FEBRUARY -- 1967



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. 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California 94708

Ink print 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.





TEXT OF H.R. 3064



































Office of the President
2652 Shasta Road
Berkeley, California 94708

January 23, 1967
NFB-3; 67-3

On January 19, 1967, Congressman Cecil R. King, California, introduced H.R. 3064, a bill to amend Title II of the Social Security Act to provide disability insurance benefits thereunder for any individual who is blind and has at least 6 quarters of coverage.

H.R. 3064 is the Federation's long-supported congressional measure to secure for blind persons a financial floor of security of offset the handicapping conditions of blindness in a sight-oriented economy and society.

First introduced in the 86th Congress, the disability insurance for the blind bill has twice passed the U.S. Senate and been twice rejected by House-Senate conferees on Social Security matters.

Led by the organized blind, the entire gamut of national organizations of and for the blind have united behind the King-Hartke disability insurance bill in past Congresses, and are expected to continue this united effort in the 90th Congress.

Although Senator Hartke will put our disability bill in the Senate "hopper" again this year, and again with many of his distinguished colleagues joining him in cosponsorship, experience has demonstrated that substantial support must be developed in the House of Representatives if our disability bill is ever to become federal law.

All Federationists and friends of the Federation are urged, therefore, to send the enclosed bill to their congressman with a letter, asking him to introduce it in the House as a bill identical to Congressman King's H.R. 3064. This is the accepted form for expressing cosponsorship in the House.

You should also tell your congressman if he has any questions about our disability insurance bill, John Nagle, our Washington office chief, should be contacted. John's address is 1908 Q Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20009, and John has a telephone listing under "National Federation of the Blind."

Letters should be addressed: Honorable , House Office Building, Washington, D. C., 20515.

The Federation's disability insurance bill enacted into federal law would go far toward reducing the economic consequences and financial disadvantages of blindness, for under its provisions, a person who is blind according to the generally accepted definition of blindness and who has worked, at any time, for at least one year and a half in Social Security-covered work, would be able to draw cash benefit payments so long as the condition of blindness lasts and irrespective of any earnings such person may have.

Our disability insurance bill places entitlement to receive cash benefits under the federal disability insurance program squarely upon the existence and the continued existence of a visual loss.

Our disability insurance bill is a recognition that the condition of sightlessness is an economic handicap and it offers a partial solution to the economic disadvantages of blindness surrounded by sight.

Disability payments would serve as "equalizing" income, as a resource for meeting the extra costs of blindness.

The following is a Memorandum prepared by John Nagle which more fully explains the bill and how it will change existing law.

Back to Contents


H. R. 3064, introduced by Congressman Cecil R. King, California, would liberalize the provisions of the Federal Disability Insurance Law for blind persons.

Measures identical to H.R. 3064 have passed the U.S. Senate twice as floor-offered amendments to pending Social Security bills.

On September 3, 1964, the "Humphrey Amendment" was adopted as an amendment to H.R. 11865, without a dissenting vote, but it was lost when the House-Senate conference failed to agree upon Social Security matters.

Then, again on July 9, 1965, the "Hartke Amendment"--similar in all respects to H.R. 6426 and the "Humphrey Amendment"--was adopted by a roll call vote of 78 to 11, but again, the Disability Insurance for the Blind bill was lost in the House-Senate conference on Social Security matters.

H.R. 3064 would liberalize the Federal Disability Insurance Law for blind persons by including in the law the generally accepted definition of blindness and allowing a person who meets this definition in visual loss, and who has worked for six quarters in Social Security-covered work, to draw disability insurance cash benefits so long as he remains blind, and irrespective of his earnings.

Under existing law, it is not enough that a person is disabled by blindness to qualify for disability payments, nor is it enough that he is unable to get a job because he is blind. Rather, a person must be physically unable to do a job to become eligible for disability insurance benefits. Thus, many blind persons, able to work, desiring to work, but unable to get work because they are blind, still are not able to qualify for disability benefit payments.

Under existing law, a person must work in Social Security-covered work for twenty of the last forty quarters - -five of the last ten years--to become eligible for disability insurance payments.

Because employment opportunities for blind people are greatly limited--Unrated, not by the nature of blindness, but limited by the reluctance or the refusal of employers to hire blind persons, however well-trained and qualified they may be; because, when blind men and women are able to secure work, they are usually hired for short-term jobs requiring little or no skills, jobs being rapidly automated out of existence; because of these reasons, many blind persons are unable to work long enough in Social Security-covered employment to meet the twenty of the last forty quarters eligibility requirement. Therefore, the six quarters requirement provided for in H.R. 3064 is much more realistic, much more reasonable, under the special circumstances which confront blind people. Under existing law and practice, if a disabled person obtains work, even though his earnings are meager and insignificant, he is considered to have demonstrated sufficient physical ability to do a job, and is not considered eligible for disability insurance payments.

H.R. 3064 would allow a blind person to draw disability insurance payments so long as he remains blind and irrespective of his earnings.

Thus, the blind man who is trying to compete with sighted men in a business, trade, or profession, would have available to him a continuing source of income to help pay the "equalizing" expenses he must incur because he is blind, "equalizing" expenses he must incur in hiring sight, for he cannot function without it.

When a blind person is able to get a job, generally, the job is far below the kind of job for which he is qualified by training and ability; and, generally, it pays far less than his merits would justify and his chances for position advancement and increased wages are usually barred by adverse attitudes toward the condition of blindness-attitudes which equate lack of sight with helplessness and incompetence, or a very limited competence to do only the simplest kinds of jobs--elemental assembling, inspecting, packaging, or packing--jobs which are the shortest in duration, the poorest in pay, jobs with the least possibility of improvement in wages or position.

To such blind persons, H.R. 3064 would make disability payments available to off-set diminished earning power, severely diminished earning possibilities.

Considerable numbers of employable blind persons are now recipients of public assistance, or are employed at sub-minimum wages and far below their employability capacity in sheltered workshops.

The minimum financial security provided to such people by the regular receipt of disability insurance payments would permit them to work their way from public-dependence to self-dependence. It would permit them and it would encourage them to give up the sterile security of sheltered employment, and to venture into jobs on a "trial-only" basis, to risk accepting job and business opportunities offering uncertain immediate income, but offering a possibility of return upon invested skill and effort.

In short, H.R. 3064 as Federal law would serve, in part, to reduce the economic uncertainties and economic disadvantages of trying to function competitively without sight in an economy, in a society, structured for men with sight.

The great importance and grievous need for the enactment of H.R. 3064, the King Disability Insurance for the Blind bill, is indicated by the vigorous support this measure has received from all national organizations of blind people and all organizations and agencies which are professionally engaged in serving blind people- -the National Federation of the Blind, the Blinded Veterans Association, the American Council of the Blind, the American Association of Workers for the Blind, and the American Foundation for the Blind.

Back to Contents

H. R. 3064

1st Session


January 19, 1967

Mr. King introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide disability insurance benefits thereunder for any individual who is blind and has at least six quarters of coverage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

That (a) (1) section 223 (a) (1) (B) of the Social Security Act is amended to read as follows:

"(B) in the case of any individual other than an individual whose disability is blindness (as defined in subsection (c) (2) (B)), has not attained the age of 65,".

(2) Subsection (a) (1) of section 223 of such Act is amended by striking out "the month in which he attains age 65" and inserting in lieu thereof "in the case of any individual other than individual whose disability is blindness (as defined in subsection (c) (2) (B)), the month in which he attains age 65".

(3) That part of paragraph (2) of section 223 (a) of such Act which precedes subparagraph (A) thereof is amended by inserting immediately after "(if a man)" the following: ", and, in the case of any individual whose disability is blindness (as defined in subsection (c) (2) (B)), as though he were a fully insured individual,".

(b) (1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section 223 of such Act is amended--

(A) by inserting "(other than an individual whose disability is blindness, as defined in paragraph (2) (B))" after "An individual"; and

(B) by adding at the end thereof (after the sentence following subparagraph (B)) the following new sentence: "An individual whose disability is blindness (as defined in paragraph (2) (B)) shall be insured for disability insurance benefits in any month if he had not less than six quarters of coverage before the quarter in which such month occurs."

(2) Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of section 223 of such Act is amended to read as follows:

"(B) blindness; and, for purposes of this subparagraph, the term 'blindness' means central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of correcting lenses, or visual acuity greater than 20/200 if accompanied by a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than twenty degrees."

(c) (1) The first sentence of section 216 (i) (1) of such Act is amended by striking out "(B)" and all that follows, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(B) blindness (as defined in section 223 (c) (2) (B)).

(2) The second sentence of such section 216 (i) (1) is repealed.

(d) The first sentence of section 222 (b) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting "(other than such an individual whose disability is blindness, as defined in section 223 (c) (2) (B))" after "an individual entitled to disability insurance benefits".

Sec. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall apply only with respect to monthly benefits under title II of the Social Security Act for months after the month in which this Act is enacted, on the basis of applications for such benefits filed in or after such month.

Back to Contents


By Kenneth Jernigan

From long experience I have learned that it behooves the NFB Convention Chairman to do a good deal of personal investigating-sampling, testing, poking, and prodding. When, for instance, (late in the summer of 1963) the 1964 Convention at Phoenix was still on the drawing boards, we were considering a trip to Legend City as a part of the package. Accordingly, one hot summer day, the sweating Convention Chairman betook himself to Legend City and commenced a minute inspection.

He was told that the food at the Mexican Restaurant was good and would be enjoyed by the delegates. To make sure, he tried it. He was told that the "wild mouse" was an unforgettable ride which would disarrange human bones even more efficiently than a roller coaster. It was, and it did. Toward the end of that hot afternoon he was told that the delegates would enjoy riding on the backs of the burros who trudged dutifully around the park in a pack train. With memories of the "wild mouse" still fresh in his bones, the Chairman decided to forego the delights of the burro experience in favor of verbal inquiry. Yes, he was assured, any and all of the delegates would be welcome to ride when the great day of the tour should come. Tired but happy, the Convention Chairman retreated to his hotel room, soothed by the comforts of air conditioning and a sense of a job well done.

When the hosts assembled at Phoenix and went forth to tour, the Chairman, remembering the vicissitudes of the "wild mouse," besought his room for a nap--only to be roused in a few hours by returning mobs who beat on his door with threats of lynch and similar pleasantries Why? It seems that the burros had a notion that they should not carry anyone who weighed more than 165 pounds, and NFB Convention goers are notably well fed. The moral to the story (And it is only illustrative. I could give numerous other unhappy examples.) is simply this: Don't take it on faith! Ride the burro, even if it follows the "wild mouse."

With thoughts of the burro fresh in mind, I went to Los Angeles last October and headed for Disneyland. My activities may be divided into two categories--bargaining for price, and testing the quality of the wares. The story of the first of these activities is soon told. The businesslike lady in the businesslike office said: "We will be glad to have you if you want to come at the rate we propose, but if you don't six million others will. When may we sign you up?" And that was that for point number one. Point number two was another matter, however.

With thoughts of the burros still in mind I returned to my hotel room, rested for the remainder of the day, rose early the following morning, put on the most informal clothes I possessed, and headed for Disneyland-accompanied, I might add, by Mrs. Jean Dyon Norris, who does such an excellent job with the Twin-Vision Books for the American Brotherhood for the Blind, and who deserves a medal for bravery and endurance.

When I had talked with the businesslike lady in the businesslike office the day before, the question had arisen as to whether our delegates should go around the park on their own or follow a guided tour. The guided tour is a standard feature of Disneyland, one tour guide handling about twenty persons. Not forgetting the burro I decided to try it both ways.

I started with the tour. Half of our twenty tourists got on the Jungle Cruise, but the other half had to wait. Being enterprising and still unweary, Mrs. Norris and I made the first section. However, we profited little by the effort, for we simply had to wait on the bank while the other half had their turn. It was only fifteen or twenty minutes of wasted time, but it pointed the way for what was to come. Our tour next went down what is called "Main Street USA," a carry-back to the turn of the century. Each time we passed a store or shop the guide paused briefly and said something to this effect: "Here is a perfume shop. They have many different fragrances inside, and you may want to come back when you finish your tour to go in and look around. These are basic fragrances and you can smell and order your own combination mixed." It was the same sort of thing at the glassblower's shop, the general store, the penny arcade, and the place with the party telephone line.

