The National Federation of the Blind is not an organization speaking for the blind--it is the blind speaking for themselves

Monitor Headquarters 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California 94708

Published monthly in braille and distributed free to the blind by the National Federation of the Blind, President: Jacobus tenBroek.

Inkprint edition produced and distributed by the National Federation of the Blind.

Editor: Jacobus tenBroek
Assistant Editor: Floyd W. Matson
2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California 94708

News items and changes of address should be sent to the Editor.
























By Lelia Proctor







By Conwell Carlson





By Professor Jacobus tenBroek



New federal regulations which liberalize public assistance provisions have been spelled out by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in its Handbook Transmittal No. 86. These new provisions, issued July 6, 1966, and effective July 1, 1967, relax the federal limitations on the income and resources of welfare applicants and recipients. Among other improvements, these should be noted especially:

1. The States must differentiate between resources which are assumed available and those actually available.

2. The States are free to allow recipients to own a home of any value if living in it and also to discard recovery provisions.

3. The previous federal limit on personal property holdings by a welfare recipient of $1,500 -- covering such items as cash, securities, and cash surrender value of insurance policies -- has now been raised to $2,000.

4. The States are free not to hold relatives responsible for the support of recipients, but if they do hold them responsible, they must provide an income scale to determine whether the responsible relative can afford to contribute.

5. Items such as home produce for family consumption and occasional gifts from relatives are not to be considered resources, but instead, incentives toward self-help.

Only about two states reached the old $1,500 personal property exemption. Most now permit retention of real property used as a home irrespective of its value. To take maximum advantage of these new federal regulations on property and income exemptions, state affiliates of the National Federation of the Blind may wish to seek amendments to their Aid to the Blind laws along the following lines of a provision adopted in 1963 as an amendment to the California Aid to the Blind law:

"For the purposes of this law, earnings or other income of an applicant shall not be considered, and shall not be deducted from the amount of aid to which the applicant would otherwise be entitled. The property of the applicant shall not be considered in determining his eligibility for aid.

"This section shall become operative if and when amendments to the federal statutes or rules and regulations of the Federal Social Security Agency take effect permitting this State to give effect to this section without thereby rendering this State ineligible to receive federal grants-in-aid for assistance or aid to the blind of this State, and to the extent to which those statutes or rules and regulations permit it to be given effect."

Because of the importance of the new regulations to blind Americans the pertinent portions of the regulations are set out in full:

"The income and resources clause of the respective titles is so interpreted as to support the objective of economic security for needy individuals. Such individuals are not required to be completely destitute in order to be eligible for assistance. 'Consideration' of income and resources is interpreted, therefore, as permitting State-wide policies that provide for the following:

"1. Definitions of the amounts of real and personal property that can be retained to meet current and future identifiable needs while assistance is received on a continuing basis; provided, that such definitions will assure that only needy individuals are eligible. The acceptable outer limits on real and personal property provisions are:

The Home: No monetary limit required; no recovery provision required.

Personal and Household Effects and Automobile: No monetary limit required.

Income - Producing Property: No monetary limit required, but required that all net income be accounted for under State's policies governing income and resources or the disregard thereof. The policies may allow reasonable proportions of income from businesses or farms to be used to increase capital assets, so that income may be increased.

Reserves : Two thousand dollars limit for individual recipient in addition to property described above.

"2. Allocation of the individual's income as necessary for the support of his dependents not to exceed the total amount of their needs as determined by a State-wide standard. "

Availability of Income and Resources

"In some States, Policy has been in effect whereby income and resources, not actually available, have been assumed to be available to applicants and recipients, and have been considered so as to reduce the amount of assistance and thus the total amount actually available for meeting the essentials of living. To meet this inequity, a requirement is being added, to become effective July 1, 1967, for all new cases, and for all other cases as they come up for redetermination of eligibility thereafter.

"Under this requirement, a State must differentiate between resources that can be counted on because they are available for current use on a regular basis and those found not to be available for the individual's use in meeting subsistence needs as defined in the State's standard. This means taking into consideration, in determining need and amount of payment, all current income from all sources, such as earnings, OASDI monthly benefits, contributions, etc., actually available to meet the individual's needs on a regular basis (except as required or permitted to be disregarded or set aside under the various titles of the Social Security Act or other Federal law) and in contrast, omitting from consideration in determining need and amount of payment any income or resources merely assumed to be possessed by the individual.

"Thus, income must not be considered where it is not, in fact, currently available to the needy individual; e.g., support payments ordered by the court but which are not, in fact, made; contributions which relatives have been determined able to make but which are not, in fact, made; and income from employment assumed to be available in the community when, in fact, the individual is not working.

"For cases in which income or resources are initially available, but are then discontinued, e.g., cases in which a payment under a court order, or contributions, continue for several months and then cease, assistance payments will need to be adjusted promptly to reflect this change in circumstances.

Home Produce

"Any home produce from garden, livestock and poultry utilized by the recipient and his household for their consumption (as distinguished from such produce sold or exchanged) represents resourcefulness on the part of a recipient in bettering his situation, rather than a resource to be considered in the assistance plan. Reviews have shown serious underpayments to result from inability of workers to evaluate objectively such produce. To remedy this situation, home produce for family consumption is to be considered an incentive to recipients toward self-help and may not be considered a resource in the determination of need and amount of payment.


"With regard to loans made to applicants or recipients, where the nature of the loan is such that the principal is not available for current maintenance, it does not represent income or a 'resource' to be taken into account against current living costs as computed for purposes of determining the public assistance payment. When the loan constitutes a debt and the property purchased with the proceeds cannot be converted for current maintenance, it does not represent a 'resource' to be included in determining property 'reserves. '

"Typical of such loans would be those which are under conditions specified by the creditors as to purchases that may be made, purposes to be fulfilled, or other controls which preclude the recipient from using the funds to meet his current living costs. Loans made by the Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, under Title III of the Economic Opportunity Act come within the above classification. (See IV- 3131, item 9, for requirement for State plan.)

Contributions From Relatives

"The Federal Act does not require states to hold relatives responsible for the support of applicants for or recipients of assistance. Regular and substantial contributions to the support of an applicant or recipient by relatives must be taken into account when they are actually available. Gifts from relatives and contributions of small value and occurring infrequently and unpredictably as expressions of affection are not related to the support of the recipient and should not be considered as income.

"A State which holds relatives responsible for the support of applicants or recipients of assistance must provide an income scale as a method to determine whether responsible relatives have sufficient income to warrant expectation that they can contribute to the support of applicants or recipients. Such income scales must exceed a minimum subsistence level of living and must at least represent a minimum level of adequacy which takes account of the needs and other obligations of the relative.

"No request will be made by a State agency for contributions to applicants for or recipients of assistance from relatives whose net cash income is below the State's income scale, unless such applicant or recipient is such relative's spouse or minor child who is living in the home with the relative. It shall not be assumed that any relative whose income is below the scale is contributing to the support {or medical care) of applicants or recipients.

"Many States have already established an income scale as a method to determine whether responsible relatives have sufficient income to warrant expectation that they can contribute to the support of applicants or recipients. The use of such a scale simplifies administration and makes for more equitable treatment of applicants and recipients. It also reduces tensions between relatives arising from unreasonable demands for support.

"The actual net income of a relative will need to be determined to apply the scale, unless the source of income is such that it is obvious that his net return will fall below the scale. Once the relative's income has been assessed, the use of an income scale will eliminate fruitless and routine visits and correspondence with individuals who are obviously in no position to assist the applicants or recipients; therefore, for administrative simplicity, a requirement is being added (see IV- 3131, item 10). States are urged to effectuate the policy prior to the effective date of July 1, 1967."

Back to Contents


Members of the 12 local chapters of the Washington State Association of the Blind gathered at the Monte Cristo Hotel in Everett from August 4th to 6th for their 31st Annual State Convention. A rich agenda was provided through the efforts of Gerhard G. Ruben, executive secretary of the convention committee, and ably presided over by President Wesley M. Osborne.

Some convention highlights were:

New concepts in law enforcement were discussed by Robert Schillberg, prosecuting attorney of Snohomish County. Francis Pearson, chairman of the Washington State Public Utilities and Transportation Commission (and himself blind) discussed the past achievements of the WSAB and suggested some next steps. Perry Sundquist, a member of the Executive Committee of the National Federation of the Blind and backstopping for President Jacobus tenBroek who was unable to attend because of illness, discussed practical approaches to improving State services for the blind in Washington.

More than 100 persons attended the banquet at which Lt. Governor John A. Cherberg and Perry Sundquist were the speakers.

D. L. Archer, executive vice president of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, presented greetings from labor and drew telling parallels between his union's experiences and the difficulties which the organized blind often encounter with agencies. An international panel on the status of the blind in several countries was participated in by the consul generals of Austria, Germany, Great Britain and Japan.

The convention adopted resolutions supporting the enactment into law of the Model White Cane Law, endorsing without any reservations the struggle of the Seattle White Cane Association to remain masters of its own destiny in spite of COMSTAC, urging the transfer of services for the blind from the State Department of Public Assistance to the Department of Rehabilitation, supporting the raising of funds for the building of a headquarters structure for WSAB, the amendments to Aid to the Blind statutes to provide for the granting of the maximum exemptions permitted by federal laws and regulations, and opposing the transfer of the Washington State School for the Blind in Vancouver from the Department of Institutions to the Department of Education.

Richard Gustafson of Vancouver was elected president for the ensuing year; Tom Gronning of Seattle, vice president; Nadine Lessard, Vancouver, secretary, and Nellie Couch, Olympia, treasurer. Wesley Osborne of Tacoma is the Legislative chairman; Sam McGre of Everett, the Organization chairman; Margaret Osborne, Tacoma, the Public Relations chairman; Earl Madding, Seattle, the Ways and Means chairman, and Oscar Mortenson, Seattle, the Welfare chairman.

President Gustafson will be the delegate to the 1967 NFB Convention in Los Angeles, and Tom Gronning was elected alternate delegate. Tacoma was unanimously selected as the convention city for the 1967 meeting of the WSAB.

Back to Contents


An elaborate report by the Advisory Council on Public Welfare, appointed two years ago following a congressional directive, was submitted on June 29 to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Constructive in many of its particulars, destructive in others, and generally lacking in new and imaginative approaches, the Advisory Council's recommendations reflect many of the long-term commitments of the National Federation of the Blind. The report is the product of two years' deliberations which included a series of six regional open hearings intended to tap the views of interested groups and individuals, including recipients.

Among the Advisory Council's numerous recommendations (listed in full below), the two most significant are its proposal for a minimum standard of public assistance payments below which no state may fall, and its insistence upon the "principle of public welfare as a right."

Conspicuous by their absence are any recommendations for maximum feasible participation of the poor in policy formulation or program administration in the welfare field. The democratization of public assistance programs in the ways suggested by the Economic Opportunity Act, the Kennedy Bill, or otherwise is given no support in this report.

The progressive character of some of the Council's suggestions is contradicted and seriously hobbled by its call for "a nationwide comprehensive program of public assistance based upon a single criterion: need." This is a warmed-over version of the uniform-administration, or "Title 16" scheme, by which existing categories of public assistance are wiped out in favor of a general melting pot embracing all types and conditions of recipient clientele.

In proposing this catch-all remedy for the problems of need and handicap, the Advisory Council forgets that the evolution of modern public welfare was marked by the successive emergence of disadvantaged groups from the bedlam of the poor law which, in its majesty, did not discriminate among those who fell into its almshouses.

The Council's argument that there should be only one criterion for assistance -- that of "need" -- fails to perceive that need itself falls into three distinct classifications: (1) those needs common to all men for food, shelter, clothing, and other basic necessities; (2) those needs peculiar to a given group or category of disadvantaged persons such as the totally disabled, or the blind, or the aged; and (3) the special needs of some individuals, in any category, resulting from unique personal circumstances.

Failing to make such distinctions, the Advisory Council mistakes mere convenience of administration for "equal treatment of individuals." The objective which the Council seeks in its proposal for a comprehensive program of assistance could be achieved more fairly and more adequately by the establishment of a fifth new category, that of General Assistance, to accompany and parallel rather than supersede and engulf the existing four categories of Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Disabled, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

In presenting its lengthy report and recommendations, the Welfare Advisory Council noted that the past few years have witnessed radical shifts in the issues and problems facing welfare. "Through an unprecedented combination of old and new measures, public welfare is not only strengthening its traditional services, but assuming new responsibilities including civil rights and broadened war-on-poverty activities."

But it was stressed that "while taking account of these inter- relationships, the Advisory Council has been careful to keep a sharp focus on the area of concern assigned to it by Congress -- the present operation and continuing improvement of public welfare in the United States."

In setting the stage for its sweeping proposals, the 12-person group -- drawn mainly from welfare circles -- declared that the concept of a guarantee against poverty and deprivation built into public welfare "requires that it be available to all it is intended to protect, be adequate to their needs, consistent with the standards of the society in which they live, and available on a dignified basis as a matter of legal right."

But the group asserted that today "our public welfare provisions fall short on all these counts. They are expected to make up to individuals for all deficiences of economic and social functioning in our society but are given limited resources in law and financing with which to do so.

"Approximately 8 million persons are today dependent on a precariously low level of assistance. But an additional 26 million are living below the income level which the Government defines as constituting poverty within American standards. Social services for the protection of children, aid to families, and facilitating help for the aged, the disabled, the isolated, the uprooted or other individuals overburdened by problems beyond their powers of personal solution are so spotty as to constitute a token of help for some rather than a true guarantee for all."

The principal recommendations submitted by the Council in its report follow:

(1) A minimum standard for public assistance payments below which no State may fall.

(2) A nation-wide comprehensive program of public assistance based upon a single criterion: need.

(3) A uniform and simple plan for Federal-State financial sharing in the costs of all public welfare programs.

(4) Prompt extension of coverage and liberalization of benefits under the social insurance programs.

(5) The strengthening and extension of social services through public welfare programs and that these services be readily accessible at all times to all who need them as a matter of right.

(6) All public welfare programs be administered consistent with the principle of public welfare as a right.

(7) Prompt action to enable the welfare administration to expand its support of all phases of recruitment, education and training for welfare personnel.

(8) The welfare administration be enabled to mount a social welfare research effort commensurate in size and scope with the national investment in its programs.

(9) The resources of staff and administrative funds for public welfare agencies be expanded commensurate with needs for staff and facilities necessary to improve and update program administration.

(10) The International Office of the Welfare Administration be given necessary authority and resources to strengthen its role as a major participant in international social welfare programs.

(11) Public welfare agencies continuously seek greater public understanding of their programs, methods and objectives.

(12) Pending full achievement of the recommended comprehensive public welfare program (recommendation No. 2, above), the Council recommends:

(a) That temporary and permissive legislation of 1961 extending Aid to Families with Dependent Children to include unemployed parents be made permanent and mandatory.

(b) That temporary legislation enacted in 1962 providing AFDC payments in nonprofit child care institutions be made permanent.

(c) That temporary legislation enacted in 1962 providing for protective payments to a qualified individual interested in an AFDC family be made permanent.

(d) That the authorization to support demonstration projects in State and local public assistance agencies be made permanent and increased.

(e) That legislation enacted in 1961 authorizing temporary assistance for U.S. citizens returned from foreign countries be made permanent.

(f) That temporary legislation enacted in 1962 providing for federal sharing in the costs of community work and training programs designed to conserve and develop the work skills in AFDC families be improved and made permanent.

(g) That new legislation should provide authorization for grants-in-aid and project funds for the prevention, treatment and control of juvenile delinquency.

(h) That in their State plans for public assistance, the States be required to include all types of persons eligible under Federal law.

(i) That financial aid should be available to a low income family otherwise eligible whose earnings from employment are insufficient to provide the basic essentials of living.

(j) That exemption of a reasonable proportion of earnings of children and relatives caring for them in an AFDC family should be mandatory upon the States, and earnings exemptions should be made consistent for all assistance programs.

(k) That the APTD program be broadened by deleting the eligibility requirement of "permanent and total" disability and by extending the program to include needy disabled children under 18 years of age.

(1) That the age requirement for Old Age Assistance and Medical Assistance for the Aged should be lowered from the present 65 years of age to 60 years of age.

(m) That the age requirement under the AFDC program should be extended to include children up to 22 years of age if they are regularly attending school.

(n) That no liens should be permitted to be placed against the real property of any recipient of federally aided public assistance.

