THE BRAILLE MONITOR

VOICE OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

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

Printed at 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California 94708

MAY 1969

THE BRAILLE MONITOR

Published monthly in braille and distributed free to the blind by the National Federation of the Blind. President: Kenneth Jernigan, 524 Fourth Street, Des Moines, Iowa, 50309.

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

EDITOR: Perry Sundquist, 4651 Mead Avenue, Sacramento, California, 95822. Associate Editor: Hazel tenBroek, 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California, 94708.

News items should be sent to the Editor.

Address changes should be sent to 2652 Shasta Road, Berkeley, California, 94708.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

If you or a friend wish to remember the National Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing the following language:

"I give, devise, and bequeath unto NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, the sum of $______ (or, "_______percent of my net estate", or "the following stocks and bonds: _______.") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind persons and to be held and administered by direction of its Executive Committee."

If your wishes are more complex, you may have your attorney communicate with the Berkeley Office for other suggested forms.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEXANS ATTEND SEMINAR
by Kenneth Jernigan

ILLINOIS AFFILIATE ACTS

WHOSE ORGANIZATION IS IT ANYWAY?
by Kenneth Jernigan

WHERE ARE THOSE DOOR PRIZES?

NEW AND "GOOD" VENDING STAND BILL BEFORE 91ST CONGRESS
by Kenneth Jernigan

EMPIRE STATE ASSOCIATION SETS EXAMPLE

IOWA LOOKS FINE TO BLIND FARMER

CROSS OF BLINDNESS
by Professor Jacobus tenBroek

WE CAN DO IT
by Kenneth Jernigan

FREEDOM FOUNDATION HONORS TWIN VISION

CSB (SEATTLE) FEES ITS WAY TO PROFESSIONAL STATUS

BLIND COLLEGE WHISTLER TRICKS TELEPHONE (CODE)

MEET OUR STATE PRESIDENT—JAMES R. CARLOCK AND OUR STATE AFFILIATE—ARIZONA

TV HELPS SIGHTLESS SEE
by Dick Kleiner

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT
by Gerald Neufeld

BLIND COOK TELLS HAPPINESS RECIPES
by Anne La Riviere

BLINDNESS ISN'T A HANDICAP
by Paul Lane

THE IFB CONVENTION

CONGRESSIONAL CAPSLLE—NFB LEGISLATION

MONITOR MINIATURES

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND SOCIAL INSURANCE—A NORMATIVE EVALUATION (CONCLUDED)

TEXANS ATTEND SEMINAR

by
Kenneth Jernigan

Toward the end of January an event occurred which frequently happens of late. It was late at night and I was sound asleep when my telephone jangled. It developed that while I was sleeping, Glen Crosby (President of our Texas affiliate—the Blue Bonnet Federation of the Blind) was diligently laboring in the cause. He was in Austin that night, and the purpose of his call was to discuss with me the possibility of holding a week-long seminar for a group of Texans who would cone to Iowa in mid-February. It seemed like a good idea and we agreed to do it.

On Wednesday, February 12, nine Texans arrived in Des Moines. They were: Major White and Louie Vinson from Houston, and Mr. and Mrs. Paul Richardson, Mr. and Mrs. Bert Paredes, Wayland Houston, Linda Allumbaugh, and Veronica Vaclivik, from Austin.

On Thursday and Friday we talked to them about library services and provisions of the Social Security Act. They also took part in classes at our Orientation Center and visited vending stands in the area. From start to finish it was a work-packed week, as witness the fact that our visitors attended the meeting of our local Association of the Blind on Friday Night and were up (at least most of them) at seven o'clock for a working breakfast and Seminar session on Saturday morning. The Saturday morning session dealt with the "ins and outs" of rehabilitation and was conducted by John Taylor. When it adjourned at ten o'clock, the Texans were loaded into cars and our famous Bus (Moby Dick) to head for Iowa City—120 miles away—for a meeting of blind college students, which lasted throughout the afternoon. That night the cavalcade proceeded to Moline, Illinois, for an evening of fun and festivity and were back in Des Moines the next day at noon to continue their work.

In fact, this Sunday session was one of the most meaningful of the week. During the first part of the afternoon a great number of blind people who are working in different jobs came in to visit and talk with the Texans. At three o'clock a local Lions Club came to tour the Center and have dinner. The Texans observed our methods of working with and indoctrinating the Lions.

On Monday it was back to class and more discussion. I met with the group on Tuesday morning for a final session of summary and planning. I am fully convinced that the nine who attended the seminar went home determined to work with renewed vigor to build and strengthen our movement. It was an experiment which I believe was wholly successful.

Back to Contents

ILLINOIS AFFILIATE ACTS

[Editor's Note: The following story was published in the Chicago (Illinois) Tribune and is reprinted, courtesy of the Chicago Tribune.]

"Blind students must get summer employment while they're in school, to convince employers they can do jobs after they graduate," said Abraham Rabby, president of the newly formed Illinois Congress of the Blind. Rabby, a graduate student in the University of Chicago business school is totally blind. He is active in the organization's student division which will hold a panel discussion on summer employment for blind students. Rabby said employers are reluctant to consider a blind student for summer employment "because they've been conditioned by society to treat us as handicapped."

Louis Sabella, executive director of the governor's committee on employment of the handicapped, has agreed to participate in the panel, Rabby said. The group also has invited representatives from other agencies involved in employment of the blind. The legislative division of the Congress also is seeking expansion of employment opportunities for blind persons, by working to introduce legislation "shifting the burden of proof of job ability from the blind person to the prospective employer."

"At the present time, a blind person has no way to prove to an employer that he can do a job," said James Nyman, legislative committee president and second vice president of the Congress. Nyman, an assistant political science professor at the University of Chicago, who also is blind said twelve states have adopted legislation which requires the employer to prove a blind person unfit for a job, rather than assume he is unfit because he's blind. Among these states are California, Maryland, Iowa, New Mexico, and Wyoming. "These laws give the blind applicant a chance to argue for his abilities," Nyman said.

The Congress presented all state senators and representatives with a copy of the "Model White Cane Law," a sample of the type of legislation passed in twelve states. State Senator Richard Newhouse (D., 24th) will introduce a similar bill as soon as he finishes research on relevant legislation, Nyman said. State Rep. Horace L. Calvo (D., 55th) also has indicated willingness to introduce the measure in the state house of representatives, Nyman said.

"If this law is passed, the Chicago school board may have to reconsider its ruling that no physically handicapped person may teach," Nyman said, "or at least they'll have to prove we're not fit to teach."

Rabby emphasized the Congress is an active organization "of blind people working for their own rights."

"We demonstrated in front of the Mayfair Bible church which cancelled a scheduled meeting of the Congress women's division, last week, after consulting with their insurance agent," Rabby said.

Robert Fraser said, "As the insurance broker for the church, I had to advise the church to minimize the claims risk and not let any group meet on the church premises unless they absolutely had to."

According to Rabby, "there is no statistical evidence that a meeting of blind people constitutes any greater risk than other kinds of meetings, so we distributed leaflets to the congregation presenting our point of view. Insurance companies could keep us out of an awful lot of places."

The Congress, with about one hundred members throughout Chicago, was formed in August. It is an affiliate of the twenty-eight year old National Federation of the Blind. Most members are full-time employees in a range of occupations, including typists, factory workers, lawyers and professors. The woman's division meets regularly to discuss problems peculiar to women. "We are working on translating standard cake-mix directions into braille," said Mrs. Camille Meyers, women's group president. "We also are trying to get a beauty school to give us a course in make-up and hairdos."

According to Rabby, the group wishes blindness to be regarded "merely as another characteristic rather than a handicap. A lot of people want to be charitable and help blind people, but our belief that we can live lives as normal human beings sets us apart from other groups designed to aid the blind."

Back to Contents

WHOSE ORGANIZATION IS IT ANYWAY?

by
Kenneth Jernigan

Some people seem to feel: The national organization is one entity (presumably consisting of all of the other states), and my state organization is something else. Likewise, the state organization is "they", and my local chapter is "we". This mental fragmentation of our movement is greatly magnified by the diversity of names of our state and local organizations.

If the Federation means anything we must begin with the premise that it is a single, united movement—not a conglomeration of separate competing entities. When the Federation accomplishes anything at the national level or in any given state or locality, we (all of us) have made the accomplishment. With this in mind, I ask you to read the following letters, which have only been altered to the extent necessary to conceal identities.

February 27, 1969

Mr. Kenneth Jernigan, President
National Federation of the Blind
Iowa State Commission for the Blind
Fourth and Keosauqua Streets
Des Moines, Iowa

Dear Sir:

Last summer one of our members was assigned the duty of publicizing our forthcoming state convention of the . . . which was held . . . on September 28-29.

As part of his publicity and program this member went to . . . and contacted the largest TV station and was able to interest them in looking at the NFB film, that was made in Los Angeles, with a view toward screening it if it met their standards.

This member wrote to you, Mr. Jernigan, asking that you have glossy prints of yourself and the film sent to the above mentioned station.

You agreed to send the photographs as requested, and also sent the name and address of Mr. Penix, who is handling the film for the NFB.

But, because your letter was in ink print, rather than Braille, there was a delay in . . . having it read to him.

He wrote to Mr. Penix in California, asking that the film be sent to the TV station for screening. The film never arrived.

It was approximately three or four weeks after the convention that the member heard from Mr. Penix, in print, rather than Braille, in which he was very agreeable to sending the film to the TV station.

The film had not reached the TV station in early February as yet. We, all of the members of our chapter, wholeheartedly agree that it could very well have been impossible that the film be sent at the time requested. However, we also agree that it would have been the courteous thing to let the station know of this impossibility.

As you no doubt realize, this sort of neglectful attitude toward the publicity of the . . . convention surely did not set favorably with the TV station nor with our members.

Yet all is not lost. We still feel that the film should be sent to the TV station who are still willing to screen and possibly show it, in an area in which the state organization is in great need of being strengthened.

We sincerely hope that you will respond to this letter of protest.

Sincerely,

. . . Chapter Secretary

------------

March 10, 1969

Dear Sir:

I have your letter of "protest". It arrived yesterday, and I am answering immediately.

I am sorry that the film has not been sent to the TV station yet. I shall send a copy of this letter and of your letter to Dr. Penix with the request that he give me a report. I am sure that he will expedite matters as efficiently and rapidly as he can.

Having said this, let me speculate with you on the causes of the delay, and let me also comment on the tone of your letter to me. Without checking with Dr. Penix I do not know how many copies of the film we have on hand. It may be that prior requests have made it impossible to send the film sooner. We could have more copies of this and similar films if more local chapters made an effort to carry out active fundraising and sent some of the proceeds to the national office and, of course, to their state organization headquarters. I do not know what your local chapter has done in this respect.

The next thing I would say to you deals with Dr. Penix. He is a blind man himself, having started a new business only a few years back. He is working very hard to make that business succeed. Nevertheless, he finds time to take care of the handling of the film (purely on a volunteer basis). He also works actively in his state and local organization and devotes a great deal of time to the movement. I do not say all of this to indicate that he deserves sympathy, that he feels sorry for himself, or that he is doing anything more than he should. I say it to indicate that the amount of time and effort he puts into the organization would compare quite favorably with most and that courtesy and consideration are a two-way street when a man is performing a volunteer task.

Further, you say concerning my letter to your member: "But, because your letter was in ink print, rather than Braille, there was a delay in . . . having it read to him." You go on to say: "It was approximately three or four weeks after the convention that . . . heard from Mr Penix, in print, rather than Braille, in which he was very agreeable to sending the film to the TV station." From all of this I gather that you feel your member had the right to expect that he would be written in Braille rather than print and that an injustice was done to him because this did not occur. You will observe that I am writing to you in the present instance in print. Why? Because I find it faster and more convenient. It would seem to me that a blind person has no right to feel abused if he receives a letter in print since this is the standard means of communication in our society and that he ought to be able to develop enough ingenuity and initiative to get his material read without problems. On the other hand, if a blind person wishes to write to another blind person in Braille or on tape, it seems to me that the recipient of the communication should be able to read it or get it deciphered. Although I read Braille quite fluently, I very often prefer to receive letters in print. Why? For one thing, when I need to make a copy to send to someone else (as with your letter which I shall send to Dr. Penix), I have to dictate it in print if it is going to a sighted person or sit down and write it out in the Braille. This problem is compounded if I need to make multiple copies. If the letter is in Braille I can not have a secretary file it for easy reference but must do it myself, which is not always the best use of my time. Then, there is the matter of speed. If one writes a hundred letters or so in a week (which I often do), then it is not good use of his time to write them himself—whether in Braille or on the typewriter. Therefore, he must dictate to someone else. This means that print is the most convenient medium. Again, when one speaks of courtesy, it is a two-way street, and perhaps all of us could do with a bit more of it.

Now, let me touch on one final matter. The tone of your letter implies that your member went far beyond the call of duty in getting publicity for your state affiliate's convention—that it was "their" organization—somebody else's. I speak of your tone, not your explicit statement. Unless you and the other members of your local chapter regard yourselves as an integral part of the state affiliate and the National Federation of the Blind, then you can not feel the sense of responsibility, of achievement, of unity, consideration, and understanding which you really ought to have. You say with respect to the TV film: "This sort of neglectful attitude toward the publicity of the . . . convention surely did not set favorably with the TV station nor with our members". And I reply to you that the tone of your letter does not "set" particularly well with me. You are presumably a mature individual working, as am I, on a volunteer basis to try to improve the conditions of all blind people—including your own condition. The same should be true of your other members.

Under the circumstances, should anybody have to help you at all in publicizing your state convention? I ask this question not to imply that the film should not have been available to you but to say that you should have regarded it as an extra, a possible plus, not as a right to which you were entitled. Dr. Penix (a Californian and a volunteer) and I (an Iowan and a volunteer) conceive of ourselves as working in the overall movement to help all blind people—including you and any other blind persons in your local chapter, but you have the same responsibility toward us. It would not occur to me—and this was true before I became a state or national officer—that I should feel annoyed if you would not help me publicize a local or state convention. If you were to offer to do so, I might very well accept the assistance, but I would recognize that you had gone beyond the call of duty in rendering a service to me.

In other words, I do not believe that any local chapter or any individual has the right to expect to be petted or to receive from the movement more than he is willing to put into it. I believe that a sense of dedication and responsibility is what we need, and I believe that consideration and understanding should be given to those who put forth effort in the cause.

If these comments seem frank, they were meant to be. They are not, however, meant to be harsh or unkind. It is simply that we have so much to do and so few who are really willing to help do it that candor must be used to try to swell the ranks of the doers. In your state the organization has been struggling for life itself for the past few years. It is in urgent need of strength and enthusiasm. You and people like you could provide that strength and that enthusiasm, and I hope you will. You are needed.

Cordially,

Kenneth Jernigan, President
National Federation of the Blind

Back to Contents

WHERE ARE THOSE DOOR PRIZES?

As we go to press, some progress is being made by the state affiliates in the matter of providing attractive door prizes for the National Convention in Columbia, South Carolina this July, but not enough!

Thus far the President of the South Carolina Aurora Club of the Blind, Lois Bolton, has heard from only four states: Alaska has sent thirty-three bill folds; California has sent a ship's clock valued at $150; New York is giving a $50 savings bond; and Kentucky is bringing a prize valued at $100 Since our host, South Carolina, is a textile state, there will be a number of towel sets, shirts, and other items Our host state's other collections thus far include a hand-crocheted Afghan, instamatic camera, silver pitcher, attache case, Sunbeam manicure set, transister radio, toaster, set of stainless steel, fishing gear, and other attractive items.

This makes five state affiliates heard from—with thirty-five to go! go! go!

Back to Contents

NEW AND "GOOD" VENDING STAND BILL BEFORE 91ST CONGRESS

by
Kenneth Jernigan

During the 90th Congress, Federationists will recall, the vending stand program narrowly escaped further dilution by the introduction of a bad bill—H. R. 18410. The Randolph Sheppard Act program has been beset over the years by a number of problems which have threatened the blind operator. He has had to fight the encroachments of vending machines and the seizure by employee associations of vending machine income. The blind operator has been hemmed in by restrictive regulations and has been subject to administrative practices from which there has been no appeal to an independent agency. And H. R. 18410 would have further weakened the operator's position by giving statutory sanction to those regulations and practices. It would have strengthened the use of vending stand income for program operating funds with no controls written into the law. That bill would have legitimized the "share the wealth" concept already established as proper in some state programs, that is, putting two or more licensed operators in one stand.

The Congressmen who sponsored the introduction of H. R. 18410 for the Administration in the House of Representatives were assured by HEW officials that the measure had the full support of all interested groups. However, this proved to be a mistake of the fact. Protests about H. R. 18410 soon poured in at the offices of the Committee on Education and Labor from vending stand program administrators and operators alike. The bill was vigorously opposed by the National Federation of the Blind and was "killed" when John Nagle and I appeared before the Staff of the House Select Subcommittee on Education and pointed out in detail its undesirable features and adverse implications. [See the article entitled "View of NFB on Proposed Amendments to the Randolph-Sheppard Act—H. R. 18410" in the Braille Monitor, November, 1968]

The 91st Congress promises a better future for the Randolph-Sheppard Act and those who work under it. A new amending bill has been introduced and the prospects for its passage are considerably brightened because it is a cooperative effort of organizations of and for the blind. Representatives of the National Federation of the Blind, American Association of Workers for the Blind, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, Blinded Veterans Association, and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, held a series of meetings for the purpose of working out a bill all could support.

Meetings were held in Washington, D. C., on December 12, 1968, and again on January 30, 1969, with drafting sub-committees getting together at various times in between. John Nagle, John Taylor and I represented the National Federation of the Blind in these sessions, and we were successful in having many of our ideas adopted by the group.

It is hoped that the new and "good" vending stand bill now pending in Congress will, indeed, have the full support of all organizations and agencies of and for the blind.

The enactment of this bill which would up-date and greatly improve the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act could prove to be a "bill of rights" for all blind operators. It would guarantee a much larger role and more secure future for the Congressionally authorized vending stand program.

Following is a section by section analysis of the bill and then the text of the bill itself.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. This section provides that the Act may be cited as the "Randolph-Sheppard Act for the Blind Amendments of 1969."

Section 2. Preference for Vending Facilities on Federal Property. This section amends Section 1 of the Act of June 20, 1936, as amended, under which preference is granted to blind persons licensed by state agencies designated in the Act to operate vending facilities on Federal property. It provides for exclusive assignment of vending machine income in order to assure, achieve, and protect the preference granted. Inconvenience to departments and agencies of the Federal government is eliminated as a criterion for the establishment of a vending facility; however, such a facility would not be authorized if the interests of the United States would be adversely affected thereby.

Section 3. Concession Vending Surveys. This section amends Section 2 (a) (1) of the Act by changing the term "concession-stand" to "concession vending".

Section 4. Vending Facility. This section substitutes the term "vending facility" or "vending facilities" for "vending stand(s)" or "stand(s)" throughout the Act in order to reflect the broader variety of concessions in the program.

Section 5. Age Requirements; Articles and Services Available. This section amends Section 2 (a) (4) of the Act to eliminate the requirement that a licensed blind operator must be at least 21 years of age. It also alters language in the same section of the Act to broaden the types of articles and services available in vending facilities to accord with current actual practice.

Section 6. Deletion of Limitations. This section amends Section 2 (b) of the Act to eliminate the unnecessary one year residence requirement before blind persons can become licensed operators. It also eliminates archaic wording contrary to rehabilitation principles referring to blindness as an infirmity.

Section 7. Provision of Locations. This section adds a new subsection (d) to Section 2 of the Act, providing for inclusion after July 1, 1969, of sites for vending facilities operated by blind persons after consultation with the state licensing agency, in the design, construction, or substantial renovation or alteration of public buildings for use by the Federal government. Similar provisions cover public buildings rented or leased by the Federal government. The new subsection also requires agencies controlling Federal property to consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (or his designee) and the state licensing agency to insure inclusion of suitable vending facility sites unless it is determined that the number of persons using the building will not justify operation of a vending facility.