After two hours I had had enough. Just as the tour rounded a corner, Mrs. Norris and I ducked down another street and started out on our own. The rest of the day was absolutely delightful. We went back to that perfume shop and I personally sniffed all of the basic fragrances. They have twelve, and you can make and order any combination of perfume you like. It's great fun. I went to the glassblower' s shop and felt of his wares. Again, delightful. You can buy the perfumes or the glassware and take them with you. In the penny arcade I stood on the old-fashioned vibrating exerciser, squeezed the grip-testing machine to see if I could ring the bell, played old-fashioned, coin-operated musical instruments, and tried the various games of chance.

In the country store I picked up the party telephone and was treated to a wonderful gossip session.

Leaving "Main Street USA," Mrs. Norris and I explored the tree-house of the Swiss Family Robinson. No, the Convention Chairman did not content himself with verbal explanation. He climbed to the top of the tree-house and personally examined every object he could reach. Later it was the South Sea Island Restaurant on the water, complete with excellent coconut and fruit ice cream, personally tasted by the Chairman. There was the ride in the horse-drawn surrey--experienced firsthand, no verbal inquiry.

There are other things in the park--the monorail, running to the fabulous Disneyland Hotel and all around the park, the old-fashioned Choo Choo Train and train station; the "Land of Tomorrow," with rides that put the "Wild Mouse" to shame. If I told you about the Bobsleds of the Matterhorn, you wouldn't believe it. Disneyland is all that it is cracked-up to be and then some.

Now comes the sad conclusion to this story of adventure--the straw as you might say, which broke the burro's back. At the very end of this varied day, when the Chairman and Mrs. Norris were heading down the homestretch toward the exit gate; the Chairman discovered that Disneyland has mules upon which visitors are urged to ride. The Chairman remembered Phoenix and the burros, the muttered threats of lynch, the pounding at his door in the late hours. Even fresher in his memory, was the long day just behind him. He debated between duty and desire and once again, just as at Phoenix, he went the way of verbal inquiry.

"Could everyone ride?" he asked.

"Yes," the answer came back immediately.

"But are you sure?" he asked. "Is there any weight limit?"

"No," he was told. "Our mules are strong and sturdy. Anyone who weighs no more than 195 pounds may ride. And even that weight is not strictly observed but is only imposed to keep circus fat men and similar undesirables from killing the beasts altogether."

Back in his hotel room, bathed in the comforts of air conditioning, the Chairman debated the right and wrong of his ways. He can only say this: Disneyland is a fabulous place. There's something for everybody, and you won't want to miss it. In order to be sure chat you don't, you should write immediately to the Statler-Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles for reservations. If we want good rooms, we must get reservations in quickly.

As to burros and mules, the Chairman saith not.

Back to Contents


By Archie Nunnery

(From the Palmetto Auroran, Spring 1967)

Today in America we citizens experience some difficulty when recalling our basic freedoms because we have become so accustomed to taking them for granted. Among these freedoms is the one permitting us to have a voice in the election of the public officials who govern our lives and protect our freedoms. We citizens can only imagine something of what was in the minds of the early settlers of our country, who fled from tyranny abroad, to establish a country guaranteeing certain rights to its people. We must justly assume that the founding fathers believed that the quality of government would be determined by those people who would be concerned enough to express their opinions by means of the ballot. For this reason the leaders of our country are only as good as we, the people, want them to be. If there were no other reasons, the right to vote in as many elections as possible is not simply a privilege, but an obligation as well to be shared by all segments of our society.

Today in our country we blind citizens daily ask our public officials to help in erasing ancient prejudices and in bringing about fair economic opportunities for the blind. With this thought in mind, let us do a little soul searching as to the part we play in our communities and in national affairs. Are we willing as blind citizens to take a little time out of our daily routine to become a registered voter? Are we willing to endure the summer's heat and the winter's cold to cast our vote for our preferred candidate? Are we willing to read and to ask questions about the persons who would control our future destiny? We may answer these questions in a hundred different ways. Regardless of how we may answer them, the excuse that we are blind is no justification for not doing our duty as citizens. The right to vote is not a freedom in many countries and it is drastically curtailed in others. Even in these days in China some blind persons are sometimes led by officials to the Hong Kong border so that they may escape and relieve the officials of their responsibility for them. We blind citizens can continue to assure ourselves that this type of action never happens in our country by voting for public officials of integrity and foresight.

If you are not a registered voter, we ask that you contact your nearest voter registration office. If you are already a registered voter, you may want to speak to some other blind person about his obligation to use and preserve this right.

Just in case any blind person should encounter difficulty in registering or voting, and wish advice. The South Carolina Aurora Club of the Blind will gladly give assistance.

An individual's political views are strictly his own affair, but his right to participate in the affairs of his government is the concern of all of us . A deep satisfaction should be derived from the exercise of your right to vote, and should be sufficient reward in itself for the time and effort spent. In addition to this, we can be proud that we have a part in keeping America strong and in making a better home-land for ourselves. We blind citizens have not attained all the goals to which we aspire. Therefore, let us use, cherish and enjoy the freedom that is now ours.

Back to Contents


By Edward Kaulfuss

(From The New Beacon, November 1966)

I have often thought that if people really wanted adventure they needn't go pot-holing or wander into the wilds of darkest Africa: all they need to do is to put on a blindfold and try to find their way about alone in one of our big cities. It can be difficult and sometimes dangerous, and at all times seething with the unexpected. Take what happened to me one afternoon when I was travelling by bus. I was sitting in the corner seat next to the conductor's platform thinking of nothing in particular except the progress of the journey, when little fingers began to pluck at my half-clenched hand resting on my knee--a pleasurable sensation I was not entirely unfamiliar with, since I had a small daughter of eight at home. I offered only token resistance and my hand was turned over. Into my palm were pressed three warm pennies and my fingers were carefully closed over them. "What's all this for?" I asked quietly, but there was no reply. A few moments later the bus stopped and a whole lot of people got off, including, I fancy, my small benefactor. I felt terribly embarrassed, but what could I do about it? I suppose I could have made a fuss, shouted "Hey! I don't want your money", and thrown it down on the floor, thus focusing attention on a timid child's misguided act of benevolence, shattering forever her idea of Christian charity.

A good many of my generation of blind people are almost pathologically sensitive when it comes to the question of charity. I asked a group of blind men in an adult education class "What would you do if a stranger met you in the street and wanted to press sixpence on you?" There was a turbulent murmur of protest. "Six shillings", I said quickly, "six pounds, six thousand pounds?", and the protests died away, from which I judged that if the amount is big enough we will pocket our pride with the money. For most blind people, and sighted too if it comes to that, charity is something of a dirty word. Yet charity in itself is a good thing. It is one of the basic principles of Christianity. In past centuries it was believed that a rich man helped himself on the way to heavenly glory by giving away alms to the poor: the camel in fact hoping to squeeze through the eye of a needle by shedding some of its load. To this end the wealthy bequeathed land, property and money to the church to establish such things as almshouses, schools, colleges and hospitals. The merchant guilds did similarly--the Merchant Taylors, the Haberdashers, the Vintners, all had their orphanages, for example, and over the years many thousands of people benefited. In the nineteenth century, too, there were many great philanthropists, though all their charitable efforts proved inadequate. The Gradgrinds and Bounderbys were there also. The rising tide of poverty which accompanied a swelling population and cut-throat industrial development completely overwhelmed the efforts of private charities and made them appear paltry and mean. Instead, the Board of Guardians became the main source of relief for the poor, and at the same time there was growing up a great reverence for the possession of money. God, it seemed, was on the side of the big bank balances as well as the big battalions. There was a corresponding disparagement of poverty, and it was felt that people remained poor because they were sinners. Charity therefore became cold and sour-faced; patronizing condescension thrived at the expense of benevolent generosity; the recipients of charity were made to feel humiliated and ashamed so that they would not be encouraged to ask for too much too often. Thus it came about that for a respectable working-class family to ask for help from a charitable body or the parish was an act of sheer desperation. But however self-respecting a family might be, there was one circumstance which forced them to beg for help, that is if one of their members was blind. When a blind child was born to them they had no resource but to approach some blind institution if they wanted it to have any kind of education. If the breadwinner, through accident or disease, lost his sight, it was either begging in the street or eating humble pie to get the minimum--a low-paid job or a pitifully small pension with an occasional handout of coal, clothes and groceries, the whole dealings being often enveloped in the rancid atmosphere of a sentimental brand of Christianity.

As the twentieth century has gone on, the concept of the welfare state has evolved and has largely brought us out of the wilderness of erratic private charity into an acceptance of the fact that the state is responsible for the basic maintenance of the blind. The charitable organisations are thus in the happy position of being able to put the cream on the cake. But still in the minds of many people of my generation are rooted the nineteenth century ideas that on the one hand some shame attaches to accepting anything from charity, and on the other that we are being patronised by being offered it--so much so that we tend to refuse any help whatever. In the first place, we ought to realise that although the relatively few capable blind people may never need help the greater proportion of the blind community will never have work at all, and they most assuredly will need all the help that is available. If then any of us are confronted with an offer of help, whether it be in the form of cash, goods, or services, it behooves us to act responsibly and courteously. We should refrain from sneering and snarling, for the very reason that it discourages an act of generosity. It is the multiplicity of such positive acts that makes for civilised living. I try to remember that sighted people are helping other sighted people all the time with absolutely no loss of face on any one's part. We've all heard of golden handshakes, bonuses and bounties, and business Christmas boxes. Then there's the common everyday acceptance of car lifts and every kind of handout from garden produce to aspirins. Yet we seem to remain highly sensitive to the very thought of a gift. Some years ago, when I was newly blind, I belonged to an allotment-garden association. One evening in early spring the secretary of this association took the trouble of walking half a mile out of his way to offer me a gift of free seeds. At the time I was holding down a job- -with my wife's sighted help, of course--and I was at my prickliest. No matter how that man pleaded, I would not take the seeds. He couldn't have been more hurt if I'd thrown the packets at him. He went away thoroughly disgruntled, and my relationship with that allotment committee was never the same again.

In attempting to be rigidly independent, blind people often warp completely their relationship with the sighted. We have to understand clearly that it is natural and proper and right for one human being to offer help to another. We should view things in this spirit and, as I have said, if we don't need the help we should think of someone who would. No one can force you to accept what you don't want, so what's the panic? If you were swept out to sea on an inflatable raft I don't suppose you would refuse to be rescued by a lifeboat manned by volunteers and supported by charitable collections. I personally accept with gratitude my radio, radio license and Radio Times, my Talking Book, my sub-sidised braille and equipment, always remembering that through my rates and taxes I help to pay for street lighting which is useless to me, for art galleries, museums and libraries which I can't avail myself of, sports grounds and public monuments which I can't appreciate. Mutual aid is the cornerstone of our society. Let's settle for it--perhaps with some reservations. That old hymn had the right idea:

"If you have a kindness shown.
Pass it on.
'Twas not made for thee alone.
Pass it on."

Back to Contents


(Prepared by U. S. Department of Labor)

The revision of Regulations, Part 525, which governs the employment of handicapped workers in sheltered workshops, is designed to reflect changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act made by the 1966 amendments in increasing the statutory minimum wage and in adopting new provisions relating to sheltered workshops.

Minimum rates in sheltered workshop certificates must not be less than 50 percent of the statutory minimum ($1.40, effective February 1, 1967, and $1.60, effective February 1, 1968). The amendments permit rates below 50 percent to be authorized only for (1) individuals who are certified by the State agency administering or supervising the administration of vocational rehabilitation services as being employed in training or evaluation programs, or as having their earning capacity so severely impaired that they are unable to engage in competitive employment; and (2) clients employed in work activities centers, a new classification of sheltered workshops established by the amendments. For all sheltered workers, whether being paid above or below 50 percent of the statutory minimum, the amendments continue the requirement that wages paid be commensurate with those paid nonhandicapped workers in industry in the vicinity for essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work.