(o) That relatives should not be required to support those needing public assistance beyond spouses and parents of minor children.

(p) That costs in certain expenses in the administration of Child Welfare and Youth Services should be financed immediately on the same open-ended matching basis as provided for comparable state costs in the AFDC program, and the Federal Government should establish adequate standards for all such services.

(q) That provision be made for increased staff for the welfare administration commensurate with the increased federal responsibility placed upon it by recent legislation.

(r) That any new federal monies made available to the States should contain a maintenace of State effort provision comparable to that in the 1965 Amendments to the Social Security Act.

Back to Contents


(From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat)

St, Louis County has found a way to provide free transportation for blind children to and from the Missouri School for the Blind, 3815 Magnolia Ave. , but the city of St. Louis insists it legally cannot provide this service.

"Many people have been unhappy about this for sometime," said Mrs. Gilbert Harris, president, St. Louis Board of Education. "It will take legislative action to enable us to do this."

Harold Smith, director of special education, St. Louis, said "The Missouri School for the Blind is a state institution and is independent of the public schools. Law prohibits us from transporting these children."

Another St. Louis school board official said that St. Louis would have to buy its own buses and hire drivers to legally handle these children and there is just no money to do this.

Oral Spurgeon, Superintendent of the Special School District in St. Louis County, said, "We have been transporting these children for about seven years, to and from the school.

"Our expenses for this service are paid out of taxes to the Special District and the State of Missouri has nothing to do with it," Mr. Spurgeon said. "The state does not pay us a nickel of these expenses."

"It is an expensive project," Mr. Spurgeon said. "The 40 to 45 children who use this service are well scattered throughout the 495 square miles of the county. We use three buses just for this service."

Robert McQuie, a counselor at the Missouri School for the Blind, said, "At least 20 to 25 blind children will not be able to attend our school this fall because of lack of transportation."

He said from time to time he has contacted city and school officials with the hope of setting up some program for the transportation of these children. "They have always refused, saying they had no legal right to spend taxpayers' money for this type thing," Mr. McQuie said.

"The condition has gotten worse in the past few years," Mr. McQuie said. "We have been encouraging students to spend the non- school hours at their homes because we feel they gain a lot by having as much contact with their parents as possible,

"These children need a way to and from the school and some parents cannot afford or do not have the means to bring and pick up their children," he said.

Robert Leighninger, director of the St. Louis Society for the Blind said his organization has made limited efforts to acquire funds from different organizations to help with this problem.

"It is the little tots we are worried about," Mr. Leighninger said. "The older ones can usually use public transportation or walk to and from school. However it is the little ones that are being hurt," Mr. Leighninger said.

Back to Contents


By Ruth Ashby

The Denver Area Association of the Blind claims to have in its membership "the only blind antique collectors and dealers in the country," Bert and Alice Johnson of 1721 S. Filmore Street.

Bert is a vending stand operator at the Federal Center. Alice is a door-to-door salesman of Blind Made Products. Both are totally blind.

Two years ago Bert became interested in some chair caning a friend, Bill Cowen , was doing. Next, Bert was learning to cane chairs himself. He said he needed some hand work to do while listening to the talking book or radio. It followed naturally that Alice began picking up old chairs that could be repaired, refinished and caned. Alice also found other pieces of antique furniture and household equipment. Then one day she found some cut glass and fell in love with it. They were off. The Johnsons have now made an intensive study of antique glasswear from every possible source and are still at it. Their home is filled with an unbelievable collection of art glass, chairs and rockers dating back to the 1700's. They are considered authorities in their field.

Last spring Alice and Bert transformed their recreation room into a display room and on June 9 opened for business. After three days they knew that not only is the antique business fun, but also profitable. Bert has more orders for chairs than he can get finished in the foreseeable future, and Alice is commissioned to buy many pieces of coveted glass: Steuben, Heise, Fenton and Norwoods.

Blindness has seemed to be no handicap in this business. In fact their acutely developed sense of touch has made it possible to discover flaws and chips in dishes and glasswear that other dealers have not noticed by sight. It is not unusual for a dealer or prospective buyer to ask one of the Johnsons to examine a piece before the decision is made.

Bert is a board member of the Colorado Federation of the Blind and Alice, its recording secretary.

Back to Contents


Amidst a heated controversy over welfare policy with Governor Edmund G. Brown, California's Social Welfare Director John M. Wedemeyer quit, effective September 1. The governor formally accepted Wedemeyer's resignation,

Wedemeyer was angered by Brown's countermanding of contracts which the welfare director had made with welfare rights organizations. Under the aborted agreements -- which had been federally approved -- groups representing the poor in three counties would have received $26,000 each to inform welfare clients what programs were open to them, how to work with local public offices, what their opportunities were as recipients, and to organize projects for self-improvement and activities to increase opportunities for improving the lot of the poor.

"I am firmly opposed to spending money to subsidize private groups whose purposes include education of people on how to qualify for welfare," Brown gave as his reason for rejecting the contracts.

Brown, in taking this action, violated a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code passed by the legislature in 1965 and approved by Brown as governor. This section, in part, reads:

"It is. . .the intent of the Legislature to encourage and aid. . , organizations of recipients to conduct demonstration and experimental projects designed to promote a more effective and efficient system of public aid and services. The Legislature intends to encourage the participation of individuals on public assistance to the fullest extent in the workings of the public welfare program and. . .to provide a mechanism for organized groups of recipients to mobilize their resources and through concerted and cooperative action contribute to solutions to the economic, social and personal problems which tend to prolong dependency."

The following section reads: "The department may authorize the payment of state funds to defray in whole or in part the cost of a project undertaken. . .by an organized group of recipients, ..."

As director of the Department of Welfare, then, Wedemeyer did have the authority to approve the grants. Brown chose to use his power as governor to countermand the director's decision.

The crucial point of the California controversy is whether state and local officials will put into operation the federal Economic Opportunity Act doctrine of maximum feasible participation of the poor in programs to improve their own lot, Wedemeyer stands for this principle. Brown rejects it. He rejects it in an election year -- an election year in which he feels he must appeal to people who do not believe in principles such as maximum feasible participation.

This principle is of vital interest to the blind since their organizations are built on it and the Kennedy bill is an earlier expression of it. If, for political reasons, governors feel they must turn their backs on "maximum feasible participation," the organized blind will have to fight harder to achieve it.

Back to Contents


By Charles Little

Blind people and many of the friends of Arthur F. Sullivan were saddened recently upon hearing of his death. Arthur was a native of Newport, R. I., attended public schools there, and upon losing his sight during his teen-age years became a student in the Perkins School for the Blind to learn the skills that would enable him to become successful notwithstanding his handicap.

After leaving Perkins he took a course in social service, then later entered Northeastern University Law School, graduating with a law degree. He practiced law in Boston for several years, was director of the Massachusetts Division of the Blind back in the 1940' s. In recent years he has been giving much of his time in writing for the Catholic Guild for All the Blind, especially on legislation as it affected the blind.

Arthur Sullivan was a supporter of our Associated Blind of Massachusetts programs. He was keenly interested in our most recent legislative bill, S819, to establish a Commission for the Blind as an autonomous state agency.

Back to Contents


[Editor's note: Upon reading the article on blind singer Ray Charles in the July 29 issue of LIFE magazine, NFB President Jacobus tenBroek wrote the following letter to life's editors in hope that they would publish it, at least in part. The letter has not appeared in subsequent issues of the magazine. Indeed, the editors sent a return letter in which they say, "I hope you will note, if you haven't already, our August 19 Letters Column with some of the warm responses we received from our readers regarding this article." The MONITOR editors regret that LIFE magazine's Letters Column is limited to "warm responses"

August 11, 1966

Editor LIFE Magazine
Rockefeller Center
New York, New York 10020


Singer Ray Charles (July 29) may be "always alone" and he may be in pain -- but those personal traumas should not be attributed to blindness. Most blind Americans agree that their greatest handicap is not physical disability but social stigma: the stigma of suspicion, condescension and contempt which is unfortunately reinforced by Thomas Thompson's hipster-purple prose and pitying stereotypes. As examples:

"... a sightless man must [ sic] gracelessly guide the food to his mouth and shove it in and sometimes it drops off the fork and people stare." On the contrary, a sightless man need not do so, and in fact does not when he has received rudimentary orientation in matters of deportment and ordinary behavior.

". . . he is blind, which is a kind of loneliness, . ." The notion that lack of sight means lack of contact, that it cuts one off from life and warmth, is a relic of the day when the blind were forcibly shut out from normal interaction and association; as those prejudices and barriers come to be removed, the loneliness of the blind person is no more than that of the long-distance runner.

". . . [an office] all done up by a decorator in tan and beige and seeming just right for a blind man since it is colorless and cold. . ."

No comment necessary.

The age-old handicap of superstition and misinformation under which (and against which) the blind continue to struggle is given much aid and comfort by the tasteless sensationalism and contrived sentimentality of this story and its heading: "Pain and blindness have shaped his genius -- MUSIC SOARING IN A DARKENED WORLD."


/s/ Jacobus tenBroek

Back to Contents


By Warren Deras

At least three times in the last two years California newspapers have carried stories of persons convicted of crime who have been faced with the alternatives of sterilization or jail. In each instance sterilization was accepted; in two of the three cases, and apparently in a large number of unreported cases, operations were performed ending -- and very possibly doing so permanently -- the possibility of procreation.

None of these three cases involved deeply shocking crimes; two were only misdemeanor offenses. The individuals involved were sterilized because they were poor, and because poor were removed from the mainstream of American social and economic life.

In the Nancy Hernandez case, the most recent of the three, the public conscience and California's legal system were aroused enough to prevent surgical sterilization. This case, however, by no means ends the possibility of future recurrences of such judicial eugenics.

The eugenics movement, its name derived from the Greek for "well born," developed in the United States around the turn of the century. Proponents of this view, pointing to such studies as those of the Juke and Kallikak families, claimed that "mental illness, mental deficiency, epilepsy, criminality, pauperism and various other defects were hereditary." They furthermore pointed out Mendel's newly-revived laws of biological heredity and claimed that these qualities were inheritied in the genetic material, that persons with defectives genes were in effect doomed from birth. Eugenicists therefore gave up such after-the-fact cures for social problems as letting the "unfit" starve or supporting them at public expense in favor of the more humane and less expensive solution of preventing their birth. This logic was completed by the development of methods of surgical sterilization without the side effects of castration.

The only problem was to persuade the "unfit" to submit to sterilization. The effort to do this was based on State compulsory sterilization laws, the first passed in Indiana in 1907. State courts declared many such laws unconstitutional before 1927, but in that year the United States Supreme Court accepted such a law as valid. Faced with a feebleminded woman who was daughter to a feeble-minded mother and mother to an illegitimate feeble-minded child. Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., decided that "[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough."

Today 26 States have compulsory, and two States voluntary sterilization laws. All 28 laws apply to the mentally retarded, and 26 to the mentally ill. Seventeen apply to epileptics. Two-thirds (19) apply only to persons in institutions. In addition, thirteen of these statutes are "specifically applicable to criminals," and in many states such criminals as sexual psycopaths may be sterilized as mentally ill. In 1959, 608 persons were subject to compulsory sterilization under these laws.

Eugenicists are by no means satisfied with these results. One model law recommended that coverage be extent ed to the following persons and to persons one-fourth of whose offspring are in the following classes:

"(1) Feeble-minded; (2) Insane (including the psychopathic); (3) Criminalistic (including the delinquent and wayward); (4) Epileptic; (5) Inebriate (including drug-habitues); (6) Diseased (including the tuberculous, the syphilitic, the leprous, and others with chronic, infectious and legally segregable diseases); (7) Blind (including those with seriously impaired vision); (8) Deaf (including those with seriously impaired hearing); (9) Deformed (including the crippled); and (10) Dependent (including orphans, ne'er-do-wells, the homeless, tramps and paupers). "

While such an extreme program has never been adopted in any State, efforts to extend sterilization laws have continued. The high level of illegitimacy among recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, combined with the high level of such births among North Carolina Negroes, led the General Assembly of that State to give serious consideration to enactment of compulsory sterilization for "sexually delinquent individuals" during two of its recent sessions.

In addition, eugenicists have made substantial gains by developing methods of using governmental power without specific statutory authority. Taking classes of "unfit" persons who are highly vulnerable to pressure, such as those convicted of crime or in need of public assistance, these eugenicists use their positions of influence over such persons to pressure them into "voluntary" acceptance of sterilization. Judicial eugenics in California is such a process.

A California court granting probation to a person convicted of crime "may impose and require any or all. . .reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, or any injury done to any person from such breach and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer. ..." In the 1936 case of People v. Blankenship a California appellate court allowed sterilization under this law of a defendant afflicted with syphilis who had pleaded guilty to rape of a 13 -year-old girl. This provided a situation in which judges and probation officers, persons with a great deal of influence over convicted criminals, could "suggest" sterilization to those they considered, for one reason or another, unfit. Nancy Hernandez was apparently such a person.

Mrs. Hernandez, the mother of one legitimate child, was living with Joseph Sanchez, the father of her additional illegitimate child, and receiving public assistance at the time of her arrest. Sanchez was a narcotics addict, and Mrs. Hernandez pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of knowingly being in a place where narcotics are used.

Accepting a recommendation that Mrs. Hernandez be granted probation in lieu of six months in jail, Judge Frank P. Kearney of the Santa Barbara Municipal Court made sterilization a condition of that grant. . Mrs. Hernandez later described her reaction when told of the condition in a private conference with the probation officer: "I was shocked. I didn't know what to say. I was more or less scared. I had to make a choice. I had kids to care for. I didn't want to leave my kids, so I agreed."

On May 13, 1966, Mrs, Hernandez accepted the condition in open court over the strong objection of her court-appointed attorney, Louis J. Renga. Within a week she had changed her mind, however, and from then on Renga directed her concurrent campaigns for publicity and court appeal.

Having returned to jail for refusing to meet the terms of her probation, Mrs. Hernandez was freed within five hours on a writ of habeas corpus from Judge C. Douglas Smith of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. On June 8 Judge Smith handed down a decision ending the sterilization controversy for Mrs. Hernandez. Ignoring the constitutional issues raised in court, he simply decided that Judge Kearney did not have the legal power to impose sterilization in this case. It was not a "reasonable" condition of probation, but rather one that was "arbitrary and capricious and not related to the nature and gravity of the offense. . .

While Judge Smith's decision closed the Hernandez case, it by no means destroys the possibility of more cases of individuals faced with the alternatives of sterilization or jail. Newspapers made much of the breadth of his decision, especially the statement that "[o]nly the Superior Court is given the power to order sterilization of a human being and then in very limited special cases," those cases involving the mentally ill and sexual offenders. Judge Smith apparently considered an offer of probation conditioned upon sterilization an order of sterilization. In reaching such broad conclusions while avoiding constitutional issues, however. Smith had to engage in so many false assumptions and non sequiturs that the results are worth little.

Because of these broad conclusions. Judge Smith did not consider the possible existence of cases in which sterilization would be a condition of probation "reasonably" "related to the nature and gravity of the offense." The Santa Barbara News -Press , on the other hand, suggested a classification of cases meeting this requirement in stating that "there are cases on record, including two in this county, when no protest would be raised by religious or other groups because the men or women concerned had clearly demonstrated those gross unfitness -- in one way or another -- to be parents of more children doomed to tragic existence." The two earlier Santa Barbara cases mentioned, together comprising the second recently publicized sterilization case, involved a couple, the parents of nine illegitimate children, who were convicted in 1965 of welfare fraud and exchanged sterilization for shorter jail sentences. They did not appeal.

While the exploitation of children for criminal activities, combined with a total disregard for their welfare, might clearly suggest a parent to be "grossly unfit", how far in this direction can the courts go? Obviously if child neglect, established in terms of failure to raise one's children by middle class standards, should be a crime for which sterilization might be imposed as a condition of probation, we will have come a long way towards applying eugenics to social problems.

A third recent California case, a 1964 instance in which sterilization was carried out, brought California's courts much closer to such social eugenics. Miguel Andrade of San Pedro, a former foundry worker who had been forced by a back injury to take a $1.25 an hour dishwashing job, pleaded guilty to failing to support his four children by a previous marriage. His former wife had been required by welfare officials to sign a complaint against him in order to continue on public assistance. Andrade was at the time in a common law relationship with the mother of his additional illegitimate child.