Section 8. Arbitration Between Operators and Licensing Agencies. This section amends Section 3 (6) of the Act to expand fair hearing procedures for aggrieved licensed blind operators to include binding arbitration.It provides that the arbiters shall consist of one person named by the head of the state licensing agency, one person named by the licensed blind operator, and a third person selected by the two.

Section 9. Definitions. This section amends Section 6 (b) of the Act to substitute the current legal definition of blindness for the obsolete terminology presently in the Act. It also adds a new subsection to Section 6 of the Act defining the term "vending facility" to cover the broad variety of concessions presently in use in the program, including automatic vending machines.

Section 10. Arbitration Between Agencies. This section redesignates Section 8 of the Act as Section 9 and establishes a new Section 8 providing for arbitration of disputes between a state licensing agency and an agency controlling Federal property. It provides that the three arbiters shall consist of a person designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; one person designated by the head of the agency controlling Federal property over which the dispute has arisen; and a third person selected by the two who is not an employee of the departments concerned. It also provides that all decisions of the arbitration board shall be published.

Section 11. Judicial Review. This section adds a new Section 10 to the Act providing for judicial review in the event a blind person or state licensing agency suffers a legal wrong or is adversely affected or aggrieved by the action of an agency.

Section 12. Effective Date. This section provides for an effective date of July 1, 1969, for the amendments made by the bill.

A BILL

To amend the Randolph-Sheppard Act for the blind so as to make certain improvements therein and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congres assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Randolph-Sheppard Act for the Blind Amendments of 1969."

PREFERENCE FOR VENDING FACILITIES ON FEDERAL PROPERTY

Section 2. Section 1 of the Act entitled "An act to authorize the operations of stands in Federal buildings by blind persons, to enlarge the economic opportunities of the blind, and for other purposes," approved June 20, 1936 (20 U.S.C. 107), is amended to read as follows:

"Section 1. For the purposes of providing blind persons with remunerative employment, enlarging the economic opportunities of the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater efforts in striving to make themselves self-supporting, blind persons licensed under the provisions of this Act shall be authorized to operate vending facilities on any Federal or other property. In authorizing the operation of vending facilities on Federal property, preference shall be given, so far as feasible, to blind persons licensed by a State agency as provided in this Act; and the head of each department or agency in control of the maintenance, operation, and protection of Federal property shall, after consultation with the Secretary and with the approval of the President, prescribe regulations designed to assure such preference (including exclusive assignment of vending machine income to achieve and protect such preference) for such licensed blind persons without adversely affecting the interests of the United States."

CONCESSION VENDING SURVEYS

Section 3. Section 2 (a) (1) of such act of June 20, 1936 (20 U.S.C. 107a), is amended to read as follows:

"(1) Make surveys of concession vending opportunities for blind persons on Federal and other property in the United States;"

VENDING FACILITY

Section 4. Such Act of June 20, 1936, is further amended to strike the words "vending stand(s)" and "stand(s)" wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof the words "vending facility(ies)".

ELIMINATION OF AGE REQUIREMENT AND VENDING OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES

Section 5. Section 2 (a) (4) of such Act of June 20, 1936, is amended by (1) striking out "and at least twenty-one years of age" and (2) striking out "articles dispensed automatically or in containers or wrapping in which they are placed before receipt by the vending stand, and such other articles" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "foods, beverages, and other such articles or services dispensed automatically or manually and prepared on or off the premises in accordance with all applicable health laws, as determined by the State licensing agency:"

DELETION OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS IN LICENSING BLIND OPERATORS OF VENDING FACILITIES

Section 6. Section 2 (b) of such Act of June 20, 1936, is amended by (1) striking out "and have resided for at least one year in the State in which such stand is located" and (2) striking out "but are able, in spite of such infirmity, to operate such stands."

PROVISION OF VENDING FACILITY LOCATIONS

Section 7. Section 2 of such Act is further amended by adding a new subsection (d) at the end thereof:

"(d) In the design, construction, or substantial alteration or renovation of each public building after July 1, 1969, for use by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, there shall be included, after consultation with the State licensing agency, a satisfactory site or sites with space and electrical and plumbing outlets and other necessary requirements suitable for the location and operation of a vending facility or facilities by a blind person or persons. No space shall be rented, leased, or otherwise acquired for use by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States after July 1, 1969, unless such space includes, after consultation with the State licensing agency, a satisfactory site or sites with space and electrical and plumbing outlets and other necessary requirements suitable for the location and operation of a vending facility or facilities by a blind person or persons. All departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States shall consult with the Secretary (or his designee) and the State licensing agency in the design, construction, or substantial alteration or renovation of each public building used by them, and in the renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring of space for their use, to insure that the requirements set forth in this subsection are satisfied. This subsection shall not apply when the Secretary (or his designee) and the State licensing agency determine that the number of people using the property is insufficient to support a vending faculty. "

ARBITRATION BETWEEN OPERATORS AND LICENSING AGENCIES

Section 8. Section 3 (6) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 107b) is amended by substituting a comma for the period at the end thereof and adding the following new wording:

"including binding arbitration by three persons consisting of one person designated by the head of the State licensing agency, one person designated by the licensed blind operator, and a third person selected by the two."

DEFINITIONS

Section 9 (a). Section 6(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 107e) is amended to read as follows:

"(b) The term 'blind person' means a person whose central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with correcting lenses or whose visual acuity, if better than 20/200,is accompanied by a limit to the field of vision in the better eye to such a degree that its widest diameter subtends an angle of no greater than 20 degrees."

(b) Section 6 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(f) The term 'vending facility' includes, but is not limited to, automatic vending machines, cafeterias, snack bars, cart service, shelters, counters, and such other appropriate auxiliary equipment (as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe) as are necessary for the sale of the articles or services referred to in Section 2 (a) (4), which are, or may be operated by blind licensees."

ARBITRATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Section 10. Such Act is further amended by redesignating Section 8 (20 U.S.C. 107f) as Section 9 and by inserting the following new section after Section 7:

"Section 8. (a). An arbitration board of three persons consisting of one person designated by the Secretary who shall serve as chairman, one person designated by the head of the Federal department or agency controlling Federal property over which a dispute arises, and a third person selected by the two who is not an employee of the departments concerned shall hear appeals as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

"(b) If, in the opinion of a State licensing agency designated by the Secretary under this Act, any department or agency in control of the maintenance, operation, and protection of Federal property is failing to comply with the provisions of this Act, or any regulations issued thereunder, it may appeal to the board. The board shall, after notice and hearing, render its decision which shall be binding. If the board finds and determines that the acts or practices of any such department or agency are in violation of this Act, or the regulations issued thereunder, the head of the affected department or agency shall promptly cause such acts or practices to be terminated, and shall take such other action as may be necessary to carry out the decision of the board. All decisions of the board shall be published."

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Section 11. Such Act is further amended by adding the following new section:

"Section 10. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Act, any blind person or State licensing agency suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of this Act or other relevant statutes, shall be entitled to and shall have standing for judicial review thereof."

EFFECTIVE DATE

Section 12. The amendments made by this Act shall become effective July 1, 1969.

Back to Contents

EMPIRE STATE ASSOCIATION SETS EXAMPLE

Dear Editor:

The Empire State Association of the Blind, Inc., at its annual convention held in September, adopted a resolution establishing a Jacobus tenBroek Memorial Fund in conjunction with that adopted by the National Federation. Contributions toward the tenBroek Memorial Fund will be collected at each annual convention.

ESAB is very proud to advise that a grand total of $171.20 was collected from those attending the last ESAB Annual Convention.

We were very impressed by the enthusiasm with which this resolution was received and are forwarding this information to you in the hope that you will publish this in the Braille Monitor. As we are very interested in this fund, we would like to have other state affiliates know what New York did and by the same token, we are very interested to know what is being done by other state affiliates. It was felt by the ESAB Board of Directors that by publishing what New York State is doing, perhaps other states would forward information regarding their tenBroek Memorial contributions and even motivate those states which have not passed such a resolution to do so.

To be able to contribute to the tenBroek Memorial Fund was considered by all those concerned a great privilege. This is but a small tangible token of our appreciation of this man who, in his time, touched the lives of all the blind, giving them hope for a better day, gave so much of himself to help the less fortunate and instilled in all of our leaders the strength and determination to complete the work which he had begun. It is truly a great man who can lead and educate his followers so that the organization can continue its work uninterrupted. The foundation has been laid and under our present leadership the Organization cannot help but build, build, build.

The Braille Monitor is considered by me as one of the best-written magazines for the blind. Whenever I am a bit hazy on legislation, I refer to the Monitor which is written so comprehensively that even I am able to understand. Legislation is usually so smothered with superfluous wording that by the time that we get to the meat of the matter, it is lost. Thank you for such a fine magazine.

Sincerely,
Laura Herman
ESAB Secretary

Back to Contents

IOWA LOOKS FINE TO BLIND FARMER

[Editor's Note: The following article was printed in Performance, the publication of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.The subject of this article, Mr. Elwyn Hemken, was appointed on November 25, 1968 by Governor Harold Hughes to the Board of the Iowa Commission for the Blind.]

On New Year's Eve seven years ago, Elwyn Hemken became totally blind. Yet today, there are many who come in contact with this forty-five year old farmer who are unaware he has no sight.

Hemken insists his blindness, though admittedly a handicap, has not made him a hopeless dependent. He credits two factors for his having turned lack of eyesight into little more than a nuisance. "If you have to be blind," says Hemken, "there's no better place to be than Iowa. This State has a wonderful program for the blind, probably the best in the Nation." Secondly, Hemken credits helpful neighbors in his Blairsburg community and a devoted family for "an awful lot of help."

"Don't get the idea I can get around like I did before I lost my sight," he adds, "but thanks to many people and good training I get around pretty well." This training and help has given Hemken the confidence to continue managing a 280-acre rented farm 2 1/2 miles south of Blairsburg in central Iowa. Hemken is a member of Hardin County REC, Iowa Falls.

Ben Meyering, a retired neighbor now living in nearby Webster City, handles the tractor work for Hemken, as does a son, Bradley, sixteen. Still, Hemken is a busy man as the farm manager. He also tends to about twenty sows and their litters along with other farm jobs, such as maintaining farm machinery. Hemken supplements his farm income by selling insurance as a licensed agent. (He has passed seven insurance exams since his blindness.)

Severe eye hemorrhaging, the result of diabetes, was responsible for the loss of sight. The Hamilton County man admits he was frightened when blindness came even though doctors had warned the spring before of the possibility. Before that "I guess like anyone else, I'd never thought I'd be blind," Elwyn says. "But there I was."

He didn't have much time to worry about it, however. Doctors advised him to contact the Iowa Commission for the Blind in Des Moines. In a short time Hemken was attending the Commission's center in the capital city for the first of two four-month sessions. He learned to use power tools, move easily everywhere with the aid of a long Fiberglass cane, cook, keep house, read Braille and most of all regain self-confidence.

Farming and his insurance sideline aren't all that keep Elwyn Hemken on the go. He's on the State advisory board for the blind, has served as Farm Bureau township director, and as an officer in the local Lions Club.

Elwyn observes he was one father who was looking forward to the day his son turned sixteen and was eligible for a driver's license. Adding another driver to the family relieved wife Dorothy who has taxied her husband about while continuing to teach eighth grade in Blairsburg, keep house, and attend night and summer classes at Drake University (she graduated last fall).

The apparent ease with which Hemken moves about his home and farm cause an observer to almost immediately forget he is blind. "There's no truth," says Elwyn, "to beliefs other senses such as hearing and smell become greater after loss of sight, but it is a fact you depend upon them more. Of course," he adds, "it isn't always easy, but without the fine program for the blind in Iowa, it would have been a lot harder."

Back to Contents

CROSS OF BLINDNESS

An Address Delivered by
Professor Jacobus tenBroek
President, National Federation of the Blind
at the Banquet of the Annual Convention
Held in New Orleans, July 6, 1957

In the short seventeen years since our founding of the National Federation of the Blind, we have grown from a handful of men and women scattered over seven states to a federation of forty-three state affiliates. The first convention of the NFB in 1940 was attended by twelve or fifteen persons—our convention last year had a registration of seven hundred and five from every corner of the Union.

That is rapid organizational growth by any yardstick. Who are these people of the National Federation of the Blind? What is the purpose that has led them the self-organization in such numbers, and unites them now with such apparent dedication and enthusiasm?

It is not enough, I think, to answer that the members of the NFB are drawn together by their common interest in the welfare of the blind; for many of the sighted share that, too. Nor is it sufficient to say that we are united only because we are blind; many who are affiliated with agencies for the blind have that characteristic also. It is fundamental to the uniqueness of our group that we are the only nation-wide organization for the blind which is also of the blind. The composition of the NFB, indeed, is living testimony to the fact—unfortunately not yet accepted by society as a whole—that the blind are capable of self-organization: which is to say, of leading themselves, of directing their own destiny.

Yet this is still only half the truth, only a part of the characteristic which defines our Federation and provides its reason for being. Our real distinction from other organizations in the field of blind welfare lies in the social precept and personal conviction which are the motive source of our activity and the wellspring of our faith. The belief that we who are blind are normal human beings sets us sharply apart from other groups designed to aid the blind. We have all the typical and ordinary range of talents and techniques, attitudes and aspirations. Our underlying assumption is not—as it is with some other groups—the intrinsic helplessness and everlasting dependency of those who happen to lack sight, but rather their innate capacity to nullify and overrule this disability—to find their place in the community—with much the same degree of success and failure to be found among the general population.

Perhaps I can best document this thesis of the normality of the blind with a random sample of the occupations represented at our national convention a year ago in San Francisco. Among the blind delegates in attendance, there were: three blind physicists engaged in experimental work for the United States Government. There was one blind chemist also doing experimental work for the national government. There were two university instructors of the rank of full professor, a number of other college instructors of various ranks, and several blind teachers of sighted students in primary and secondary grades in the public schools. There were thirteen lawyers, most in private practice, two employed as attorneys by the United States Government, one serving as the chairman of a state public service commission, one serving as a clerk to a state chief justice. There were three chiropractors, one osteopath, ten secretaries, seventeen factory workers, one shoemaker, one cab dispatcher, one book mender, one appliance repairman, four telephone switchboard operators, numerous businessmen in various businesses, five musicians, thirty students, many directors and workers in programs for the blind, and sixty-one housewives.

At any other convention there would be nothing at all remarkable about this broad cross-section of achievement and ability; it is exactly what you would expect to find at a gathering of the American Legion or the Exalted Order of Elks, or at a town meeting in your community. Anywhere else, that is, but at a convention of the blind. It never ceases to surprise the public that a blind man may be able to hold his own in business, operate a farm successfully, argue a brief in a court of law, teach a class of sighted students, or conduct experiments in a chemistry lab. It comes as a shock to the average person to discover that the blind not only can but do perform as well as the next man in all the normal and varied callings of the community.

But this "shock of recognition," on the part of many people, too easily gives way to a mood of satisfaction and an attitude of complacency. After all, if the blind are so capable, so successful and so independent, what is all the fuss about? Where is the need for all this organization and militant activity? Why can't the blind let well enough alone?

These are reasonable questions, surely, and deserve a reasoned answer. I believe that the answer may best be given by reciting a list of sixteen specific events which have taken place recently in various parts of the country. The events are:

1. A blind man (incidentally a distinguished educator and citizen of his community) was denied a room in a well-known YMCA in New York City—not on the ground that his appearance betokened inability to pay, which it did not; not on the ground that he had an unsavory reputation, which he did not; not on the ground that his behavior was or was likely to be disorderly, which it was not—but on the ground that he was blind.

2. A blind man was rejected as a donor by the blood bank in his city—not on the ground that his blood was not red; not on the ground that his blood was watery, defective in corpuscles or diseased; not on the ground that he would be physically harmed by the loss of the blood—but on the ground that he was blind.

3. A blind man (in this case a successful lawyer with an established reputation in his community) was denied the rental of a safety-deposit box by his bank—not on the ground that he was a well-known bank robber; not on the ground that he had nothing to put in it; not on the ground that he couldn't pay the rental price—but on the ground that he was blind.

4. A blind man was rejected for jury duty in a California city—not on the ground of mental incompetence; not on the ground of moral irresponsibility; not on the ground that he would not weigh the evidence impartially and come to a just verdict—but on the ground that he was blind.

5. A blind college student majoring in education was denied permission to perform practice teaching by a state university—not on the ground that her academic record was poor; not on the ground that she had not satisfied the prerequisites; not on the ground that she lacked the educational or personal qualifications—but on the ground that she was blind.

6. A blind applicant for public employment was denied consideration by a state civil service commission—not on the ground that he lacked the education or experience specifications; not on the ground that he was not of good moral character; not on the ground that he lacked the residence or citizenship requirements—but on the ground that he was blind.

7. A blind woman was refused a plane ticket by an airline—not on the ground that she couldn't pay for her ticket; not on the ground that her heart was weak and couldn't stand the excitement; not on the ground that she was a carrier of contagion—but on the ground that she was blind.

8. A blind machinist was declared ineligible for a position he had already held for five years. This declaration was the result of a routine medical examination. It came on the heels of his complete clearance and reinstatement on the job following a similar medical finding the year before. These determinations were made—not on the ground of new medical evidence showing that he was blind, for that was known all along; not on the ground that he could not do the job which he had successfully performed for five years with high ratings; not on the ground of any factor related to his employment—they were made on the ground that he was blind.

9. A blind high school student who was a duly qualified candidate for student body president was removed from the list of candidates by authority of the principal and faculty of the school—not on the ground that he was an outside infiltrator from some other school; not on the ground that he was on probation; not on the ground that he was not loyal to the principles of the United States Constitution—but on the ground that he was blind.

10. Traveler's Insurance Company, in its standard policy issued to cover trips on railroads, expressly exempts the blind from coverage—not on the ground that there is statistical or actuarial evidence that blind travelers are more prone to accident than sighted travelers are; not on the ground that suitcases or fellow passengers fall on them more often; not on the ground that trains carrying blind passengers are more likely to be wrecked unless it is the engineer who is blind—but solely on the ground of blindness. Many, if not most, other insurance companies selling other forms of insurance either will not cover the blind or increase the premium.

11.A blind man, who had been a successful justice court and police court judge in his community for eleven years, ran for the position of superior court judge in the general election of 1956. During the campaign his opponents did not argue that he was ignorant of the law and therefore incompetent; or that he had been guilty of bilking widows and orphans; or that he lacked the quality of mercy. Almost the only argument that they used against him was that he was blind. The voters, however, elected him handily. At the next session of the state legislature a bill was introduced disqualifying blind persons as judges. The organized blind of the state were able to modify this bill but not to defeat it.

12. More than sixty blind men and women—among them doctors, teachers, businessmen and members of various professions—were recently ordered by the building and safety authority of a large city to move out of their hotel-type living quarters. This was not on the ground that they were pyromaniacs and likely to start fires; not on the ground that they were delinquent in their rent; not on the ground that they disturbed their neighbors with riotous living—but on the ground that as blind people they were subject to the code provisions regarding the "bed-ridden, ambulatory and helpless," that anyone who is legally blind must live in an institution-type building—with all the rooms on the ground floor, with no stairs at the end of halls, with hard, fire-proof furniture, with chairs and smoking-stands lined up along the wall "so they won't fall over them."

13. The education code of one of our states provides that deaf, dumb, and blind children may be sent at state expense to a school for the deaf, dumb, or blind, if they possess the following qualifications: (1) They are free from offensive or contagious diseases; (2) they have no parent, relative, guardian or nearest friend able to pay for their education; (3) that by reason of deafness, dumbness, or blindness, they are disqualified from being taught by the ordinary process of instruction or education.

14. In a recent opinion the supreme court of one of the states held that a blind person who sought compensation for an injury due to an accident which he claimed arose out of and in the course of his employment by the state board of industries for the blind, was a ward of the state and therefore not entitled to compensation. The conception that blind shopworkers are wards of the state was only overcome in another state by a recent legislative enactment.