For work activities centers, alternate criteria will distinguish them from regular workshop programs. The first is whether the average productivity per handicapped worker is less than $750 per year as measured by dividing the total annual earned income, less the cost of purchased materials used, by the average number of clients. The alternate criterion, which may be used only by centers paying primarily at piece rates, is whether the average annual labor rate per clent is less than $500 as measured by dividing the total amount of wages of the clients by the average number of clients. A client whose productivity substantially exceeds this average will not be covered by a work activities center certificate. Certificates will be issued without a specific minimum rate. Where data are not available for a year, a temporary certificate for not more than six months may be issued based on available information.

Regarding State agency certification, provision is made for applications to be made at the same time to the State agency and to the WHPC Divisions for those exceptions to the 50 percent floor which require State agency certification (individuals in training or evaluation programs and severely impaired individuals). State agency certification must precede action by the WHPC Divisions on an application. Until the workshop receives notice from the WHPC Divisions that a certificate has been issued, all clients in training or evaluation programs and severely impaired individuals must be paid at least the applicable authorized shop or department rate.

For training and evaluation programs, certificates will be issued without a specific minimum wage rate and with a maximum period of one year for training programs and of six months for evaluation programs except that a longer period of evaluation may be approved in unusual circumstances. To be certificated, such programs must have competent instruction or supervision, a written curriculum and plan of procedures designed to attain the objectives of the program, progress reports for each client at not more than three-month intervals, and be authorized by a State rehabilitation agency to provide training or evaluation services for agency-sponsored trainees or evaluees, or must meet standards that the agency considers as substantially equivalent. In addition, training programs must have a progression of rate increases as the trainee advances through the steps of the program.

For severely impaired individuals, a minimum rate of at least 25 percent of the statutory minimum wage will be authorized and as a condition of certification, an evaluation report will be required for each individual based on completion of a recognized evaluation or training program. For individuals who were employed by the applicant workshop on February 1, 1967, the requirement for an evaluation report will be waived for a two-year period, during which the workshop can. obtain such an evaluation report. Individual rates lower than the applicable shop or department rate, but which are not less than 50 percent of the minimum wage, may be authorized for impaired individuals unable to earn the applicable certificate rate upon application to the WHPC Divisions only.

Additional provisions include (1) an expanded recordkeeping section which indicates more specifically the information required for disability and productivity records and which requires records of learning periods, pricing of work, and of certification by State agencies, (2) expansion of the section on handicapped staff workers to clarify their status under the sheltered workshop certificate, (3) addition of a section to permit issuance of certificates for experimental purposes, and (4) provision for a workshop newly applying for a certificate, which does not have individual earnings records on which to establish an appropriate certificate rate to be issued, under certain conditions, a temporary certificate under the terms and conditions applicable to work activities centers.

As was previously the case, special certificates will normally be issued for the period of a year and may be issued for a regular workshop program, a department of a workshop, a work activities center, a training or evaluation program, or for an individual handicapped worker, separately, or in any combination.

Back to Contents


(From The Kansas City Star, December 30, 1966)

Three scientists issued warnings today that laser beams, now used widely in industrial research laboratories throughout the country, can cause eye damage and total blindness if one catches the beam on the retina of the eye.

"Some Q-switched lasers," Dr. William T. Ham, Jr., reported at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "are powerful enough practically to blow your eye out of your head at 50 yards."

The Q-switched laser is a pulsed laser that emits a concentrated beam of light in a billionth of a second. It is being used as a range finder for military targets, by astronauts, and to measure distances.

He estimated that present lasers can cause eye damage at the distance of one mile if a person looks at it and steps into its cone, which is about one yard wide at this distance.

Dr. Ham expressed concern that home-made laser kits were being made for young persons to develop their own carbon dioxide and nitrogen continuous lasers, which can be dangerous if one catches the beam in the eye. Looked at from the side, it causes no damage.

Dr. Ham had exchanged results with Dr. Samuel Fine, Northeastern University, Boston, and Dr. Edmund Klein, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo. All had worked with rabbits and other animals to test eye damage.

The laser is an important tool, the scientists agreed, but it must be used with care.

Damage is proportional to power. At short range three to five megawatts per square centimeter can produce mild damage; 20 to 50 megawatts can cause major damage.

At the Roswell Cancer Institute, Dr. Klein said he had not experimented with laser rays for cancer therapy, but suggested they might be used as a last resort before amputation if there is massive ulceration.

Back to Contents


(From University of California Bulletin, January 16, 1967)

"Friendship" has always defied precise definition.

But a study of a highly improbable relationship between two severely retarded individuals may help provide this.

Drs. Craig MacAndrew and Robert Edgerton of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute have documented this relationship between two whose intellects are in the "imbecile" range. Their IQ's are in the 30's.

Persons at this level of retardation are commonly held to possess only the barest rudiments of qualities judged to be human, the authors point out.

The pair are known as Lennie and Ricky. Lennie, age 28, is a spastic, severely crippled of limb and speech, and also an epileptic. Ricky, 33, with gait and speech also impaired, is blind. They are patients at Pacific State Hospital of Pomona, Calif., a large public institution for the mentally retarded.

The two have been inseparable for more than 10 years. Ricky sees through Lennie's eyes, and Ricky--whose speech is less impaired--speaks to others for Lennie. They carry on extensive conversations with each other, largely unintelligible to others.

Lennie zealously guards Ricky's meal tray from thievery of tablemates, though he himself is not above attempting to sneak food from other tablemates' trays. Ricky cradles Lennie's head in his arms during severe epileptic seizures.

Meticulous sharing is a testimony to their pervasive friendship. Lennie's parents provide him with small sums of money which finance the pair's regular trips to the canteen, where they share purchases of candy. Lennie also received gifts from his folks, which he divides with Ricky who has no known living relatives.

Ricky reciprocates as best he can. Once when Lennie was away on a visit to his folks there was a barbecue for the patients. Ricky collected extra portions of food served at the barbecue and gave them to Lennie when he returned.

There is almost a complete absence of hostility, bickering or open quarreling between the two, although they may clash violently with other patients.

They greet each other with huge smiles, talk and joke together with obvious delight. "When they are together their faces and hands become expressive and even Ricky's blind eyes become sparkling and alive. Each makes decisions that are binding on the other.

And so they go through life, the halt leading the blind, with Lennie frequently saying to no one in particular, "I like Ricky best."

Or as one regularly asks the other toward the end of day, "Did you like this day?"

Back to Contents


The Code of Federal Regulations contains the administrative solutions of eight agencies to the problem of vending machines under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C.A. § 107). The agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, Defense, Interior, Health, Education and Welfare, the Post Office Department, and the General Services Administration. The regulations of each agency but the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare deal with vending machines on property which it controls when a blind person is operating a vending stand on such property. The HEW regulation deals with standards for state licensing agencies under the Act, but it addresses itself to the same issue as the others.

The regulations of the Department of Agriculture (7 C.F.R. § 1.92) provide that income from vending machines in competition with and selling the same items as a vending stand shall be granted the blind vending stand operator, and that existing permits for stands or machines in competition with those operated by a blind person shall be terminated.

The Department of Commerce (15 C.F.R. Part 5) and the Treasury Department (31 C.F.R. Part 11) both include vending machines in the term "vending stand" and provide that income from machines in reasonable proximity to and direct competition with vending stands shall be assigned to the stand operator. They further provide that if a machine sells items similar to those sold at the stand and is located so as to attract the same customers as the stand, it shall be considered to be in reasonable proximity to and direct competition with the stand.

The Department of Defense provides in 32 C.F.R. Part 260 that no machines selling items similar to those sold at a vending stand shall be operated in reasonable proximity to the stand except "where local needs require," and that in such cases, the machines be operated by and the income be assigned to the blind vending stand operator.

The Department of Interior (43 C.F.R. Part 13) provides that blind vending stand operators shall be protected from machines or stands in direct competition with the stands, and it employs the two tests of identity of customers and similarity or identity of goods sold to determine if there is "direct competition." It is further provided that permits for competitive machines be terminated unless the income from the machines is assigned to the blind operator.

The regulations of the General Services Administration (41 C.F.R. 101-19.2) apply to all GSA- controlled property except certain areas in post offices, which are covered by regulations of the Post Office Department. The GSA regulations protect the preference of the blind operator by providing that income from vending machines in reasonable proximity to and direct competition with the blind-operated vending stand shall be offered to the state licensing agency, which must either assign it to the blind stand operator or use it for other purposes under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The regulations also provide that upon the agreement of the relevant officials, up to one-half the income from vending machines may be shared by employee groups.

The Post Office Department regulations (39 C.F.R. § 98) provide that the blind operator of a vending stand may be assigned all or part of the profits of vending machines operated by postal employees when those machines are in proximity to and competition with a stand or machines operated by a blind person. (The Postal Manual, in section 614.73, explicitly authorizes postal employees' groups to install vending machines of a restricted type in certain limited areas. This authorization is not contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.) The Postal regulations permit assignment of profits from all the employee-operated machines to the blind vending stand operator only when he is not receiving an "adequate income," which is defined as the average income of the average employee at the postal installation.

The regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (45 C.F.R. § 403), which apply to state licensing agencies, provide for the assignment of income to the blind vending stand operator from machines in reasonable proximity to and direct competition with the stand. The regulations contain the same definition of these two criteria as the Commerce and Treasury regulations--namely, identity of customers and of goods sold.

Back to Contents


Blind citizens of Nevada are being victimized by an across the board slash in welfare grants as individual cases come up for review, and Nevada federationists are mobilizing to win major improvements in the state's blind laws.

Federationist Catherine Callahan reports that the Nevada department of welfare is presently basing aid to the blind grants on the old age budget instead of the blind aid budget. The Nevada Federation plans to cite this illegal procedure before the state's attorney general.

Storm signals are also flying on the rehab front. Federationists expect that general rehab will make another attempt to take over services for the blind. As it is services for the blind is undergoing cuts in its administrative budget.

In a statement of Federation legislative proposals delivered to the Washoe legislative delegation, Catherine called for significant changes in Nevada's legal provisions for the blind.

She told the delegation that the state's present White Cane Law "is not enough. It does not provide protection for the blind and other disabled people who have a problem getting about."

Catherine also called for an end to the duration residence requirement for recipients of blind aid, and proposed that aid -to -the -blind grants be raised from the present $119 a month to $125 per month, with allowances for yearly increases based on the cost of living index.

Meanwhile, state Senator James Slattery has called for a complete investigation of the Nevada welfare department, because, in his words, "it stinks."

Back to Contents


(From The White Cane, January 1967)

Richard P. Gustafson, president of the Washington State Association of the Blind, joined the WSAB when he came to Vancouver with wide experience in the Minnesota Association. He helped organize the Riverside Chapter in 1958 and became its president in 1959. He served one year as WSAB president after being elected in 1961. He was again elected president at the annual state convention last August.

Gustafson, or "Dick" as he is called, is a House Parent at the Washington State School for the Blind. In his boys' cottage, the Riverside Association financed a vending project operated by the boys themselves, which makes it possible for children at the school to buy soft drinks and candy without going off the campus.

He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1908. He attended public school until he was eight years old, when he was sent to the School for the Blind in Faribault, Minn. He was graduated from Johnson High School in St. Paul and attended the University of Minnesota for three years, leaving then for lack of funds. (In those days they had no reader funds for blind students and he could not do extensive reading.)

After college days, Dick worked with small jazz combos until 1934 when a small combo, the Arions, was formed and known as the only Blind Orchestra of the N.W. He played with this group for three and one-half years in a night club and went on the road for two seasons, which was a great experience, he says.

Meantime, Gustafson had been introduced to the Minnesota Organization of Blind in which he became very active. He served first as Treasurer, later as President and also as chairman of different committees. A friend and he initiated the Minnesota Bulletin, the organization's publication which is still being printed.