Before granting probation, Judge Joseph Sprankel of the Pasadena Municipal Court required not only that Andrade sign a support agreement, but also that he submit to sterilization and marry his common law wife. Andrade accepted both conditions, but within a year he was asking higher courts to allow an operation to reverse the sterilization. Both the California and United States supreme courts denied his plea.

Review of these three cases reveals a definite pattern showing that some California judges have developed a system of social eugenics for a specific class of "unfit" Californians . In each case the parent of one or more illegitimate children, a parent who was continuing in a common law relationship with the other parent, was involved. In each case children of the defendant were receiving public assistance. It might also be noted that the defendant's names indicate at least two of the cases to have involved Mexican-Americans.

In addition, one might note that in each case the sterilization requirement would have passed unnoticed by the public --as many apparently have -- except for one instance in which a local newspaper ran articles on a local welfare scandal and two instances in which attorneys apparently voluntarily carried and publicized appeals for poor clients.

Finally, in both of the cases in which offenses related to the economic status of the defendant were involved, sterilization was upheld.

Faced with this situation, opponents to such social eugenics have developed a number of constitutional arguments against it, and have been faced with as many counter-arguments.

First, it is argued that sterilization is a cruel and unusual punishment violating the 8th Amendment. Against this it is claimed that sterilization is not punishment but rehabilitation and an effort to protect society and future offspring. It is further claimed against this and other constitutional arguments that sterilization is "voluntary" when accepted as a condition of probation and thus cannot be a deprivation of rights.

It is argued, second, that procreation is a fundamental right with which government cannot interfere. Against this reference is made to modern India and the growing American population to show that society has a valid interest in procreation.

It is also argued that genetic theory cannot be applied to social problems, and that social eugenics is thus an arbitrary denial of due process. Against this it is claimed that regardless of the effects on the race's genetic characteristics, sterilization obviously prevents illegitimate procreation and larger public assistance rolls among those who have apparently shown themselves capable of illegitimacy and dependency,

It was argued in the Hernandez case that forced sterilization violates freedom of religion. A priest stated for Mrs. Hernandez, a Catholic, that her church considered sterilization "immoral". In that instance only Mrs. Hernandez's church attendance record was used in response. Beyond this it might be noted that religious practices interfering with reasonable government interests can be subject to restriction.

It is further argued that forced sterilization, when applied only to the poor, as surely has been true in these California cases, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires that persons in like categories be treated alike and that categorization as to treatment have some reasonable relationship to categorization of individuals. Against this it is argued that categorization as to poverty is the basis of public assistance programs and that society may reasonably consider the possibility of increased welfare expenses when classifying persons with respect to sterilization.

Finally, it is argued that even if society can legitimately prevent procreation in some instances, sterilization is an arbitrary and unreasonable method of doing so. Nancy Hernandez, it is noted, had begun receiving birth control pills paid for by War on Poverty funds less than a month before her arrest, and such other birth control methods as the "loop" and month injections are being developed. Considering these developments, it is argued, is it not the responsibility of society to show a willingness to welcome any individual who can overcome his socially condemned habits back to society?

Back to Contents


(From Advance, Associated Blind of N. J. Quarterly, August 1966)

Many of New Jersey's blind vending stand operators are up in the air over the method of collecting the state's new 3% sales tax from small businesses. Namely, on gross sales, whether tax is collected on individual small sales notwithstanding.

Associated Blind of New Jersey's president, Arthur H. Linsinbigler, Jr., has protested the method to the State Sales Tax Office.

Vice-President Cecil D. Leon, of Atlantic City, has urged Atlantic County Senator Frank S. Farley to help the vendors effect "some exemptive action" in the matter. In a letter to Senator Farley, Leon said the vendors are being victimized by the requirement to pay tax on gross sales. He pointed out that the items sold at most stands are priced so low that vendors cannot collect taxes on individual sales, yet must pay tax on the gross.

Linsinbigler asked Associated Blind's executive secretary-treasurer to make a quick check of representative vendors around the state. The secretary made the calls on July 1 -- the day the new tax law became effective -- and reported that "to a man" the vendors objected to paying on their gross.

A tax office spokesman said the law holds merchants liable for paying the tax, regardless of whether they collect it from customers.

Linsinbigler said the tax structure is hard on vendors because, under Commission for the Blind regulations, and because of the rent free provisions of the vending stand law, blind operators are expected to keep prices as low as possible. Raising prices could hurt sales volume; not raising prices means digging into earnings.

The president, who is a vendor in Trenton's City Hall, said a two-dozen-box of 10 cent candy bars, which would be sold individually -- without collecting the tax (because 10-cent items are not taxable) -- would cost a vendor about eight cents in taxes, or the profit on four sales,

The tax office has promised to review the matter.

Back to Contents


(From the Oakland Tribune)

A guide dog agency bypassed the airlines strike and chartered a plane to fly a 17-year-old blind girl and her new guide dog home to Vancouver, B. C.

Gail Brewer and Sheba, a Labrador Retriever, were flown home in a six-seat Cessna after graduation at Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Rafael, California.

Expenses for the plane rental were donated by an anonymous private party. Commercial airfare for the trip is $53.81.

Training director Dave Keith said graduates take their dogs home as soon as possible after completion of the one-month course so the animals can become accustomed to their new environments.

Despite the strike affecting five major airlines, air transportation was arranged for the school's other eight graduates. They returned to Denver, St. Louis, Salt Lake City and other western cities.

Now in its 26th year, the non-profit school breeds and raises its own dogs and graduates about 120 students annually.

Back to Contents


An independent autonomous agency for the blind has been created in Massachusetts. Climaxing a year of concentrated effort by the Associated Blind of Massachusetts (A.B.M.) toward the passage of the bill. Governor John Volpe signed S819 into law August 22, 1966. S819 takes the Massachusetts Division of the Blind out of the Department of Education and sets it up as a separate agency, ensuring the continuity of the high degree of services to the blind.

John Mungovan, long-time director of the Division for the Blind and winner of the Newel Perry Award for his accomplishments in that capacity, has been appointed by Governor Volpe as the new agency's first director. Mungovan will serve a five-year term.

The A. B. M. first became aware of the need for a bill to create the agency last year when the Department of Education was reorganized and the Division of the Blind was in danger of being dissipated through its relegation to the status of a bureau in the department. The association then drew up the bill which became known as S819 under the sponsorship of the Massachusetts State Senate majority leader, Senator Kevin B. Harrington.

Highlighting the year's work was May 9: the hearing before the Joint Committee on State Administration of the State Legislature. More than 400 blind came from every corner of the state to overflow the State House auditorium. Several well respected individuals, representing both themselves and private agencies, came to speak in support of S819. Telegrams, letters and statements received by the Committee numbered in the hundreds. More than half the legislators went on record as favoring the A.B.M.'s bill. The Committee unanimously approved the bill and forwarded it to the House of Representatives.

The dissenting voice of the Massachusetts Association for the Adult Blind, whose executive director is Helen Cleary, set up obstacles in the legislature which only made the A.B.M. work harder to ensure the bill's passage. Each A.B.M. chapter and its members contacted each senator and representative not once, but several times, to stress the vital need for S819. The year of labor paid well: the bill passed both houses with gratifying majorities.

As its president, Manuel Rubin, and its legislative chairman, Charles Little, rightfully conclude, "The A.B.M. is proud to have played an important role in the enactment of this bill."

Back to Contents


By E. Litvinoff

The blind people of Greater Springfield and all over Massachusetts have lost a very dear friend -- Mr. William Normand. He was the president of the Springfield Chapter of the Association for the Blind and was active in many other organizations for the blind all over the state. In spite of his youth (he was only 3 years old and most of the time sick), he was one of the busiest blind men that I ever knew. Blindness was not his handicap. He was a graduate of St. Paul Training Center for the Blind in Newton, and he could do almost everything a sighted person can. Many handy men would not compete with him. He was handy with a hammer and different tools, as well as with his Braille writing, typing, tape recording, mobility, orientation and parliamentary procedure. Always, he was the first one to volunteer for different duties, He was the first one to respond when help was needed and he was the first one to stand up bravely to protect the blind.

The most important part of his character was that he was a human being of high standards, he was devoutly religious, not only in the observance of all meaningful rituals, but in acting out in his life the ethical precepts of his religion. He was a rich man, not financially but spiritually. He shared with people his knowledge, his experience and his desire to be helpful in any way at any time. He was a very hard worker and did much more than the condition of his health permitted him to do.

We have lost him. . .but he did not die. . .the memory of him will stay in our hearts for a long time and will serve as a leading star for friendliness and helpfulness.

Some of the members of the association are discussing now the possibility of establishing a fund in the memory of Bill Normand. It will serve as a source of help to some talented young blind man or woman. We hope that in time, we will give an opportunity to some "new Bill Normand" to be a useful member of our community.

Back to Contents


Governor Edmund G. Brown appointed Newton R. Holcomb State Director of Social Welfare, effective September 1, 1966. Holcomb succeeded J. M.Wedemeyer, who had held the post for the past seven and one-half years and whose resignation climaxed differences with the governor over welfare policies.

Holcomb, who came to the directorship from his position as assistant county executive officer of Santa Clara County, has had a long and rich experience in public welfare. He earlier served as Director of the Santa Clara County Welfare Department for some six years. Previous to that Holcomb was Chief of Administrative Services for the California State Department of Social Welfare for six years. He was also Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Welfare, wartime Manpower Commissioner in Hawaii, and was with the Federal Social Security Administration as a district supervisor.

California has more than one million men, women and children who are recipients of public assistance each month. Its average monthly grant in Old Age Assistance and Aid to the Disabled is the highest in the nation; its average Aid to the Blind grant the second highest; and its average grant to Families with Dependent Children the fourth highest. Consequently, the position and influence nation-wide of the California Director of Social Welfare makes this post particularly significant in the whole field of public welfare. The President of the NFB has worked closely and most cooperatively with the new Director for the past fifteen years. The MONITOR wishes Newton Holcomb every success in the task to which he has been called.

Back to Contents


By Peter J. Salmon

[Editor's note: The July 1966 MONITOR carried an anonymous letter entitled "Deaf- Blind -- What Hope for Them?" in which a reader questioned the lack of information available on the Anne Sullivan Macy Service for the Deaf-Blind on Long Island, a project of the Industrial Home for the Blind (IHB), Brooklyn, N. Y. The reader stated that he had not seen any articles published in braille on the federally supported project, with the exception of one "obscure article. . .(which) makes some startling claims, . . ." He asked who are the deaf-blind in the center, what has been accomplished and where do the deaf-blind go when they leave the center? Upon reading this letter, Peter J. Salmon, IHB administrative vice president, immediately requested MONITOR space ". . .to give the writer and other interested readers of the MONITOR as much information as limited space will permit about the current status of the A.S.M.S. project and the deaf-blind persons who have been affected by it." The editors of the MONITOR were most happy to make space available for this purpose. This article is Mr. Salmon's reply.]

The Industrial Home for the Blind would like to respond to the anonymous reader of the BRAILLE MONITOR of July, 1966, who asks: What hope for the Deaf-Blind? It is important for us to address ourselves to such a provocative and penetrating question.

As many readers know, the IHB launched the Anne Sullivan Macy Service for Deaf-Blind Persons in 1962 with the support of the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, Now in its fourth year of a five-year term, this project has already served 143 different deaf-blind persons, the largest group of its kind ever assisted in this way.

The anonymous reader is concerned about the lack of information in the press and elsewhere concerning the project. Although a number of articles have appeared in selected magazines, it is true that word about the project has not been widely disseminated. As the anonymous reader observes, this may be a drawback. However, but its very nature, a demonstration project in any field is inclined to be conservative in reporting results. Since many of the procedures used in such an enterprise are innovations, the research people working on these projects usually counsel great caution and tend to err on the side of hesitation for fear of reporting findings prematurely. Since the IHB has incorporated a number of new procedures in the Anne Sullivan Macy Project -- e.g., the resettlement of deaf-blind persons in their home communities and the use of a fifteen-state region as a service focus -- the tendency has been to "wait-and-see", observing results, collecting statistics, and recording experimental findings with painstaking care prior to making public announcements. Even so, some results have been released. However, they exist mainly in the Annual Project Reports prepared for the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, documents which are ordinarily not available to people in the community. As the Anne Sullivan Macy Project moves toward its termination, publications concerning it will become more frequent both in the inkprint and the Braille press of America. With more definitve findings now available, the IHB feels more comfortable about sharing results and recommendations with readers in all sections of the United States. The anonymous reader may look forward to seeing articles about the project more frequently in the Braille press.

Many of the questions raised by the anonymous reader are relevant to the IHB Project. Some of them have been answered by project experience; others have not. The latter may require years, perhaps decades, of further investigation before satisfactory answers are found. Full responses to the questions which do have answers would require extensive technical discussion for which space is not available in this Journal. Some of these answers appear in a seven-volume report issued in 1958 on earlier research by the IHB in the rehabilitation of deaf-blind persons. (Copies of individual volumes in the series may be borrowed for limited periods without cost from the IHB Professional Library, 57 Willoughby Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201.) Other pertinent data were made public at a series of meetings conducted in New York City in April, 1966, as part of the Anne Sullivan Centennial. Selected items will appear in a proceedings to be published later this year. Still other findings will appear in detail in the Final Project Report which will be compiled in 1967.

Perhaps, the most economical means of bringing some of the pertinent facts out into the open is to share with MONITOR readers some of the content of the most recent Project Report compiled in June, 1966. At that time, it was noted that, since its inception in 1962, the Anne Sullivan Macy Service for Deaf-Blind Persons had served 143 deaf-blind individuals, of whom 139 had received at least one IHB service during the year June 1, 1965 through May 31, 1966. The mean age of the group was 49.5 years. Sixty percent of the group were males. In terms of sensory loss, 78% had no functional hearing and 21% had total blindness. All of those who retained some functional hearing had a severe or profound loss in the better ear. With some exceptions, these deaf-blind persons were unable to benefit substantially from visual or sound stimuli. Almost one in five could be characterized as totally deaf and totally blind. About two-thirds of all the deafness in the group was congenital.

After rehabilitation, 88 percent of the group became fully independent in self-care. In mobility, 70 percent became independent in familiar areas, of whom more than half also became independent in travel in unfamiliar areas aided by planned devices for obtaining assistance in crossing streets, identifying desired trains or buses, etc. Obviously, total blindness coupled with the loss of functional hearing complicates mobility problems. However, even under these extreme circumstances, deaf-blind persons are assisted to achieve the maximum level of mobility possible. Indeed, a number of instances have been documented by the project of individuals with no functional hearing or vision achieving highly useful degrees of independence in travel. This experience has been so encouraging that the IHB staff has prepared a special manual on mobility for the deaf-blind. This manual is currently undergoing final editing and is expected to be available to interested individuals by the end of the year.

Deaf-blind persons served by the Anne Sullivan Macy Project tend to use three or four means of communication, employing on any occasion the means that seems most suited to the communicators concerned, As may be expected, the use of the manual alphabet is more frequent than other communication means. Although the IHB, along with other organizations, continues to explore new communication possibilities in electronic and mechanical devices as well as in improvements in manual systems, considerable emphasis has been placed upon widening the usefulness of the one-hand manual alphabet. One of the most sucessful efforts in this direction has been the development of teaching techniques through which blind and sighted persons with normal hearing may be trained to use the manual alphabet. After trials with thousands of sighted persons, IHB research workers report that, with few exceptions, it is possible to teach a working use of the manual alphabet in half an hour or less. (Even though initial communication is slow after such a brief period of instructions, speed is readily acquired with practice.) In June, 1966, working with a class at Columbia University, Mr. Louis J. Bettica, Coordinator of the Anne Sullivan Macy Project, taught the manual alpha- bet simultaneously to about 50 individuals in less than twenty minutes.

However, the project has not been satisfied just to develop experimental and improved techniques for teaching the manual alphabet. It has been recognized that no communication system can adequately solve the communication problem for deaf-blind persons unless others in the community are prepared to communicate with them. As a result of scientific experiments conducted by IHB's research staff, thousands of sighted persons in the community have been taught to use the manual alphabet and, concurrently, to understand deaf-blind persons better. Among the groups which were given this experience are: students in six colleges and universities in the New York area, students in two large high schools near the IHB, clerical, sales and technical employees of the New York Telephone Company, staff members of sheltered workshops, rehabilitation centers , and national, state, and local agencies , volunteers and relatives of blind and deaf-blind persons. These experiments have established the fact that many persons in the community can be stimulated to have greater interest in and make wider contact with deaf-blind persons if provided with the proper tools. Additional research work in this area is being conducted by the IHB.