15. A blind person, duly convicted of a felony and sentenced to a state penitentiary, was denied parole when he became eligible therefore—not on the ground that he had not served the required time; not on the ground that his prison behavior had been bad; not on the ground that he had not been rehabilitated— but on the ground that he was blind.

16. A blind man who sat down at a gambling table in Reno, where such things are legal, was denied an opportunity to play—not on the ground that he didn't know the rules of the game; not on the ground that he might cheat the dealer or the other players; not on the ground that he didn't have any money to lose—but on the ground that he was blind.

These last two cases show that the blind are normal in every respect.

What emerges from this set of events,is the age-old stereotype of blindness as witlessness and helplessness. By virtue of this pervasive impression, a blind man is held to be incapable of weighing the evidence presented at a trial or performing the duties of a teacher. He cannot take care of himself in in a room of his own, and is not to be trusted on a plane. A sightless person would not know what he has put into or removed from a safety deposit box; and he has no right to employment in the public service. He must not even be permitted to continue on a job he has performed successfully for years. Even his blood cannot be given voluntarily for the common cause.

Contrast these two lists—the one of the occupations represented at the NFB convention; the other of the discriminatory activities—the first is a list of accomplishments of what the blind have done and therefore can do; the second is a list of prohibitions of what the blind are thought incompetent to do and therefore are debarred from attempting. The first list refers to the physical disability of blindness. It demonstrates in graphic fashion how slight a disadvantage is the mere loss of sight to the mental capacity and vocational talent of the individual. The second list refers not to the disability but to the handicap which is imposed upon the blind by others. The origin of the disability is plainly inside the blind person. The origin and responsibility for the handicap are just as plainly outside him—in the attitudes and preconceptions of the community.

Let me be very clear about this. I have no wish to minimize the character and extent of blindness as a disability. It is for all of us a constant nuisance and a serious inconvenience. To overcome it requires effort and patience and initiative and guts. It is not compensated for, despite the fairy tales to the contrary, by the spontaneous emergence of a miraculous "sixth sense" or any other magical powers. It means nothing more or less than the loss of one of the five senses and a correspondingly greater reliance upon the four that remain—as well as upon the brain, the heart, and the spirit.

It may be said that the discriminatory acts which I have cited, and others like them which are occurring all the time, simply do not reflect informed thought. They are occasional happenings, unpremeditated, irrational or accidental. Surely no one would justify them; no one would say that they represent an accurate appraisal of the blind and of blindness.

Well, let us see. Let us look at some pronouncements of presumably thoughtful and informed persons writing about the blind—agency heads,educators administrators, social workers, historians, psychologists and public officials. What do they have to say about the potentialities of the blind in terms of intellectual capacity, vocational talent, and psychological condition? What do they report concerning the prospects for social integration on the basis of normality and economic advancement on the basis of talent?

First, an educator. Here are the words of a prominent authority on the education of the blind, himself for thirty years a superintendent of a school for the blind. "It is wrong to start with the school," this authority writes, "and to teach there a number of occupations that the blind can do, but to teach them out of relation to their practical and relative values. This is equivalent to attempting to create trades for the blind and then more or less angrily to demand that the world recognize the work and buy the product, whether useful or useless." More than this, it is necessary to recognize the unfitness of the blind "as a class" for any sort of competition and therefore to afford them not only protection but monopoly wherever possible. Declaring that "it must be unqualifiedly conceded that there is little in an industrial way that a blind person can do at all that cannot be done better and more expeditiously by people with sight," this expert considers that there are only two ways out: one being the extension of concessions and monopolies, and the other the designation of certain "preferred" occupations for the blind—"leaving the battle of wits only to those select few that may be considered, and determined to be, specially fit."

The conclusion that employment possibilities for the blind are confined, with only negligible exceptions, to the purview of sheltered workshops is contained in this set of "facts" about the blind which the same authority asserts are "generally conceded by those who have given the subject much thought:" "[T]hat the handcrafts in which the blind can do first-class work are very limited in number, with basketry, weaving, knitting, broom and brush making, and chair caning as the most promising and most thoroughly tried out . . . that in these crafts the blind cannot enter into direct competition with the seeing either in the quality of product or the amount turned out in a given time . . . that the crafts pursued by the blind may best be carried on in special workshops under the charge of government officials or trained officers of certain benevolent associations . . . that among the 'higher' callings piano-tuning and massage are, under favoring conditions such as prevail for masseurs in Japan, the fields offering the greatest chance of success, while the learned professions, including teaching, are on the whole only for those of very superior talent and, more particularly, very superior courage and determination to win at all costs."

Second, an historian. The basis for this assessment, and its justification,have been presented in blunt and explicit language by a well-known historian of blindness and the blind in the United States. He says, "[T]here exists in the community a body of men who, by reason of a physical defect, namely, the loss of sight, are disqualified from engaging in the regular pursuits of men and who are thus largely rendered incapable of providing for themselves independently." They are to be regarded as a "disabled and infirm fraction of the people" or, more specifically, as "sighted men in a dark room." "Rather than let them drift into absolute dependence and become a distinct burden, society is to lend an appropriate helping hand" through the creation of sheltered, publicly subsidized employment.

Third, administrators. That this pessimistic appraisal of the range of talent among the blind has not been limited to the schoolmen and historians may be shown by two succinct statements from wartime pamphlets produced by the Civil Service Commission in an effort to broaden employment opportunities for the physically disabled. "The blind," it was found, "are especially proficient in manual occupations requiring a delicate sense of touch. They are well suited to jobs which are repetitious in nature." Again: "The placement of persons who are blind presents various special problems. Small groups of positions in sheltered environment, involving repetitive work, were surveyed in Government establishments and were found to have placement potentialities for the blind." Such findings as these were doubtless at the base of a remark of a certain public official who wrote that: "Helping the blind has its strong appeal to the sensibilities of everyone; on the other hand, we should avoid making the public service an eleemosynary institution."

Fourth, a blind agency head. The executive director of one of the largest private agencies for the blind justifies the failure of the philanthropic groups in these blunt terms: "The fact that so few workers or organizations are doing anything appreciable to [improve the condition of the blind] cannot be explained entirely on the grounds that they are not in the vanguard of social thinking. It is rather because they are realistic enough to recognize that the rank and file of blind persons have neither the exceptional urge for independence nor the personal qualifications necessary to satisfactory adjustment in the sighted world .... It is very difficult and exceptional for a blind person to be as productive as a sighted person."

Fifth, a psychologist. Even plainer language—as well as more impressive jargon-has been used by another authority who is widely considered the pre-eminent expert in the field of blind psychology. "Until recently," he writes, "the blind and those interested in them have insisted that society revise and modify its attitude toward this specific group. Obviously, for many reasons, this is an impossibility, and effort spent on such a program is as futile as spitting into the wind ... it is extremely doubtful whether the degree of emotional maturity and social adaptability of the blind would long support and sustain any social change of attitude, if it were possible to achieve it." If this is not plain enough, the writer continues: "A further confusion of attitude is found in educators and workers for the blind who try to propagandize society with the rational concept that the blind are normal individuals without vision. This desperate whistling in the dark does more damage than good. The blind perceive it as a hypocritical distortion of actual facts .... It is dodging the issue to place the responsibility on the unbelieving and nonreceptive popular attitudes .... The only true answer lies in the unfortunate circumstance that the blind share with other neurotics the nonaggressive personality and the inability to participate fully in society .... There are two general directions for attacking such a problem, either to adjust the individual to his environment, or to rearrange the environment so that it ceases to be a difficulty to the individual. It is quite obvious that the latter program is not only inadvisable, but also impossible. However, it is the attack that nearly every frustrated, maladjusted person futilely attempts."

Sixth, a social worker. This sweeping negation of all attempts to modify the prejudicial attitudes of society toward the blind, however eccentric and extreme it may sound, finds strong support in the field of social casework. In areas where "such ideas remain steadfast," reads a typical report "it is the function of the social caseworker to assist the blind person to work within these preconceived ideas. Since handicapped persons are a minority group in society, there is greater possibility of bringing about a change in an individual within a stated length of time than there is in reversing accepted concepts within the culture." The "well-adjusted blind person," it is argued, should be able to get along in this restrictive social setting, and the case worker must concentrate on his personal adjustment since it is easier to reform the client than to reform society.

Seventh, a blind philanthropist. Let me close my list of testimonials with one final citation. I think it must already be sufficiently obvious that, granting the assumptions contained in all these statements, the blind have no business organizing themselves apart from sighted supervision; that a social movement of the blind and by the blind is doomed to futility, frustration, and failure. But just in case the point is not clear enough, I offer the considered opinion of a well-known figure in the history of blind philanthropy:

It cannot, then, be through the all-blind society that the blind leader of the blind finds adequate opportunity for the exercise of his leadership. The wise leader will know that the best interests of each blind person he within the keeping of the nine hundred and ninety nine sighted people who, with himself, make up each one thousand of any average population. He will know, further, that if he wishes to promote the interests of the blind, he must become a leader of the sighted upon whose understanding and patronage the fulfillment of these interests depends .... There is ... no advantage accruing from membership in an all-blind organization which might not be acquired in greater measure through membership in a society of sighted people.

What is the substance of all these damning commentaries? What are the common assumptions which underlie the attitudes of the leaders of blind philanthropy and the authorities on blind welfare? The fundamental concepts can, I think, be simply stated. First, the blind are by virtue of their defect emotionally immature if not psychologically abnormal; they are mentally inferior and narrowly circumscribed in the range of their ability—and therefore inevitably doomed to vocational monotony, economic dependency, and social isolation. Second, even if their capabilities were different they are necessarily bound to the fixed status and subordinate role ordained by "society," whose attitudes toward them are permanent and unalterable. Third, they must place their faith and trust, not in themselves and in their own organizations, but in the sighted public and most particularly in those who have appointed themselves the protectors and custodians of the blind.

A few simple observations are in order. First, as to the immutability of social attitudes and discriminatory actions towards the blind, we know from intimate experience that the sighted public wishes well for the blind and that its misconceptions are rather the result of innocence and superstition than of deliberate cruelty and malice aforethought. There was a time, in the days of Rome, when blind infants were thrown to the wolves or sold into slavery. That time is no more. There was a time, in the middle ages, when blind beggars were the butts of amusement at Country fairs, decked out in paper spectacles and donkeys' ears. That time is no more. There was a time, which still exists to a surprising extent, when the parents of a blind child regarded his disability as a divine judgment upon their own sins. But that time is now beginning to disappear at least in the civilized world.

The blind are no longer greeted by society with open hostility and frantic avoidance, but with compassion and sympathy. It is true that an open heart is no guarantee of an open mind. It is true that good intentions are not enough. It is true that tolerance is a far cry from brotherhood, and that protection and trusteeship are not the synonyms of equality and freedom. But the remarkable progress already made in the civilizing of brute impulses and the humanizing of social attitudes towards the blind is compelling evidence that there is nothing fixed or immutable about the social status quo for the blind and that, if the blind themselves are capable of independence and inter-dependence within society, society is capable of welcoming them.

Our own experience as individuals and as members of the National Federation of the Blind gives support at short range to what long range history already makes plain. We have observed and experienced the gradual breakdown of legal obstacles and prejudicial acts; we have participated in the expansion of opportunities for the blind in virtually every phase of social life and economic livelihood—in federal, state and local civil service; in teaching and other professions; in the addition of a constructive element to public welfare. Let anyone who thinks social attitudes cannot be changed read this statement contained in a recent pamphlet of the Federal Civil Service Commission:

Sometimes a mistaken notion is held that . . . the blind can do work only where keenness of vision is not important in the job. The truth appears to be that the blind can do work demanding different degrees of keenness of vision on the part of the sighted. If there is any difference in job proficiency related to a degree of keenness of vision required for the sighted, it is this: the blind appear to work with greater proficiency at jobs where the element is present to a noticeable extent in the sighted job than where vision is only generally useful.

Second, are the blind mentally inferior, emotionally adolescent and psychologically disturbed; or on the contrary, are they normal and capable of social and economic integration? The evidence that they are the latter can be drawn from many quarters: scientific, medical, historical, and theoretical. But the evidence which is most persuasive is that which I have already presented: it is the evidence displayed in the lives and performance of such average and ordinary blind men and women as those who attended our national convention last summer. It is the evidence of their vocational accomplishments, their personal achievements, the plain normality of their daily lives. To me their record is more than an impressive demonstration: it is a clinching rebuttal.

It would, of course, be a gross exaggeration to maintain that all blind persons have surmounted their physical disability and conquered their social handicap.

It is not the education of the sighted only which is needed to establish the right of the blind to equality and integration. Just as necessary is the education of the blind themselves. For the process of their rehabilitation is not ended with physical and vocational training; it is complete only when they have driven the last vestige of the public stereotype of the blind from their own minds. In this sense, and to this extent only, is it true that the blind person must "adjust" to his handicap and to society. His adjustment need not—indeed must not—mean his submission to all prevailing social norms and values. His goal is not conformity but autonomy: not acquiescence, but self-determination and self-control.

From all of this it should be clear that it is a long way yet from the blind alleys of dependency and segregation to the main thoroughfares of personal independence and social integration which we have set as our goal. And I believe it is equally plain that our progress toward that goal will demand the most forceful and skillful application of all the means at our command: that is, the means of education, persuasion, demonstration, and legislation.

We need the means of education to bring the public and the blind themselves to a true recognition of the nature of blindness—to tear away the fossil layers of mythology and prejudice. We need persuasion to induce employers to try us out and convince society to take us in. We need demonstration to prove our capacity and normality in every act of living and of making a living. And finally we need legislation to reform the statute books and obliterate the legal barriers which stand in the way of normal life and equal opportunity—replacing them with laws which accurately reflect the accumulated knowledge of modern science and the ethics of democratic society.

This final platform in our program of equality—the platform of adequate legislation—is in many respects the most crucial and pressing of all. For until the blind are guaranteed freedom of opportunity and endeavor within the law there can be little demonstration of their ability and little prospect of persuasion. What is needed is nothing less than a new spirit of the laws, which will uproot the discriminatory clauses and prejudicial assumptions that presently hinder the efforts of the blind toward self-advancement and self-support. The new philosophy requires that programs for the blind be founded upon the social conception of their normality and the social purpose of their reintegration into the community, with aids and services adjusted to these conceptions.

These then are the objectives of the self-organized blind; goals freely chosen for them by themselves. And this is the true significance of an organization of the blind, by the blind, the blind. For the blind the age of charity, like that of chivalry, is dead; but this is not to say that there is no place for either of these virtues. In order to achieve the equality that is their right, in order to gain the opportunity that is their due, and in order to attain the position of full membership in the community that is their goal, the blind have continuing need for the understanding and sympathy and liberality of their sighted neighbors and fellow citizens. But their overriding need is first of all for recognition—recognition of themselves as normal and of their purposes as legitimate. The greatest hope of the blind is that they may be seen as they are, not as they have been portrayed; and since they are neither wards nor children, their hope is to be not only seen but also heard—in their own accents and for whatever their cause may be worth.

Back to Contents

WE CAN DO IT

by
Kenneth Jernigan

The great effort by the blind in many states to obtain support for our disability insurance bill is beginning to tell. Three have already achieved the 100 percent mark. Others are pushing toward the three quarter mark and five have just passed the fifty percent point.

During the 90th Congress only forty members cosponsored our disability insurance bill. As of this writing, we have ninety cosponsors in the 91st Congress. While we are far ahead of where we were last time at this date, we have a long way to go. In fact, our magic number is 218. If we could reach this, we would, of course, have more than half the House and almost absolute assurance of passing the bill.

I say "almost absolute assurance" because we must have a good report from the House Ways and Means Committee or the bill will never reach the floor for a vote. A number of Congressmen have pledged their support but state that they simply do not introduce companion bills (because of the cost) under any circumstances. Alabama solved this problem by having all its Congressional delegation cosponsor a single bill. When we are absolutely sure a Congressman will not introduce the bill but indicates that he favors it, then we should ask him to write a letter of support to Congressman James A. Burke with a copy shown to Congressman Wilbur Mills, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. A favorable report from this committee is absolutely crucial to our battle. So organize your friends, blind and sighted, for letter writing and let us get this bill passed. We can if we will only work.

Some of you have raised questions about the bill. One state leader asked me which of the various bills that have been introduced was the most favorable to us. The answer, of course, is that all of these bills are exactly identical. Each time another Congressman introduces our disability legislation his bill (even though identical with the others) is given a number. In the case of Alabama, the entire delegation went together on one bill. Therefore, it has a single number, but it is still our disability insurance bill and is still identical in wording with the others. The purpose in having different Congressmen introduce the bill is to create momentum, add prestige, and publicly commit the individual. Another state group said to me something to this effect: "It is hard to get some of the blind of our state very interested in the disability bill since they will lose dollar for dollar off their welfare checks if they get it." I asked how much the average welfare grant was in their state. They replied that the average was about $90 per month. I then asked them how much maximum social security payments were. They did not know precisely but figure it is something over $165. I then said to them: "It really doesn't take an awful lot of brainpower to figure that even if blind welfare recipients in your state lost all of their $90 but got $165 in exchange they would be better off. Furthermore, the $165 (or whatever it is) would go up every time social security increases, can be received regardless of earnings, does not depend on decisions or the good will of the social worker, requires no prying or investigations, and has a host of other pluses."

So let's get this bill passed. We need more cosponsors. As I said before 218 is the magic number. We can do it. Write more letters, send more wires, make more contacts with your Congressional delegation. Today is the time to do it.

Back to Contents

FREEDOM FOUNDATION HONORS TWIN VISION

[Editor's Note: The following story is reprinted from the Van Nuys (California) News and was written by the Assistant Editor of the News, Haig Keropian.]

For its "heart" and latest contribution in bringing knowledge, understanding and inspiration to the blind throughout the world, Twin Vision, an educational arm of the American Brotherhood for the Blind, today possesses the coveted George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge.

This honor—as well as the presentation of special Twin Vision awards to Mrs. Rockey (Jay) Spicer,first president of nine-year-old volunteer Twin Vision Action Committee, and William Schiffmacher, for his artistic contributions to the group—highlighted the organization's annual banquet.

The Freedom Foundation medal was awarded for the Twin Vision production of the Constitution of the United States in Braille. It was presented to Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, blind president of the American Brotherhood for the Blind by Mrs. Theodore Flynn, member of awards committee of Los Angeles County Chapter of Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge.

In her presentation, Mrs. Flynn said that recipients of the George Washington Honor Medal are judged on the basis of "outstanding achievements in bringing about a better understanding of the American way of life."

Since its inception, Twin Vision which maintains its headquarters at 18440 Topham Street, Tarzana, has been cited on many occasions for its books which make it possible for sighted parents to share rewarding reading experiences with their blind children and vice versa.

Twin Vision publications have been sent to schools for the blind, libraries and homes throughout the nation and in many foreign countries.

Twin Vision honors—the Golden Book Awards—were presented to Mrs. Spicer and Schiffmacher by Dr. Jernigan and Mrs. Jean Dyon Norris, founder and director of Twin Vision.

The Braille production of the Constitution was sponsored by the Pilot Club of Van Nuys headed by Elizabeth Noble.

Another highlight of the banquet was the presentation of the initial copy of the organization's new publication "The White Cane Story" to Mrs. Jacobus tenBroek, widow of the late blind president of the American Brotherhood for the Blind. Mrs. Norris said "The White Cane Story" is dedicated to Dr.tenBroek, whose inspirational guidance had made the publication of the book possible.

Dr.tenBroek had taken part in all previous banquets of Twin Vision. His impressive record of courage and accomplishment continues to serve as an inspiration to both the blind and sighted. Reference to Dr. tenBroeks inspirational work was made by Mrs. Spicer during her acceptance of the Golden Book Award. She in turn was commended for her pioneering efforts with the volunteer Action Committee by Mrs. Norris.

Tributes to the memory of Dr. tenBroek also were given by Dr. Jernigan, who referred to significant value of the printed page to both sightless children and adults.