In the years 1938 to 1956 he worked at a variety of mechanical jobs such as making electric generators for the armed services in a defense plant. Piano tuning was also one of his skills.

Back to Contents


Roger Petersen, President of the Student Division of the National Federation of the Blind, is getting up a new edition of the directory of blind college students.

Materials for the new directory have been sent to everyone listed in the first edition and to the state agencies. Roger requests MONITOR readers to urge their agencies to distribute them. Readers are also requested to inform their acquaintances among blind college students of the Student Division and the student directory.

Active membership in the Student Division is open to any person eligible for membership in the National Federation of the Blind. Persons ineligible for active membership may join the Student Division as associates.

Information about blind college students for the directory includes:

Name, Year, Major, College, College Address and Telephone Number and Residence Address and Telephone Number.

This information should be sent direct to Roger Petersen at 45-G Hasbrouck Apts., Ithaca, New York 14850.

Back to Contents


In December 1966, Chandler Publishing Company published in hardback and paper editions The Law of the Poor.

The Law of the Poor is principally edited by Professor tenBroek and contains articles produced at the Berkeley conference on that subject. The essays provide a wide-ranging examination of laws and constitutional provisions affecting the poor, focusing primarily upon the law of welfare.

"The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled in the Law of Torts," one of the essays in this volume, is already familiar to readers who have been following its recent serialization in the MONITOR.

Also included is a selection by Professors tenBroek and Floyd W. Matson on "The Disabled and the Law of Welfare." This co-authored paper examines the degree of custodialism still present in the law relating to the physically handicapped, and the degree to which that law embodies the development toward integrationism. On the positive side, the authors find the appearance of a number of "cracks in the wall" in the once monolithic structure of the earlier policy.

Back to Contents


(From The White Cane, January 1967)

The Washington Foundation for the Blind, Inc., elected officers and trustees at its first meeting of the members, December 10, 1966. The meeting began with a noon luncheon at the New Yorker, 1501 - 6th Avenue, Tacoma. The following officers were elected: Wesley M. Osborne, Tacoma, President; Dean Couch, Olympia , First Vice President; J. R. (Bob) Mitchell, Seattle, Second Vice President; Mrs. Mary Jane Thompson, Tacoma, Secretary; L. H. Pedersen, Tacoma, Treasurer; Francis Pearson, Olympia, Trustee; Thomas A. Swayze, Jr., Tacoma, Trustee; Mrs. Margaret J. Osborne, Tacoma, Trustee; Tom Gronning, Seattle, Trustee; Mrs. Nellie Couch, Olympia, Trustee; A. A. Fisher, Seattle, Trustee.

The Washington Foundation for the Blind, Inc., is an outgrowth of the Washington State Association of the Blind, Inc., and while members of the State Association of the Blind may be members of the WFB and hold office on the Foundation staff of the Washington Foundation for the Blind, Inc., the two organizations are and will be operated and managed as separate corporations.

The Foundation is designed to assist blind people in achieving economic and social welfare, self-reliance and adjustment to blindness.

Among the many objects of the Foundation will be to accumulate funds, material, facilities and training equipment and personnel. The Foundation will seek to utilize and expend its purposes and objects to increase the abilities, talents, earning capacities and recreational capacities of blind persons.

Every effort will be made to train and educate the public to a greater understanding of blindness and the problems of the blind. The Foundation will work to implement and improve public facilities and institutions for utilization and enjoyment of blind persons.

The Incorporators said the Foundation will conduct, encourage or sponsor research, both medical and otherwise, to further its purpose and object.

Back to Contents


(From Trial, August/September 1966)

A leading ophthalmologist has warned that contact lenses when placed on normal eyes produce gross or microscopic tissue changes in all eyes.

Speaking before the first International Congress on Corneal and Scleral Contact Lenses, Dr. Joseph M. Dixon warned "it is the duty of physicians generally and ophthalmologists in particular to be familiar with these changes. . .because some of them are acceptable, while others are not."

Stressing follow-up examinations of patients fitted with contact lenses. Dr. Dixon underlined his warning by stating grim statistics revealed by a nationwide survey: the wearing of contact lenses has caused 14 eyes to be lost or blinded, 157 cases of permanent visual or ocular damages, and 7,607 cases with reversible damage, some of these minor.

Back to Contents


(From the Palmetto Auroran, Spring 1967)

This past November seven of the nine broom winders employed at that time by the Association of the Blind called a strike. Along about mid-morning one of these seven persons went to the office of the Association to notify authorities of the intended strike set for twelve o'clock noon. The office personnel reacted swiftly by telephoning the Association's Executive Director, the Rev. A.D. Croft, who was at his downtown hotel accommodation at the time. Mr. Croft rushed to the Association and called a meeting of all the employees of the Shop at twelve o'clock noon. He advised the employees that this "made him mad through and through," as he had been at the hotel that morning preparing his request for the Budget and Control Board and that this strike could very well affect the Association's receiving the annual contribution by the State. Croft told the employees that if every employee were not back on the job by 1:15 P.M. that day, their jobs would be automatically terminated. Four of the seven who called the strike terminated their employment with the Association. One of these four has since been rehired. Two others have secured jobs on their own. This strike called by the seven blind broom winders did not reach the news media. It is not known whether or not the South Carolina Labor Council has been notified of this abbreviated strike. It is reported that this strike was called because of demands for higher wages. Broom winders earn on an average from $30.00 to $35.00 weekly. They receive 60 cents and 70 cents per dozen for making the smaller brooms and 90 cents to 95 cents for making the larger warehouse type brooms. In other words, broom winders earn five cents to six cents for each of the smaller brooms made and from seven cents to eight cents for the larger type brooms. These brooms are retailed at a profit of approximately ten times the amount per broom as that received by the broom winder for making the broom. Last year the Association had broom sales in excess of $200,000.00, and in addition received a $25,000.00 subsidy from the State of South Carolina. Shop employees feel that their earnings are too low and are not in keeping with the volume of the sales and the $25,000 gift.

Back to Contents


Editor's note: The idea of specially designed "fragrance gardens" for the blind seems to be a recurrent one among sighted persons.

The following letters are replies from Federation first vice president Kenneth Jernigan, and Federation secretary Russell Kletzing to a request for information concerning the needs of the blind in relation to such gardens. The request came from a senior in Landscape Architecture at Iowa State University, who sent a form letter to various organizations and agencies of the blind. Neither Ken Jernigan nor Russ Kletzing minces words in correcting the fallacy.

[Letter from Kenneth Jernigan:]

"It is difficult to answer your letter because I think it will be almost impossible for you emotionally to accept the truth of what I am about to tell you. This is so because it would probably result in your not having a paper to write or a project to work on. Let me hasten to say that I do not mean to be negative but am simply paying you the compliment of telling you what I believe to be the simple truth, unsugar-coated by double talk and evasive phraseology.

"In 1960, when we were in the midst of remodeling and expanding our present Center for the Blind, the work received a great deal of favorable publicity. In the midst of it all, I was contacted by an Iowa State senior majoring in architecture. He said that he wanted to work with me in designing an ideal "Center for the Blind." I asked him to come to see me, and we sat down in my office for a discussion.

"He began by suggesting that perhaps it would be well if a center for the blind were all on one level. In this way the blind would not have to climb steps, and would not be in danger of tumbling down them. I replied that our present building has seven floors and that blind people had no particular problem in getting up and down the steps--that, in fact, there were some advantages to the newly blinded person in not having a special single -level environment since the normal world is not made that way.

"'Ah,' he replied enthusiastically, 'I see your point. Then we should design a building with many steps in it.' He seemed somewhat crestfallen and even a little annoyed when I said that this really wasn't what was wanted either--that an ordinary building would do nicely and that no special design was needed. He then took another tack and asked me what kind of wall blind persons enjoyed feeling most. He suggested that, since blind persons could not enjoy the beauty of looking at a wall, they should have walls available to them which would provide pleasant sensations of touch, thus meeting the esthetic needs of the individual. He asked whether a wall covered with velvet might be good. I told him that plaster or wood would be an excellent substance and that very few blind people derived their esthetic pleasures from feeling of walls.

"He went away quite unhappy with me. There was no other way that it could have been, for no matter how gently or tactfully I talked, I could not conscientiously give him what he wanted. He had a paper to write and a course to pass. Even though it might be the truth, he could not afford (either scholastically or emotionally) to accept my statement at face value--that is, the blind do not need the type of special design for a building which he had in mind. This student's underlying premise was totally false, even though it was in accord with the majority of public opinion. Therefore, I could understand why he could not afford to be convinced. It would have meant no paper, and no project. What does all this have to do with gardens for the blind? There is no need whatever for a special garden for the blind. Many blind persons do, indeed, enjoy touching or smelling flowers, just as many sighted people do. However, their sensations of smell and touch in a flower garden are not different from those of the sighted. In fact, the concept of special gardens for the blind has, in my opinion, done a good deal of harm. As you doubtless know, there are some few instances throughout the country where this type of thing has been tried. It has almost always been initiated by well-meaning, misinformed sighted people and has generally been the object of jokes and derision on the part of the blind. Of course, a few blind people can be taken by the sighted persons involved to 'enjoy' the special gardens, but these are usually exceptions --the least active, the people who need attention of whatever kind.

"The concept of a special garden ignores the fact of the basic normality of the blind. It is commonly based on the false notion that the blind have a keener sense of touch or smell than the sighted and that they cannot get about in an ordinary garden used by ordinary people.

"In other words what I am really saying is this--I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to drop the whole idea of a special garden for the blind. It is based upon a false concept and would be as much resented by the average blind person as a special garden for architects (designed on the same notions) would be resented by the average architect.

"I realize that if you follow my advice you will have to abandon your project and find something else to write about. It will be difficult for you emotionally to accept the truth of what I have told you, especially if you have already invested a good deal of your time in planning and preliminary research. In any case, I hope you will do it. It will be the greatest contribution you can possibly make to the blind."

/s/ Kenneth Jernigan

[Letter from Russell Kletzing:]

"There has been considerable work done in establishing gardens for the blind, which are usually called 'fragrance gardens.' I believe that there are at least half a dozen in this country and more in Europe. These are almost universally deplored by blind people who have achieved any measure of independence as being unnecessary and as suggesting that there is something wrong with blind people which makes it impossible for them to appreciate a regular garden. It is apparently the kind of thing which catches people's fancy and causes them to donate substantial amounts of money. I, our organization, aid most blind people throughout the country feel the money could be far better used to obtain jobs or provide educational materials.

"In your letter, you talk about a garden for the blind which would also be desirable from the point of view of 'normal' people. However, blind people are normal people. I realize that it was not your intention to degrade blind people by what you wrote, but the concept of a special garden for the blind is really only consistent with the idea that blind people are somehow subnormal and cannot appreciate nature's beauties in the same way as the sighted. The things that are usually done in a fragrance garden (my information is from literature--I have never been to a fragrance garden) is to use very fragrant plants and flowers, to have braille signs or recorded tapes concerning them, and to have many guide railings and frequent benches. However, blind people with a cane or a seeing eye dog are quite capable of walking in a garden without guide rails, and unless they are otherwise disabled, do not need to sit down every few yards. Though fragrant flowers are pleasant, as they are to the sighted, so are grass, trees, and many other nonfragrant plants. In most gardens, sighted people appreciate the shrubs and flowers without having any idea what many of them are called. Benches in pleasant nooks are always pleasant for anyone. The same kind of garden is equally pleasant for a sighted or blind person, whether it is formal, oriental or casual. Whatever characteristics it has that a person likes will depend on his particular taste. These have nothing to do with sight or lack of it.

"This letter is not meant in anyway to affront you for I realize that, as have many other sincere people, you have started work on a project which you thought was extremely worthwhile. I hope for your sake, however, that you will reconsider it and seek some other area of study. By way of a suggestion, there is a strong national movement to eliminate architectural barriers for all handicapped people, including the blind. Perhaps a study could be made of some phase of this. Also, such plans for eliminating architectural barriers are primarily geared to the needs of those in wheel chairs or with other walking limitations. About the only suggestion concerning the blind relates to having knurled door knobs for dangerous places. Some thoughts that our people have are to provide large raised numbers near doors in office buildings and hotels and on elevator buttons."