Any rehabilitation program can point with pride to the intangible results which it achieves through giving new confidence to disabled persons, promoting their happiness, and providing incentives to the achievement of greater independence. These consequences are exceedingly important but very difficult to measure. Often, in its zeal and enthusiasm, an organization may perceive such results more favorably than the objective evidence permits. Recognizing this, the IHB has been concentrating upon "hard" evidence regarding the effectiveness of its program for deaf-blind persons. Almost one-fourth of all project clients came to the IHB from institutions for the emotionally ill, the mentally retarded, the aged, or the financially dependent where they had been deprived of social contacts and constructive help for years, even decades, and many others came from homes where excessive family apathy achieved substantially similar results. A very large proportion of those currently referred to the project bring with them histories of unconscionable deprivation by society. Such individuals have suffered long social isolation, neglect, and rejection. Without IHB initiative in case -finding and rehabilitation service, many of these individuals would have remained in institutions indefinitely, despite their potential capacity for community living. Despite the fact that most of the 143 deaf-blind persons served have had limited opportunities and have been isolated for years, the following results were achieved in association with the project rehabilitation service:

27% are currently employed in sheltered jobs

12% are in unsheltered work setting, including self-employment

14% are functioning independently as homemakers

12% are in training or preparing for training

14% have retired from the labor market due to age

21% are unemployed

It should be noted that these results were achieved with a group that was not selected especially for their high rehabilitation potential. On the contrary, many of those served came into the program with little apparent rehabilitation potential. Although the anonymous reader would like to receive a list of the names of these deaf-blind persons, standards of confidentiality will not permit this. However, there are certain checks and balances which may lend veracity to the figures noted above. Most of the deaf-blind persons served in the project were assisted with the cooperation of the state and local agencies for the blind in various sections of the United States. Cases were given the post-rehabilitation classifications noted above only after follow-up contacts were made with these local groups. In fact, it is not unusual for an IHB staff member to visit a client's community during and after his resettlement there in order to confer with the client, his family, the local agencies, and others in the community. In this way, reliable data are collected which can be cross-checked with local sources. This type of follow-up coupled with mail and telephone contacts keeps IHB records up-to-date. In addition, the project has employed research workers who have primary responsibilities outside this field to organize and analyze the project data. These workers -- psychologists and educators -- examine case records, consult with project staff members, and communicate with local agencies and deaf-blind persons and their families on a regular basis, providing independent verification of findings. Some of these researchers are on the faculties of local colleges and universities. Currently, one of them is associated full-time with the City University of New York and another is with Newark State College.

This brief response to the anonymous reader's highly pertinent questions cannot possibly do full justice to the thought that went into the questions. Much more space would be required to adequately present even the bare facts relating to them. However, it is important to note that the facts bearing upon many of the issues that have been raised by the anonymous reader are available at the IHB. The Anne Sullivan Macy Project welcomes visits by interested parties at any time. We are glad to make available knowledgeable staff members to meet with visitors to review any aspect of our work. Beyond this, we welcome mail and telephone inquiries. If answers can be provided, we will leave no stone unturned to do so.

The IHB experience has been that the most impenetrable barrier to the welfare of deaf-blind persons is apathy. We welcome every expression of interest and, frankly, we will capitalize upon it to bring our faith in the capacities of deaf-blind persons to the attention of ever-wider audiences. In fact, if the Editor of the BRAILLE MONITOR will forgive us, this is precisely what we are doing in this response. Through his interest and that of the anonymous reader, a door has been opened through which attention can be called to our work with the deaf -blind. As you can see, we have taken advantage of that opening and will gladly accept all others that may be presented to us. Work with the deaf-blind is usually difficult and demanding, but it has always been and will continue to be highly rewarding in every way.

Back to Contents


(From The Kansas City Sunday Star)

San Diego, Calif. -- The U. S. Navy did some pinch hitting for the struck airlines recently, rushing a pair of eyes across the country so a 22-year-old woman has a chance to see.

Navy Cmdr. Russell D. McJunkin, commanding officer of a jet squadron at the nearby Miramar Naval Air station, climbed into a trainer early yesterday for a cross-country race against time.

His cargo, two eyes, had been removed the previous day from a deceased 50-year-old San Diego woman who had willed them to the San Diego County medical society's eye bank.

Because of the airline strike, officials said, it was doubtful at first whether the eyes could be taken to Anderson hospital, Anderson, S.C., where a young woman was awaiting a corneal transplant.

Time is essential in such a transplant operation, medical society officials said. No more than 48 hours can elapse between removal of the eyes and completion of the transplant. Otherwise, they said, the tissues die.

So the Navy volunteered to do the job and South Carolina highway patrolmen volunteered to meet McJunkin' s jet and rush the eyes nearly 100 miles to the hospital.

Back to Contents


(From Per Kriegs Blinde, June 1966)

Leading delegates of eight European federations of war-blinded veterans participated in an international congress of war-blinded people in Blankenheim (Eifel) (Western German Republic) having been held by the initiative of the Federation of the War-Blinded People of Germany in the curing home there for the war-blinded people, in the time from April 23rd-27th 1966.

The following delegates of foreign organizations for war-blinded people were present: the presidents van Dyck, Belgium; Major Palokangas, Finland; H. Amblard, France; F. Unger, Austria.

The English, Italian and Spanish war-blinded people were presented by Colonel Ansell and Mister Lloyds, General Ammanato and Lieutenant Colonel Loaysa.

Of the Federation of War-Blinded People of Germany there were present beside the president of the federation the total directory and the advisory council, consisting of all the presidents of the provincial federations, at this congress.

The working meeting which lasted several days offered rich possibilities for profound discussions about the social, professional, vocational situation of the war-blinded people in the represented European countries. By this way there were given by means of an International Questionnaire possibilities for comparison concerning the legal maintenance and pension facts of the war-blinded people and the privileges and allowances for the war-blinded people at the use of the (public) traffic means in the different European countries could be compared with each other.

Of great importance at the order of the day was the problem of the future collaboration of the war-blinded people, by which their social situation shall be bettered. There was taken a resolution to make the conference of the International Congress of War-Blinded People every three years regularly and to do whatever possible to bring also the warblinded people of the Eastern European countries to the table of conference to take there their place and share.

Beside the social-conventional occurrences which were helpful for personal knowledge and acquaintance, the participants of the International Congress of the War-Blinded People took also part in the granting of the Award and Prize for the best Auditive Play of the War-Blinded People for the year of 1965 given to the author Peter Hirche which was realized on April 26th, 1966 in the Federal House in Bonn ('Bonner Bundeshaus') in the presence of the federal president, Mr. Lubke, the Minister for Labour, Mr. Katzer, and several other guest of honor. The foreign guests were deeply impressed by the fact that the Federation of the War-Blinded People is, by the granting of this prize and award also active in the domain of art and culture, not being satisfied only to represent the social-political and similar interests of its members.

Back to Contents


(From The Palmetto Auroran, August 1966)

For the second consecutive year a number of prominent blind South Carolinians have been denied membership in the Association of the Blind of South Carolina by its Board of Directors. Those denied received the following form letter:

Dear Sir: I have been instructed by the Board of Directors of the Association of the Blind of South Carolina, that your application for membership in the Association of the Blind was not approved. I am therefore returning to you the amount submitted for your dues. Very truly yours, A.D. Croft

The following are some of those blind persons again denied membership this year: Jack Huthmacher, State Record Company; John W. (Billy) Potter, employed in the Richland County Courthouse Stand; Herman Bryant, self-employed piano tuner; Donald Capps , Insurance Executive, Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company; Daisy McCarter, housewife; Jerry Bryant, 18-year-old student, S. C. School for the Blind; Mildred Kirkland, secretary and receptionist, Charleston County Association for the Blind; George Kirkland, professional musician and radio repairman; Ivey Porter, employed by the City of Charleston; Elizabeth Porter, housewife; John Raybourne, retired blinded World War II Veteran; Louise Royal, social worker; Betty Davey, unemployed masseuse; Eva Ward, housewife. Many blind persons denied membership in 1965 apparently did not wish to again run the risk of these indignities .

It will be noted that the form letter sent to those persons denied membership gives no reason for the denial whatsoever. On the application forwarded to the above blind persons by the Association of the Blind, the following was stated: "Stated simply, the Constitution provides that all white blind resident of this State are eligible to full membership in our Association." The application also stated the following: "Once elected to membership, your mennbership is continuous upon payment of your annual dues." Ruby Bryant was granted membership in the Association in !964, but has been denied membership thereafter, which would seem to be in direct conflict with the above statement that once a member, always a member, as long as annual dues are paid. The application also stated that all applications and annual dues should be sent in by July 15th.

Apparently some discrepancy occurred, as the Convention was held on July 8, one week prior to the deadline stipulated in the application.

A further examination of the application reveals the following: "Through the Association, you may express yourselves on all matters relative to the welfare and advancement of the blind. Also, as a member of the Association, you promote its great service program, and thereby extend hands to others -- hands which are made stronger because they are united with the hands of others, united to bring the greatest good to the largest number. The larger our membership, the greater will be our influence, and the blind need the helping hands of sighted friends to blend their efforts with those who, because of blindness, have a deeper understanding of the great tasks confronting them."

This statement would seem to indicate that blind people are not only welcomed, but urged to join the Association where they can express themselves. It even says, you will note, "the larger our memberhsip, the greater will be our influence." However, since more than 50 blind persons have been denied membership in the Association during the past two years, one can not help but to wonder whether or not the blind of South Carolina can really express themselves through the Association, and whether or not the Board of Directors of the Association really want a large and representative membership as the application states.

It is also noteworthy, as well as disgusting, that prominent blind people in South Carolina are being denied membership in the Association by votes of sighted people on the Board of Directors. Would it be asking too much for the Association of the Blind to have a membership committee composed of blind people only to determine whether or not other blind people shall have the right "through the Association, . . . [to] express [them]selves on all matters relative to the welfare and advancement of the blind." The issue is very clear. It would seem that common logic and reasoning would convince anyone that intelligent blind people are not going to continue to tolerate these indignities and denial of legal and constitutional privileges. Ultimately, this unfortunate situation will have to be resolved.

Back to Contents


A start in the right direction has been gained by the strike of 175 broom- and basket-makers at the Canadian National Institue for the Blind in Toronto. Although the workers settled for an immediate 15-cents-an-hour raise [as reported in the August MONITOR] , they have gained official recognition and an interview with the Labor Board at Queens Park, the provincial government of Ontario, according to word reaching the MONITOR from blind Torontoins.

The strike had been thought about for many years, talked about for three months in advance, and brought to a head by the men in the broom shop, under the leadership of George Little. The main issues were wages and the rates for new employees.

When the broom shop workers walked out, the men in the mop shop led a sympathy walkout the next morning in which they were followed by workers in the basket shop, white wear department and occupational department. A union assisted in organizing and gave some financial help.

The immediate terms of reconciliation agreed upon were raises of 15 cents an hour for those earning $42 weekly, with 5 cents an hour more in January 1967; 10 cents an hour for those earning $44 weekly, also with 5 cents more in January; and 5 cents an hour more with the additional 5 cents in January for those earning more than $44 weekly.

The only reported retaliation taken by the management was an alleged dismissal of a forelady in the white wear department.

However, according to our correspondents there may be more fireworks in the near future. The possible result may be a union shop.

Back to Contents


Gilbert Y. Steiner's new book, SOCIAL INSECURITY; The Politics of Welfare , credits the National Federation of the Blind for the initial official recognition of the earning capacity of public assitance recipients brought about through the NFB's "effective, highly respectable, and thoughtful lobby operation."

A former professor of government and director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, Steiner also served in several Illinois governmental positions. In one state position, as the governor's aide, he encountered the need to understand what political circumstances produced particular welfare policy. Unable to find an appropriate text, Steiner wrote his own. The points emphasized thus result from what Steiner calls "the realities of political experience."

The book explores whether there has been a solution to the problem: how to provide a voice for groups that may be socially useful but are politically weak. Steiner searches for the determinants of change in public assistance policy and for the stimulus for periodic improvement in benefits.

Of all the categories of public assistance groups -- aid to the blind, aid to dependent children, old age assistance, etc. -- Steiner contends that only the blind maintain an organized, effective lobby. He reasons:

". . .Maintaining such an organization is possible since the legislative needs and interests of the blind and the common cause involved go beyond public assistance. If all the nation's blind were magically provided a substantial annual income, the National Federation of the Blind would continue to have a reason to exist ....

"Since its founding in 1940, the National Federation of the Blind has tried to make programs of aid to the needy blind a force for rehabilitation, thus antedating by some years the official interest in the rehabilitation of public assistance clients. The federation encourages incentive and initiative, insisting that, given help and opportunity, recipients of aid to the blind could take their place as contributors to the community. ..."

In a later chapter of the book, Steiner explains one reasons for the federation's effectiveness is that the blind are not "indirectly protected in the course of the public policy struggle by some caretaker" as are the other groups of welfare recipients. The NFB is ". . . representative of rather than just sympathetic to the aid to the blind group. It is [ therefore] regularly accorded a respectful hearing on issues dealing with aid to the blind."

Confusion results in welfare, Steiner concludes, due to the conflict between expressed official goals, private judgments, and actual practices. Steiner feels that many have unrealistically accepted President Kennedy's 1962 State of the Union message which described a new public welfare system program "stressing services instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency" as an alternative to financial relief. Steiner insists that ". . .there must be both rehabilitation and relief. . . . The primary goal of public welfare is a reasonable subsistence. It is a goal that has yet to be achieved."

Steiner is now with the Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C. , on its senior staff. SOCIAL INSECURITY; The Politics of Welfare is published by Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, Illinois, copyright 1966.

Back to Contents


By Bernard Popick

[Editor's note: The liberalized provisions of the social security disability program as they relate to persons handicapped by blindness are discussed in this article by Mr. Popick, who is director of the Bureau of Disability Insurance for the Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In view of the timeliness and importance of the topic to the blind American, the editors of MONITOR are most happy to have received Mr. Popick's article and to reprint it in full. In addition to describing the programs special provisions for the blind, he gives guides used to evaluate the effect of work activity on the receipt of disability benefits.]

"Formerly I didn't qualify for social security disability benefits. Now, because of newly liberalized provisions, my family is getting the maximum benefits of $309 a month taxfree."

Speaking was a person disabled by blindness. Like him, you -- or persons you know -- may now be eligible for benefits from the social security disability program. In the program, a person under age 65 can collect monthly payments if he is unable to work because of a mental or physical impairment.

Currently, over 75,000 people disabled by blindness -- plus an additional 25,000 dependents -- receive roughly $100 million a year in disability benefits. The Social Security Administration believes that others may be missing out on benefits because they have not applied. Your suggestion that a person file for benefits may lead to his receiving urgently needed funds. Monthly benefits for a disabled worker range from $44 to $135.90, Over the years, the typical beneficiary family receives from the program a total of over $20,000.

Any social security office can provide information on eligibility and benefits. If a person is unable to go to the social security office, a representative will take his application at home.

Who Is Eligible

To qualify for benefits, you must be unable to do any substantial gainful work suited to your education and vocational experience. Under the law, the disabling condition must have lasted or be expected to last for at least 12 months or result in death.

Also, in most cases, you must have worked under social security for at least 5 of the 10 years preceding the onset of your disability.

Liberalized Provisions For The Blind

Several provisions new to the program may be advantageous to you. For example , if you become unable to work because of blindness (as defined in the law) before age 31, you need fewer years of work under social security to be eligible for disability cash benefits. You may qualify with as little as 1 1/2 years of work, depending on your age when you became blind. (Blindness is defined in the social security law as central visual acuity of 5/200 or less in the better eye, or peripheral field reduction to 5 or less, with glasses.)

This provision became effective only recently. So even if you have previously been denied benefits because you didn't meet earlier work requirements, you may now be eligible under the new provision. Also, it doesn't matter that you are now over age 31. It's when you become disabled by blindness that counts, not your present age.

Another special provision applies to you if you are age 55 or over and disabled by statutory blindness as previously defined. You may be eligible to receive cash benefits if you are now unable to perform work comparable to the work you did before age 55 or before you became blind, whichever is later. Benefits would not be paid, however, for any month in which you actually perform substantial gainful work.