He said the blind today are distinguishing themselves as students and in many professional areas of activity. Dr. Jernigan said that "blindness is not a great tragedy," and that the blind can overcome what he referred to as a "nuisance" handicap. He said the blind seek equal treatment and equal share of community responsibilities, as well as an equal share in the rewards of community progress and development. "We have hope for the future and confidence in the present," Dr. Jernigan concluded.

Schiffmacher received his Golden Book Award for his dedicated and selfless efforts in creating covers for "The White Cane Story" and other Twin Vision books.

In addition, Mrs. Norris praised the work of Mrs. Paul Novack, who is serving her second term as president of the Twin Vision Action Committee, and other officers and members of the committee.

She made reference to the contributions of Mrs. Robert K. Neel, author, illustrator and creator of the Twin Vision books—including "Shape of Things—Rockets," "Shape of Things—Space Ships," "Shape of Things—Birds," "Shape of Things—Coins," and others.

Mrs. Norris praised the work of Rocky Spicer, who for years has served as editor of Twin Vision's "Hot Line" newsletter, a twice-monthly publication that brings international and national news and other information to those without sight and hearing.

A report on the accomplishments, current activities and plans of the Twin Vision Action Committee, was given by Mrs. Novack.

Master of ceremonies at the banquet was Anthony Mannino, executive secretary of the American Brotherhood for the Blind. The invocation was given by the Rev. Thomas Vaughn, pastor of the St. Martin-In-The-Fields Episcopal Church.

Mrs. Flynn's remarks follow.

The Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge is a non-profit, non-sectarian, non-partisan organization whose primary purpose is to recognize, through annual awards, individuals, organizations and schools doing outstanding work in helping to bring about a better understanding and appreciation of the American Way of Life.

Each year Freedoms Foundation presents a series of awards in a variety of categories, including awards for sermons, public addresses, school and community programs, editorials, radio and television programs, projects by companies and organizations, and for other expressions and activities by which people communicate ideas. Through this awards process the Foundation's objective is to publicly recognize and award those people, institutions and groups who have been of service to their country through the things which they have written, said or done.

Nominations for these awards are made by the general public. Last year more than ten tons of nominations were submitted for awards consideration, representing the work of individuals and organizations in every part of our nation.

The officers and staff of Freedoms Foundation have no part in the selection of the annual awards. All evaluation of nominations is done by a distinguished jury which convenes each year at the Foundation's Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, National Headquarters.

This forty-four member panel is composed of thirteen Chief or Associate Justices of State Supreme Courts, together with thirty-one men and women who are the principal officers of our country's major veterans, patriotic and service club organizations.

Each nomination is evaluated by the jury for its effectiveness as a constructive contribution toward the goal of increasing public understanding of the unique freedoms which we in America enjoy. Judges are guided in their labors by the Credo of the Freedoms Foundation—"The American Way of Life." This graphic representation depicts a great monument whose foundation stones are a fundamental belief in God and Constitutional Government. Its pillars are those personal, political, and religious rights sacred to all Americans. Inscribed is this pledge—"To personally understand and maintain the American way of life, to honor it by his own exemplary conduct, and to pass it intact to succeeding generations is the responsibility of every true American."

Tonight's award is particularly appropriate in view of the purpose of the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge as stated in its charter—"To create and build an understanding of the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and of our indivisible bundle of political and economic freedoms inherent in them."

On behalf of the distinguished jury it is my privilege to present the George Washington Honor Medal Award of Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge to the Twin Vision Publishing Division of the American Brotherhood for the Blind represented here tonight by Mr, Kenneth Jernigan.

Back to Contents

CSB (SEATTLE) FEES ITS WAY TO PROFESSIONAL STATUS

In our Ango-American heritage working for the poor and downtrodden came to be associated with do-gooders and crackpots, and work for the blind especially so. During the last couple of decades, not content to let the quality of their education and performance raise them into the ranks of professionals, some workers and agencies for the blind have striven to create their own profession and to set the standards for those who practice it as well as for the buildings in which it is to be practiced—in the fashion of the trade guilds of the fifteenth century. They have invented their own "sciences", do "research" in them, and write what they would like to have considered as "learned" papers for journals of their own creation. And more recently, they have set up their own committee to judge who is worthy of membership in this profession, developed standards of conformity for agencies and personnel, and, instead of a degree, award complying agencies with a "seal of approval". The organization is, of course, the National Accreditation Council. Its predecessor was the Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for the Blind—COMSTAC.

When COMSTAC's standards came to light in 1966, analysis disclosed an overwhelming emphasis on standards for staff and facilities but little definition of such much used terms as "social services". That term seems to have been all things to all standards and little of the philosophy needed to render "social services" meaningful to the blind was set forth. The aim was so to set these standards for staff and facilities that conformity would lead, in some vaguely defined manner to "professional" status. These standards also provided opportunity for personal ax-grinding against independent-minded administrators and agencies. Agencies or groups which had no paid staff member, no matter how effective the services rendered, would be excluded as "non-professional." Agencies and organizations which did not comply with the from-the-top-imposed regulations might even be dropped from the American Foundation's "Directory".

One agency striving for the COMSTAC seal of approval is the Community Services for the Blind in Seattle, Washington. In 1966 the Director of the publicly funded agency declared: "[W]e intend wholeheartedly not only to endorse but to encourage in all principals [sic] and our practice the standards established by the Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for the Blind. This is so because we believe that this is the only objective methodology by which we can assure our constituency of equitable service." Perhaps he wasn't just rolling these syllables around on his tongue. Equitable is usually equated with words such as fair, just, impartial, unbiased, dispassionate, uncolored, objective. As applied in this situation it becomes synonymous with impersonal, and, hence, cold and unfeeling. At that time, the director demanded that the White Cane Association, a chapter of our Washington affiliate, furnish him with their bylaws and constitution and that "you consult with us before you engage in any fund raising [sic] program or any organized political activity." The White Cane Association flatly refused to comply with these outrageous demands. [See The Braille Monitor, "A Case Study of Comstac 'Principles & Practices'", July, 1966]. However, the desire for "equitable" service governed by "objective methodology" has led to a new development in the effort to be granted the professional status of COMSTAC's seal of approval. On January 22, 1969, the Board of Trustees adopted a "Program of Fees for Agency Services," as follows:

"Establishing a history making precedent, the Board of Trustees of Community Services for the Blind voted to adopt a fee system for agency services. This is a decided step forward in the professional development of the program of agency services and is in accordance with the accepted standards for such services. This program of fees is effective March 1, 1969.

"The permissiveness of a fee program increases the individual client's acceptance and effective use of service. It protects his self-dignity by permitting a payment which is meaningful in terms of his own financial means. It is entirely confidential and excludes no one—nor does it ever "demand" payment. The individual himself participates in the decision as to whether or not he will pay a fee and in the determination of the amount.

"The fee system is planned for the four basic core areas of agency program: social casework counseling; social group work and recreational services; orientation and mobility; and instructional services.

"Provisions for other areas of agency services are as follows:

"1. Special aids and appliances are provided to the individual at agency cost. The individual will pay for any special charge such as postage or handling. This service will be limited to individuals and not offered to agencies or institutions and will be provided within the agency service area only.

"2. For transcribing services the only charge is for the cost of materials.

"3. Volunteer service is also without charge except for extra or special expenses to the volunteer or agency.

"4. Special events (boat rides, bus trips, etc.) may have a special fee to assist in defraying costs.

"5. Activity memberships are provided for an individual at the rate of $3 and for a family at the rate of $5 per year. This encompasses a subscription to the Bulletin; lounge activities; informal group and recreational activities, etc. It is entirely voluntary.

"6. When special consultants are used as a part of the professional service, client reimbursement for these services is made on a pro-rated basis according to his ability to pay, as determined by the fee scale.

"7. No fees are charged for general community education except that which is unusually time-consuming or costly, and this is determined administratively on an individual basis.

"8. Outside groups meeting in the Community Services for the Blind building will also pay a predetermined rate per service session, the maximum being $15.

"The suggested fee rate is based on the family's income with the maximum fee being $15 per service session. A service session is defined as l/2 to 1 hour. Rates for services of more than 2 hours will be individually determined. No verification of income is required, and payment may be made by the individual, his family or by another agency on his behalf. There is no fee for income below $5,000 per year. Service provided to other agencies directly is at the maximum rate per service session and will include travel time.

"The individual will be charged up to a maximum of four service sessions per month no matter how many such sessions are involved nor how many different services are involved. The principle also includes service for more than one person in the family.

"The following scale will be the basic guide line:

Income Fee per Service Session
$0 - 5,000 No fee
  5,001 - 6,000 $5.00
  6,001 - 7,000   6.00
  7,001 - 8,000   7.00
  8,001 - 9,000   8.00
  9,001 - 10,000   9.00
  10,001 - 11,000   10.00
  11,001 - 12,000   11.00
  12,001 - 13,000   12.00
  13,001 - 14,000   13.00
  14,001 - 15,000   14.00
  15,000 and up   15.00

The word "profession" means—other than the avowal of belief in a religion—"a vocation or occupation requiring advanced training . . ." and the word "professional" as "worthy of the high standards" of a profession. [Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (College Ed. 1966)] It has, however, acquired a second meaning: "Making some activity, not usually followed for gain, . . . the source of . . . livelihood."[Ibid.]

It is obvious that the second meaning is the one employed here. The group which produced this program of fees hoped that the charging in and of itself would raise not only the agency but its director and its program into the first class. For this action, they admit, is a "step forward in the professional development of the agency services . . . . " The clue is in the rest of that sentence: "and is in accordance with the accepted standards for such agencies." Standards set up and accepted by whom? COMSTAC. True, psychiatrists charge fees not only as professional charges but as a therapeutic measure. But these doctors at least can claim membership in the first class by reason of their training. (Would anyone really argue about the merits of an M.D in psychiatry as against an M.A. in peripatology—as a class?) Here, however, the fee is not equated with therapy, or service, but with dignity! Syllabic multiplication, no matter how loudly proclaimed, can never be substituted for reality any more than the kingly trappings of an actor make him the ruler, though the "Prince and the Pauper" may seem to be the same.[Which, in the current vernacular, means "they ain't telling it the way it is, baby."] This agency proclaims itself as a Center for Services to the Blind. But adhering to COMSTAC standards and charging fees make one wonder who is being served.

But, one might argue, the fee is permissive, that is, the blind person can pay the fee and enjoy the services, or he may choose not to pay the fee and do without the services. While man may not live by bread alone, on blind aid he may be fortunate to have that. This permissive fee is based on the family's—not the individual's—income "although no verification of income is required." This permissive fee may be paid by "the individual, his family, or another agency on his behalf." Since another agency, to say nothing of the family "may" pay it, it is obviously going to be "asked" for most firmly. What happens if the other agency refuses to pay? Note, too, that the fee is for a "service session" that runs vaguely from 30 to 60 minutes The decision as to the length of time used to determine the fee is the Director's. There is a maximum charge-four service sessions per month or $60. How many times have we seen maxima become minima in situations such as these.

Organized blind groups in the area have been using the Center as a meeting place for years. Now they will be charged a "predetermined rate per service session, the maximum being $15."

It is pretty clear from this statement that it doesn't mean that there will be a charge of $15 per meeting. It means that the Director or the Board will determine the rate to be charged, in each individual case, but that the charge per service session will not be more than $15—not at all different from regular charges for other services. If the regular rules apply, as the above language seems to imply, then a meeting which ran for an hour and a half could cost the group $45.

Somehow charging for mobility training, counseling, special events and so on, "adds to the dignity" of the person paying. Everyone is proud to pay his way when he has the wherewithal to do so. But to ask a person receiving aid to the blind or living on a social security pension who comes to the center in need of counseling and guidance and some basic training in the skills of living as a blind person in a sighted world, to pay for these services or shaming his family into doing it for him doesn't add to anyone's dignity. One wonders whose dignity CSB is worried about. Serving a portion of mankind which needs its help evidently is neither dignified nor noble enough—it must needs have a portion of the poor man's aid—to help the poor man feel dignified? It is not enough that the agency decides what services the blind person needs and how much he must pay for them. It also decides how and for what his or his family's available income should be spent. Thus would this agency keep the blind dependent and build its little empire on the "dignity" of the blind person's fee. Enough of such dignity. "A means test by any other name is just as mean," and dignity such as this just as demeaning to professionalism as it is to the blind person who is the recipient of such "equitable and objective methodology".

Back to Contents

BLIND COLLEGE WHISTLER TRICKS TELEPHONE (CODE)

[Editor's Note: The following story is taken from the Associated Press.]

Blind college student Joe Engressia whistled his way past long distance circuits and placed free calls across the nation until he was found out by telephone officials. Although the telephone company doesn't want to prosecute him, and at one point considered hiring him, Engressia may find himself disconnected from college.

Engressia has been blind since birth, said he made about $25 placing calls for students at the rate of $1 each when his thriving young business was upended by authorities. "The guys in the dormitory were calling me 'The Whistler' and I was making call after call after call," Engressia said. "Crowds of up to forty people would follow me around."

Engressia, who said he is equipped with perfect pitch, said he found he could place calls by whistling varying series of a precise tone over the receiver. The tone can vary only 5 per cent, plus or minus, from 2,600 cycles per second.

The end came when Engressia was trying to call a Long Island, N. Y. number for a student but got the Montreal operator. He asked her to help him dial the correct Long Island number. "She was suspicious and monitored the call. Naturally the student I put the call through for talked extensively about the 'whiz kid' who had placed his free call," he said. "The operator broke in and managed to get the student to identify himself and where he was calling from."

Telephone company officials contacted University of South Florida administrators, who soon tracked down Engressia. He was called before the dean of men and told he would be "allowed to withdraw" for the rest of the quarter or face suspension. "The reason is that he violated the state statutes and this is a rather serious offense, misuse of communications systems," said Herbert Wunderlich, USF vice president for student affairs. Said The Whistler: "I don't want to withdraw. I've got between an 'a' and 'b' average."

"I think he'd be an asset to our company," said H. E. Mason, security officer for General Telephone Co. "But I don't think he will be able to work for us because he'd have to be on a part-time basis." Mason said the firm decided it had nothing to gain by prosecuting a blind college student, but added that he had turned over "evidence" in the case to the FBI. "We're obliged by law to do this when we have information on a criminal activity," he said. J. F. Santoiana, Jr., agent in charge of the FBI here, said his office had Investigated and determined no federal violation was involved.

To make a toll-free call, said the youth, he would dial long distance information to any City. Before the operator answered, he said, he would do his whistling thing. First, he would whistle the area code. If it were 212, for instance, he would whistle rapidly twice, pause, whistle once, pause, then twice again—all at 2,600 cycles. Then he would whistle the seven digit local number in the same manner.

Back to Contents

MEET OUR STATE PRESIDENT—JAMES R. CARLOCK AND OUR STATE AFFILIATE—ARIZONA

[Editor's Note: This is the sixth in the series in which the Monitor presents the State Presidents and the state affiliates of the National Federation of the Blind.]

The Arizona Federation of the Blind has been affiliated with the National Federation of the Blind since 1949. Inthat year the state organization was known as the Arizona State Association of the Blind. It changed its name in 1960 to emphasize its affiliation with the national organization. The state group came into being in 1946 under the leadership of a blind attorney from Prescott, Henry Rush. Under his guidance and enthusiasm and with the sponsorship of sighted philanthropist Mrs. Jessie Griswold of Phoenix, sixty people gathered in October and formed the Arizona Association of the Blind. Henry Rush became its first president and served the group both in and out of elective office for many years.

Phoenix has been my home since December 22, 1958. I had lived here only nine months when I became a member of the Zenith Club, the local A.F.B. affiliate and joined the Phoenix Blind Bowlers League.

Arizona Services for the Blind had my case almost from the start. I began by learning braille from the home teacher. Next I completed my high school education through the Hadley Correspondence School for the Blind in Illinois. In April of 1961 I was introduced to vending stands and trained by Buzz Busby who operates the vending stand in the Arizona Arizona State Office Building in Phoenix, where I continue to work.

Though I was born in Chicago, Illinois, I grew up in Indiana. During my junior year in high school hereditary optic atrophy caused me to become legally blind and my failing vision stabilized at that time.

My full name is James Richard Carlock. However, to most in the Federation I am "Jim." On August 23, 1968, I married Amelia Gloria Rojas, also from Phoenix. I am now the proud stepfather of three daughters and one son-in-law.

At the 1964 A.F.B. convention I was elected second vice president. The following year I was elected president and have been re-elected for the last three years. At present I serve on the State Advisory Committee for the Blind and am a member of the Board of Directors of the Phoenix Center for the Blind and the State Library Services Advisory Council.

The knowledge that efforts are not in vain makes the work gratifying. While membership in the Arizona Federation has been greater in the past, we are now rebuilding and have many dedicated members. Among them are Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hurley who have acted as legislation chairmen for the last two years. They were able to realize the passage of an amendment to the Arizona voting law which allows the blind voter to take a person of his choice into the voting booth to assist him, or he may use the two party judges. Alternatively, he may request and receive an absentee ballot. Other members are developing good potential and our movement will continue to grow both in numbers and influence.

Last May and June we conducted a successful fundraising project. We sold tickets to the showing of a religious film by way of telephone solicitors who contacted downtown businessmen for donations. So at last we are on the way back financially.

The Arizona Federation currently has two chapters and members at large in three cities.

Back to Contents

TV HELPS SIGHTLESS SEE

by
Dick Kleiner

[Editor's Note: The following article was published in the Visalia (California) Times-Delta and is reprinted by permission of Newspaper Enterprise Association.]

Somewhere between 200,000 and two million Americans have such poor eyesight that they have great difficulty in reading and writing, even with eyeglasses. One of this group has done something to help.

Dr. Samuel M. Genensky, a mathematician, is completely blind in his left eye, and his right eye is rated at only 8/500. To read or write ordinarily, he must have the material so close to his right eye that his nose touches the paper. With three colleagues at the Rand Corporation, Genensky has developed a system which makes it easier for him to read and write — and could make it easier for thousands of other visually handicapped people to read and write and even do precise manual work. The system uses closed-circuit television, and Genensky and his associates have installed it in his office. They used off-the-shelf components—a camera, receiver, other materials—for this prototype. Once it has been developed for commercial production, the system could be marketed for somewhere around $1,000.

The camera is mounted over Genensky's work table, pointing directly down at whatever he is reading or writing. The receiver—a small-screen Sony is used in the prototype—is mounted on an adjustable shelf at his eye-level when he is seated. With his left hand, he moves a dial which controls a servo-mechanism that swings the camera back and forth. With his right hand, he pushes the book or writing pad toward the back of the table to move from line to line. He is thus able to read or write more naturally than he ever has in his life. He has become so proficient in using the device that often, as he writes, he erases on the paper and then subconsciously blows at the screen to get rid of the rubber dust.

Genensky went through college with the aid of binoculars—one lens for short-range viewing, one for distance. Without the binoculars, he couldn't see what was going on. He has been thinking for many years of devices to assist him and others like him to read and write more easily. Mostly, these were optical devices which all had the drawback of losing light as they magnified. A neighbor, David S. Grey, an optical design consultant, suggested that closed-circuit television might offer a solution, since it amplifies light. The resultant system offers a number of advantages to the visually handicapped. It increases magnification, brightness and contrast. It allows them to read and write while seated in a comfortable position. And it is moderately inexpensive.

Genensky and three colleagues—communications engineer Paul Baran, aeronautical engineer and optometrist Hubert Moshin and computer engineer Harold Steingold—aren't finished. This first model—they call it a "breadboard model"—works and is in daily use but they now see several areas of possible improvement. The second generation system would have a foot control, so both hands would be free. It would reverse the image, giving white type on a black background, which they feel would be easier on the eyes. It would have more flexibility. And it would have a more compact and cooler lighting system.

Genensky believes it could be of value in classrooms, in libraries and in factories, as well as in the home for the private use of the visually handicapped. Some students would be able to see, for the first time, their teachers writing on the blackboard. Some unemployed might be able to handle jobs again. Many elderly persons with failing eyesight could enjoy added years of reading pleasure.

Even if nothing more ever comes of the system, however, it has already done one thing. Sam Genensky has an easier time reading and writing than ever before in his life.