/s/ Russell Kletzing

Back to Contents


(From The Tidings, Los Angeles, California, December 9, 1966)

Anthony G. Mannino , new president of the California Council of the Blind, admits that he is not always "purely objective" uh en it comes to the problems of individual blind persons.

Tony was born in Lockport and worked his way through North Central College, near Chicago. He majored in English and social studies and took education courses qualifying him as a teacher.

He required some student and teacher help because he could not see what was written on the blackboard, but he could read books "by smelling the print" until his senior year.

On graduation, with an A.B. degree and a B-plus average, he did practice teaching at a large high school in Aurora, Ill.

"Those were depression years and even sighted teachers had trouble finding positions, so I went back to Lockport and got a job as shipping clerk in a manufacturing concern making brooms and brushes."

Tony stayed with the firm for 17 years, working his way up to superintendent. His parents, brothers and sisters moved to California in 1947, and five years later he followed them here.

He was unsuccessful in finding similar work here and unwilling to work as a vending machine operator. "I had a nest egg and always wanted to write," he recalls.

He learned Braille, took a refresher course in typing and entered a short story contest. As second place winner in the contest, he received a scholarship to a 12-week Hollywood writers workshop; the scholarship was extended to three years.

"I met other blind writers and was invited to join the Los Angeles County Club of Adult Blind. Eight months later I was elected president."

The club, under his direction, became Active Blind, Inc., in 1962. Active Blind is the local unit, one of 44 chapters, of the California Council of the Blind.

A year later, in 1963, Mr. Mannino established REAP (Recreation/Education Adult Program), a self-help program for the blind.

At the REAP center, blind teachers teach blind adults to accept and adjust to their handicap. In addition to classes in Braille reading and writing, in typing and the use of tape recorders, there are classes in self-expression, speech and the dynamics of personality.

The fact that the teachers also are blind is a positive factor in the program, according to Mr. Mannino.

"We let our students know they are just as intelligent and useful as before, that they have lost only their sight and that this loss can be made up for by learning to do the same things in different ways. Then we try to teach them the alternatives."

Since 1959, Mannino has been executive secretary of the American Brotherhood for the Blind, a charitable and educational foundation which produces Braille reading material and Twin-Vision books for blind children and blind parents.

The Los Angeles man also is National "White Cane Week chairman for the National Federation of the Blind and an advisor on the board of the Catholic Guild of the Blind.

He gave up one of his positions, the presidency of Active Blind, when he became president of the California Council January 1.

The council, comprising more than 2000 blind members and sighted associate members throughout the state, is concerned with information, education, public relations and legislation on behalf of the blind. It sponsors public conferences, seminars, publications and educational programs throughout the state.

Tony Mannino will move council headquarters from San Francisco to Los Angeles but expects to spend much of his two-year term as president on the road keeping in touch with all council chapters. Still a bachelor, he lives here with a sister.

Does he find satisfaction in his work?

"Helping people who need help is very satisfying," he said. "So many blind persons are in real need--in need of medical, economic, psychological help.

"Sometimes I feel lucky to be blind. Because I am, I can be of more help to others."

Back to Contents


The Howard Brown Rickard Scholarship, administered by the National Federation of the Blind, is given to legally blind university students working towards professional degrees (graduate and undergraduate) in law, medicine, engineering, architecture, and the natural sciences. The scholarship, established through a bequest of Thomas E. Rickard in honor of his father, Howard Brown Rickard, carries payments which may vary from $250.00 to $1,250 per year. Applications for the coming academic year 1967-68 should be filed by June 1, 1967. Forms may be obtained from the National Federation of the Blind, 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California 94708. Last year, four scholarships totaling $1,450 were awarded.

Back to Contents


(From The Sacramento Bee, January 1967)

Lloyd Stevens, blind Peace Corps volunteer, is coming home from the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal. He will spend only a short vacation, however, with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd E. Stevens of Stockton, before he and his Nepalese companion, Narattam Sharma, leave on a three-month observation tour of institutions for the blind in the United State.

Stevens will return to Nepal for a rare second Peace Corps assignment at the Nepal Government College of Education. It was there he initiated the first integrated classroom for blind children, special education techniques for teachers and workshops for providing Braille materials.

Contrary to the belief they would be swamped with applicants, the college found initially parents were unable to believe their blind children could be educated. Some could not bear the "shame" of sending them to school, and others were reluctant to relinquish the source of income they provided as street beggars.

However, one month's search provided ten students. Orientation and instruction in Braille began immediately, and two of the workshop trainees started hand -copying textbooks in Braille for the children.

In April, the ten blind children were placed in classes with the sighted. By December, they had successfully completed the academic work and had integrated easily into the society outside their homes, Stevens reports.

Success brought more problems. Textbooks were needed in greater numbers and variety than the hand copiers could provide. A machine for duplicating Braille on plastic sheets was donated. Additional help came from the National Federation of the Blind and from clubs of the blind in California in the form of two Braille typewriters and book-binding materials.

Continuing and enlarging the program already under way will take up Stevens' time when he returns to Nepal in March.

Stevens, a 1943 graduate of Santa Cruz High School, took a commercial course at Stockton Business School and went to work for a local accountant. When his sight continued to fail, he quit and spent the next ten years, sometimes at home, sometimes in Mexico with friends, adjusting to his oncoming blindness and collecting material for a yet-unwritten book.

Finally, he studied Braille at home, attended the Orientation Center for Adult Blind in Oakland, Oakland City College and the University of California. In 1963, 20 years after graduating from high school, Stevens received his bachelor's degree from the university and launched a career as a trainer of teachers of the blind.

Back to Contents


[To Congress - January 23 , 1967]

I RECOMMEND effective July 1, 1967:

1. A 20% overall increase in social security payments.

2. An increase of 59% for the 2.5 million people now receiving minimum benefits--to $70 for an individual and $105 for a married couple.

3. An increase of at least 15% for the remaining 20.5 million beneficiaries.

4. An increase to $150 in the monthly minimum benefit for a retired couple with 25 years of coverage--to $100 a month for an individual.

5. An increase in the special benefits paid to more than 900,000 persons 72 or over, who have made little or no social security contribution--from $35 to $50 monthly for an individual; from $52.50 to $75 for a couple.

6. Special benefits for an additional 200,000 persons 72 or over, who have never received benefits before.


Social security benefits be extended to severely disabled widows under 62.

The earnings exemption be increased by 12%, from $125 to $140 a month, from $1500 to $1680 a year.

The amount above $1680 a year up to which a beneficiary can retain $ 1 in payments for each $2 in earnings be increased from $2700 to $2880.

One-half million additional farm workers be given Social Security coverage.

Federal service be applied as social security credit for those employees who are not eligible for civil service benefits when they retire, become disabled, or die.


State welfare agencies to be required to raise cash payments to welfare recipients to the level the state itself sets as the minimum for subsistence;

state agencies be required to bring these minimum standards up-to-date annually;

Each state maintain its welfare subsistence standards at not less than two-thirds the level set for medical assistance;

State welfare programs be required to establish a work-incentive provision for old-age assistance recipients.


Medicare be extended to the 1.5 million disabled Americans under 65 now covered by the Social Security and Railroad Retirement Systems.


The Congress enact a law prohibiting arbitrary and unjust discrimination in employment because of a person's age.

The law cover workers 45 to 65 years old.

The law provide for conciliation and, if necessary, enforcement through cease and desist orders, with court review.

The law provide an exception for special situations where age is a reasonable occupational qualification, where an employee is discharged for good cause, or where the employee is separated under a regular retirement system.

Educational and research programs on age discrimination be strengthened.

Back to Contents


By Frank H. Kells
Executive Director, Phoenix Center for the Blind

According to Thomas Edison, the achievement of success involves 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Obviously, he realized that popular notion had it the other way around and he wanted to set the record straight. But people want to believe in "the easy way" and never give up searching for it.

For example, in terms of the challenge of overcoming blindness, most people seem to look for "instant results," "the miracle cure," the "ready answer." At a recent meeting of a sight conservation group, an officer reported, "just think what the transplant meant to this man-- now he can work and enjoy life again."

Of course, the speaker was completely sincere, and what he said was true--up to a point! That "point" is the subtle inference that without the transplant the man could not have worked and enjoyed life! Naturally, if there is any possibility to improve the eyesight of a visually impaired person, this should be done. But if it cannot be
done, it is certainly not the "end of the road." We know that, but let's not kid ourselves--most people do not! To illustrate, let's play Edison's "percentage" game.

When it comes to this matter of "overcoming blindness," don't you agree that 90% of the general public thinks only in terms of restoring sight, while possibly 10% really believes that a person with incurable blindness can live a full life? But when you come right down to it, doesn't the real solution for most of the visually impaired population involve 10% "cure" and 90% "re-adjustment?"

And when it comes to "re-adjustment," don't you agree that most people think in terms of "tools" rather than "skills." A good example is the old controversy over the relative merits of the "dog" and the "cane" in mobility. Why are these arguments always so futile? Because when you come right down to it, 90% of mobility has absolutely nothing to do with "tools." It is the person himself--his mind, his body, and his spirit. Take nine parts "human being"--motivated, alert, well-oriented--then carefully add one part "tool" (cane or dog) and you'll probably have mobility. Take the opposite kind of person, and no tool will help.

And when it comes to this matter of "help," don't you agree that most people believe a blind person should rely 90% on others and 10% on himself? But when you come right down to it, isn't self-help 90% of the battle?

And when it comes to "self-help," don't you agree that most people regard the methods used by an independent blind person as 90% "special" and 10% "ordinary?" They don't realize how much of every-day life doesn't actually require eyesight. Telephones, coins, voices, typewriters, banisters, curbs and countless "ordinary" things are made-to-order. So maybe some are used differently, or modified? So maybe you have to try a little harder? So what? When you come right down to it, most of what a capable blind person does is not really so special--about 90%, wouldn't you say?

And when it comes to those "special" problems, don't you agree that most blind people blame them on their blindness? The blind fellow who was a second-grade drop-out 25 years ago can't find a job--because he is blind. The 85-year-old blind lady with arthritis and poor hearing is lonely and inactive--because she is blind. And how sad about that poor blind beggar downtown--but then, he can't be blamed for the accident that took away his sight.

We've all heard this kind of thing over and over, but when you come right down to it, 90% of a blind person's troubles are not caused by his lack of normal eyesight, contrary to 5000 years of tradition. Show me a well -functioning blind person, and I'll show you someone who has learned this lesson.

And when it comes to "learning lessons," don't you agree that most people have yet to learn that every blind person is a different individual? The greatest obstacle to his acceptance by employers, colleagues, friends, family, and the public is that reactions and attitudes are based 10% on actual fact and 90% on conditioned imagination. They see the blind person 10% as the individual he really is, and 90% in terms of some "stereotype."

And when it comes to this problem of "stereotyped attitudes," don't you agree that 90% of the responsibility must be accepted by the blind? By our inconsistencies--the sum total of our errors through the ages--haven't we provided about 90% of the ammunition? In any case, when it comes to doing something about it, we simply can't expect other people to do more than 10% of the work. When you come right down to it, we who are blind will have to come through with the other 90%!

It will take 10% words, and 90% actions!

It will take 10% wishing, and 90% working!

10% luck, and 90% determination!

10% theorizing , and 90% demonstrating!

10% special privilege , and 90% open competition!

10% demanding , and 90% earning!

Yes, Mr. Edison, it will take 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration!

Back to Contents


(An HEW Release)

High school students who need financial assistance to get into college, and college students who need money to stay, will have a better idea of where to look for help thanks to an education kit developed by the U. S. Office of Education.

The kit - "Financial Aid for Students--Guides to Federally Supported Programs" - is being sent to every high school in the country, every college financial aid officer, and every public library. It is also being sent to special groups who work with young people, such as directors of Upward Bound programs and overseas schools.