Other Provisions

Other provisions in the social security law which the blind should know about are:

* Even if you have recovered from a disability that lasted at least 12 months, you may still be eligible for some months of back benefits. However, don't delay in filing your claim. If you wait longer than 14 months after recovery, benefits are not payable.

* Possibly you are under age 65 and drawing early retirement benefits of a reduced amount. If you become disabled before age 65, apply for benefits under the disability program -- for the disability payments may amount to more than your reduced retirement benefits.

How Much Can You Work?

The social security disability program only pays benefits when you are unable --in the words of the law --to "engage in any substantial gainful activity." Certain guides are used which will help decide if you would qualify for benefits even though you do work.

One of these guides, relating to earnings, has recently been liberalized. Thus, if your job earnings average over $125 a month, you are usually considered to be engaging in substantial gainful work. Formerly this rough maximum was $100 a month.

Several other factors are considered -- such as the nature of your job, the adequacy of your performance in it, the time you spend in your work, and any special conditions. The amount of your earnings is not the only factor considered, nor necessarily the determining one.

Nor do earnings tell the whole story when a severely disabled individual is working in special facilities under special conditions. When the work is in sheltered workshops or similar facilities, wages are often unrelated to actual productivity.

There are well over 1,000 workshops in operation throughout the country, employing more than 43,000 handicapped workers at any given time and about twice that number in the course of a year. About 3,500 of these workers are receiving disability cash benefits. A significant number of the workers in these facilities are disabled by blindness. In addition, there are over 2,000 vending stands in the country operated by blind persons under the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act.

You possibly may qualify for disability benefits even if your work in these settings pays you more than $125 a month. That part of your income which is not actually earned -- the "subsidy" --is subtracted from your total. Thus you can conceivably be paid $150 a month. If this included a subsidy of $50, you would actually be earning $100 and would probably qualify for benefits.

But the fact that a particular facility may be subsidized does not automatically mean that you are receiving a subsidy because you work there. Your individual productivity is reviewed to see how accurately your earnings reflect your capacity to work. For it is your actual working capacity -- and not your earnings -- that determines if you qualify for disability benefits.

Rehabilitation Opportunities

One of the major objectives of the disability program is the rehabilitation of as many disabled people as possible. The law includes several features to encourage a disabled individual to return to being self-supporting.

For example, the name of every person who applies for disability benefits -- whether the benefits are allowed or denied -- is referred to the State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency for consideration for possible rehabilitation services. If your potential for once again becoming self-supporting seems good, you will probably be offered rehabilitation services. Social security disability benefits may be suspended if an individual refuses these services without good cause.

Another feature designed to help you return to work is the "trial work" provision. Under this provision, if you attempt to work despite your impairment, you can continue to be paid cash benefits for 12 months while you test your capacity to work. Not until after 9 months of work (not necessarily consecutive months) is a decision made as to whether or not you can support yourself.

If you have regained your capacity to do substantial gainful work, benefits will still be paid to you for an adjustment period of three additional months and then stopped. If it is determined that you have not regained your ability to do substantial gainful work, benefits can continue until you recover or regain your ability to work.

Suppose you recover or return to substantial gainful work and then become disabled again within a 5-year period. Then your benefits can begin immediately- You are not required to serve another 6-month waiting period. This helps assure people that they will have an immediate income even if they suffer a relapse.


You may be eligible for benefits. Or you may know someone who may be qualified. Or perhaps you have questions about the program. Get in touch with your social security district office. The people there will be glad to help you in any way possible.


* Benefits go to disabled persons under age 65 and their dependents.

* Persons are considered disabled only if they can't do any substantial gainful work considering their age, education, and experience.

* Special provisions benefit blind persons over age 55 and persons who become blind before age 31.

* Disability needs to have lasted or be expected to last for 12 months or more.

* Retroactive benefits are available up to 14 months after recovery from disability.

* Benefits begin with 7th full month of disability.

* Benefits last as long as disability continues, or until old-age benefits start.

* Rehabilitation opportunities are available.

Back to Contents


By Paul Clancy
Governmental Affairs Staff

(From South Carolina State, August 25, 1966)

The South Carolina Commission for the Blind, at its first meeting Wednesday, named Dr. Fred Crawford of New York as director.

The newly-formed commission also elected Dr. Sam Lawton of Spartonburg chairman and Miss Doris McKinney of Greenwood secretary.

Dr. Crawford is administrator of educational and professional placement services for the New York Association of the Blind. He is partially blind.

The commission, which met in closed session, also spoke with J. M. Cherry, former chief for the division of the Division for the Blind of the Department of Public Welfare.

When the new commission goes into full operation next year, the services for the blind handled by the Department of Public Welfare will be turned over to them.

The commission was created by the 1966 legislature and given the authority to set up its own rehabilitation center and establish programs for prevention of blindness.

Crawford, a graduate of the University of South Carolina Law School, said he feels an effective program for the more than 8,000 blind in the state can be established. He said he will take over in about one month.

The commission, which had difficulty getting formed due to the resignation of one of its members, abolished its previous system of requiring a four- member quorum.

The other member of the commission are R. F. Neidhardt of Columbia, Dr. Michael Holmes of Kingstree and Mrs. James Morrison of Columbia.

Back to Contents


By Lelia Proctor

The Montana Association for the Blind's 20th anniversary convention was held in Bozeman on July 15, 16 and 17 on the campus of the Montana State University.

More time than usual was given to guest speakers this year. They included Floyd J. McDowell, superintendent, Montana State School for the Deaf and Blind; Emil A. Honka , director. Division of Blind Services, Montana Department of Public Welfare; and three staff members of the Summer School for the Adult Blind -- Elizabeth Lennon, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kenneth Hinga, Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Richard Gustafson, Vancouver, Washington, who told us about programs for the blind in their respective states.

Eighty members and friends were on hand for the Saturday night banquet when Gallatin County Senator Carl Lehrkind was guest speaker.

During the sessions a number of reports were given, including those of the six chapters and clubs, delegates to the NFB convention, etc. The convention voted to contribute $25 to THE BRAILLE MONITOR and $15 to the GOOD CHEER, magazine for the deaf-blind; to discontinue the Shaklee sales program which had not brought MAB any income during the year the association was involved; to dispose of our stock in United Fund, Inc., and place proceeds in a federally insured bank. The convention also went along with the Legislative Committee's intentions to work for the repeal of the lien law in the 1967 Legislature.

The following officers were elected for two-year terms: second vice president, Irving Jacobs, Butte; District Two representative, Charles Martin, Livingston; District Three representative, Luella McVeda, Lewistown. Hold-over members of the Board of Directors are President Tony Persha, Red Lodge; First Vice President Keith Denton, Lakeside; District One Representative Stanley Proctor, Kalispell; District Four Representative Delos Kelley, Billings.

During the board meeting that preceded the convention, Lelia Proctor was appointed to another one-year term as secretary-treasurer, beginning October 1.

Back to Contents


The National Federation of the Blind resolution calling for a bill to be modeled after the civil rights legislation for "the rights of the physically disabled" was unsympathetically received when presented to the resolutions committee of the National Association of the Physically Handicapped (NAPH).

Federationists appeared before the committee with the NFB resolution in a spontaneously-called meeting at the eighth annual NAPH Convention, held this year in Des Moines, Iowa, July 25 to 28.

The three committee members contended that the NFB proposal (1) would antagonize employers and other "friends," (2) that progress currently being made is not only substantial, but all that could be reason- ably expected and (3) no real purpose could be served by a bill that contained only "detrimental features."

NAPH resolutions chairman J. Roland Hays reiterated that what was needed was cooperation between organizations of the disabled and the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. In his opinion, the NAPH would compromise its position as a member of the President's committee if it were to support such a bill. Perhaps the NFB is "the wave of the future," Hays conceded, but the NAPH seeks progress through education and cooperation.

Referring to the general statements about civil rights, committee member Mrs. Vicki Stanton said, "It scares me and bothers me, and I just don't like it." She also balked at the sentence in the NFB resolution that states physically disabled persons are "victims of. . .unwanted and unneeded custodial care and supervision."

The third committeeman, Robert Conklin, followed Mrs. Stanton's lead in voicing concern to the NFB's use of the analogy of the civil rights, movement.

A member of the Congress of Organizations of the Physically Handicapped which was organized as one voice for all organizations of the physically handicapped, NAPH still maintains its own legislative program with emphasis upon the elimination of architectural barriers and on bills to expand the Library Services and Construction Act. However, NAPH does not initiate legislation but merely endorses bills already introduced into Congress.

With a membership of only 7 55, NAPH has an unwieldy executive committee numbering almost 50: president, two secretaries, treasurer, ten vice presidents and a board of directors which includes all chapter presidents plus a few more miscellaneous people. Those members who do not espouse an orientation toward agency dependency have difficulty in being heard above the confusion.

Back to Contents


(Condensed from the Denver Post)

The Colorado State Fair in Pueblo took a few minutes from its hectic schedule to honor "courage and perseverance."

Before a rodeo crowd in the grandstand, a shy 12-year-old boy was awarded the lieutenant governor's trophy.

Keith Day has been almost blind since birth from congenital cataracts. And the 95-pound sixth grader at the Colorado School for Deaf and Blind at Colorado Springs knows he'll never see.

"We don't believe in spoiling him," says his father, Tandy Day, a 43-year-old stockman who has a small spread five miles west of Fowler in Pueblo County. He's farmed and ranched most of his life.

Keith's 9-year-old sister Patricia often helps her brother when he's leading his sheep in the show ring. "He doesn't want much help;' the elder Day said, "but when he needs it -- like when he has to have his animal just right before the judges -- she's usually there.

"I've tried to teach him the only thing I know -- sheep raising," Day continued. "He's going to be a good stockman, because he cares. He's not like some boys. Keith has to care. And he knows it."

Talking with those who had worked beside and around him at the fair for four days, it quickly became apparent many hadn't known of the boy's blindness.

"I saw him around here several times," one nearby exhibitor recalled, "but it never dawned on me he couldn't see. He takes real good care of his sheep."

"Maybe I could talk to Larry Mahan?" Keith wondered on his way to the grandstand. Mahan is the 1965 champion bull rider. He's a favorite of Keith's because the boy himself wants to follow Mahan' s dangerous life.

"I can ride'em pretty good now," the 4 feet, 10 inch lad said.

"I nearly rode two steers to the clock (eight seconds) in the Kid's Day Rodeo at La Junta (Colo.) this summer. Dad and mom don't like me doing it, but that's what I want to do . . .

"Rodeo, and have a professional show flock one day."

Back to Contents


A threat to welfare administration of immediate importance to the blind in California, but of concern to the blind of the nation, has been loosed by the County Supervisors Association of California.

Known as Cal-Flex, the county supervisor's plan would reduce to a minimum state and federal control in the daily operation of county welfare departments, leaving the counties free to retrogress to nineteenth century welfare techniques.

According to the county officials, its goal is to free social workers from endless form filling, thereby enabling them to do more casework. According to John M. Wedemeyer, who resigned effective September 1 as director of Social Welfare in California, Cal-Flex is contradictory and off-target. He charged the supervisors with preoccupation with "administrative ease, rather than effective service," and that their proposal "ignores completely any purpose or objective with respect to people and their needs."

Wedemeyer went on to accuse the association of attempting to "roll back to the good old pre-depression methods of local action and interpretation, represented in recent years by the widely known inadequacies and inequities of the locally administered general assistance programs."

The California Council of the Blind favors state administration for reasons set forth in a resolution: ". . .county administration of public assistance programs in California has over long experience proven generally inadequate, frequently inept, and often oppressive and out of keeping with the overall relief, rehabilitative and constructive objectives of the welfare programs, . . .direct administration of these programs by the State offers a substantial potential for overcoming these defects, deficiencies and ineptitudes . ..."

Among its recommendations, Cal-Flex proposes:

(1) The county should be free from federal and state laws in the handling of "abuses" by clients. Not one proposal mentions the more prevalent complaints of the poor about the abuses they receive from local departments.

(2) Local flexibility should be permitted in casework treatment. To this Wedemeyer asked, "Does flexibility in casework treatment include, for example, whether services should be offered at all, or to whom? Does non-intervention extend to not talking with and hearing the views of anyone other than the local administration?"

(3) Services in the adult categories should be reviewed and revised to allow local flexibility without losing the 75% federal sharing for those cases where services are provided. "This not only ignores the basic concepts of responsible fiscal accountability essential to sound government, but also neglects to mention that often audit results have produced positive results where local errors have worked to local disadvantage," Wedemeyer reasoned.

Governor Edmund G. Brown refused to stand behind his Welfare director's opposition to Cal-Flex and issued such platitudes to the press as, "There are valid points on both sides." He sidetracked the need to take a stand by directing Paul Ward, state administrator of Health and Welfare, to arbitrate the dispute --a step which undermined Wedemeyer's role.

The supervisors could claim a temporary victory when Wedemeyer handed in his resignation [see CALIFORNIA WELFARE HEAD RESIGNS elsewhere in this issue]. With Wedemeyer out of the way, there is little need for "arbitration." Governor Brown appears to be letting Cal-Flex slip into effect under the election year guise of saving the taxpayers' money by cutting down on paper work and playing up to his advantage the term "rehabilitation" -- perhaps to the exclusion of money for food, clothing and shelter.

Back to Contents


To save the political and constitutional rights of blind persons as citizens, the Washington State Association of the Blind has resolved to support and help the organized blind of Seattle in their confrontation with the Community Services for the Blind (CSB), a local agency formed in 1965 which reflects COMSTAC policies.

In March Charles E. Brown, executive director of the Seattle CSB, wrote to Tom Gronning, president of the White Cane Association of King County, setting forth demands on the association as conditions for continued use of meeting facilities recently placed under CSB's control. These demands included furnishing CSB with a copy of the organization's constitution and bylaws and a list of elected officers -- with a person designated as direct liaison.

"Further, it is essential that we request that you consult with us before you engage in any fund raising program, or any organized political activity," wrote Brown. "This is solely because we need to be aware of these matters, and also could not condone any such activities which would in any way be contradictory to our principals [sic] , or which would be, for one reason or another, embarrassing."

The White Cane Association rejected the demands as "paternalism of the most exaggerated and obnoxious kind." It's letter to Brown firmly stated:

'Whatever may be the demands of paternalistic social agencies, we shall maintain and exercise our God-given and our constitutional rights to engage in whatever political activity we please so long as it be within the laws of the State and Nation. We shall equally maintain and exercise our right to engage in public fund raising campaigns. You talk about what you insist upon. This is what we insist upon. We insist upon it, moreover, whether you 'condone' our actions and activities or not, whether our actions and activities are 'contradictory' to your 'principals [ sic] and practices', whether they are 'embarrassing' to you for one reason or for ten."

In his banquet speech at the Louisville Convention, NFB President Jacobus tenBroek gave his and the Federation's wholehearted support to the Seattle affiliate, labelling CSB's action as "out of this world" paternalism. As for the standards of the Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for the Blind -- which CSB professes to follow -- President tenBroek described them as "mis -conceived , mis -directed , and mischievous."

Eager to take a stand against such dictatorial action before it set a dangerous precedent, the WSAB issued its resolution, which in full reads:

"WHEREAS, the WSAB in convention assembled in Everett, Washington, August 6, 1966 has studied in detail the report of Public Relations Committee of WSAB; And, More particularly, the exchange of letters between Mr. Tom Gronning dated March 21, 1966 and Mrs. Charles E. Brown, dated May 9, 1966; and

"WHEREAS, we, of WSAB, feel that it must be obvious to all concerned that the Community Services for the Blind Organization of Seattle is flagrantly attempting to silence the voice of the Blind and their activities in the area; and

"WHEREAS, this highhanded and shocking approach of the Community Service for the Blind Agency is 'justified' in the name of Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for the Blind; and

"WHEREAS, this newly formed Commission is a self-appointed and self-perpetuating 'Super Agency' promoting the dominance of Agencies for the Blind over the Blind and which give only lip service to the blind.

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the WSAB in Convention assembled this 6th day of August, 1966, in Everett, Washington, that this Organization fully and without reservation supports the position of the King County White Cane Association and stands ready and waiting to lend every possible support in this crusade to retain the freedom of Blind persons to decide their own destinies and to speak for themselves."

Back to Contents


"Let us light the world of our blind citizens with opportunity. The white cane is not a symbol of uselessness; it is a symbol of determination. But it is up to us to open the way."