Back to Contents

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT

by
Gerald Neufeld

[Editor's Note: Following is the report of the Chairman of the Committee on Employment Assistance which the California Council of the Blind recently established. The sound approach indicates great prorrise of results which this Committee will achieve.]

Inadequacies in federal and state programs of vocational training and placement of the blind have created the need for a new approach to the problem of employment. It is obvious that to depend upon poorly funded and ill-equipped agencies working for the blind is to ignore a lesson that Federationists learned long ago: it is the blind themselves, as organized groups and as individuals, who must assume the initiative if the movement toward genuine independence and equality is to be successful. While continuing our battle for better and more equitable programs, we must be capable of more than constructive criticism. We must ourselves be the architects and implementors of new programs to augment those which already exist.

How to convince an employer that you are the man for the job? In California we have placed this thorny problem in the hands of the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. In spite of their efforts, relatively little progress has resulted. The reasons are many. The vocational counsellor is expected to be intimately familiar with an ever growing number of fields. Further, clients assume him to be aware of the most propitious means of approaching their field and, in addition, to be in actual contact with successful blind practitioners. Added to these monumental demands, he must blaze the trail in areas yet uncharted by blind individuals. Clearly, we can no longer rely exclusively upon such an inefficient and unrealistic program. The outlook is not at all bleak, however. We have conceived of a plan to further aid blind individuals in their quest for gainful employment.

An official committee of the California Council of the Blind has been established to function as a coordinator between blind applicants and prospective employers. Initial work will consist of gathering pertinent information from blind professionals throughout the nation. In addition to their assessment of their field and its potential, we will seek their assistance by requesting that they join with us in personal contacts with employers.

Although prejudicial attitudes are often displayed by employers in government and private industry, we believe that the principal obstacle confronting the blind job applicant is ignorance. We are convinced that documented facts presented in an intelligent and articulate manner will be eminently more useful to the individual than pleas and assurances. Our intent as a committee is to present to the employer every available proof of the applicant's abilities, qualifications and reliability. We shall meet periodically to gather further information and to discuss new avenues of approach. We will be most grateful for suggestions from Monitor readers as well as for their participation in our project. Comments should be addressed to Committee on Employment Assistance, 2922 Lorina Street, Berkeley, California 94705. We expect to file periodic reports with the Monitor editors to keep you apprised of our progress and to solicit your active support.

Back to Contents

BLIND COOK TELLS HAPPINESS RECIPES

by
Anne La Riviere

[Editor's Note: The following story is copyrighted by the Los Angeles (California) Times and is reprinted with its permission.]

Elena Zelayeta, well-known for her cookbooks on Mexican food, related a few of her recipes for happy living during a recent luncheon in the Costa Mesa Country Club.

The seventy-one year old blind authoress and food consultant delighted about one hundred members of the Friends of the Costa Mesa Library by revealing an ability to be light-hearted about tragedies she has experienced. "There is little we can do about our problems," she explained, "but I have learned there is a great deal we can do about ourselves."

Mrs. Zelayeta lost her sight when her youngest son was one year old. After experiencing a normal amount of self-pity she decided to start serving her family. She discharged a housekeeper and cooked her first meal since her loss of sight. "I looked for a scouring pad just before serving the meal and couldn't find it," she said. "I put the ladle in the soup and up it came full of scouring pad. I won't tell you what I did next but we're all still alive."

She relearned cooking techniques. (She separates eggs by holding them in her hand and letting the white part slip through her fingers."Now my sighted friends are doing it the same way," she said.) She makes sure tortillas don't burn by turning them until they "smell" done.

Mrs. Zelayeta began teaching cooking to other blind adults at the San Francisco Center for the Blind. "I learned that serving others is living," she said. "When we stop doing things for other people we stop existing."

Ten years later her husband was killed in an automobile accident and "I took inventory of what I could do. It was cooking so I wrote my first book with the intention of buying a seeing eye dog with the profits."

Mrs. Zelayeta was born in Mexico of Spanish descent and all her cookbooks deal with the Mexican food with which she is so familiar. Among them are, "Elena's Secrets of Mexican Cooking" and "Elena's Fiesta Recipes."

Soon she was asked by the U. S. Government to teach a course in "practical living" at a Lion's Club camp in Montana. "I was certain I couldn't do it. I never had a course in psychology." Then she read some and decided, "Why not? Each of the ones I read disagreed with the others and I thought no one would be able to tell if (what I taught) was right or wrong anyway." But she was afraid. "How do you deal with fear?" the woman—who stands about four feet six inches—asked the group. "It's done by trusting that your needs will be met if you take the human footsteps to find the happiness you're seeking."

The happiest person, she said, is the one who entertains the most interesting thoughts. "The world isn't going to the dogs," she explained, "it's the people in it and their desire to be taken care of instead of taking care of themselves."

Mrs. Zelayeta is consultant for a large food-seasoning concern and has served as food adviser for a New York restaurant. She said the first women's group she addressed consisted of members of the American Association of University Women and she was told they were women of "above average intelligence. I thought, 'Oh you are, are you?" and was nervous. But they enjoyed themselves and after that I knew I would never have trouble speaking again." Proof that she doesn't came with lengthy applause at the close of her talk.

Back to Contents

BLINDNESS ISN'T A HANDICAP

by
Paul Lane

[Editor's Note: The following is taken from the Newton (Iowa) Daily News.]

Is Jim Gashel handicapped? Not in his estimation. Nor in the eyes of many of his peers. Gashel, a student teacher in the Newton school system the past nine weeks has been blind since birth.

A discussion of the philosophy of blindness comes easy to this young man. According to Gashel, learning to cope with blindness has been easier than contending with the social attitudes that develop in those around. Blindness is a characteristic of an individual, according to Gashel, just as some people have the characteristic of being tall or short. All of us have certain limitations, he added.

Since he has grown up with the inability to see, he has developed alternative methods of doing things. He has learned, for example to shave without the use of a mirror. He selects and buys his own clothes. But Gashel stresses this is not marvelous or extraordinary. To him it is just learning to develop the alternative methods. The techniques of blindness aren't significant, he said.

Gashel's desire to become a teacher developed while he was in high school working with several young student teachers. He received a normal high school education by attending the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School through his senior year. He learned to write braille in kindergarten. In striving to become a teacher, Gashel is not blazing trails where others have not gone. He can name at least three other teachers in Iowa who are blind, one in Urbandale, another in Milton and a student teacher in Des Moines.

If Gashel wanted to teach in some areas of the country (such as Chicago), the road would be blocked. But in Iowa the opposite is true. It is the policy of the state that blind persons (among others) shall be granted the right of equal employment in organizations supported in whole or in part by public funds.

The young student teacher is proving his ability now in Newton. Clarence Pries, student teacher coordinator, said he had not met Gashel before the interview and admits he had some misgivings. He anticipated problems of moving from building to building, eating and getting to school programs—which never developed. "I learned the first day," said Pries, "that Jim can take care of himself very well. Just terrific." Pries said he has no misgivings about Gashel getting a position. "He does what most student teachers work a long time to perform."

Since his interests and instruction has centered around speech and debate and he hopes to teach in the field, Gashel is working with Frank Kruse, Newton debate coach. "Whether or not I have sight is irrelevant to whether I can teach" is Gashel's philosophy. With confidence like that he has already won the respect of his students and fellow teachers.

Back to Contents

THE IFB CONVENTION

[Editor's Note: The following is taken from the Newsletter of the International Federation of the Blind and gives details concerning the upcoming convention as well as information about the organization itself.]

For the first time in history, the organized blind from all parts of the world are assembling to promote their own welfare. The International Federation of the Blind is the blind people of the world speaking for themselves—acting in concert for their mutual advancement and more effective participation in the affairs of their respective nations.

Time: October 1-4, 1969

Place: Galle Face Hotel
Colombo, Ceylon

The first convention of The International Federation of the Blind offers an unparalleled opportunity for the blind of all countries to exchange ideas and to develop programs of education, rehabilitation, and social welfare that will best meet the needs of their respective nations.

Since its founding five years ago, The International Federation of the Blind has grown so that it now represents the blind of eighteen nations. These are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Ceylon, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States. The blind of both affiliated and unaffiliated countries are welcome to attend and participate fully in convention activities and discussions.

Address requests for information or communications about the convention to:

Russell Kletzing
Acting General Secretary
1571 Fifth Street
Sacramento, California 95814

The International Federation of the Blind is the blind people of the world speaking for themselves—acting in concert for their mutual advancement and more effective participation in the affairs of their respective nations.

The International Federation of the Blind is an organization for the blind of all nations, operated by the blind of all nations, for the blind of all nations. It is an educational and fraternal association, nonprofit and nonpolitical in character, dedicated solely to serving the common needs and aspirations of blind men and women everywhere in the world.

We join in this common cause to:

Cooperate with the World Council of the Welfare of the Blind in achieving its objective of providing the means of consultation between organizations of and for the blind in different countries.

Encourage self-organization and self-determination by blind people in all countries through their own voluntary associations, joined together in turn by membership in the International Federation.

Serve as a world assembly for meetings, communication and interchange among blind persons of all nationalities, toward the end of reinforcing their confidence in themselves, in each other, and in their common cause.

Provide a forum for collective self-expression and discussion by the blind of the world, and to act as the articulate voice for their joint decisions and corrmon objectives.

Work for the progressive improvement and modernization, throughout the world, of public policies and practices governing the education, health, welfare, rehabilitation and employment of the blind.

Disseminate accurate information, increase knowledge and promote enlightened attitudes on the part of the peoples of the world toward blind persons.

Solicit the support of national governments everywhere for the programs and policies of the organized world blind, and advise and assist those governments in their implementation.

Furnish a beacon for the underprivileged and disadvantaged blind people of the earth—and create a potent symbol through which blind people everywhere seek the rights and opportunities that are the birthright of all men.

Stand as living proof to the essential normality, equality, and capability of blind men and women as first-class citizens of the world as well as of their individual nations.

Preliminary Program

October 1

2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Meeting of the Executive Committee
6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Reception for Delegates

Evening free for committee meetings and for delegates to get further acquainted.

October 2

9:30 a.m. Welcoming Addresses
10:00 a.m.
 
A Uniform Definition of Blindness by Andre Nicolle, President,
Amitie Des Aveugles De France (Discussion, leader to be announced)
11:00 a.m.
 
Report of the Committee on Employment of the Blind by Horst Geissler, Vice-President,
Deutscher Blindenverband E. V. (Discussion, leader to be announced)
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Lunch
2:00 p.m.
 
Report of the President
By Rienzi Alagiyawanna
3:30 p.m.
 
Customs Charges on Braille Books and Appliances for the Blind
Speaker to be announced
4:00 p.m. Tea will be served
4:30 p.m.
 
 
Relationship of the Blind to Other Handicapped Groups in Achieving Social Progress—A Panel Discussion
Moderator: Russell Kletzing, Secretary, National Federation of the Blind of the United States
5:30 p.m. Adjourn

Evening free except for committee meetings.

(A recreational event might be arranged for wives and others not involved in committee meetings. Perhaps there would be a concert or other show going on in Colombo.)

October 3

9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Executive Business Session
9:30 a.m.
 

Relationship of the I.F.B. to the W.C.W.B.—Panel Discussion
Moderator: To be announced

10:15 a.m.
 
 
The Degree of Independence from Government Control Necessary for Membership in the I.F.B.—Panel Discussion
Moderator: To be announced
11:00 a.m.
 
 
Eligibility for Membership of Organizations of the Blind Which Exclude Some Classes of Blind People—Panel Discussion
Moderator: To be announced
11:45 a.m. Election of Officers and Executive Committee
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m Lunch
2:00 p.m.
 
Report of the Committee on the Education of Blind Children
By Rienzi Alagiyawanna
2:30 p.m.
 
 
Relationship of Organizations of the Blind to Societies for the Blind
By Dr. Isabelle Grant, Board of Directors, National Federation of the Blind of the United States
(Discussion, leader to be announced)
4:00 p.m. Tea will be served
4:30 p.m.
 
Report of the Committee on Mobility and the White Cane
By Russell Kletzing, Secretary, National Federation of the Blind of the United States
5:00 p.m. Resolutions
5:30 p.m. Adjourn sine die
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Reception for Delegates and Honored Guests
8:00 p.m. Gala Banquet

October 4

Tours
9:15 a.m.
 
 
 
 

Depart from the hotel for a picnic brunch in a tropical grove to the rhythm of oriental dance and song and enjoy an elephant ride in a coconut plantation.

This will be followed in the early afternoon by a sea bath in the famous bathing resort at Mount Lavinia. Bathers may remain the rest of the afternoon or return to the hotel for relaxation or last minute shopping.

8:00 p.m. A visit to the ancient Buddhist temple whose history reaches back to 500 B.C.

October 5

Efforts are in process to obtain a special air flight from Colombo to New Delhi via Madras on Sunday, October 5. Information concerning this special flight will be furnished later.

Back to Contents

CONGRESSIONAL CAPSULE—NFB LEGISLATION

Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana has worked valiantly, over the years to improve programs for the blind so that they would extend opportunities for achieving independence. To forward this purpose, Senator Hartke, after close consultation with the National Federation of the Blind, has introduced three bills into the first session of the 91st Congress. They are: S. 1475, S. 1476, and S. 1477.

S. 1475 would make public assistance a stimulant to independence not only in the economic sense but in the areas involving daily living as well. Social services needed to achieve this independence would be at the request of the recipient and not forced upon him as at present. It would require that the needs of the individual due to his blindness or other disabling causes, be recognized and met in both the aid grant and medical care. The bill writes into the statute that increases in the federal share of payments must be "passed on" to recipients. The residence requirement would be abolished, along with the means test. S. 1475 removes the time limitation on the retention of income and resources in considering the grant of a blind person who has an approved plan for rehabilitation. Federal financial participation in money payments would be increased by a new matching formula: Raise the present basic grant of $31 of the first $37 to $42.80 of the first $50; raise the present matching ceiling from $75 to $100 with the variable grant formula determining an additional Federal share of 50 percent to 66 percent of the difference between $50 and $100.

S. 1476. Since the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1936, Congress had acted many times to raise the level of payments to aged, blind, and disabled beneficiaries. It was the intent of Congress, in most instances, to raise the standard of living for those trying to meet minimal needs on fixed retirement incomes of various sorts and/or inadequate aid grants. We are all familiar with what happened the last time Congress increased the social security payment. Many states used this increase in one program to reduce their share of aid payments in another. Instead of allowing aid recipients to retain the money granted by Congress under social security, their monthly aid grants were reduced by the amount of the increase. This occurred because the amending act left it to the states to decide whether to exempt those increases from consideration as income in determining the amount of the aid grant. S. 1476 would exempt all increases in social security payments made subsequent to January 1, 1972 from consideration in determining a person's need for public assistance and the amount of the grant and the states participating in federal sharing would have no choice but to comply.

S. 1477 would extend medical care. That care is now available under the Social Security Act to those over 65 years of age. This proposed amendment would extend medical care to those who now receive social security benefits because they are disabled or are children. Senator Hartke went to the heart of the matter in his statement on introducing the bill where he said: "Just as the men and women who are elderly and retired on social security payments must live and manage on very limited income have a great need that their health care costs be met by the social insurance method, so, too, it is most necessary that the health care costs of those who must live and manage on limited income because they are . . . recipients under the disability insurance program be met by the very same concept of social insurance enacted into Federal law."

Back to Contents

MONITOR MINIATURES

Ruth Ashby, President of the Colorado Federation of the Blind, reports that it's a whopping, bouncing new affiliate, born on Washington's birthday to the Colorado Federation. Its name is the Weld County Association of the Blind. Out of twenty-eight known blind persons in Greeley, Colorado, nineteen turned out for the initial meeting. A good start!

* * * * * *

Congressman James J. Delaney of New York and others of his colleagues in the House of Representatives have introduced bills which would allow social security beneficiaries to earn up to $3,000 a year without deductions (as against the present $1,680). Mr. Delaney points out that during the calendar year 1968 the American people experienced the worst inflation in seventeen years—4.7 percent. This hits persons on fixed, meagre incomes very hard.

* * * * * *

Manuel J. Rubin, a stalwart in the ranks of the Associated Blind of Massachusetts, was recently sworn by the Governor as a member of the Advisory Board to the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind. Congratulations, Manny—and to the Commission, too!

* * * * * *

Mrs. Lina King, President of the Gate City Chapter of the New Hampshire Federation of the Blind, died recently. She was a stalwart in the organization and a true Federationist. Al Beckwith, President of the New Hampshire Federation, writes that they are experiencing the loss deeply and haven't quite accepted it.

* * * * * *

A number of members of the Congress are sponsoring legislation to give the Secretary of HEW power to set minimum standards of need for welfare payments and uniform criteria of eligibility in all of the states. This policy was recommended in 1966 by the Advisory Council on Public Welfare, by the recent report of the Nixon Task Force on Public Assistance, and is warmly endorsed by the new Secretary of HEW. This legislation, which would appear to have a good chance of being enacted by the 91st Congress, is designed to do three things: First, by establishing a minimum for all the states, current migration of needy persons from rural to urban areas would be greatly abated; secondly, by setting uniform eligibility standards the present state-by-state shopping for the most liberal requirements would be curtailed; and, finally, the legislation would shift even more of the costs of the programs from the state and local sources to the Federal Government. This proposed legislation is primarily the result of the large influx into the northern and western states of persons applying for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

* * * * * *

Dr. Isabelle Grant reports the exciting news of the formation of a new federation of the blind, the first in Kerala in south India, known as the Kerala Federation of the Blind. There are already nearly two hundred members.

* * * * * *

The Montana Association for the Blind reports the addition of three new affiliates. They are the Silver Bow County Chapter of Butte, the Park County Chapter of Livingston, and the Bozeman Chapter of the MAB. With these three additions, the Montana affiliate of the NFB now has eight chapters. Hats off to the three new groups, and to the Montana Association!

* * * * * *

A talented young blind man founded a computer soft-ware company in Washington, D. C. about a year ago. It is called EDP Technology, Inc. The firm has already secured several one hundred thousand dollar contracts with government and private industry. The founder is twenty-seven-year-old Sanford Greenberg. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Columbia University and holds a master's and doctoral degrees in government from Harvard. He was a former student at Oxford University and Harvard Law Schools. This young business concern has had a rapid growth and has opened offices in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Falls Church (Virginia), Paramus (New Jersey), as well as in Washington and Atlanta. The new company now has fifty computer and systems experts.

* * * * * *

The Palmetto Auroran reports that its Editor and First Vice-President of the NFB, Donald C. Capps, has accepted an appointment by the Christian Record Braille Foundation of Lincoln, Nebraska to its National Advisory Board. Mr. Capps will represent the State of South Carolina and will be serving with a group of more than thirty persons selected from throughout the nation and Canada. Congratulations, Don!

* * * * * *

New Life, published by the Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, states: "The fields of profitable endeavor that are rapidly opening up for blind persons apparently have no boundaries. Harriet Jorgensen, who trained at Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind in 1968, is now grooming poodles in her home town of Crawfordsville, Indiana. Harriet opened the 'Toni Lee's Poodle Grooming Shop' ".

* * * * * *

The California State Department of Rehabilitation has undergone a thorough reorganization, characterized by the decentralization of all of the activities of the department to five Regional Offices. The Division of Rehabilitation of the Blind, which had existed since the establishment of the Department on October 1, 1963, has been abolished. From here on out, apparently the blind will be lumped with other disabled clients of the department. The organized blind are strongly opposed to the move and feel that the only adequate answer is to seek legislative approval for a California Commission for the Blind.

* * * * * *

Seven young blind Africans recently climbed famed Mt. Kilimanjaro. When they got to the 19,340-foot summit they dug their hands into the snow and passed icicles around to each other. All seven of the men, who are in their twenties, dared the treacherous peak to prove they could overcome their handicap.

* * * * * *

R. E. Whitehead, President of the Kentucky Federation of the Blind, retired after many years of distinguished service as operator of a stand in the Snead Building in Louisville. Whitehead operated this successful business enterprise since 1935. The stand, in later years, became almost entirely automated, having twenty-eight vending machines. Happy retirement, Bob—you have certainly earned it after almost thirty-four years!