The kit provides information on major financial aid programs administered by the Office of Education that are available to students in any field of study: The College Work-Study Program, the National Defense Student Loan Program, the Guaranteed Loan Program for college students, and the Educational Opportunity Grants Program. The kit also contains:

Single copies of the kit may be obtained by writing the Division of Student Financial Aid, Bureau of Higher Education, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Back to Contents


By Russell Kletzing

Since the early 1950's, the Federation's main financial support has come from White Cane Week and through the sale of merchandise by mail. White Cane Week has been primarily carried on by state affiliates who have shared their contributions from mailings and fund raising events with the Federation treasury. However, a much larger share of the Federation's income for the last 11 or 12 years has come from the items it has sold through the mail. Until 1960, the Federation sold greeting cards at $1.25 a box. The federation was guaranteed a fixed percentage on each sale. Our mailer was forced to discontinue this program due to the strife which then existed in the Federation.

For about two years, the Federation did no mailing at all and subsisted on its small reserves plus returns from earlier mailings and White Cane Week. We then made a test mailing of seals which made only a small profit. In 1963, we resumed mailing greeting cards with a different mailer and on a different basis. We purchased the greeting cards plus mailing services at a fixed price and, after these costs were paid, all of the proceeds belonged to the Federation. Although we were able to keep the Federation going on the proceeds of this mailing, we realized only about one-third of the income of our greeting card mailing during the 50's.

In 1965, after the Federation had passed through its period of travail and was on its way to rebuilding, we started a new mailing venture--now our principal source of income. It is carried on under a contract with FEDCO, a corporation owned, by Bernard Gerchen, who had originally mailed greeting cards for us with such pronounced success. The new venture consists of the sale of neckties by mail. The neckties together with all necessary mailing services are purchased from FEDCO by the NFB. The purchase price is paid out of the income from the mailing and all income above that price goes into the NFB treasury. While a purchaser list is being developed and the business is being built, it is necessary for the Federation to withdraw enough money from the enterprise to support its programs and activities. Accordingly, under our contract the Federation first receives a percentage of the gross "off the top." The balance goes toward paying for the merchandise and mailing costs and services. Under the contract the Federation is not responsible for any payments to FEDCO except out of the proceeds from the sale. As a result, FEDCO is financing the mailing without risk to the Federation. The number of neckties to be mailed and the contents of the package, including all printed material, are determined by the Federation.

The neckties that we sell are handsome and well made. They are mailed in a glassine envelope enclosed in a manila envelope, and sell for $2.00. No one is obliged to purchase the tie and can easily return it. We have had a great many favorable comments on the neck-ties and only a very few negative ones.

In accordance with a long-standing principle of the Federation, our fund raising is combined with an educational campaign. Enclosed in each envelope is a pamphlet presenting the positive aspects of Federation philosophy, emphasizing the abilities of blind people, and briefly describing the Federation.

A note is included encouraging those who receive the packages to ask questions about blindness or seek help for blind people, and many take advantage of this offer. We often receive questions such as ''How can I will my eyes to an eye bank?'' "Where can I obtain equipment as a present for a blind friend?" "Would you tell me more about the Federation and do you have a chapter in my area?" "I have a friend who is losing his sight. Do you have someone in this area who could talk to him about his future?" "I am writing a term paper for my high school civics class. Can you send me some information about your work?" We supply answers, pamphlets, and arrange for introductions to federationists. We refer people to state rehabilitation and home teacher agencies or to libraries handling talking books. The variety and sincerity of these questions demonstrate that our pamphlets are being read and the message is being received.

We mail neckties both to those who have previously purchased them and to new customers. As we gradually build a core of customers who regularly purchase our neckties, the Federation's income from this mailing will also gradually increase. Already it is more than it has been for six years but it has not yet approached the income from the greeting card mailings of the 1950's.

The payments for neckties are received and deposited by a St. Louis bank under contract with the Federation. An annual audit is prepared by a nationally known accounting firm and a full report is made to the NFB convention.

A resolution adopted at our Kansas City convention provides for state affiliate participation in the proceeds from the Federation fund raising on the basis of particular activities, rather than on a percentage allowance, under procedures established by the executive committee. These procedures were adopted by the executive committee at its meeting in Louisville and are reported in the August, 1966, issue of the MONITOR. The first major assistance to the state affiliates will be to meet the cost of sending a delegate to attend the 1967 convention, if the Federation's income is adequate for this purpose--and, it now seems likely that it will be. Other forms of financial assistance to the state affiliates will be available in the future, as the Federation's income increases.

In summary, the Federation now has a gradually growing and stable source of income, which has received favorable acceptance by the general public. It carries with it a valuable educational pamphlet which is doing its part in dispelling the stereotypes of blindness. Our sales of neckties through the mail promise to provide a firm base for continued growth and increased effectiveness of the Federation for many years.

Back to Contents


By Louise W. Snyder

On January 11, 1967 the Free State Federation of the Blind presented a charter to a new chapter which will be known as "The Blind Association of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc." The presentation was made by the President, Mr. Albert Balducci, assisted by the Vice President, Mr. Ned Graham, Jr. The charter was formally presented to the President of the new chapter. Miss Helen Thorton and acceptance speeches were made by the founder of the group, Mrs. Anna Mae Hunter and the Treasurer, Mrs. Pearl Grey.

After the presentation ceremonies, Mr. Balducci explained the working of the chapters in connection with the State, and its support, and a period of questions and answers followed.

Representing the Free State were President - Mr. Albert Balducci, Vice President - Mr. Ned Graham, Jr., Secretary - Mrs. Louise Snyder, and Board Member - Mr. William Appel. The Greater Baltimore Chapter was represented by Mrs. Helen Graham.

The officers of the new chapter are:

President: Miss Helen Thorton
Vice President: Mr. Willie Charlie
Financial and Recording Secretary: Mr. James Daughton
Treasurer: Mrs. Pearl Grey

Back to Contents


By G. R. Bobeen

Las Luminarias recently conducted a legislative symposium in co-operation with state and national federations. The gathering was attended by New Mexico Governor-elect David F. Cargo, members of the state legislature, and many friends of the Federation.

The symposium was moderated by Las Luminarias president Mr. G. R. Bobeen. New Mexico affiliate president Mr. Harold A. Martinez delivered an excellent address acquainting the assembly with the history, philosophy, and goals of the Federation. Vital legislation pending before the New Mexico Legislature was discussed by Mr. Albert Gonzales, Miss Pauline Gomez, and Mr. Richard A. Armstrong.

The discussed legislation included Dr. Jacobus tenBroek's Model White Cane Law, amounting in effect to a civil rights bill admitting the blind to the equal protection provisions of the Constitution. Other discussed measures included a bill relating to the right of the blind to organize and a bill calling for the amendment of the election laws concerned with voting assistance provisions. The proposed amendment would enable blind persons to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Also discussed were a bill to amend the Relative Responsibility Law exempting blind persons therefrom, and a bill to establish a more adequate system of hearings for persons aggrieved by state programs affecting the blind.

The symposium speakers discussed a bill to amend existing guide dog legislation by eliminating muzzling requirements and adding clauses to make the law more uniform with those of other states. Bills concerning the employment of qualified blind persons in the public schools, and the examination of blind or physically handicapped applicants in regard to Civil Service or merit systems were also discussed. A bill presented with the aid of Mr. Sundquist relating to medical care in regard to provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act was included in the discussion.

Governor-elect Cargo and the assembled legislators appeared in general to favor passage of the legislation, with the exception of certain technical changes.

Members of the Federation took the opportunity to cite and nominate Mr. G. R. Bobeen, Mr. Harold A. Martinez, Mr. Albert Gonzales, and Miss Pauline Gomez as distinguished Federationists willing to serve the citizens of New Mexico as capable members of the State Welfare Board, the Governor's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped, and the Board of the New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped. It is regrettable that Governor-elect Cargo has not yet seen fit to honor any Federationist or blind citizen of New Mexico with such an appointment, although various appointments of non- handicapped persons have already been made.

Back to Contents


The case of Lewinson v. Crews, in which a New York college professor was disqualified from serving as a juror on grounds of blindness, has been appealed to the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. Arguing that the rejection was "arbitrary and contrary to law," a new appellant's brief maintains specifically that (1) the blind teacher should have been qualified as a juror because he does in fact possess "natural faculties" as required by law; (2) his disqualification is "a violation of the Federal Constitution," and (3) the cases cited against him in the lower court are not applicable.

The negative judgment against Professor Edwin Lewinson, handed down by Mr. Justice Samansky of the Supreme Court of Kings County on April 21, 1966, upheld an earlier finding of the county clerk that "the petitioner, being totally blind, does not fall within the standards set forth" in the judiciary law of the county--which requires that a juror must "be in the possession of his natural faculties and not infirm or decrepit" and that he must be "able to read and write the English language understandingly." Lewinson is an assistant professor of history and political science at Seton Hall University, with a published scholarly book to his credit in addition to B.A. , M.A. and Ph.D. degrees.

The new appellant's brief, argued for Lewinson by attorney Emanuel Redfield of New York City, noted the opinion of Mr. Justice Samansky that the county clerk may construe and determine the limitations of the statute fixing the qualifications for jury duty, where the statute may be ambiguous. The brief continued: "What the decision means is that appellant is brought full circle back to where he started. The petitioner commenced this proceeding for the purpose of having the county clerk's determination reviewed. Yet Special Term [ Justice Samansky] has said, in effect, that the public officer is a law unto himself, --that he may construe the law to suit the circumstances; and therefore, there is nothing for a court to review, --not even the meaning of the law. We submit, however, that no public official is a law unto himself and therefore Special Term was wrong in avoiding resolution of the important question raised."

Asserting that "there is no escape from the force of petitioner's argument" and that the dilemma could be resolved "by according qualification to Dr. Lewinson, leaving it to individual cases for impanelment," the brief maintained that "such a resolution would avoid the stamp of second class citizenship from being placed on a blind person."

On the issue of whether Lewinson as a blind person is "in possession of his natural faculties and not infirm or decrepit," the appellant's brief queried: "What does 'natural faculties' mean? Does it mean that loss of a natural faculty such as an arm or a leg would disqualify? Certainly, Dr. Lewinson possesses his natural faculties in the sense that his mind is fully equipped."

Holding that the blind professor is not infirm or decrepit, the brief went on to make several specific points based on testimony placed in the record "by experts in the field of blindness":

"1. Blind persons can perform as well as any person if they have training.

2. While handicapped visually, they are not deprived of their faculties of hearing evidence and making judgments.

3. Blindness adds a perceptive quality.

4. There are judges and lawyers who are blind (some are named).

5. Blind persons serve as jurors in other states.

6. Blind persons are less distracted and concentrate better and are more objective."

Elsewhere in the brief, it was noted that Professor Lewinson had been held to be "disqualified because he is not able to read and write English. . . This contention undoubtedly is offered to augment respondent's argument that blindness prevents Prof. Lewinson from writing or reading.

"But the requirement to read and write English has nothing to do with visual ability to read and write," the brief continued. "The undisputed facts are that Prof. Lewinson teaches American History m a college and has written a published book in English for his doctoral dissertation. What more ability to manage in the English language need be demonstrated?

"It is the ability to function in the English language that the statute requires, even if a prop may be needed for that purpose. It could not have been intended that manual dexterity in writing English is the criterion, for were it so, then a person with a defect to his hand would be disqualified. . . . Such a shocking interpretation could not be ascribed to the legislature."

In support of the major contention that Lewinson' s disqualification "solely because he is blind is a violation of the Federal Constitution," the appellant's brief pointed to a 1966 case in Alabama where "a three-judge federal court held that jury service was not only a civic duty, but a constitutional right. The Court held that discrimination in the qualification of a juror based on sex would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States. Likewise, we claim that a denial based solely on a claim of blindness, without more, would be such a violation."

The brief maintained that since no rational basis exists for a conclusion that a blind person as such is devoid of mental capacity, "a disqualification on that ground is a denial of due process of law. No rational connection between appellant's blindness and his jury duty appearing, due process has been denied; and it follows therefore that appellant has been denied the equal protection of the laws.