With these words urging public awareness. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the proclamation naming October 15, 1965, White Cane Safety Day. Through the imagination and efforts of the National Federation of the Blind, White Cane Safety Day was established by Congress in a joint resolution adopted October 6, 1964. The President proclaimed the day in 1964 and 1965, and his 1966 proclamation is anticipated in the near future.

To continue this tradition, action must be started now to promote the support of and participation in White Cane Safety Day 1966. Accordingly, the Federation has written the 50 governors urging each to issue a formal proclamation of October 15 as White Cane Safety Day and explaining the day's two-fold purpose:

"First, it dramatizes the ability of blind people to travel freely and thus emphasizes the positive potential and accomplishment of our blind citizens. Secondly, it provides an opportunity to educate the motoring public to the laws requiring that motorists respect the rights of a blind pedestrian carrying a white cane. Without the cooperation of the motoring public, the right of free movement of blind people is not one that can be exercised safely and securely."

Enclosed in each letter was a suggested proclamation and a copy of the model White Cane Law which -- if enacted -- would afford protection to blind pedestrians on the streets and highways every day of the year. The Federation's letter earnestly asked the governor's assistance in its enactment by the states' legislatures.

All affiliates can do their part to make this day effective by writing to their governors to urge to proclamation of October 15 as White Cane Safety Day and to enlist support of the model White Cane Law in their respective states.

The sample proclamation reads:

"The white cane, which every blind citizen of our state has the right to carry, demonstrates and symbolizes his achievement of a full and independent life. The white cane, by allowing every blind person to move freely and safely from place to place, makes it possible for him to participate fully in and contribute to our society. Every citizen should be aware that the law requires that motorists avoid injury to a blind per- son carrying a white cane.

"NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as Governor. I hereby proclaim October 15, 1966 as White Cane Safety Day.

'Every citizen should be cognizant that it is our public policy that blind and other disabled people should be free to move in the streets, buildings, and other public places, to participate fully in the economic and social life in our state, and to engage in remunerative employment.

Every citizen should be aware of the presence of disabled persons in the community and of the importance of keeping the streets, highways, parks, buildings and other public places in a safe condition, of observing due care when driving to avoid injury to disabled persons, and to offer assistance to disabled persons in traveling on appropriate occasions."

Back to Contents


(Condensed from The Kansas City Star)

By Conwell Carlson
Medical Editor

Concern about eye care in America is spreading. Help for the blind is not enough. The nation is short-changing itself by not getting at the causes of stubborn eye diseases that are handicapping millions of citizens.

So say the eye scientists. They say more research is needed, more preventive knowledge, more preventive effort. The enormous human and financial setbacks from loss of vision by Americans are not being sufficiently combatted.

It's both a medical and public problem, the ophthalmologists emphasize. New tools for eye repair are being devised, along with re- search clues, but these are not being exploited to anywhere near their potential for sight-saving.

Such are the main areas of concern, along with the complaints of eye patients who must wait for appointments because of the shortage of specialists.

As a local example, in the repair field only, 25 persons needing cornea transplants are on the waiting list this summer in the eye department of the Kansas University Medical Center because the area supply of fresh donor eyes is inadequate.

This is a matter of public support, awareness and education. Dr. Albert N. Lemoine, Jr., chief of the Kansas University department points out. For every patient who may need a corneal transplant, a listing of scores of persons who have consented to donate their eyes after death is needed. Meanwhile the 25 patients must wait until donors come forward. Everywhere the program needs stronger public backing.

One obvious aid to transplant service that is still lagging, the doctors agree, is better co-operation by morticians, coroners and physicians in implementing the prompt removal of eyes -- previously approved by the donor or next of kin.

Nationally, concern stirs strongly in Congress. Bills pending both in the House and the Senate propose the establishment of a National Eye Institute at the National Institutes of Health in Washington. It is hoped this separate new institute would provide vital impetus in research and grants for eye study on an all-out scale.

Facts brought out in the congressional hearings outline the size of the problem. Among the more startling assertions:

(1) Nearly 90 million Americans have some form of eye trouble. Among 3.5 million the trouble is serious.

(2) More than a million Americans are functionally blind, unable to read ordinary newspaper type even with the aid of glasses.

(3) About 75 million Americans wear glasses. In three of every four homes at least one in the family must wear glasses.

(4) Each year more than 30,000 Americans lose their sight. Popular opinion is that blindness generally is because of accidents. Actually, accidents account for only 5 percent of vision loss. No less than 80 percent of all blindness is the result of diseases whose causes are still not pinpointed by science.

Ten years ago Congress established a National Institute of Neuro- logical Diseases and Blindness. But according to Rep. Fred B. Rooney of Pennsylvania, who recently introduced a bill in the House for a separate national eye institute, linking blindness to the neurological institute did not get the job done.

Eye research has increased in medical schools in the last decade, Rooney explained, but grants to implement study of the main unsolved diseases have lagged. New ideas have germinated. Enthusiasm has developed among eye scientists. Yet the needed financial support has been sparse.

"The report last year of the survey by Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc.," Rooney said, "revealed what was not happening in eye research, but should."

Not yet recognized by the public, Rooney added, is that cumulative advances in all fields of medical science have opened vistas for new attacks on blindness, especially chronic causes. Specialists for the first time are hopeful that research now can open doors to prevention of glaucoma, retinal diseases and the assumed gradual loss of eye-sight with age.

"We know now," he said, "that periodic examination, surgery and treatment are not enough. The ultimate goals foreseeable now are the prevention of such conditions ,

"A separate national eye institute would move ophthalmic research into the mainstream of biologic progress, and without it we are failing to take full advantage of new opportunities."

Adding a nationwide research thrust toward prevention of the chronic afflictions should brighten the blindness picture in America permanently, scientists and laymen backers conclude.

Back to Contents


Strong opposition initiated by several prominent blind citizens and voiced by a member of the state assembly somewhat altered the newly issued credential for mobility instructors in California. Visual acuity and special degree requirements were the critical issues.

The original credential submitted to the California Board of Education by the State Department of Education required applicants to have normal vision -- 20/20 to 20/40 -- and a special master's degree in mobility instruction. Although it has been called "a bureaucratic boondoggle of the first order," by Assemblyman Leo J. Ryan (D-San Mateo), the Department of Education prefers to call the regulation "The Standard Designated Services Credential with a Specialization in Pupil Personnel Services as a Mobility Instructor for the Visually Handicapped."

The Board of Education listened to Ryan's criticism of the master's degree as something that did not even exist and that would only lead to establishing another expensive department in the State colleges and the University of California. The credential which the board did issue allows an alternate pattern.

Dr. Francis W. Doyle, deputy superintendent of public instruction, said the regulation only suggests-- but does not require --a master's degree in mobility and orientation. (Only Boston University and Western Michigan University offer this specialized program.) The board will accept an accredited bachelor's degree with additional special training and/or full-time paid experience in mobility instruction.

However, the board would not budge on the normal vision requirement. Not only does this bar blind individuals who may be capable of doing such work, but, as Ryan charged, it eliminates those with correctable vision, the partially blind and those who are blind in one eye.

A harsher requirement of 20/20 vision only was recommended by the American Foundation for the Blind to the department when the regulation was first being drafted at a spring meeting. But, even the department balked at a regulation more strict than requiring "normal" vision.

Does an academic requirement for a mobility instructor make any sense? It is not a question of academic degrees, but the practical matter of understanding the blind and their problems of mobility and being able to give them instruction. Assemblyman Ryan is surely right in his criticism of the visual acuity requirement. It has never been demonstrated that a properly qualified, totally blind person could not be an efficient mobility instructor.

Back to Contents


The 31st Annual Convention of the Gem State Blind, Inc. was held in Boise, Idaho on August 25-28. Thursday morning and afternoon were taken up with matters of various committees, including the Board of Directors, and the convention was called to order on Friday morning. During the Friday sessions, delegates from the three principal chapters as well as from throughout the state heard reports on the growth and progress of their organizational activities.

During the afternoon session delegates adopted a legislative program which called for establishment of a special independent commission to administer vocational rehabilitation services and other related services to the blind of Idaho rather than have these services administered by the State department of public assistance. The delegates called for the establishment of $125.00 per month as a minimum standard for aid to the blind with additional consideration for special needs. The Idaho convention also endorsed the new "model white cane law" and instructed its legislative committee to seek its introduction and passage during the next session of legislature.

The National Federation representative was John Taylor, who delivered the banquet address and took an active part in the convention's deliberations. His banquet address received very good coverage in the Idaho Daily Statesman, in part as follows:

"Taylor said the blind are involved in a struggle for 'first-class citizenship' in commercial and social life, noting there are 'well-meaning but misguided notions about blindness which result in discrimination.' He cited the insurance business as an illustration where some companies write double indemnity policies at regular rates, some at rated costs 'and some not at all.' He charged that this is not based on statistical evidence but 'whims' of officials.

"He said the Gem State Blind 'and all blind persons' are interested in updating services, particularly in the field of vocational rehabilitation services, 'to place an increasing number of blind persons in competitive employment.

" 'We will be calling on officials in state government in an effort to develop a more forward-looking placement and training program,' he said. 'There is not nearly enough being done to find places where we can work on an equality basis with our fellow men.'

"Taylor charged as 'unwarranted' the number of blind persons being placed in sheltered-type employment. He said they are simply asking to be given opportunity to prove themselves reliable workers in practically any field. He said the blind have proven themselves capable of handling even the most important positions, such as physicists, machinists, secretaries, social workers, school teachers at all levels, and others."

Convention delegates enjoyed a tour of Idaho City historical sights on Saturday followed by a buffet dinner in the evening . The convention closed with a cook-out breakfast on Sunday morning. Since this was not an election year for the Gem State Blind, the present officers, headed by Mrs. Uldine Thelander, President, will continue to serve the organization.

Back to Contents


House-Senate conferees on minimum wage amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act took an historic action on September 1, when they agreed to impose a statutory minimum wage standard on privately operated sheltered workshops. This action was taken as part of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, a bill amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, extending its protection to additional employees, raising the minimum wage, and accomplishing certain other purposes.

The NFB first drafted and secured the introduction of sheltered shop minimum wage legislation in 1959. At first it received short shrift both inside and outside of Congress. We were forced to modify our proposal downward in order to increase the possibility of its passage. The opposition was clamorous and intense. It came from the National Association of Sheltered Workshops and Homebound Industries, from Good Will Industries, from the National Rehabilitation Association, and many other sources.

At first we stood alone; gradually we gained some allies. Our common legislative front with the agencies stood us in good stead. The AAWB and the American Foundation joined in support of the bill.

In the present Congress the sheltered shop minimum, wage bill made little headway until in July it was added by a subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to the overall Fair Labor Standards proposed amendments. These overall proposals were then approved by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare itself in August. As a tactical necessity on the Senate floor. Senators Morse and Javits agreed to eliminate the steps by which the sheltered shop minimum wage would be brought to the level of the regular minimum wage, thus in effect providing only that the minimum wage in the shops should be at least 50 per cent of the regular minimum wage. Other changes were made in the Conference Committee deleting some protections we had included for the workers.

Although the hourly wages of workers already receiving $1.25 an hour under the federal minimum wage law will be raised to $1.40 February 1, 1967, and $1.60 the following February 1. the hourly rate set for groups of workers newly included under the Fair Labor Standards Act by the current amending measure will commence at $1.00, and will increase by 15 cents hourly each year until the $1. 60 hourly rate is reached in 1971. Thus, sheltered shop workers, as a new class of workers to be afforded federal minimum wage protection, will work according to a minimum wage standard starting at 50 cents an hour, and increasing by 7-1/2 cents an hour each year until an 80-cent hourly minimum is reached in 1971.

A 50-cent hourly minimum wage may seem hardly more than a "sweat shop" rate, and even the ultimate rate of 80 cents in 1971 can scarcely be described as an adequate hourly minimum living wage. Yet the impact of these new minimums can be appreciated when one realizes that, as of June 30, 1965, 204 sheltered shops were authorized to pay 5,830 handicapped workers 25 cents an hour or less, including 10 shops which were authorized to pay as little as 5 cents an hour; 171 shops which were authorized to pay 6,655 handicapped workers between 25 cents and 49 cents an hour; and 228 shops which were authorized to pay 13, 603 handicapped workers between 50 cents and 74 cents an hour.

Handicapped workers engaged in work which is incidental to training or evaluation programs and multi-handicapped individuals and other individuals whose earning capacity is so severely impaired that they are unable to engage in competitive employment may be paid wages below the new minimums pursuant to regulations established by the Secretary of Labor upon the certificate of the state vocational rehabilitation agency. Handicapped persons whose physical or mental impairment is so severe as to make their productive capacity inconsequential may be employed at wages below the minimum in work activity centers established separate and apart from the sheltered workshops. These centers must be planned and designed exclusively to provide therapeutic activity.

Finally, the conference bill calls upon the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study into the whole issue of wages in sheltered workshops and report findings and recommendations to the Congress by July 1, 1967.

It is obvious that this is a weak law establishing a minimum wage that is far too low and containing many loopholes; yet notwithstanding, it still is an historic accomplishment. For the first time in the history of the nation Congress has acted to confer on disabled workers in sheltered shops one of the rights of able-bodied American workers, namely, the right to a minimum wage. The establishment of the principle is the important thing. Year by year we shall now seek to raise the minimum until in the end disabled workers will be provided the same guarantee in this respect that other workers have. We shall also seek to gain for disabled workers other rights of American labor. The study of wages which the Secretary of Labor is directed to make may be one possible avenue of progress, but this will only be so if the Secretary listens to the workers as well as the managers. He will do this if the voice of the workers is made articulate by organized representation.

Many congressmen and senators contributed to this achievement. Particular thanks, however, are due to Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon and Congressman John Dent of Pennsylvania, who have long labored for this legislation and who spearheaded the attack in the present session.

Text of the Sheltered Shop provision in the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966:


Sec. 501. Section 14 of such Act is amended to read as follows: "Learners, Apprentices, Students, and Handicapped Workers "Sec. 14. . . .

"(d)(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, the Secretary of Labor, to the extent necessary, in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulation or order provide for the employment under special certificates of individuals (including individuals employed in agriculture) whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury, at wages which are lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 6 of this Act but not less than 50 per centum of such wage and which are commensurate with those paid nonhandicapped workers in industry in the vicinity for essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work.

(2) The Secretary, pursuant to such regulations as he shall prescribe and upon certification of the State agency administering or supervising the administration of vocational rehabilitation services, may issue special certificates for the employment of --

"(A) handicapped workers engaged in work which is incidental to training or evaluation programs, and

"(B) multihandicapped individuals and other individuals whose earning capacity is so severely impaired that they are unable to engage in competitive employment, at wages which are less than those required by this subsection and which are related to the worker's productivity.

"(3) (A) The Secretary may by regulation or order provide for the employment of handicapped clients in work activities centers under special certificates at wages which are less than the minimums applicable under section 6 of this Act or prescribed by paragraph (1) of this subsection and which constitute equitable compensation for such clients in work activities centers.

"(B) For purposes of this section, the term 'work activities centers' shall mean centers planned and designed exclusively to provide therapeutic activities for handicapped clients whose physical or mental impairment is so severe as to make their productive capacity inconsequential."


Study of Wages Paid Handicapped Clients in Sheltered Workshops.

Sec. 605. The Secretary of Labor is hereby instructed to commence immediately a complete study of wage payments to handicapped clients of sheltered workshops and of the feasibility of raising existing wage standards in such workshops. The Secretary is further instructed to report to the Congress by July 1, 1967, the findings of such study with appropriate recommendations.

Back to Contents


From the NEW YORK TIMES: President Johnson was an unexpected, but welcome guest for graduation ceremonies at Gallaudet College in Washington, D. C. -- the nation's only college for the deaf. He pledged greater determination to help the handicapped people of the nation.

From the OAKLAND (CALIF.) TRIBUNE: Twenty-five-year old Rudy Salazar of Antioch is justifiably proud of his recent achievement of passing the tough California State Highway Patrol test for a Class-A auto mechanic's license. Bedson Juett, a counselor for the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of the State Department of Rehabilitation says, "To my knowledge, Rudy is the only blind person in the state to qualify for such a license."

The New York City Health Department is offering free glaucoma detection testing by appointment. One out of 50 persons over the age of 40 suffers from this eye disease which may cause blindness if not detected and treated. An added problem is that a person may have glaucoma without knowing it.

