." **Blind Missourian: Tom Stevens writes: "We in Missouri regard the Blind Missourian as a fine publication. We would like to share with other Federationists who may be interested. It is the bi-monthly publication of the state affiliate, presently averaging twenty pages per issue on 8-1/2 by 11 paper. It is available on tape or in print at $5.00 per year, returnable tape for subscription. Send check and address to: Gary Wunder, 503-K Columbia Drive, Columbia, Missouri 65201." **The West Point Rule Applies: As everyone knows, West Point is the training academy for United States Army officers. It has developed a rigid code of honor and a system of ethics considered essential for an officer and a gentleman--and, presumably, in these days also a lady. If a West Point cadet is asked a question and fails in the answer to volunteer relevant information, it is regarded as "quibbling" and is treated as a serious offense. In the Third Quarter 1986 edition of Awareness (the newsletter published by the American Foundation for the Blind's parents' group) there is an article discussing the "Fair Insurance Coverage Act" for the blind bill now before Congress. The bill is treated positively, and readers are urged to support it; but there is not even a hint that the whole thing has been set in motion and promoted by the National Federation of the Blind. By withholding relevant information the newsletter engages in attempted deception. The West Point rule applies.