* * * * * *

The Evergreen Travel Service, Security Bank Building, Lynwood, Washington announces a tour for the blind. The departure time is July 10th from New York. The tour includes visits to Lisbon, Portugal and then to Seville, Jerez, Algerciras in Spain—thence to Tangier and Fez, and other cities in Morocco. Thence the tour goes back to Spain and Portugal. The tour price for the twenty-two day trip is $950.

* * * * * *

The WSAB's White Cane reports that the young blind couple who live in Seattle and ride the bus each day, with their guide dogs, finally won their argument with the transit system. Previously, sometimes the bus driver would let them both on the bus and sometimes they wouldn't, particularly during the rush hours. The discrimination continued until a Seattle newspaper publicised their situation. Now the couple can ride together whenever they wish and each with a dog. No charge. It's all based on the Washington state law so it isn't only Seattle that benefits.

* * * * * *

The Liberty Chapter, Pennsylvania Federation of the Blind, was organized in Philadelphia a year ago. The Chapter is now making a concerted effort to have the Public Accommodations Code of the City of Philadelphia include the blind and physically handicapped so that these groups would not be prohibited from sharing residential and eating accommodations with the rest of the city's citizenry. It is also planned to have the issue of fair employment pressed.

* * * * * *

In a recent publication of the National Center for Health Statistics, it is stated that there is an annual average number of about 5.4 million visual impairments, 8.5 million hearing impairments, and 1.3 million speech defects. Cataracts were the leading cause reported for visual impairments.

* * * * * *

The Ohio Council of the Blind's Bulletin reports the death of Dr. Herman C. Giles. Dr. Giles was the first blind osteopath to be granted a license to practice medicine in Ohio. Dr. Giles, who practiced his profression for more than forty years, had a sound philosophy. He insisted that he be treated as a man who happened to be blind, not a blind man.

* * * * * *

The Kentucky Lions' Eye Foundation will open soon a lodge for the blind in Louisville where blind persons can live near their jobs. The Lodge is near most of the institutions for the blind in Louisville, including the Kentucky Industries for the Blind, the American Printing House for the Blind, and the Kentucky School for the Blind.

* * * * * *

A graduate art student in California has developed a device that makes it possible for blind diabetic patients to inject insulin themselves. The device consists of a collar that guides the needle to the insulin bottle and then gauges correct penetration of the rubber membrane. This assures that the user will draw only insulin from the bottle and the needle will never draw air.

* * * * * *

Lawrence (Muzzy) Marcelino, with an assist from Alaska Federation President Kelly Smith, was successful during his recent trip to Alaska in helping Jimmie Trietsch straighten out his problems with his school administration. The NFB maintains a continuing interest in this case and is watching developments closely.

* * * * * *

Sister Anna S Krieter of San Diego, California writes of her personal experience with discrimination. Returning from one of her trips to an independent Missionary in the southwest, she boarded a Greyhound bus for her return to San Diego Upon arrival at the bus station, the driver asked if she had a traveling companion who could see. Upon being told that she did not, the driver informed Sister Anna that he would never permit her to ride his bus again without a sighted guide. Sister Anna advised the driver that he could not do this under the new Model White Cane Law or he would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Apparently there is widespread misunderstanding among many bus drivers concerning the right of blind persons to travel alone.

* * * * * *

The Bulletin of the Iowa Association of the Blind reports that thirteen charter members organized a new affiliate, the Dubuque Association of the Blind. The Bulletin also advises that the White Cane Candy Sale this past season has been a smashing success, the IAB having sold in the neighborhood of 10,000 boxes. That's a lot of candy!

* * * * * *

Clyde Ross, President of the Summit County Society of the Blind in Akron, Ohio writes that after moving for six years from spot to spot, the only school in Ohio for multi-handicapped blind children has found a permanent home in Akron The Mensch-Rogers School, organized by the Summit County Society of the Blind, is now located in a building purchased through the gift of Mrs. Martha Rogers.

Back to Contents

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND SOCIAL INSURANCE

CONCLUDED

V. ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF WELFARE POLICY

1. Theoretical determinants.

Last year approximately one-quarter of the non-defense segment of the Federal budget was allocated to public welfare. Such an expenditure is a crucial item in the formulation of government fiscal policy. Decisions about the size and nature of welfare disbursements are directly derived from currently accepted fiscal policy. Fiscal policy, in turn, is deduced from the basic postulates of prevailing economic and political theory. It is on the theoretical level, then, that the broad outlines of welfare policy are rigidly cast, and it is here that the search for the economic determinants of a satisfactory welfare system must begin.

Three systems of economic thought currently compete for the attention of democratic governments; socialism, free enterprise, and aggregate demand analysis, or Neo-Keynesianism. The latter is derived in large part from the work of the renowned British economist. Lord Keynes. Essentially it consists of a theoretical framework and a set of analytical tools which can be used to determine and evaluate the factors affecting the level of aggregate economic demand. By the use of these tools it is demonstrated that — contrary to classical economic postulates — "aggregate demand might settle at some point well below that necessary for a satisfactory level of employment."61 In order to strengthen the factors of demand and thereby induce full employment, economists have constructed upon the foundation of an aggregate demand analysis a fiscal policy prescribing certain types of government economic control. This approach "visualizes the state as a balancing force which serves to supplement the behavior of individual capitalists. . . ,"62

Of these three economic theories, the socialist may be immediately discarded as conflicting directly with the prevailing climate of American political opinion. As we shall presently show, the traditional free enterprise concept and the fiscal and welfare policies derived therefrom are morally reprehensible, socially disastrous, and economically discredited. Today's welfare system, then, should be built on the foundation of an aggregate demand analysis and a fiscal policy oriented toward selective government regulation of private economic activity.

The aggregate demand analysis is selected as our starting point for three reasons: (1) Cyclical variations in business activity with consequent periodic unemployment and human misery appear to be the primary economic problem of our age.63 Since the aggregate demand system is primarily a theory of employment, and since the major fiscal notions derived from it are aimed at full employment, it appears to offer the most realistic theoretical basis for our time. (2) A great majority of contemporary economists have adopted the essential elements of aggregate demand theory. A large percentage of these have accepted some variation of the contra-cyclical fiscal implications which flow therefrom.64 Wide differences of opinion concerning the nature and timing of contra-cyclical fiscal devices, as well as numerous academic disputes over the causes of cyclical activity must, of course, be recognized. (3) Public demand for contra-cyclical controls has become nearly unanimous in the western democracies. The British White Paper on Employment Policy (1944),65 the Canadian White Paper on Employment and Income (1945),66 the Australian White Paper, Full Employment in Australia (1945),67 the French Monnet Plan, and the American Full Employment Act of 1946,68 are but a few examples of this attitude. Majority opinion, then, points toward the acceptance of an aggregate demand theory and a contra-cyclical fiscal policy.

We reject an orthodox free enterprise fiscal policy as our starting point because of the faulty theoretical base on which it rests. The relevant assumptions of this theory may be stated as follows: (1) If left to itself, the free market economy will function automatically, producing the greatest good for the greatest number. (2) Chronic unemployment in a free economy is impossible since competition among temporarily unemployed persons will quickly force wages down to the point where employers can profitably afford to hire all available workers. (3) The income of the entrepreneurial class must be maximized so that sufficient savings can be accumulated for necessary capital investment and economic expansion.

On this foundation a restrictive and negative fiscal policy has been erected. (1) Public budgets should be balanced because state action cannot effectively raise the level of business activity. (2) Public budgets should be kept at a minimum because taxation interferes with ability of entrepreneurs to save. (3) Taxation of the wealthy — the savers — interferes most seriously with the saving function. Therefore, government should resort to indirect taxes on the consumption expenditures of the poorer classes. (4) Government borrowing, which drains off funds that might otherwise be used for wealth-producing, private investment, should be minimal.

Grounded on an essentially mechanistic metaphysics and placing its faith in the natural laws of an automatically functioning market, classical fiscal policy leads ultimately to a minimal and inhumane welfare program. Joseph Townsend's dissertation on the Poor Laws, written in 1785, neatly summarizes the welfare implications of unrestrained free enterprise:

"It seems to be a law of nature that the poor should be to a certain degree improvident, that there may always be some to fulfill the most servile, the most sordid, and the most ignoble offices in the community. The stock of human happiness is thereby much increased, whilst the more delicate are not only relieved from drudgery, and freed from those occasional employments which would make them miserable, but are left at liberty, without interruption to pursue those callings which are suited to their various dispositions, and most useful to the State. As for the lowest of the poor, by custom they are reconciled to the meanest occupations, to the most laborious works, to the most hazardous pursuits; whilst the hope of their reward makes them cheerful in the midst of their dangers and toils. . . . When hunger is either felt or feared, the desire of obtaining bread will quietly dispose the mind to undergo the greatest hardships, and will sweeten the severest labours. The peasant with a sickle in his hand is happier than the prince upon his throne."69

One hundred and sixty-five years of experience appear to have had little impact on laissez-faire welfare thinking. Compare, for example, these remarks made before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco in 1949:

"The survival of the fittest is one of the inexorable laws of nature. Necessity is the mother of invention. Necessity drives men in every walk of life to work, to adjust, to adapt to new conditions. If the State cares for them reasonably satisfactorily in their old environment, it will tend to prevent this adaptation or adjustment. Meeting new conditions involves pain, rigor, and hardship; . . . the individual who meets difficult conditions and plans and provides for himself increases in self-reliance. If the State aids him in certain aspects of his life and he relies upon it for protection, his self-reliance will be diminished. He will become a ward of the State."70

Insofar as "poor law" welfare thinking rests on laissez-faire theoretical assumptions, it has been economically discredited; insofar as it is derived from laissez-faire fiscal policy it is socially disastrous; insofar as it fails to meet the needs of disadvantaged persons it is morally reprehensible. The interdependent system of assumptions, policies, and programs which constitute the classical free enterprise position has disintegrated under the impact of modern economic thought and conditions.

Alternating periods of depression and prosperity in most Western nations during the past 200 years offer ample evidence that the automatic and beneficially functioning market is a fiction. An unhappy history of chronic or serious cyclical unemployment refutes the classical assumption that free market economies perpetually adjust toward the full employment level. Moreover, both of these classical propositions, as well as the notion that new capital formation requires maximization of entrepreneurial income, have been rejected by the aggregate demand analysis. A brief statement of this analysis may serve to point up the inadequacies of classical theory and to provide an explanation for the contra-cyclical contributions of modern welfare policy.

It is now generally accepted that the level of income and employment at any given time depends upon the level of aggregate demand. Aggregate demand is the total of consumption, investment, and government expenditures. If, at a level of full employment, anticipated investment is equal to anticipated saving, then a level of income sufficient to maintain full employment may be expected.

Unfortunately, investment expectations seldom, if ever, equate with anticipated savings.71 Decisions to save are a function of consumption expenditure; saving is that portion of the national income which is not expended for consumption purposes. Thus, savings decisions are governed by the factors which determine the amount of consumption expenditures. Primary among these factors, if we may over-simplify, is the national income distribution pattern. Generally speaking, low income groups consume much and save little, while higher income groups save proportionally more and consume proportionally less of their income.

Decisions to invest, on the other hand, are governed by a different set of factors. Primary among these is the expectation of profits. The determinants of profit expectation — psychological elements, technological innovations, changes in the volume of current output, etc. — appear to be less well understood and less easily measured than the determinants of consumption decisions. That these factors fluctuate, causing significant changes in anticipated investment is, however, undoubted.72

If saving and investment are governed by different sets of determinants, and if, contrary to the classical assumption, the market mechanism does not automatically keep them in adjustment, then anticipated savings may be high and anticipated investment low at one and the same time. This situation usually results in serious cyclical unemployment.

The aggregate demand analysis, then, casts into bold relief the unrealistic nature of the classical postulates listed above. It follows that a fiscal policy built on these postulates may be disastrous. If savings decisions and investment decisions are out of step, positive government action to remedy the disequilibrium is called for. An orthodox fiscal policy of minimum public expenditure, low and regressive tax rates, and balanced budgets allows free play to the factors causing disequilibrium and maximizes the social waste created thereby.

2. Fiscal determinants.

A large segment of contemporary economic thought views fiscal policy as a device for equalizing the community's total investment with its gross savings at a level of maximum productivity. The propensity to invest must be permanently raised and the propensity to save permanently reduced, or both propensities must be alternately increased and decreased according to prevailing economic conditions. By use of such tools as taxation, monetary and credit policies, social security and/or public assistance programs, subsidy and borrowing measures, and price control, Government may either encourage increased private consumption expenditures or stimulate greater private investment. Finally, Government may directly accomplish these two objectives by undertaking public works projects of various types. The ultimate aim of current fiscal theory is a level of demand sufficiently high to employ the available factors of production, but not so high as to produce inflationary pressures.

It is true that competent economists disagree about the particular combination and timing of these fiscal devices. So far as the implications for welfare programs are concerned, however, such differences are not crucial. A contra-cyclical fiscal orientation points to a set of welfare principles which differ radically from most prevailing notions. It is with this major shift in emphasis that we are primarily concerned, rather than with a precise delineation of the ideal welfare structure of the future. Indeed, since the key to contemporary fiscal thinking is flexibility, such a delineation would be manifestly impossible.

3. Application to welfare.

What public welfare principles, then, can be deduced from an aggregate demand theory and a contra-cyclical fiscal policy? Six major propositions are offered here. (1) Welfare payments should undergo a certain degree of contra-cyclical adjustment in order to conform with the broader objectives of fiscal policy. (2) Deflationary conditions require substantial increases in welfare outlays and reductions in the tax load borne by low-income groups. (3) Deflation also demands a reduction in the tax burdens directly affecting business enterprise; thus, elimination of or substantial reduction in the employer's contribution to social security payments is indicated. (4) Although inflationary conditions require some reduction in welfare payments, equity requires that the necessary curtailment of consumption expenditures be spread evenly over all income groups by means of wage and price controls and that the major fiscal attack be on the level of investment control. (5) A chronic condition of demand deficiency and unemployment requires permanent, large-scale welfare outlays. (6) Welfare financing should be consistent with a flexible fiscal policy. Therefore, Social Security programs should be financed by disbursements from the general fund rather than by contributory insurance premiums. Since a cyclically fluctuating economy demands rapid, pervasive and expertly timed shifts in fiscal strategy, the welfare implications of each phase of the cycle should be examined in detail.

Deflation may be defined as over-saving and under-investment. One major object of anti-deflationary fiscal policy is a redistribution of national wealth, increasing the income of lower economic classes, which have a propensity to spend all or most of their pay checks, and decreasing the wealth of upper economic groups which have a tendency to over-save. Part of the excess saving needs to be immediately translated into consumption expenditures so that the portion which remains in the hands of entrepreneurs may be induced into new capital investment by the increased prospect for profits resulting from a rising consumption outlay.

Welfare payments afford a major avenue for such income redistribution. Increases in the amount of individual grants to recipients in all aid categories will directly augment the nation's total consumption expenditure due to the propensity of lower income welfare groups to expend all of their monthly increment. The extent to which individual grants should be increased will depend in large part upon the amount of uninvested savings in the economy, and upon the degree of deflationary acceleration.

Increase in the number of recipients in all aid categories also contributes to the desired income redistribution. Deflationary policy therefore calls for liberalization of eligibility requirements, particularly those pertaining to the personal and real property holdings of applicants. Real property holders and owners of substantial amounts of durable goods, no less than those completely devoid of property, will expend all of their aid grants providing their current outside income is low or non-existent.

Since the aim of anti-deflationary policy is a reduction in the community's total savings, public aid should be provided for the purchase of those items for which lower and middle income groups tend to save. Subsidies for housing and home purchase, for medical and dental care, for education, for care of dependents may be extended to those whose only source of income is public aid, as well as to those who have a low but stable private income. Contrary to currently prevailing attitudes, welfare recipients should be allowed, even urged, to purchase goods and services which are traditionally viewed as symbols of social respectability. The acquisition of radios, television sets, refrigerators, automobiles, homes, etc. out of aid payments large enough for the purpose should be encouraged as economically wise rather than condemned as morally reprehensible.

A redistribution of national income may also be effectuated by means of a progressive income tax structure which serves the dual purpose of draining excess savings from upper income groups and financing government welfare and public works expenditures. Since contributory social insurance systems contain a regressive element, being financed in large part by taxes on lower income employees, they are not well suited to deflationary fiscal control. Public assistance grants made from the general fund, however, may be completely financed by progressive means. A social insurance system supported in major part by employer's contributions might prove suitable, but it is condemned on other grounds discussed below.

In controlling deflationary situations, Government is not restricted to a redistribution of income patterns. Fiscal policy may also be oriented toward inducing increases in private investment. This can be accomplished mainly by a reduction in business taxes, allowing entrepreneurs to retain a larger percentage of earned profits and thereby encouraging them to invest idle savings. Tax reduction, of course, interferes directly with Government's ability to finance other counter-deflationary measures, public works, increased welfare payments, etc. Large-scale public borrowing, to be retired during the inflationary phase of the cycle, offers a solution to this difficulty.73

It seems to be generally agreed that taxes which impinge directly on the profit position of a given enterprise, as corporate taxes, excess profits taxes, excise taxes, offer the greatest psychological deterrent to new investment. One authority attributes this to the fact that corporate directors are more interested in improving the relative position of their company in the field than in the profits paid to stock holders.74 Personal income taxes, then, may be maintained on a steeply graduated scale, while investment-obstructing business levies are reduced. This policy implies a reduction in or elimination of the employer's contribution to social security taxes, since these contributions directly affect the entrepreneurial profit position. Again, the fiscal advisability of social insurance, as contrasted with Public Assistance, becomes manifest.

Significant increases in private investment are also induced by anticipations of increased consumer demand. Hence, an increase in the amount of welfare payments and an extension of welfare coverage, by increasing the community's total consumption expenditure, will contribute substantially to investment expansion.

Turning next to the inflationary phase of the cycle, it becomes apparent that contra-cyclical fiscal requirements will have less impact on welfare policy. Relatively little attention has been given to inflationary problems by Keynesian and Neo-Keynesian economists. This may be partially due to the preoccupation with deflation which writers in this tradition underwent in the Thirties and in the immediate post-war period. Or, it may be attributable to the permanent or chronic demand-deficiency hypothesis which many of them postulate. In any case, two general approaches to the problem are suggested: curtailment of consumption expenditures and restriction of credit expansion. In view of the propensity of lower-income groups, and particularly welfare recipients, to consume most of their incomes, the first line of action calls for some reduction in total welfare outlays. In part, of course, this reduction will be accomplished automatically by the increases in employment and individual incomes which invariably accompany inflationary developments. Payments for unemployment compensation will be sharply cut back as will payments to various categories of needy handicapped, some of whom can find jobs only under conditions of full employment. Needy aged, needy children, and needy surviving dependents, among others, however, will have no sound economic grounds for demanding increases in real income. Expanded purchasing power for such lower-income groups simply increases the inflationary pressure on the limited supply of goods and services, driving prices higher and higher.

If sizable increases in welfare outlays during inflation are condemned on economic grounds, sharp reductions in welfare payments are equally condemned on grounds of equity. Increases in effective demand without corresponding increases in the supply of goods generate a rising price level which benefits upper-income groups. Further reductions in the real income of lower economic groups, such as sharply decreased welfare payments, merely extenuate the economic disadvantage of these groups. If inflation is to be attacked on the consumption level, all consumers should be approximately equal in their ability to claim a share of the reduced volume of goods and services. There is no sound economic reason why fiscally necessary reductions in effective demand should fall heavily on the many and lightly on the few. Wage and price controls and in some cases rationing and materials allocation control offer a more equitable and economically satisfactory solution than does curtailment of the welfare program.