From the National Association of the Physically Handicapped NEWSLETTER: New York City will build four-foot wide ramps from sidewalk to street at intersections for all new street construction. Joining the many communities to publish booklets on accessibility to buildings are: Albany, N. Y.; Albuquerque, N. M.; Carbondale, 111.; Southern Fairfield County, Conn.; Hartford, Conn.; New Orleans, La.; Sarasota, Fla. ; Seattle, Wash.; and Winston-Salem, N. C.

Battery powered crutches enabling a person to raise and lower himself by pushing a button are being produced in Dallas.

From the Associated Press: The Department of Health, Education and Welfare reports that about four million Americans were unable to perform normal activities between July 1964 and June 1965 because of some form of physical impairment.

From the NEW YORK POST: The first patient admitted to a New York hospital under the new Medicare law was a 65-year-old machine operator from New Jersey who underwent surgery for a detached retina in his right eye.

A blind Monitor reader from Pakistan is interested in finding pen pals among blind persons in the United States and other countries. His name and address are Mr. Sirfrazuddeen Ahmed, E 3-P and T Coloni, Karachi No. 6, Pakistan.

From David Swerdlow: INTERESTED IN DRAMA? SELF-EXPRESSION? THE ELBEE AUDIO PLAYERS, an independent group of blind, amateur. Repertory Players, invite male players living in the New York area to join them. A most congenial group, they present full -length dramatic reading productions for the community, sighted as well as blind. This is their 5th season. No dramatic experience is required. Just a strong love of the theater. No memorizing of lines necessary. Braille scripts are used. Rehearsals: one evening a week. Performances: usually given over week-ends at community centers, temples, churches and schools in the New York area. This exciting extension of the theater offers an unusual opportunity for creative self- expression, in interesting major roles; a chance to play before many types of audiences and at end of season, a token compensation. For information, please contact: DAVID SWERDLOW, Director -- 621 West End Avenue, N. Y. 10024; Telephone: TRafalgar 4-5704.

From: J. Ray Penix, Doctor of Chiropractic, 428 East Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91501. The fact of my relocation in the practice of chiropractic at the above address is perhaps a matter of interest to my NFB friends throughout the country. . . . You might see fit to include this fact in a subsequent issue of the Monitor as a Monitor Miniature --This I would appreciate as I should enjoy hearing from any of my many NFB friends who deem it worth the price of a postage stamp to write me. Actually, I am very much aware of the fact that I am now established in the practice of chiropractic in California is no "Miniature" matter, but rather made possible as a result of a tremendous effort on the part of the California Council of the Blind in getting the necessary legislation enacted in this state to permit of such an action on my part. In the early days of my struggle for the privilege of the California State Chiropractic Examination I pondered the inactivity in this on the part of the California Council of the Blind. As I became more acquainted with the workings and efforts of the various segments of the NFB as a result of a closer personal affiliation with its activities I came to recognize that "mills of the. . . " NFB, too, "turn slowly"--but to this old addage one might affix the appendage "but continuously" or "without ceasing." So if any space is devoted to the announcement of my being here please include my appreciation of the efforts on the part of the organized blind that have made it possible for me to be here.

Notice: Will all blind college students who attended the meeting of the National Federation of the Blind Division of Students in Louisville please contact the secretary of the organization immediately? This is necessary for the progress and success of the newly organized group.

Correspondence should be sent to: Miss Judy Young, P.O. 465, Dunkerton, Iowa 50626.

At its 45th Annual Convention beginning May 20, 1966 the Minnesota Organization of the Blind passed a resolution calling for setting aside October 15 as the day for every interested member to sacrifice one meal and send the price of it to the International Federation of the Blind to assist the worldwide cause of the blind.

Professor Jacobus tenBroek spent practically all of August and parts of July and September in the hospital undergoing two operations for cancer of the lower intestine. The technical name of what the doctors did to him is abdominal perineal resection and colostomy. More simply, they raised 'holy Ned' with his innards from the naval down. In fact, they removed a good part of them and rearranged the exit of his colon. He is now home and can look forward to two or three months of convalescence. The doctors tell him he will be able to handle his classes at the University in the fall term beginning October 3. Professor tenBroek worked on the August Monitor in a short recess after the first operation. However, he was not able to send it to Clovernook until two weeks after the usual deadline of July 20. While he was still in the hospital and after he got out he worked on the September issue. This time, however, he missed the deadline by three weeks. This accounts for the delays in the mailing of these monthly issues. For the time being at least Professor tenBroek plans to continue editing the Monitor along with his newly resumed duties as President of the NFB. He wishes to express his gratitude to the many Federationists who sent him heartwarming messages of concern and support.

Back to Contents


By Professor Jacobus tenBroek

[Editor's note: The following is the second installment of the article "The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled in the Law of Torts" prepared by Professor tenBroek for the Berkeley Conference he organized in February 1966 on the Law of the Poor--a symposium of scholars from throughout the nation who were invited to submit papers. "The Right to Live in the World" is published along with the other symposium papers in a forthcoming volume edited by Professor tenBroek, The Law of the Poor, to be published by Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco.

"The Right to Live in the World" is a survey and analysis of legal doctrines and provisions governing the freedom of public movement of the blind and the otherwise physically disabled. The article represents a reinterpretation of conventional legal concepts in the light of modern conditions and the policy of integrating the physically
disabled into the normal life of the community.

Part I, which appeared in the August MONITOR, discussed the national policy of integrationism -- "a policy entitling the disabled to full participation in the life of the community and encouraging and enabling them to do so" -- which should guide the work of courts, government agencies, and other public and private bodies. The rights of full and equal access to public accommodations for "all persons" are guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by statutes in more than half the states against infringement on grounds of race, creed, color, ancestry or national origin. Do the blind and otherwise physically disabled have these rights? This question is discussed in the following installment as to places of public accommodation, conveyance, resort and amusement, and as to public buildings, especially with respect to architectural barriers. How the accompaniment of a seeing eye dog affects access rights is also covered here.

The bulky footnotes accompanying the article are omitted in the braille edition of the MONITOR. Complete copies of the inkprint article are available from NFB National Headquarters, 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley. California 94708. Complete copies in braille will be available after serial publication in the MONITOR]

Part II

A. The Rights of Dogs and The Rights of Men

The disabled are neither specifically included nor specifically excluded From the general public accommodations legislation. That legislation was extended at the time of passage to go beyond forbidding discrimination on a basis of race, color, and national origin, to cover discrimination based on religion69 and, in employment, on sex.70 During its passage through Congress, Congressman Dowdy offered an amendment to add age to the proscribed bases of discrimination.71 The amendment was defeated by a vote of 123 to 94 after some members of the House had stated that they agreed with the substance and content of the motion, but thought the procedures set out in the act were not suited to the object sought.72 The final act did, however, require that the Secretary of Labor make a "full and complete study of the factors which might tend to result in discrimination in employment because of age and of the consequences of such discrimination on the economy and individuals affected."73 A proposal by the National Federation of the Blind to extend the protection of the act to the disabled did not reach the stage of formal introduction. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does extend to "all persons" and does imply substantive rights. It is therefore possible, if not probable, that when we move away from the moment and the immediate cause of the legislation, the judges will bring the disabled within its shelter.

While state and national general public accommodations legislation has not expressly covered the disabled, that legislation has served as the model and source of specific public accommodations legislation for the blind in twenty-five states.74 This has come about in a strange way. The blind have been led by the guide dogs not only into places of public accommodation but into the right to be there. It is not inaccurate to say that the basic right of all men to join their communities and to gain access to them by the normal means, including the use of public accommodations, has been gained by the blind in these twenty-five states as an incident to their reliance on the dogs and the need lo have them exempted from restrictions with regard to pets. Whether the man takes the dog or the dog takes the man may be a question of some importance. There is quite A. difference between saying, as California does, for example, that “any blind person”75 is entitled to have the dog with him or, no “blind person… shall be denied admittance" though he has a guide dog with him;76 and saying, on the other hand, as New Mexico does, that "no person shall debar a guide dog . . . in any place of public accommodation . . . provided such dog is safely muzzled and is under the control of the blind person."77

Whatever the relative roles of man and dog, the almost universal ban against dogs and other pets in places of public accommodation—-a ban no doubt based on good reasons of public health, safety and convenience — had to be lifted in favor of the guide dog and its master if its services were to be available to him in getting about.78 Since the exclusionary rule against pets is founded not only in practice and regulation but also in legislation, remedy had to be sought from the legislatures.79 Organizations of the blind, individual guide dog owners, and the management of guide dog schools set lo work, jointly and severally, to secure the statutes which now exist in half the states of the Union guaranteeing the right of the man to take the dog and the dog to take the man into public places and places of public accommodation.80 In a very few statutes, such as that of Idaho, the right has been effected by simply making an exception to the prohibition that "no dog, cat or other animal shall be permitted in any eating place . . . ."81 In most states, however, reliance is placed on the formulations in anti-race discrimination legislation which lie ready to guide draftsmanship and statutory classification and which suggest themselves as highly relevant and appropriate in the circumstances. The Massachusetts legislation follows the model more closely than many slates, but it may be used to illustrate the point.

In Massachusetts, a trunk statute was adopted at the close of the Civil War in 1865.82 At that time, color and race discrimination in ‘’public places of amusement, public conveyance or public meeting"83 was made an offense punishable by fine. The original provision has since been amended a number of times,84 most recently and basically in 1950, by adding reiigion to the list of forbidden grounds of discrimination and by adding two sentences constituting the heart of the modern civil rights public accommodations formulation: "All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right."85 Before 1950 three other subsections had been added: one in 1941 forbidding race, color or nationality discriminations in employment on public works and in dispensing public welfare;86 the second in 1943, making punishable as group libel publications intended maliciously to promote hatred of any group because of its race or color;87 and the third, in 1938, declaring, under penal sanctions, "any blind person accompanied" by a guide dog, "properly and safely muzzled," to be "entitled to any and all accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of all public conveyances, public amusement and places of . . . public accommodations ... to which persons not accompanied by dogs are entitled, subject only to the conditions and limitations applicable to all persons not accompanied by dogs . . . ."88 Extra fare for the dog is not to be charged on public conveyances.

Again, the formulation employed in Georgia,89 Indiana,90 and Louisiana91 is substantially the same: "Any person who by reason of loss or impairment of eyesight is accompanied by a dog . . . used as a leader or guide ... is entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all public conveyances, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, and shall be entitled to be accompanied by such dog . . . subject only to the conditions and limitations applicable to persons not so accompanied . . . ."

Variations in detail in these statutes are numerous. They relate to: the mode of defining the blind persons or others entitled to the benefits of the act;92 the public accommodations to which the act applies;93 the presence or absence of restriction. on dunging for the dog;94 training, harnessing, leashing and muzzling I lie dog;95 credentialing the master and the dog;96 custody of the dog in public places and conveyances;97 exceptions to the operations of the act;98 whether the benefit of the act is expressed in terms of a positively conferred right on the master and the dog or a negative limitation on the operators of places of public accommodation;99 and the penalies which may be imposed for breach of the act.100

Among all these variations in detail, however, the substantial formulation is generally the same: It is the formulation of the civil rights acts. The strengths and weaknesses of the formulation are the same in the one case as in the other for the meaning is the same. The terms are those of discrimination, that is, of classification and comparison. If other people similarly situated are entitled to the right, then the disabled are; and so are persons of minority race, color, and religion. The right may be denied to all if this is done on equal terms; that is, if the conditions and limitations are applicable to all, or, in other words, are made regardless of race, color, religion, disability, or being guided by a dog.

But the purpose of the legislation is a purpose with respect to which all people are similarly situated. The right of access to public accommodations and common carriers is a civil right. It is a basic right indispensable to participation in the community, a substantive right to which all are fully and equally entitled. The basic contradictions and reconciliations of procedural and comparative phraseology, on the one hand, and the fundamental substantive rights, on the other hand, implicit and explicit in the fourteenth amendment are here repeated.101 Thus, while the guide dog statutes focus on the immediate problem of gaining access by reasons with guide dogs and their right of access is declared to be the same as for those without dogs, and while, accordingly, no particular mention is made of the right of access of those without dogs, yet their right is presupposed, implicit and assumed and hence is incorporated within the benefits conferred by the act. The right of all blind persons, and more generally, of all disabled persons, to the use of public accommodations is therefore consequentially safeguarded by these acts.

Moreover, the existence of these acts in twenty-five stales, with their explicit avowals and implicit assumptions, supported by the right of people generally to the use of public accommodations and common carriers, might reasonably be taken as a sufficient declaration of public policy and fundamental right to found judicial decisions in the other states vindicating the right of the disabled to full and equal access to these necessary instrumentalities of community life. Ultimately, indeed, such may be seen as a mandate of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

B. Architectural Barriers

Guide dog legislation is intended to safeguard rights of access to and use of common carriers and public accommodations. The legislation seeks to accomplish the purpose by declaring the rights, in form at least on a comparative basis, and Prohibiting the discriminatory denial or withdrawal of them. The legislation deals only with one group of the disabled: the blind, a group otherwise able-bodied and perfectly capable of mounting stairs and passing through narrow doorways once they find them. The formula employed in the guide dog legislation is inadequate on its face to deal with the general problem of architectural barriers. Architectural barriers are defined by the American Standards Association as features of "the common design and construction of buildings and facilities [that] cause problems for the physically handicapped that lessen the social and economic gains now evident in the rehabilitation of these individuals . . . [that] make it very difficult to project the physically handicapped into normal situations of education, recreation, and employment."102 Simply declaring that the disabled, too, have rights of access and use and forbidding building operators to deny them would do little for the wheel chair-bound paraplegic physically denied access to and use of flights of stairs and narrow doorways. Moreover, prohibiting the installation of such barriers would not do the trick. A more constructive and affirmative approach is required. Buildings and facilities must be erected according to a design taking account of the disabled and making buildings and facilities accessible to them and functional for them.

Specifications intended to do this were prepared by the American Standards Association in 1961.103 They were developed in consultation with a large number of concerned government officials, private agencies with programs for the disable, groups of the disabled themselves, and relevant business and professional associations. Principal sponsorship, however, came from the National Society for Crippled Children and Adults and the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. The specifications include: wide and suitably located parking places for the cars of the disabled;104 at least one ground level or ramped entrance;105 wide doors that can be opened with a single effort106 and with enough neighboring level floor space for wheel chair maneuver;107 single level stories or ramp-connected levels;108 toilets, mirrors, towel dispensers,109 drinking fountains,110 and public telephones111 of the proper height to he reached from wheel chairs; identifying features enabling the blind to find particular rooms;113 auditory as well as visual signals;112 open manholes, access panels, and excavations in the buildings and on the grounds barricaded at least eight feet from the hazard and warning devices used;114 and, a prohibition on low-hanging or protruding door closers, signs, and fixtures.115 The specifications are intended not only for public buildings and facilities, but for any buildings and facilities generally used by the public. They are applicable in remodeling present structures as well as in new construction. While the specifications would seem a necessity for the disabled confined to wheel chairs and only less so for those on crutches and braces, they are also of importance for the estimated five million Americans with mobility impairments of other sorts. The Standards list among the direct beneficiaries those with "non-ambulatory disabilities," "semi-ambulatory disabilities," "sight disabilities," "hearing disabilities," "disabiltities of incoordination,"116 and "those manifestations of the aging processes that significantly reduce mobility, flexibility, coordination, and perceptiveness. . . .”117 The different and sometimes contradictory needs of these groups illustrate the fallacy of treating the disabled as a single homogeneous class for all purposes. Although all the disabled are helped by eliminating stairs, the crippled are helped far more than the deaf. Manholes, access panels and excavations are of greatest peril for the blind but are also hazardous for all. The deaf require visual signals which are of no use for the blind and vice versa for auditory signals. The paraplegic must have special toilet and washroom facilities and arrangements, while the blind couldn't care less where the mirror is located. For the persons in the wheel chair and the mobile cripple, a site is best developed which is level and without curbs and other abrupt changes. For the blind, large, level, open plazas and other areas around and among buildings, without discernible landmarks such as curbs and well-defined walks, can be traversed only by dead reckoning.

To secure acceptance of the specifications by architects, builders, owners, and operators, the National Society for Crippled Children and Adults and the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week established steering committees in the various states. They, together with others, put on an active, national campaign. As a result, remarkable progress has been made in five years. Architectural barriers legislation has been adopted in twenty-one states.118 A national commission on architectural barriers to the rehabilitation of the handicapped was established in 1965 in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to focus national attention on the problem and to advise, consult, study, and demonstrate.119 The relevant professions, industries, unions, and other interests have been made acquainted with the nature of the problem of architectural barriers and the relatively simple and inexpensive" design features required to reduce it.120 The levels of attack have thus been private persuasion, official sponsorship. and, with respect to public buildings and facilities, legislative mandate.