"The toleration of this discrimination against blind persons," according to the brief, "is not without practical consequences. It may lead to claims that judgments rendered in the courts of this state should be invalidated because of the systematic exclusion of blind persons, such as has followed from discrimination against colored persons. . . ."

Submitted as an attachment to Professor Lewinson's brief, were newspaper articles reporting the acceptance of a blind juror in the Denver, Colorado, district court last fall.

Back to Contents


(From The New Beacon, November 1966)

Work which blind people in sheltered workshops should be able to do:

The nature of the work which may be done efficiently has the principal characteristics set out below of modern factory work. But one must remember that the range of this possible work may be noticeably widened if blind operatives can work as in ordinary industry with sighted fit or sighted disabled as their workmates on the bench.

These are the main characteristics of suitable factory work:

1. It is repetitive, in medium to long runs, and broken down into separate operations, so as to be quickly learned. (It is not, therefore, "one-off" work, performed laboriously and slowly, needing lengthy training and the acquisition of much personal "craft" skill. Neither is it "mass production" work, requiring much expenditure on automatic plant but few personnel.)

2. It is produced through a machine or jig and not directly by the sole use of the operator's hands.

3. It may involve production of the complete product, or of component parts which others combine with other parts to produce the complete product, or merely a specialized process on several disassociated parts.

4. It could consist of putting things together, taking them apart, pressing, sealing, folding, machining, checking, filling, measuring or packing, or any combination of these.

5. When it comes to operating moveable machinery, the moving operator should bring work to the stationary machine, or the moving machine should bring work to the stationary operator.

Examples of such modern factory work being done in the work- shops are: light engineering (such as drilling, rivetting, capstan work, milling), bubble -packing and ordinary packing, plastic injection moulding, operating wood-working and box-making machinery, filling canisters and bottles, stamping soap, assembling vehicle parts.

In most industries there are orders for medium quantities which do not justify production in the highly automated plants and so must be produced by mechanised (not automated) means. Thus the extremes of production methods--laborious craft work at one end and highly automated mass production requiring hardly any operators at all, at the other--are not for blind operatives in sheltered workshops.

Back to Contents


(From OCB Alumni Newsletter, November 1966)

In the past issues of the NEWSLETTER, we have attempted to show diversity in the kinds of jobs held by our Alumni. We have "profiled" mechanics, teachers, furniture and cabinet-makers, lawyers, and many others. In this issue, however, we are featuring just one area because there is an increasing number of blind persons being employed as Medical Transcribers.

Pioneer teacher of blind secretaries, including both medical and legal, is Mrs. Margaret Wilson, a blind transcriber, employed for the past twenty-three years in San Francisco. Years ago, she was persuaded by Lawrence "Muzzy" Marcelino, then a counselor with the State Department of Rehabilitation, to tutor aspiring blind students after her regular working hours and on week ends. Margaret, working with her friend, Mrs. Hilda Jordan, who shares her apartment, has sent competent transcribers out into the business world in highly successful competition with sighted transcribers. The blind typist, to hold her job, must, of necessity, be better than average because it is impossible for her to hide her mistakes with an eraser.

About five years ago, the Department of Rehabilitation in San Francisco began sending blind students to the Zweegman School for Medical Secretaries which has now assigned a teacher to work individually with the blind students.

Following are five Alumnae profiles of Medical Transcribers. All of these career girls maintain their own apartments and travel to and from work by public transportation.

ESTHER BIKOFF began having eye difficulties in her early twenties but, in spite of vision in only one eye, worked for a number of years as a secretary in New York. She moved to the West Coast and after two operations for retinal detachments on her "good" eye, was declared legally blind by her doctor. Teacher-Counselor for the Blind, Jewel Basse, introduced Esther to OCB in 1962.

"It was the most wonderful place," said Esther. "I had been terrified to go out on the street, even with an escort. But after just one week at the Orientation Center, I found myself going along with all the other students. I made lasting friendships and learned so much that I regained my lost confidence. It was the best thing that could have happened to me."

After three months of orientation training, the Rehabilitation Department sent her to the Zweegman School where she trained for several months.

Her first job was a temporary one in the San Francisco Coroner's office and while there, she took a San Francisco City Civil Service test for Medical Transcribers. She placed first on the list and was soon sent to the Medical Division of the City Department of Social Services, a position she has held since 1963. Due to the immediate assistance of OCB and the Department of Rehabilitation, Esther was out of work for only a year because of blindness.

DONNA DYER, congenitally blind, was born m a small town in Kentucky, attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, the new Mexico School for the Blind, then the Ohio School for the Blind where she graduated from high school in 1959. She came to California when her stepfather was transferred to Edwards Air Force Base.

She entered OCB in September, 1959, where she learned to travel alone, to cook, sew and take care of her own clothes. She also learned that many blind persons were working and she, too, wanted to become financially independent.

Donna, an avid reader and a good speller, decided that she would like to take a course in Medical Transcription, so her rehabilitation counselor, Ed Sorrels, sent her to Zweegman's and later to Margaret Wilson for training.

To gain experience she worked for three months on a voluntary basis as a transcriber in the Medical Records Division of the UC Hospital in San Francisco. In July 1962, she accepted a position as a medical transcriber at Herrick Hospital in Berkeley where she is presently employed.

PAMELA LOVELAND has been blind since birth. She attended elementary school at the California School for the Blind in Berkeley, but graduated from the Jefferson Union High School in her home town, Daly City. She received her B.A. degree from San Francisco State College with a major in English and a minor in Languages.

Her original goal was to be a teacher but, after a try-out at student-teaching, decided that this was not what she truly wished to do. In September of 1963, she entered OCB to learn to travel independently and discovered that there were many other things that she could do with- out sighted help. During sessions with her rehabilitation counselor, Clyde Richardson, Pam decided to follow up an earlier interest in medicine and soon began training to be a medical transcriber under the supervision of Margaret Wilson. She progressed rapidly, and when she completed the course worked temporarily as a transcriber in a San Mateo hospital.

George Fogarty, Field Representative at the California School for the Blind, told Pam of an opening at Mercy Hospital in Merced. She applied for the position and was hired within a week. When she passed her probationary period and was presented with a key to the office, a signal honor, she decided that she had found her niche in life.

EVA BLOCK, a small town girl from Illinois , went to elementary school there but moved, with her family to San Francisco where she was graduated from high school. She married and for a number of years was content to be a housewife and mother. But, when the need to be self-supporting arose, she found that her visual handicap excluded her from many areas. Jewel Basse advised her to go to OCB and she enrolled there in May, 1960. It was her first real contact with blind people. She had always had some difficulties with her vision, but had never realized that she was legally blind. She was amazed to learn that blind persons could get around safely by themselves, using the long cane travel technique. The humor and interests of her classmates gave new impetus to her life.

Eva left OCB in December, I960. She began to look for a job, but the lack of work experience was a greater handicap than her visual problems. Where does a woman past 35, with a double handicap, find an employer willing to hire her? Specialized training seemed to be the answer and she began to study medical transcribing at Zweegman's. When the course was finished, she took the Federal Civil Service examination for Medical Transcribers, qualified and applied at Letterman Hospital in San Francisco. She was hired for six weeks as a relief transcriber. Then she called the Public Health Service (Federal) in San Francisco where her application was also on file to tell them that she was available. She was hired and has been working there since September of this year.

Eva has one son, Michael, a 20-year-old sailor who has just returned from an overseas assignment. He is now stationed at the US Naval Base in San Diego.

MARIE HATANAKA, blind since childhood, attended the School for the Blind in Berkeley, but returned to her home in Vacaville for her high school work. Robert Rottman (at that time Resource Teacher for the blind in Vallejo) suggested that she attend OCB. After high school graduation in 1961, she entered OCB and while there, elected to go on to college.

She completed one semester of work at UC, Berkeley; then using her woman's prerogative, decided she would rather take the medical secretarial course under Margaret Wilson. When finished, she worked part-time at UC Hospital in San Francisco (a good proving ground for budding medical transcribers) and when an opening at Kaiser Hospital in Oakland became available, she applied there and was hired.

For two years, she worked as an efficient transcriber for Kaiser and during that time, her earlier desire to be a college graduate reasserted itself, and now, full of self-confidence, she resigned her job and plans to attend Cal-State College at Hayward.

Other OCB Alumnae training to become medical transcribers under the supervision of Margaret Wilson include: BARBARA CANAPE who has passed her Civil Service examinations and is interviewing for employment; ISABEL FISH who is almost through with her training and is already working half days and DOROTHY PATTER (your OCB Newsletter editor) who has been so impressed with the work being done by the transcribers featured in this issue, that she signed up, under sponsorship of Rehabilitation, for a medical transcribing course with Mrs. Wilson and is already struggling with the difficult medical terminology.

Back to Contents


"The defendants argue that they could not be required to use their property in any particular way just to save blind people from harm. They maintain that they have no obligation to shield those who cannot see where they are going. But people have the right to go where they please on the public thoroughfares. Freedom of mobility is as much a fundamental right of American citizenry as freedom of speech. Nor is this prerogative to move about restricted to the able-bodied. Even the ill and the infirm, to the extent that they can ambulate, may not be imprisoned in their homes.”

With these words Justice Musmanno, speaking for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, laid down on October 3, 1966, a momentous decision of far-reaching significance for all blind Americans. The four-to-two majority opinion upheld the judgment of a lower court in favor of James Argo, a blind broom salesman of Philadelphia who had been seriously injured in a fall at a place of business where he was seeking to solicit sales.

The landmark decision represents a twofold victory for the blind. Besides supporting the right of blind pedestrians to walk abroad and to be protected by reasonable precautions taken for their safety, the case reflects the influential presence of the National Federation of the Blind- -which was allowed to participate in oral argument (in the person of Bill Taylor) as well as to file a written brief on Argo's behalf. The NFB brief included the British House of Lord's opinion in the recent Haley case, along with an article by Dr. Jacobus tenBroeK, "The Right to Live in the World: The Disabled in the Law of Torts." (For more details, see "The Argo Case," by Bill Taylor, THE BRAILLE MONITOR, January, 1967.)

Justice Musmanno, in a lengthy opinion alternately marked by incisive analysis and emotionally charged rhetoric, held that the fundamental right of free mobility applies equally to the blind; that reasonable care must be taken not to endanger blind pedestrians and others who may be expected to use the pavements; that a blind pedestrian is not bound to discover everything which a seeing person would but to exercise due care such as the employment of a cane or other artificial aid for detecting obstacles; and that a blind door-to-door salesman is no trespasser upon the property but either a "licensee" or a "business invitee"--in each case to be "kept safe from active negligence and to be warned of latent defects."

On the last point, the court dealt firmly with the defendant's argument "that if Argo is to be classified as a licensee, they cannot be held responsible for his injuries because there was no latent defect to call to his attention." (Argo had fallen 18 feet after entering an outer door and feeling with his cane what he took to be the floor but in reality was only a ledge.) Said Justice Musmanno:

"It is a skillful maneuver in dialectics to posture [sic] an unreasonable requirement and then, by showing impossibility of meeting that requirement, argue that there is no requirement at all to fulfill. Obviously the law would not require the defendants to post a guard to chase blind people away. Obviously, also, the displaying of a sign would be of no use in warning sightless persons. But there was one certain way to save the plaintiff from harm. It was so simple a way that it seems almost bizarre to mention it. The defendants could have locked the door! .... Even sighted persons could have been deceived by the finished door and assumed that the structure was occupied and certainly had a floor. That was the paradox about this building; the exterior was completed before the interior, but the public was not informed that the architectural glamour was only brick deep."

Apart from all this, said the court, "the defendants owed a duty to the blind. Sightless people are, tragically, not so few in number that they are to be regarded as oddities." Noting that there are 15,000 blind persons in Pennsylvania alone, the court held it to be "thus foreseeable that blind people may make their appearance anywhere that the public is entitled to go, and the law imposes on property owners the acknowledgment of that foreseeability . This may be a recent development in the law, but it is real nevertheless. It is moreover an inevitable evolution in the law in meeting the demands of justice, without which, of course, law is a mere puppet show, a snare and a delusion."