Counter-inflationary fiscal policy may also seek to prevent further investment and credit expansion by increasing interest and rediscount rates and by steepening the progressive income tax schedule. The former technique implies certain restrictions on the expenditure of welfare grants. For example, welfare recipients should not be encouraged or in some cases permitted to enter into long-term installment contracts for the purchase of durable goods. The need for sharply progressive income taxes implies the inadvisability of the social insurance method of financing welfare expenditures. The aforementioned regressive element in social security taxation may be eliminated either by increasing the employer's share of the load, or by financing welfare outlays from the general fund.

If the paramount problem of free economies is viewed as a chronic condition of demand deficiency and underemployment, rather than as a regular, cyclical fluctuation around the full employment level, then the fiscal implications for welfare policy are considerably easier to trace. A fiscal policy permanently directed toward full investment of chronically hoarded savings implies a welfare program permanently oriented toward increasing the community's total consumption outlay. Generous individual grants, liberal eligibility requirements and purchase of durable goods by recipients are called for. Essentially, welfare principles in a state of chronic demand deficiency are similar to those required by the deflationary phase of a cyclically vacillating economy."75

4. Application to welfare financing.

Dignified by the notion of rewards earned for services rendered, enhanced by the existence of a supposedly sound actuarial reserve, and impliedly drawing on familiar private insurance principles, the idea of contributory social insurance has achieved general public acceptance. However, three general economic considerations point away from social insurance and toward general fund financing of welfare programs: (1) private and contributory insurance principles have not been consistently applied to social security systems; (2) social insurance, strictly construed, amounts to a steeply regressive tax policy; (3) actuarially sufficient reserves are somewhat less adaptable for purposes of contra-cyclical fiscal policy than are other tax revenues.

Departures from private insurance concepts are reflected in the compulsory contribution, forfeiture, and employer's contribution provisions of the Social Security Act. Legal compulsion of workers in covered employment to join the system is particularly onerous for high-income workers whose benefits are proportionally lower than their contributions. Mandatory forfeiture of the contributions of workers permanently leaving covered employment — a practice now generally abandoned by private insurance companies — works a special hardship on low income contributors.76 "Finally, employer's contributions to social insurance are a heavy burden on people who will receive no direct return on their investment.

Not only have private insurance principles been generally abandoned in the Social Security Act, but strict contributory principles have been equally compromised. No attempt has been made to establish a sound actuarial relationship between the size of premiums paid, the nature of risks involved, and the amounts of benefit granted The Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program weights payments in favor of lower income groups and grants full insurance benefits to persons who have been in covered employment for a shorter period of time than is assumed in the actuarial calculations. High salaried workers thus contribute proportionately more than they will eventually receive while low income groups contribute proportionately less. A strictly contributory system, on the other hand, would result either in grossly inadequate benefits or in premiums too large for lower income groups to meet.

The Social Security Amendment of 1950 confirmed and extended this departure from the contributory principle established in the original act. The period which must be spent in covered employment in order to achieve full benefits was further shortened; benefit increments for additional years of coverage were eliminated; heavy weight was placed on the first $100 instead of the first $50 of wages in figuring the amount of benefits; minimum benefits were increased, as were grants to dependents and survivors.77

Thus, the contributory principle is compromised almost beyond recognition in Old Age and Survivors Insurance. That principle, in any event, is probably altogether unsuitable for a public program designed, as President Eisenhower asserted, "in response to the need for protection arising from the complexities of our modern society."

"There has been a world-wide delusion," writes Alva Myrdal, that social insurance, as distinct from other social aid, is paid for by the beneficiaries so that the benefits are earned and constitute a right. ... In reality, the contributions are taxes among other taxes. As taxes they are regressive, burdening the poorer classes out of all proportion to their incomes."78

That social insurance has operated as a regressive tax system in the United States becomes clear from a quick glance at the source and incidence of premiums. Approximately one-half of these taxes are borne by wage earners who, for the most part, constitute a large segment of the nation's low income groups. Further, workers have little opportunity to shift the tax to other segments of the population. Employer's contributions, on the other hand, are frequently either shifted on to consumers in the form of higher prices or are absorbed by workers in the form of lower wages. The extent of this shift is, of course, impossible to measure accurately. If the demand for a given product is somewhat elastic, the seller or manufacturer will usually bear the tax since higher prices may shift effective demand to competing lines of production. But to the extent that demand is relatively inelastic, buyers will bear the tax through increased prices.79 To this extent, then, are employer's contributions regressive, falling most heavily on consumption expenditures. This will generally be true even though the tax is initially imposed on processors and durable goods producers. The tax will be passed along the various marketing steps until it reaches the buyer. When employer's social insurance contributions are passed on to consumers, the effect on social security recipients — who must spend their limited grants almost exclusively to meet consumption needs — is great indeed.

Equally difficult to measure is the effect of employer's contributions on employment. Payroll taxes are considered as elements of labor cost. Increased labor cost is a constant incentive for the introduction of labor-saving devices; payroll taxes add to this incentive. While the amount of unemployment thus generated cannot be measured, one authority has concluded that "all the evidence of which we know leads to the conclusion that payroll taxes operate in general to increase the competitive advantage of establishments that can reduce their labor costs in relation to their output and penalize the establishments that have relatively high labor costs."80

If payroll taxes are generally regressive, can it be said that the financing of non-contributory public assistance programs is equally regressive? The Federal Government presently bears 46.6% and the states 42.6% of all assistance payments.81 Federal payments are made from the general fund. During the last fiscal year, progressively graduated taxes — individual and corporate income taxes, and estate and gift taxes — accounted for approximately 84% of all Federal revenues.82 About 5/6ths of the State's contribution to public assistance came from the general fund. Moreover, "the States tend to rely increasingly on general fund reserves rather than earmarked revenues in meeting the State share of public assistance."83 At present, nearly 20% of all State revenues are supplied by progressively graduated taxes.84

Thus it appears that roughly 52% of all assistance payments in the United States are financed by progressively graduated taxes. If we assume that approximately one-half of employer's social insurance contributions are shifted to consumers and workers, and if we assume that employee's contributions cannot be shifted, then it follows that at least 75% of the social insurance bill is financed by regressive techniques. It would appear likely, then, that contributory insurance is more regressive than public assistance.

It is true, of course, that both social insurance and public assistance programs — as currently conducted — are financed in fairly large part by regressive tax policies. Assuming welfare programs should entail a minimum of regressive financing consistent with economic and political realities, then general taxes rather than social insurance offer the most satisfactory method. Not only does social insurance currently appear to be the more regressive, but it offers the least possibility for change in the desired direction. As long as the contributory principle is followed, a large measure of regressive taxation will exist. General fund financing, on the other hand, has no necessary connection with regressive policies. It may well reflect an increasingly progressive tax structure. Thus, general fund financing is in no way necessarily connected with a perpetuation of regressive policies.

As we have already indicated, the nature, extent, and timing of welfare payments are to be determined in substantial part by standards of sound fiscal policy. The financing of welfare payments is equally dependent upon fiscal considerations. If a basic objective of fiscal policy is a continuing level of full employment, and if the most serious threat to this objective is a constant tendency toward imbalance between savings decisions and investment decisions, then government programs, welfare included, must be so financed as to aid effectively in balancing the community's total savings with its total investment. Flexible and easily manipulated sources of revenue are thus called for.

General fund financing of welfare payments appears to meet these requirements more adequately than contributory insurance systems. The accumulation of a large reserve trust fund under the Social Security Act exerts a constant deflationary pressure on the economy. Funds which might otherwise be used for investment or consumption expenditures come to rest under government's control in the reserve. During deflationary periods government must either reduce taxes or increase its expenditures sufficiently to compensate for these funds which it has withdrawn from the income stream. Tax reductions and increased government outlays are, of course, general requirements of anti-deflationary fiscal policy. However, a substantial insurance reserve merely adds to existing deflationary pressures and thereby necessitates a greater amount of government spending and tax reduction than would otherwise be necessary.

Similarly, payments made from the reserve in the form of benefits are inflationary. As an ever-increasing number of oldsters claim their benefits during coming decades, current premiums will provide insufficient revenue for the system and an increasing portion of the payments will have to be provided from the reserve. During inflationary periods the release of reserves into the income stream would simply increase the amounts available for consumption expenditures, thereby intensifying competition for limited supplies of goods and services and adding to existing inflationary pressures. Again, anti-inflationary fiscal measures — increased taxes and reductions in government expenditures — must be more extensive than would be the case without a reserve fund.

Thus, both the accumulation and disbursement of an insurance reserve offer obstacles to a flexible and rapidly shifting fiscal policy. During certain phases of the cycle they may add to the burdens which a contra-cyclical policy must overcome. Thus, Smithies concludes: there is no justification for distorting the budget to make possible the accumulation of the reserve in the first place."85

The fiscal difficulties of contributory insurance systems are not restricted to the inflationary or deflationary implications of the reserve. Premiums are taxes. As taxes they must be alternately increased and decreased as fiscal policy attempts first to expand and then to contract total investment outlays.86 While frequent alterations in premium rates are theoretically possible, they would interfere with the actuarial sufficiency of the reserve fund. Without a constant premium rate, accumulation of a sufficient reserve at the proper time would be largely a matter of luck. Moreover, variations in premiums would be likely to affect adversely public confidence in the insurance system. The general belief that insurance benefits are a right earned for labor invested has been mainly responsible for enthusiastic acceptance of the insurance principle. This myth would be difficult to maintain if every contributor became aware that the size of his premium was conditioned not by the size of his benefit, but by entirely unrelated, general economic factors. As we have demonstrated, perhaps the only argument in favor of social insurance as against public assistance is its general public acceptability. Yet. any attempt to adjust the insurance principle to requirements of contra-cyclical fiscal policy would quite possibly destroy this sole virtue.

Inaccurately designated, financially inequitable, and fiscally questionable, contributory insurance as a method of financing public welfare suffers from numerous defects not necessarily associated with general fund financing. Although, as we have indicated, many current aspects of public assistance payments are to be condemned on economic and political grounds, the principle of financing them from the general fund appears to be theoretically sound.

In summation, a fiscal policy consistent with an aggregate demand theory points to a set of welfare principles which are contrary in every major respect to currently accepted notions. A contra-cyclical fiscal policy views public welfare as a device for meeting community need, economically determined rather than as a personalized pauper's dole meeting individual need, individually determined. Social worker inquisition into the needs and expenditures of welfare clients is abandoned not only as morally iniquitous but as economically futile. Welfare recipients are viewed in terms of their role in the economy and the contribution which they can make to the community's continuing financial health. The very practices presently considered as indicative of lack of character, immorality, and irresponsibility on the part of recipients may become, under this view, solid contributions to community well-being. Sound fiscal thinking places the nation's total economic security high on the scale of human needs.

VI. PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF WELFARE POLICY

1. Theoretical determinants.

The Federal Security Agency introduces its study of Common Human Needs with this observation: ". . . man fails to solve the basic economic problems which would eliminate inevitable want and the most elemental fears from which stem some of his most hostile aggressions, not because these problems are beyond his intellectual scope, . . . but because economic strivings have deep emotional determinants which involve human relationships in complex ways."87 The implication here is plain; the optimum welfare policy must conform to standards of psychological and emotional health as well as to criteria of political, economic and fiscal well-being.

But what are the determinants of emotional well-being? We may begin with Erikson's observation that individual human action can only be understood against a background of his physiological processes, the organization of experience in his individual ego, his social role, and the interrelationship of all three of these. "A human being, thus, is at all times an organism, an ego, and a member of society and is involved in all three processes of organization. His body is exposed to pain and tension; his ego to anxiety; and as a member of society he is susceptible to the panic emanating from his group."88 What conditions must be met, then, at each of these levels of organization if the mature and healthy personality is to emerge? What is a mature personality? What are the implications of maturity and its nurturing conditions for public welfare policy?

These are, of course, ambitious questions. Any attempt to answer them completely in the present state of scientific knowledge would be futile. It seems to be generally agreed that individuals have physiological and psychological needs; that such needs are given content and scope both by the unique life experience of individuals and by generalized patterns of the culture. The particular nature of needs and the conditions necessary for their gratification, however, have been the subject of much academic dispute. We shall organize our analysis around A. H. Maslow's enumeration and ordering of human needs for two reasons: (1) Although no claim can be made for the certainty of his conceptualization, it contains the major elements most commonly associated with need structure. Moreover, while there is legitimate disagreement about the correct ordering of needs, most authorities agree with Maslow that need gratification is a mutually inter-dependent phenomenon; the gratification of one affects the scope and nature of the others. (2) The many qualifications which might legitimately be imposed upon Maslow's analysis should not interfere seriously with our basic purpose. The development of welfare policy in the United States has generally been insulated from the rapidly growing fields of psychology and psychiatry. Although practitioners, case workers and some administrators have come to recognize the psychological aspects of human need, they have operated within a policy framework erected in ignorance of these principles. We are mainly concerned then, with the general implications for the legislative policy of welfare which can be drawn from the behavioral sciences. A more exact implementation of these principles will, of course, depend upon refinements within the behavioral fields.

The physiological requirements of psychological health may be briefly summarized. They include the satisfaction of what Maslow has termed the most prepotent of all human needs; hunger, sex, sleep and protection from the elements.89 In the absence of other psychological considerations, such as compensatory over-eating, compulsive over-sleeping, excessive aberrations in mating behavior, and the like, scientific determination of the type and amount of resources necessary to meet these needs has been accomplished.90 Complete satisfaction of the elementary needs is a major objective of welfare policy, not only because it is prerequisite to the recipient's existence, but also because of the tight relationship which psychologists assert to exist between somatic and psychological states. The manner in which these physiological needs are gratified will directly influence one's response to other needs lying higher on the scale. The emotional growth of needy children receiving public assistance, for example, is closely tied to their physical well-being; hungry children usually develop anti-social attitudes of bitterness and hatred.91

On the level of ego organization, the determinants of psychological health appear to be more numerous and more complex. Several types of need must be progressively satisfied. Next in prepotency to the physiological needs are those of safety — protection, security, certainty, and regularity. Maslow notes that the average American is able to meet these needs, but that the personalities of infants, children, neurotics, and economic and socially disadvantaged adults are often dominated by an inability to meet them.92 Individuals whose sources of security are undependable may become exclusively preoccupied with satisfying safety needs to the exclusion of those higher on the scale. Inadequate welfare grants may thus inhibit the emotional development of recipients.

Above the safety needs in prepotency are those of love and esteem. These include the need for affection, belonging, self-respect, confidence, independence, recognition and prestige. In short, the desire to be well regarded by others and by oneself. Inability to meet these needs produces feelings of discouragement and inferiority leading ultimately to the development of regressive or aggressive tendencies. A welfare system which blocks the satisfaction of esteem needs directly obstructs the rehabilitation of its clients by engendering feelings of helplessness and hopelessness.

Atop the hierarchy of common human needs is the drive for self-actualization — the urge to develop completely one's innate capacities."93 This need will, of course, take different forms in different persons, depending upon individual talents. It usually cannot be satisfied until all needs lower on the scale have been at least partially gratified.

It is not to be supposed that all people are motivated by a need structure conforming rigidly to the above pattern. Those who have lived most of their lives on an extremely low level — as the chronically unemployed — may never be motivated by the less pre-potent needs. Others may be unduly influenced by higher-scale needs although those lower on the scale have been only partially satisfied. This may be due either to a higher social valuation of higher-scale needs or to peculiarities in the life histories of such individuals. But regardless of individual deviation, these few basic needs represent important life-goals for most people.94

The most serious obstacle to successful ego organization may well be interference with the gratification of basic needs. If we accept the frustration-aggression hypothesis — a hypothesis, the basic notions of which are found in almost every current personality theory in psychology — then it may be concluded that such interference produces frustration, which may lead in turn to aggression directed against the cause, the supposed cause, or the self.95 Aggression, in the form of violence, or trickery, is said to be directed toward the source of frustration unless anticipated social disapproval of such acts proves too inhibiting. If it does, aggression may be turned toward the self in the form of masochism, martyrdom, suicide or regression to infantile states of dependence.96 The particular type of response to frustration is in part determined by the individual's early training. Complete gratification of pre-potent needs during infancy and childhood usually produces an individual with sufficient resourcefulness to meet his adult frustrations in a healthy manner. However, individuals faced with a chronic inability to satisfy such needs as esteem and self-respect may well blame themselves, rather than outside causes, for their major frustrations. Such persons will release the resulting aggression against themselves. In the case of welfare recipients, inward-directed aggression frequently causes immobility, loss of initiative, and permanent dependence on public aid.97

The third aspect of emotional well-being is defined by the individual's social role and by the ideology of his society. Social institutions and the place that one is expected to occupy within them influence greatly the manner in which he gratifies his needs and responds to frustrating situations. Our own society, for example, places a high value on initiative, independence, and material opulence. Thus, ideological notions give specific content to human needs and condi- tion individuals from birth to satisfy those needs in socially approved ways.

The welfare recipient, for instance, is led by such social institutions as advertising to believe that he "needs" a range of material goods and services from deodorants to TV sets. He believes that his security needs can only be met by a stable and continuing level of income sufficient to purchase these commodities. He believes that his need for social and self-esteem depends upon independence in the management of his life and in the direction of his affairs. Further, society generally concurs in these beliefs. Since none of these socially conditioned needs can be met on a subsistence-level welfare budget, frustration and its various aggressive responses are likely to become intensified.

If the conditions necessary for optimum physiological, psychological, and social organization are met, the result will approach what Leon Saul has termed the mature personality; an adaptable individual with a minimum degree of vulnerability to frustrating situations.98 Characterized by an ability to live independently of parental or other authority figures, by high productive capacity, by freedom from feelings of inferiority and extreme egotism, by lack of excessive hostility and aggressiveness, and by a firm sense of reality, such a personality should never become a permanent welfare problem.99

2. Application to welfare.

From a consideration of the conditions necessary for emotional well-being and for the development of a mature personality, these principles of public welfare policy emerge. (1) Since there exists a group of common human needs, the satisfaction of which is basic to the emotional health of all people, the principle of individual need, individually determined has no legitimate place in a sound welfare program. (2) If human needs for material well-being are socially conditioned, then the amount of welfare payments must be consistent with social standards and expectations. (3) The basic human need for security demands that public aid be readily and easily available and that the amount be predictable and stable. (4) The needs for social respectability and self-esteem require elimination of the means test and social worker inquisition. (5) If gratification of the need for self-actualization signifies true independence, then welfare practices which intensify recipients' dependence on public aid stand condemned. (6) In addition to gratifying the basic needs of all recipients, welfare programs should provide additional aid to persons who demonstrate excessive dependency patterns.

The concept of individual need, individually determined, stems from a naive and indefensible view of human motivation. This view assumes that a subsistence-level satisfaction of physiological need is the sole demand which individuals must make on their external environment: that all other needs can be met by natural inner resources of the personality.100 Since welfare applicants have varying amounts of material resources, it is deemed sufficient to supply each with the exact amount necessary to bring him to the subsistence level. Thus society supposedly satisfies his "need".

This view clashes directly with well-established canons of personality motivation. Human need is manifold, not singular. The scope and nature of human needs are determined by their mutual interdependence and by general social standards. The gratification of all levels of need depends in large part upon factors residing outside the individual personality. Since all persons have the same basic needs, all depend upon similar environmental factors for emotional well-being. It is the task of welfare systems to supply these factors to persons who lack them at a level commensurate with generally accepted social standards. The needs of the financially dependent are identical with those of the financially independent. If the needs of the latter cannot be satisfied by bread and water, neither can the needs of the former. Human needs, culturally determined, not individual need, individually determined, appears to be the more psychologically defensible standard for welfare policy.

The individual-need principle presently characterizes only the public assistance programs and not the social insurances. As we have demonstrated, however, the concept is not necessarily related to either public assistance or contributory insurance. We merely wish to emphasize here that the "needs" principle is indefensible regardless of the general policy framework within which it might appear.

What is a socially adequate level of material well-being? A bowl of rice, some dried fish, and a thatched hut are sufficient to meet the demands imposed upon a Philippine Igorote by his society. These might also suffice for all Americans living permanently in the jungles of northern Luzon. For the not inconsiderable percentage of American citizens residing in a region of vastly greater wealth, however, it is to bulging grocery counters, the suburban housing development, and the Sears-Roebuck catalogue that we must turn for our notions of social adequacy. These institutions spell out a common need for high levels of material consumption — high enough to generate the energy needed by everyone to meet his other socially conditioned needs for security, respect, and self-realization. This implies at least what has loosely been termed "middle-income bracket" living. The disparity between such a standard and current subsistence-level public assistance and social insurance payments is impressive, whatever its dollar amount.