The central feature of the state statutes is reliance on the work of the American Standards Association. Indeed, the principal divergence among the statutes is the extent to which they copy the specifications outright or incorporate them by reference. A fairly typical statute--and, having been passed in 1962, one of the earlier ones --is that of Massachusetts, which provides that public buildings "shall conform with the booklet entitled 'American standard specifications for making buildings and facilities accessible to, and usable by, the physically handicapped' approval by the American Standards Association, Incorporated on October thirty-fist, nineteen hundred and sixty one."121 Montana122 and South Carolina,123 on the other hand, practically enacted the booklet as it stood, even to the point of including explanatory footnotes. 'I've state statutes differ among themselves as to the types of buildings and facilities covered, permissible exceptions, methods and agencies of enforcement, and a requirement for public hearing when administrative agencies are delegated authority to establish standards by way of regulations. Most of the statutes accept a variant of the formula used in Connecticut: "[A]ll buildings and facilities constructed, remodeled or repaired by the state or its agents or by any political subdivision of the state or its agents when state funds or state interest is involved."124 Wisconsin applies its requirements to "any public buildings, including state-owned buildings or public housing projects . . . and mercantile buildings. . . ."125 The excepting clause provided in the American Standard Specifications—"cases of practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship, or extreme differences"126--is generally liberalized in the state statutes to require only "substantial conformity"127 or conformity "in so far as feasible and financially reasonable."128 Little is said in most of the statutes about enforcement. Usually the administrative officials responsible are identified but not much more.129 Minnesota provides that construction or remodeling of public buildings owned by the state "shall not be hereafter commenced . . . until the plans and specifications . . . have been approved by the fire marshal."130 Wisconsin's provision is specific and drastic: "The owner of any building who fails to meet the requirements of this section may be required to reconstruct the same by mandatory injunction in a circuit court suit brought by any interested person. Such person shall be reimbursed, if successful, for all costs and disbursements plus such actual attorney fees as may be allowed by the court."131


69 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, 243, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a) (1964).

70 78 Stat. 241, 255, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) -2 (1964).

71 110 Cong. Rec. 2596 (1964).

72 110 Cong. Rec. 2599 (1964).

73 78 Stat. 241, 265, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-14 (1964).

74 Ark Stat. §§ 78-211 to 78-213 (1957); Cal. Pen. Code § 643.5; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 115-12-9 (1953); Conn. Gen. Stat Rev. § 22-346a (1958) ; Fla. Stat: § 413.08 (1963); Ga. Code Ann. §§ 79-601, 79-9901 (1964); Hawaii Rev. Laws §§ 109-20, 109-21 (1957);. Idaho Code Ann. §§ 39-1604 (Supp. 1965); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 11 2/3. § 40a (Smith-Hurd 1954); Ind, Ann. Stat. §§ 16-212, 16-213 (Supp. 1964); Iowa Code Ann. §§ 351.30-351.32 (Supp. 1964); La. Rev Stat. Ann. §§ 51, 52 (Supp. 1964), Maine. Rev. Stat. Ann § 54 (Supp. 1963); Mass Gen, Ann, LAWS § 98A (1956); Mich, Stat Ann, § 28,770(7/8S) (1954): Mo. Ann. Stat. § 209.140 (1962); N.J. Stat Ann. §§ 48:3-33, 48:3-34 (1940); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 47-1-7 (1953); N.Y Pen. Law § 518; R.I Gen. Laws Ann. §§ 39-2-16 to 39-2-17 (1956); TENN, Code Ann. § 62-717 (Supp, 1965); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat art. 4569a. 889a (l948); Va. Code Ann § 35-42.1 (Supp- 1964); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 49.60.216, 81.28.140 (l962); W, Va. Code Ann, §§ 2568(l), 2569 (1961).

75 Cal. PEN. Code § 643.5(a)

76 Cal. PEN. Code § 643.5(b)

77 N.M. Stat. Ann § 47-1-7 (1954)

78 For recent examples of the exclusion of a blind person and guide dog from a restaurant see Guide Dog v. Restaurant, N.Y Times, Nov. 3, 1964 reprinted in the Braille Monitor, Jan 1965, p.22 from public housing project see, New Orleans Housing Project Lifts Guide Dog Ban, Braille Monitor, Sept. 1965, p 38.

79 The only case reported concerning the guide dog statutes arose in Texas in 1946 (Boyd v. State, 148 Tex. Crim 171, 186 S.W.2d 257) where the proprietor of the restaurant denied admission to a blind woman accompanied by a “seeing-eye” dog because of the dog. The proprietor was convicted of violating the Texas statute which relates primarily to carriers, but the conviction was reversed on appeal. The basis of the appellate court’s action was the failure of the legislature to include facilities other than conveyances in the caption of the act as required by article III, § 35 of the Texas Constitution. The court, therefore, held § 2 of bill unconstitutional, but found the remaining sections severable.

80 For general discussion of the use of guide dogs by blind persons, the trainer of dogs and masters, and the establishment of guide dog schools, see Chevigny, My Eyes Have a Cold Nose (1946); Eustis, The Seeing Eye (1927); Hartwell, Dogs Against Darkness (1934); Zahi., Blindness, ch. 24 (1950).

81 Idaho Code Ann.§ 39-1604 (supp. 1965). In 1965 Idaho adopted a guide dog statute based on that of California. Idaho Code Ann § 18-5812-A (Supp 1965).

82 Mass. Acts & Resolves 1865, ch. 277, at 650

83 Ibid

84 Mass. Acts & Resolves 1866 ch. 252, at 242; Mass. .Acts & Resolves 1885, ch. 316, at 774; Mass Acts & Resolves 1893, ch 43, at 1320; Mass. Acts & Resolves 1895, ch. 461, at 519,

85 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 98 (1959).

86 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 98b (1959).

87 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 98C (1959).

88 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 272, § 98A (1958)

89 Ga. Code Ann. § 601 (Supp. 1964).

90 Ind. Ann. Stat. § 16-212 (Supp. 1964)

91 La. Rev Stat. Ann § 21:52 (Supp.1964).

92 All the statutes require that the dog user be blind or partially blind with the exception of Idaho, which permits guide dog trainers the same access to eating establishments as is afforded the blind user.

93 Seventeen jurisdictions provide the dog-led blind with access to places of public accommodation in general and also to public conveyance (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine. Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New México, New York (except movie theaters), Rhode Island (except railroad cars other than chair cars on passenger trains), Tennessee, Texas, Washington,) five more provide access to public conveyances (Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, .New Jersey, West Virginia), two provide access only to only eating places (Idaho, Virginia), and the remaining state, access to hotels and eating places (Florida.). See note 74 supra for the applicable states.

94 Sixteen jurisdictions have provisions prohibiting the exacting of additional charges because of the access afforded the guide dog (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, West Virginia) In six states the prohibition is expressly applicable to both public places and public conveyances (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Missouri, Texas), expressly .applicable to common carriers only in live states (Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia), impliedly applicable to public places and public conveyances in four states (Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New York), and impliedly applicable to carriers only in one state, Hawaii, See note 74 supra for the applicable statutes.

95 Louisiana requires that both the dog and the master be trained al a "qualified dog guide school," such training to enable the master lo use the particular dog as a guide. .None of the states extends the statuary right to the "otherwise incapacitated" as is done in some white cane laws. See note 378 infra and accompanying text Eleven states (Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, West Virginia) require that the dog guide be muzzled. The requirement is mandatory except in Maine, where the management of the facility to be charged may or may not so demand.

Seven states require harnessing (Arkansas, Connecticut. Iowa, Michigan, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia). The language used in six of these is typified by the Arkansas provision which provides the right of access "when said dog guide is properly harnessed. . . . “ The seventh state, Washington, requires. harnessing only of "guide dogs" which are entitled to enter public places, as distinguished from “seeing eye” dogs, which can board public conveyances. Only one state, Idaho, provides that the dog need be leashed. A harness would seem to satisfy that requirement Six states require expressly that the guide dog be under the control of the master (Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia). 1 See note 74 supra for the applicable states.

96 Six states require the dog be "specially trained" (California, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine. Texas, Washington) of which two also require the user have credentials for the dog (Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine). Six states require the dog guide be properly credentialed (Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Tennessee, West Virginia). Michigan requires the certifying; school be approved by the Veteran's Administration and West Virginia requires the dog be identified by a certificate issued by "The Seeing Eye." Maine is silent as to the origin of the credential which may be required under the statute.

Connecticut and Maine require the credential be presented upon request of the agency to be charged under the statute. Louisiana provides the operation of the statute is inapplicable unless evidence of training is "furnished" — to whom or when is not indicated Michigan and Tennessee require the blind person must first present for inspection the credentials on the dug, and West Virginia requires only that the blind person accompanied by a dog guide carry the prescribed certificate of identification, with no language requiring presentment upon demand or otherwise. Si-e note 74 supra for the applicable statutes.

97 Six states make express provisions regarding the custody of the admitted dog -(Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois. New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia). Five of these grant the right of immediate custody to the master; the sixth. New Jersey, provides the master is to have custody, but subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Public Utility. Texas and Washington also provide expressly for the custody of the dog aboard public conveyances, the former providing the carrier shall designate where the dog is to ride and the latter granting custody to the master These two states have separate provisions for public places and common carriers, the custody in public places is impliedly granted the blind master.

Nineteen jurisdictions, including Texas and Washington, impliedly grant custody of the dog to the blind person while in places of public accommodation and/or public conveyances, with the exceptions as noted above (Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia). The implication arises from the language of the statute permitting access to the "accompanying" dog, or that allowing the user to "take" the dog with him The implication is strongest in the three states (Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana), which prohibit the admitted dog from occupying a scat in public conveyances. See note 74 supra for the applicable statutes.

98 Two states provide exceptions to the operation of their statutes where the admission of the dog guide would involve "danger." Hawaii provides the exception where the presence of the dog would endanger "other passengers"; New York provides the exception where such access would "tend to create a dangerous situation. . ." The Hawaiian exception, while lacking specificity as to what danger is to be apprehended, does limit the range of the danger, while New York's exception is not so limited, the escape provision appears too vague to lend certainty to the statute New York also excepts motion picture theatres from the scope of the statute. Rhode Island's statute excepts all railroad passenger cars other than chair Cars, a loss of substantial significance. Hawaii also excepts the statute's applicability where the dog is unclean. While the statute does not specify the standard of uncleanness essential to the exception, the exception does appear a reasonable one. See note 74 suprafor the applicable statutes,

99 Seventeen states confer a positive right (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indian, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Washington) eleven impose a negative duty on the management of the facility (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington); and West Virginia imposes a positive duty on the management of the facility to have access to the dog-led blind. California and Rhode Island expressly confer a positive right on the dug-user and, in the same section, impose the correlative negative duty on the facility in express terms; Texas and Washington each have separate statutes for each of the two types of facilities The Texas provisions are a conferral of a positive right on the blind with respect to public conveyances and an imposition of a negative duty on the management of the facility respecting public places. The Washington statutes are exactly opposite, the positive right relating to public places and the negative duly to public conveyances. See note 74 supra for the applicable statutes.

100 Nineteen stales provide a penalty for the violation of the statutes (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia) all of which are misdemeanors. It should be noted that the inclusion of a penalty provision does not necessarily relate lo all provisions of the statute; hence Rhode Island's penalty provision is applicable only to the denial of the blind's right to be accompanied by the dog guide aboard public conveyances and elevators. See note 74 supra for the applicable statutes.

101 See Harris, The Quest for Equality (1960); tenBroek, Equal Law (1965).

102 American Standards Ass'n, American Standard specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable By, the Physically Handicapped 3 (1961). For some of the Growing literate on architectural barriers, see Goldsmith. Designing for the Disabled(1963); id at 226-36 (Bibliography); Nugent, Design of Buildings to permit their Use by the Physically Handicapped, New Research, Fall, 1960, p. 51; Caniff, Architectural Barriers: A Personal Problem, 108 Cong. Rec, 838 (1962).

103 American Standards Ass’n, op. cit. supra note 102.

104 Id. at § 4.3.2.

105 Id. at § 4.1.

106 Id. at § 5.3.1.

107 Id. at § 5.3.2.

108 Id. at § 5.5.2.

109 Id. at § 5.6.

110 Id. at § 5.7.

111 Id. at § 5.8.

112 Id. at § 5.11.

113 Id. at § 5.12.

114 Id. at § 5.13.2.

115 Id. at §§ 5.13.3, 5.13.4.

116 Id. at § 2.

117 Id at § 2.6.

118 "Penn. Becomes 21st State To Pass Architectural Barriers Legislation." Performance, Dec. l965,, p. 3.Available statutes are: Calif. Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 19 (1965 Reg. sess.); Conn. Public act No. 216 (Feb. 1965, Spec. Sess.) ; Fla. Stat. ch. 255.01, as amended by SB. No. 109, ch. 65-19.? (July I, 1965); Ill. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 111, § 11(Smith-Hurd, Supp. 1965); Iowa Code Ann. (Sen. File 352 Supp. 1965); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann, ch. 149, § 44c (Supp. 1965); Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 73.57-53.61 (Supp 1965); Mont. Rev. Coue Ann. §§ 69-3701 to 69-3719 (Supp. 1965); Neb. Sess. Laws 1965, ch 430; -N H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 155.8-a, 8-b (Supp. 1965); N. Mex. Stat. ch. 67, § 16-l8 (Supp 1965); N.D. Code ch. 48 02-18 (Supp. 19o5); Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 3781.111 (Supp 1965); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 61, § 11 (Supp 1965); Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 1455.1-1455.4 (Supp. 1965); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 37-8-15 (Supp. 1965); S.C. Code §§ 1-481 to 1-490 (Supp. 1965); Wis. Stat. Ann §§ 101.305, 101.306 (Supp. 1965).

119 79 stat. 1282, 29 U.S.C. §§ 31-33 (Supp. 1, 1965).

120 An example of voluntary compliance by those in charge of public buildings is that of the University of California which has approved a plan for all of its campuses to make them accessible to the disabled and useable by them. See, e.g., University or California, Berkley, Architechs AND Engineers Manual § 8.01, at 5-6 (1960); University of California, Building Design Considerations for Physically Handicapped Students, May 24, 1963. Indeed, with respect to at least one group of the disabled, the bind, there have been special facilities for at least the past twenty-five years on the Berkley and Los Angeles campuses

121 Mass Acts & Resolves 1962, ch, 662.

122 Mont. Rev. Com. Ann. §§ 69-3701 to 69-3719 (Supp. 1965).

123 S.C. Com §§ 1-481 to 1-490 (Supp. 1965)

124 Conn. Public Act No. 216 (Feb. 1965, Spec Sess)

125 Wis Stat. Ann. § 101.305 (Supp. 1965). Specifically excepts apartment houses, convents and monasteries, jails or other places of detention, garages, hangers, hothouse, all building, classified as hazardous occupancies, and state buildings specifically built for field service purpose, such as but not limited to conservation fire towers. ash hatcheries, tree nursery buildings and warehouses.

126 American Standards Ass’N, op cit. supra note 103, at § 1.2

127 N. Mex. Stat. § 67-16-18(B) (Supp. 1965).

128 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 61, § 11 (Supp. 1965). In Rhode Island the administrators need only "take into consideration standards promulgated by the American Standards Association . . ." R.I. Gen Laws Ann, § 37-8 -15 (Supp. 1965).

129 E.g., Mont. Rev. Code Ann. Tit. 69-3719 (Supp. 1965); Neb. Sess Laws 1965, ch 430; N.H. Rev Stat. Ann. ch. 8-b (Supp. 1965). Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 61,512 (Supp. 1965); Pa. Stat Ann, tit. 71, § l455.3 (Supp. 1965); S.C. Code § 1-49 (Supp. 1965).

130 Minn. Stat. Ann. ch. 73-60 (Supp, 1965).

131 Wis. Stat. .Ann. § 101.305(2) (Supp. 1965). For states requiring public hearings before issuance of standards see, e.g., Wis. Stat. Ann. § 101.306 (Supp, 1965); Conn Public Act No, 216, § 2 (Feb. 1965, Spec. Sess.).

Back to Contents