With equally graphic and forceful rhetoric. Justice Musmanno went on to link the struggle of the blind for legal rights and justice with the larger movement to extend such protection to the poor: "There was a time when the law offered no protection to the masses of people; only the lords of the manors, the counts and dukes had rights which the law deigned to uphold. In time the masses sloughed off their chains as serfs, but the law continued to regard only the wealthy as worthy of receiving its mantle of protection. It was assumed that there would always be people who are poor and since they owned no property, which was the controlling badge of authority and privilege, the law was not interested in offering them safeguard, asylum or preservation from injury.

"Eventually this changed too," the opinion continued, "and the law gave status to the masses and the poor, but nothing could be done for the maimed, the crippled, the blind, the deaf and the epileptics. They were only half made up and it was even assumed that evil spirits abode within them--thus, they were beyond the pale of the law and the courts.

"However, step by step the law has progressed toward embracing the tenets of humanity, and so we find m the twentieth century that all people, regardless of color, religion, ethnic origin, financial or physical stature, have the right to stand equally with the mighty, the rich, the affluent, and the giants, at the bar of our courts. The law
today recognizes, as it should, that if a crippled person cannot move across a street with the celerity and ease of an able-bodied pedestrian, it expects the motorist to moderate his speed and not that the disabled walker is to mount roller skates. Thus, it cannot be said today that the blind should receive less from the law because their plight requires from it more."

Unfortunately, the logical force and progressive character of the court's decision is marred by an outpouring of sentimentality and stereotypy reminiscent of the inspirational literature of a century ago. Thus Justice Musmanno declared: "The blind should particularly be the wards of the law because Dante, in his peregrinations through Hell, found no torture inflicted by the field manager of that Kingdom which could compare, in wretchedness and misery, with the unhappiness pressing continuously on those persons whose lamp of guidance, and whose torch illuminating the great panorama of the Heaven of life, are extinguished forever."

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Argo v. Goodstein, is one of the few landmark decisions certain to be influential in the coming acceptance by courts everywhere in the land of the right of blind people to walk freely abroad, on the highways and byways, in a faith justified by law. The decision could only be bettered if it were equally a landmark in its recognition of the essential evidence which supports that right: namely, that blind persons nave neither need nor wish to be "wards of the law" but rather the capacity to be equal subjects of the law--capable as others are capable of responsible self-guidance and reasonable prudence in their independent movement down the avenue into the mainstream of American society.

Back to Contents


The California State Assembly's Interim Committee on Social Welfare has released its 1965-67 report devoted to "A Review of Rehabilitation Policies and Programs." At the same time the report was being released Warren Thompson, Director of California Rehabilitation Department, was given his walking papers by the new Reagan administration.

Declaring that "the public cannot afford to default on [its] investment in the disabled," the assembly committee called for sweeping reforms of the rehab program. Serving as consultant to the committee was Tom Joe, long-time member of the California Council of the Blind and well known to Federationists and MONITOR readers.

The committee lists 16 specific recommendations:

1. The committee recommends that the Department of Rehabilitation focus its activities upon "the direct vocational training and placement in competitive employment of the physically and mentally disabled."

2. In order to facilitate this focus, "such prevocational programs as the Orientation Center for the Blind, and Field Service Counselors for the Blind [should] be transferred to the State Department or Social Welfare."

3. It is recommended that a study be undertaken to determine "the feasibility of applying orientation and field service counseling programs to other disability groups."

4. The committee recognizes the "proven value" of the state's Orientation Center for the Blind, and recommends that all necessary funds be made available to staff the Center to its fullest capacity.

5. The Department of Rehabilitation should be recognized by the Department of Social Welfare as the training agency for qualified welfare clients.

6. Legal provisions should be made to exempt a portion of on-the-job training earnings in the determination of welfare grants.

7. The committee views existing cooperative agreements between the Department of Rehabilitation and other agencies as pilot programs subject to legislative review before reauthorization.

8. Medical services available under the state Medi-Cal Program should not be offered by the Department of Rehabilitation.

9. The legislature should limit the percentage of the operators' trust fund to be used for expansion of the Business Enterprise Program.

10. It is recommended that a study be made to determine the feasibility of a system of financial incentives to draw business enterprise operators into the food service field.

11. Workshops providing temporary work training should be distinguished from those providing permanent employment. Further, adjustment and long-term workshops should be transferred to the State Department of Social Welfare.

12. Work activity centers presently serving 200 mentally retarded ATD recipients should be expanded to include a greater number of clients.

13. Greater emphasis should be given by the Department of Rehabilitation to placing its clients in such general population programs as MDTA, and public and private universities.

14. The creation of a Board to review and adopt Department of Rehabilitation regulations in public hearings. Further, the committee recommends that the Board of Rehabilitation listen to and settle grievances of clients and applicants for service.

15. The legislature should cooperate with the Board of Rehabilitation in establishing priorities for rehabilitation, and the culturally disadvantaged should be accorded rehab services without jeopardizing programs for the disabled.

16. Congressional removal of the present ceiling on Federal Rehabilitation matching funds.

Back to Contents


Joined by 50 cosponsoring colleagues, Senator Lister Hill, Alabama, on January 16, introduced in the U.S. Senate S. 325, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of a National Eye Institute in the National Institutes of Health.

Originally introduced in the 89th Congress by Senator Hill, the eye research bill was considered and unanimously endorsed by the National Federation of the Blind convention held in Louisville, Kentucky, in July, 1966.

The convention resolution declared that:

"Although we as blind people know that, today, blindness does not have to be a disaster in a person's life, we also know that, too often, it is a disaster because of inadequate help and training needed for successfully adjusting to the changed circumstances resulting from loss of sight;. . . . We as blind people believe that the economic and social consequences of blindness upon the individual, his family, and society generally are so great and grave as to justify and demand a major government-financed effort to ascertain the causes of blindness in order that it may be eradicated from the lives and experience of the men, women, and children of this Nation and throughout the world."

The National Eye Institute which would De established by S. 325, would not only itself conduct research to determine the causes of blindness, but would also finance research of other agencies and organizations. The existing National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness has not conducted research into the causes of blindness. A National Eye Institute--to provide a concentrated research attack upon diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, and the other destroyers of vision, is a necessary step to eradicating these diseases.

Listed on the following page are the names of the U.S. senators who have joined forces with Senator Hill to gain enactment of S. 325. All Federationists are urged to send letters and telegrams in support of S. 325 to Senator Lister Hill and to your own senators. If your senators appear in this Honor List, thank them for adding their names and their strength to the Hill bill, and ask that they do all possible to obtain passage of S. 325. If your senators are not m the Honor List, write and urge them to support S. 325 and to advise Senator Hill of their support. And, of course, write or telegraph Senator Hill that he may know that blind Americans sincerely commend and vigorously support his efforts to establish a means for eliminating blindness from the experience of all mankind.

Letters and telegrams should be addressed:

Honorable _______________________
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510.

Cosponsors of S. 325

Lister Hill, Alabama (Introducer of Bill)

Gordon Allott, Colo.
E. L. Bartlett, Alaska
Birch Bayh, Ind.
Allan Bible, Nev.
Daniel Brewster, Md.
Quentin Burdick, N.D.
Harry F. Byrd, Va.
Robert Byrd, W. Va.
Howard Cannon, Nev.
Frank Carlson, Kans.
Joseph Clark, Pa.
John Sherman Cooper, Ky.
Norris Cotton, N.H.
Everett Dirksen, Ill.
Peter Dominick, Colo.
James Eastland, Miss.
Sam Ervin, N.C.
Paul Fannin, Ariz.
Hiram Fong, Hawaii
Ernest Gruening, Alaska
Philip Hart, Mich.
Vance Hartke, Ind.
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Henry Jackson, Wash.
Jacob Javits, N.Y.
Edward Kennedy, Mass.
Robert Kennedy, N.Y.
Thomas Kuchel, Calif.
Edward Long, Mo.
Eugene McCarthy, Minn.
Gale McGee, Wyo.
Walter Mondale, Minn.
Mike Monroney, Okla.
Joseph Montoya, N. Mex.
Wayne Morse, Oreg.
Thruston Morton, Ky.
George Murphy, Calif.
Edmund Muskie, Me.
Gaylord Nelson, Wis.
Claiborne Pell, R.I.
Winston Prouty, Vt.
Jennings Randolph, W. Va.
Abraham Ribicoff, Conn.
George Smathers, Fla.
Margaret Chase Smith, Me.
John Tower, Tex.
Joseph Tydings , Md.
Harrison Williams, N.J.
Ralph Yarbrough, Tex.
Milton Young, N.D.

Back to Contents


Edward Kochanowski, 16, blind since birth, has become the first blind student in his high school to become an active member of Junior Achievement's learn-by-doing program. He works on the production line of Ken-Co-Labs, a junior-achievement company sponsored by White Laboratories, Inc., and has assembled a plastic marble applicator and holder for a Lord & Lady Deodorant which the achievers will manufacture and sell.

Edward and his 29 teen-age business associates will manufacture and sell 1,500 units at $1.49 each. They have appointed a research and development committee and after Christmas they will manufacture and sell a new product.

Edward and the other students sold 140 shares of stock to 140 shareholders to finance their junior company.

With real business foresight Edward has arranged to participate in a car pool to assure his attendance at all junior company meetings.


The International Academy, Inc. in Brentwood, Md., offers an 8-month computer programmer training course for the blind. The current 14 students were carefully screened for ability after DVR referral from several eastern states. The only similar training projects for the blind are in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.


Helga Schilling, a 28-year-old Austrian who has been blind since birth, was awarded a law degree in November of last year in ceremonies at Vienna University. She worked her way through law school with money earned as a typist in a Vienna office.

Officials said Miss Schilling will be Austria's first blind lawyer.


The wheelchair set around San Francisco Bay will ride the subway in perfect comfort when a new, space-age designed transportation system is completed in 1971. Linking San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties, the 70-foot cars, speeding along at 80 miles per hour, will carry 76 passengers--and nave a special place for 3 wheelchairs.

Attendants will help wheelchair users through special entrance gates near the regular turnstiles. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system's 38 stations will be level or ramped and washroom facilities will be accessible. Most of the stations will have adjacent offstreet parking areas accessible to wheelchair users.

The Holiday Inn organization has joined Travelodge in installing in some of its motels "totally accessible units," with no steps, wide doors, lowered electric switches, tilted mirrors, and trapeze hooks over the beds.


Roger Petersen, president of NFB's Student Division, has been appointed assistant professor of Psychology at Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, beginning next fall.


The 1967 convention of the Progressive Blind will be held at the Hotel Dixon in Kansas City during the week end of March 10, 11 and 12. The banquet will be highlighted by Walt Bodine, a prominent radio personality, who will present the Perrin D. McElroy award to an outstanding blind person. The main speaker will be our own National Federation vice president who will also present the Jacobus tenBroek award to a sighted person for meritorious service in the cause of the blind.

An interesting program is being planned for the blind as well as the general public, and plans are now under way for a bang-up convention.


We have just learned that last November Keiji Sawada was awarded the Medal of Rising Sun by the Emperor of Japan. The medal was awarded in appreciation of the many years of service by Mr. Sawada to the blind of Japan. Mr. and Mrs. Sawada were received in audience at the Imperial Court. All who attended the Louisville Convention or had the tapes will remember Keichan and Heechan Sawada with their message from the Japanese people.


The catalog of the Braille Book Bank of the National Braille Association is now available at a charge of 50 cents. Orders should be sent to: Braille Book Bank, c/o American Red Cross, 74 Godwin Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450.


From Gertrude Duly: "I think it would be well if you can insert a note stating that letters and glasses for overseas should be sent to me at 1101 West Lehigh Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19133."


The Twenty-second Annual Convention of the Blinded Veterans Association will be held at the Hotel America, Hartford, Conn., from August 1-5, 1967.

Back to Contents