It is still fashionable in some circles to equate the need for security with moral weakness. If true, we are all immoral, since the psychological need for security is second in pre-potency only to the physiological needs, and is equally common to all persons. It is patent that we are not all immoral. It is equally patent that many people lack the resources to meet their security needs. What are these resources? First, an adequate and stable income sufficient to ward off the uncertainties of unemployment, disability, old age, etc. and to meet material standards of social acceptability; second, sufficient emotional strength and frustration tolerance to meet temporary adversity in a constructive manner. A welfare program based on socially adequate grants, a minimum number of simple eligibility requirements, and the guarantee of uninterrupted aid during the full period of need, can and should supply the first of these resources. Due to rigidified lifetime patterns of dependency in some recipients, welfare services may be unable to supply the second of these resources.101 However, the inability of public welfare agencies to furnish every client with thorough psychiatric diagnosis and therapy hardly justifies resort to those restrictive public assistance practices which intensify the dependency patterns of some recipients. (The social insurances are, of course, notably free from such practices.) Socially adequate grants and minimal restrictions on the use of grants, while they will not banish dependent attitudes overnight, are indispensable to eventual independence. "We fail to comprehend the inter-relatedness of man's needs and the fact that frequently basic dependency needs must be met first in order that he may utilize opportunities for independence.102

Cast into bold relief by current social-worker practices under public assistance, the welfare implications of the esteem needs are easily identifiable. Independence and self-sufficiency have been, and remain today, the indispensable conditions for public approval and self-respect in this society. It would be difficult to imagine a greater threat to these virtues than the means test, the social-worker budget, and the system of relative's responsibility. The means test requires virtual impoverishment of applicants. The very indicia of independence and self-sufficiency — personal and real property — must be consumed before aid will be granted and continued. Moreover, subsequent accumulation of small amounts of property through fortune or endeavor will result in the forfeiture of assistance payments. If these requirements are not sufficient to destroy recipients' social respectability, the recently adopted practice of publicizing names of recipients certainly will do so.103

Even more destructive of self-esteem and public acceptance is the social worker budget. Although theoretically free to allocate his niggardly assistance grant as he wishes, the recipient soon feels the firm hand of the social worker as she determines which of his needs shall be met. how much shall be budgeted to meet them, and which commodities and services shall be considered adequate to satisfy them. Held accountable to his alter-ego the social worker, for every penny spent and every penny earned, for every miniscule decision in the conduct of daily life, the assistance recipient soon comes to view himself as he is treated — as a ward of the state. If independence in the conduct of personal life is a condition of self-respect, and if self-respect is viewed as a basic human need, then social worker custodialism is a calculated device to frustrate the satisfaction of human needs.

The crowning interference with gratification of the esteem needs is the system of relative's responsibility. Forced to depend for part of his livelihood on the probably inadequate income of parents or children, the individual is driven to feelings of guilt and self-castigation. Legally responsible relatives, in turn, usually view this drain on meagre resources with hostility. Their regard for the disadvantaged relative steadily diminishes. The resulting mutual antagonism presses the recipient ever deeper into hopelessness and despondence. The relative's responsibility system thus strikes at the most tender and critical source of individual self-respect — the family relationship. Moreover, if dependence on a relative's help becomes a matter of public knowledge, the client's social standing is dealt an irreparable blow.

As actualization of potential creativity is the capstone of the mature personality, so rehabilitation and emancipation from public aid are the ultimate objectives of sound welfare policy. The need for self-actualization can be met only after all of the more pre-potent needs have been at least partially gratified.104 Similarly, welfare programs and techniques must make substantial contributions to the physiological, security, and esteem needs before rehabilitation can become a reality. Current public assistance as distinguished from social insurance practices represents a fateful series of steps away from independence and self-realization. Long delay in the processing of initial applications and rigorous scrutiny of resources and income undermine applicant's already threatened feelings of security. Subsistence-level grants fail miserably to meet socially conditioned physiological needs. The means test, the social worker budget, and relative's responsibility practices frustrate gratification of the esteem needs. Inability to retain and utilize a reasonable portion of outside earnings clearly blocks gratification of all the basic needs. Since these practices are nearly insurmountable obstacles to the rehabilitative efforts of the most independent and self-reliant client, it is small wonder that less reliant individuals regress to infantile states of dependency and irresponsibility under their impact. Emotional maturation is the processing of directing libidinal energy away from the self with its survival needs and toward the outer world and its social needs. Self-reliance, a sense of responsibility for dependents, and the exercise of creative effort are the hall-marks of maturity; self-actualization is its capstone. For the welfare recipient these goals are represented by rehabilitation and independence. Welfare practices which lead clients inexorably toward exclusive preoccupation with bare survival make these higher goals unattainable and in the end, unsought.

Individuals are motivated by a variety of factors to seek public aid. Some are permanently or temporarily disabled by accidents; some are the victims of economic conditions — depressions, technological unemployment, life-time earnings too meagre to permit saving for old age, etc. — over which they have no control. Others, although partially disadvantaged by uncontrollable events, lack sufficient emotional strength independently to discover and utilize alternative lines of action. Professional public assistance workers, however, appear increasingly unwilling to recognize this multiplicity of causes, contending that most welfare cases are occasioned by emotional disturbances.105 Personalized treatment and an "individual needs" philosophy follow directly from this view. Ross and Johnson state the consequences of this position clearly in asserting that "there is no essential difference between case work and therapy. The question will follow: is there a difference between the psychiatrictherapy of the social worker and that of the psychoanalytic therapist? We answer: There is no qualitative difference. . . . The differences are quantitative."106

That some welfare clients have deep emotional disturbances is undoubted. That some have special needs above and beyond the common human needs is equally certain. Moreover, a welfare system consistent with sound principles of psychological well-being will provide such persons with individualized psychiatric diagnosis and therapy. It does not follow, however, that all or most welfare recipients are emotionally maladjusted. True, the great majority of them probably manifest neurotic tendencies to the same extent as do members of society generally. But we are unaware of any evidence to support the widely accepted assumptions that recipients are more emotionally disturbed than other groups or that their rehabilitation requires intensive psychotherapy. We might more reasonably assume — until contrary evidence is available — that dependence on public aid most frequently stems from factors beyond the control of recipients. Individual therapy is thus required only in exceptional cases; it should probably not be imposed upon those who do not actively seek it, and it should never be imposed upon those who do not need it. In practice, the psychiatric approach has meant worker domination of the client and pervasive control over every aspect of his daily existence. For clients with no more than the average number of emotional disturbances such thorough custodialism, if long continued, may well encourage rather than eliminate neurosis.

It is doubtful whether intensive therapy can, even where needed, be applied successfully within a policy framework designed to perpetuate and intensify the very sources of emotional disturbance. We have indicated the extent to which sub-standard welfare payments, restrictive eligibility requirements, the means test, etc. interfere with gratification of socially conditioned, common human needs. Emotional recovery depends as much on socially acceptable diets, a minimum degree of economic security, self-respect, and social recognition as it does on psychiatric insight. Satisfaction of these basic and common needs is an indispensable prerequisite to successful psychiatric treatment of a few badly disturbed clients. It is indeed strange that professional welfare workers persistently cast individual therapy into the role of a Canute, futilely ordering the waves of human need to recede.

The psychological determinants of sound public welfare policy are to be derived from all three levels of personality organization. First, the human being as an organism appears to exhibit a few common, and to some extent measurable, needs. Welfare recipients, like other human beings, demand that their basic needs be satisfied. But, unlike other persons, these recipients must live within a cage of welfare policies which block the satisfaction of every basic need. Second, the human being is a member of society; his needs are conditioned by standards of social adequacy. Yet welfare recipients, fenced out of the culture and corralled into a second-class, subsistence-level society of their own, do not automatically relinquish the goals, objectives, and standards of the community in which they previously lived. Current welfare policies effectively frustrate their strivings toward these goals; such policies cannot eradicate the vision. Finally, every human being is a uniquely organized ego-structure with experiences, problems, and successes peculiar to itself. Like other people, welfare recipients frequently face obstacles to harmonious ego organization which require individualized attention. Unlike other people, they must suffer forceful evacuation from society before treatment can be obtained. Tuberculosis cannot be treated without bed rest and a rich diet. The emotional disturbances of welfare clients cannot be treated without simultaneously satisfying their common, socially-conditioned, human needs.

VII. CONCLUSION

The conglomeration of inconsistent and often conflicting private charities, public aid programs and social insurances which presently constitute the American welfare system is the end product of nearly four centuries of Anglo-American experience with social welfare. Public responsibility for disadvantaged persons and groups may properly be said to have begun with the Elizabethan Poor Laws in the Sixteenth Century. Cast in the mold of Protestant, individualistic morality, inheriting medieval social concepts, and conditioned by emergent notions of an automatically functioning free enterprise economy, early Anglo-American welfare was meagre, negative and self-defeating. Recipients were viewed as morally deficient aberrants whose lack of character and industry interfered with the achievement of ethically posited goals — self-sufficiency and personal independence. For religious reasons, sufficient aid should be given to keep body and soul together, but not enough to make recipients comfortable in their "delinquency". Moreover, since the ideal society rested on a number of delicately balanced economic laws, welfare grants — of any size but particularly if they were generous — were viewed as an arbitrary and disruptive interference with the automatically functioning mechanism. Welfare grants adequate for a decent standard of living would satisfy individual ambition and thereby would destroy not only personal character but also the incentive for work and productive activity. The natural right of private property derived from mixing one's labor and God-given personality with the freely available resources of nature. Taxation of those with property for the benefit of those without it was thus an interference with natural laws and God's commands. So that "delinquents" might not also be vagrants and impose a burden upon property in communities having no prior connection with them, local residence requirements were established, thus circumscribing opportunity and binding them to the place of their misfortune. Though dependency arose from personal defect and thus might not reasonably be attributed to one's family, the public outlay was diminished by instituting legal liability of responsible relatives.

This medieval philosophy and many of its implementations endured for over three hundred and fifty years. They find expression today in our federal-state, grant-in-aid public assistance program.

Side by side with this philosophy have developed, particularly during the last two centuries, the political ideals of individual liberty, human dignity and social equality. During the past half-century also, newly emerging psychological and economic doctrines have found a place in the Pantheon of social understanding. These political, economic and psychological notions have had an impact upon welfare policies and programs, especially the various social insurances. The impact, however, has been limited. There has been no consistent or systematic effort to integrate welfare programs and political, economic and psychological theory. Rather, welfare practice and social knowledge have developed coincidentally, but largely independently. Contact between the two has been mainly accidental and fortuitous.

What is the result if American welfare programs and policies are examined in the light of current social knowledge? How do the three contradictory pairs of welfare principles — means test versus aid as a right, rehabilitation by compulsion versus rehabilitation by incentive, contributory insurance financing versus general fund financing — appear when drawn into a compatible and consistent relationship with some of the Nation's most cherished political precepts and constitutional ideals?

Well established and commonly accepted psychological doctrines about man's nature, needs and motivations, soundly thought out and factually supported economic theories, deeply rooted American democratic traditions and Constitutional guarantees — all combine to sustain, support, and imperatively demand a welfare system built upon aid as a right, rehabilitation by incentive, and general fund financing, and to repudiate and condemn the means test, rehabilitation by compulsion and contributory insurance financing.

Means test aid — involving continuous, pervasive and detailed social worker control over the lives and activities of recipients and treatment which is personalized, unpredictable and inquisitorial — strikes at the vital foundations of our political system: at the dignity and worth of the individual: at liberty with its rights of self-ownership, self-management and self-determination: at opportunity to choose and enter occupations, to engage in productive activity, and to participate in the mainstream of social and economic life; at equality before the law and by the law with classifications based on similarities and recognizing only real differences. Means test aid strikes, too, at the foundations of sound economic theory and fiscal policy with their focus on community rather than individual need, with their requirement of flexibility in orientation to cyclical variations, with their easy use of aid benefits to increase consumption expenditures during deflation and to equitably adjust gains and burdens in inflation. Finally, means test aid strikes at the psychological foundations of men: at their need for security, self-esteem, social approval and independence; at the gratification of those common and basic needs which are an indispensable concomitant of emotional well-being.

Aid as a right moves in the opposite direction. It strengthens freedom, property, dignity and equality. It diminishes resentment against maldistribution of economic resources and status by giving the disadvantaged a stake in the economy greater than largess and gratuity and thereby contributes to economic stability and the retardation of cyclical fluctuations. It is compatible with the psychologically determined needs of man.

Rehabilitation by coercion is a contradiction. It is therefore futile. It is as futile as ordering a person to restore his emotional balance while adding to the very factors which cause the unbalance. Since the objective of rehabilitation is restoration to a normal useful role in society, the standards of success are in large measure culturally determined. The rehabilitated person, thus, is one for whom the assumptions and goals of the community have become as significant as for others, who has in fact achieved equal opportunity to enter the calling of his choice, to acquire, use and dispose of property, to exercise the right of personal independence and to operate on the other assumptions and principles before listed. Just as the habits of freedom are not learned by experiencing slavery, so ambition is not learned by destitution, self-management by authoritarian controls, incentive by denying the hope of gain, or self-respect by second-class citizenship. Rehabilitation by coercion cultivates the very traits which frustrate and prevent rehabilitation. The client becomes the captive of a system which should be designed to set him free. Rehabilitation by incentives carefully planned to encourage productive activity by the expectation of normal rewards — retention of earnings, improvement of standards of living, accumulation of real and personal property — places rehabilitative effort in conformity with the political assumptions, economic impulses and behavioral standards imposed by democratic thought and current social knowledge.

The proper determinants of welfare financing are economic, fiscal and political. The political doctrine of equality requires that taxes be progressive, i.e., proportional to the capacity to pay them. Not only is contributory insurance financing more regressive in tendency than general fund financing, but general fund financing will always immediately reflect the adoption of more progressive tax policies while social insurance necessarily involves a regressive element.

Economically, general fund financing is better adapted to the requirements of contra-cyclical fiscal policy. Contributory insurance financing involves the existence of large reserves, the accumulation and disbursement of which may add to deflationary or inflationary burdens that fiscal policy is designed to combat. Further, cyclically adjusted fiscal policy calls for significant variations in the amount and incidence of all taxes, payroll levies included. Radical changes in the amount of social insurance premiums, however, interfere with the accumulation of a proper reserve at the proper time and discourage public confidence in the contributory nature of the system.

The claim that there is a contributory relationship between social insurance premiums, benefits, wages and work, and that this creates or strengthens the right of the worker to benefit payments is denied as palpably false. The claim, though false, has increased popular acceptance of the program by enhancing the worker's impression of participation through the fiction of personalization, and through the careless conclusion that social insurance obviates or reduces the welfare drain on the tax dollars of non-contributors. The claimed relationship, however, does not exist. Social insurance premiums are paid largely by the employer, the general taxpayer and other workers. The right to social insurance benefits, as in the case of public assistance, is statutory.

What does this comparative and normative evaluation of principles and practices imply for the future organization of American welfare policy?

There are three general alternatives. (1) Tear up the whole public assistance system — modern branches, Eighteenth Century trunk and Elizabethan roots — and transfer present public assistance case loads along with general-fund financing to the social insurance program. Social insurance would thereby be so altered in its basic structure as to be a new system. The long-standing Administration policy of primacy for social insurance and subordination for public assistance — a pale form of this alternative — is defective in that: (a) it presupposes that present public assistance programs are suitable for a residue and as a supplement; (b) it strengthens, perpetuates and augments regressive, payroll-tax financing; and, (c) it fails to take cognizance of other weaknesses of social insurance, particularly those associated with the fiction of a contributory relationship. (2) Abolish social insurance, transferring its case loads and the concepts of aid as a right and rehabilitation by incentive to a thoroughly renovated public assistance program. Such an operation doubtless could not be accomplished without killing the patient. (3) Start from scratch — abolish both public assistance and social insurance — and create an entirely new program possessing all of the desirable features — basic concepts, secondary principles and administrative details — derived from political, economic and psychological theories.

These three alternatives are merely logical. Considerations of practical politics, popular beliefs and the attitudes of welfare planners rule all of them out as possibilities in the foreseeable future.

We must assume then, that social insurance will continue to occupy a dominant role in the American welfare system; indeed, that it will continue to expand in coverage and improve in benefits along the lines of the present plan. We must assume, further, that public assistance, whether it continues to grow alongside social insurance as it has in the past or shrinks into the residual and supplementary role assigned it by the Federal planners, will remain as a not inconsiderable element in the total welfare program. Given these assumptions, what, according to our political, economic and psychological standards, should be the character and direction of change within each of these programs?

In social insurance: (1) Both employers' and employees' contributions should be eliminated as speedily as possible, all benefits to be paid from the general fund. (2) The fiction of the contributory relationship between benefits, premiums, wages and work should be eliminated as a factor in the determination of benefit payments. Recipients under a given social insurance program will then all receive the same benefit amount, regardless of time spent in covered employment and the amount of previous salary The need for protection arising from "the complexities of our modern society", reduction of the fear and incidence of destitution and confidence in the future are not less or more desirable for one worker than for another. (3) Upon reaching the retirement age, beneficiaries should be permitted and encouraged to continue working. They are happier thus and they have a contribution to make to our economy. They should therefore be allowed to earn as much as they wish and can without having their benefits reduced or eliminated. (4) The program should be expanded at least until it covers all workers and those dependent on them. (5) Benefits must be improved until they are sufficient to meet physiological needs and social patterns of living and consumption.

The alterations required in public assistance involve a whole new orientation. (1) Whatever may be said about it as a punitive instrument of the criminal law, responsibility of relatives should be obliterated as a welfare principle. (2) Local and state residence requirements should be abandoned. (3) The individual means test as currently and historically understood and practiced should be abolished. (4) As in the case of labor by minimum wages, farmers by price support and parity payments, industrialists, farmers and others by tariffs, and children and youth by free public education, public assistance payments should be made to an individual as a part of a group. Once it is shown that a given person possesses the traits which make him a member of a publicly aided group, his other individual characteristics are irrelevant. Four such groups — others would have to be added — would be constituted out of the present programs of categorical aid: aged, underprivileged children, the blind and the disabled. Under the latter, for example, all persons with a disability serious enough to prevent gainful employment would be eligible. Upon proving such disability, an individual would establish that he is a member of the aided group. Individual variation as to property and income are ignored. (5) All members of the group should then uniformly receive an equal grant. Payments would vary among groups. (6) The group characteristics which constitute the factor of individual eligibility and the amount of the payment should be fixed in the statute. Aid would then be granted and received as a matter of right spelled out in the law. (7) The amount of the grant must be sufficient to meet common human needs at socially determined standards of living, and must be adjusted to the demands of contra-cyclical fiscal policy. (8) The amount must also be sufficient to meet the needs peculiar to the group. For children, these are care, attention, control and guidance necessary for proper growth and development. For the aged, they are adjustment to declining energy and status, finding new sources of activity and interest, and work within the limits of inclination and strength. For the blind and the severely disabled, they are integration or reintegration into the economic and social life of the community. For the blind and the severely disabled, especially, if it is of vital importance that the amount of the grant be sufficient to facilitate vocational rehabilitation and that this process be accomplished by the incentive of allowing the recipient to retain all earnings and property acquired without reduction in his grant.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Americans are familiar with the unhappy divergence between creed and conduct in many phases of our national life. Myrdal's observation of the disparity between social equality as a cherished political norm and our unequal treatment of the Negro is but one instance of a pattern that is all too pervasive. The field of welfare provides another, one which has been less noticed but is not less conspicuous or significant. Here, however, unlike race relations, the cure can be effected merely by legislation. In thus closing the gap, recipients and taxpayers, long viewed as antagonistic elements with opposing interest, would be seen as mutually interdependent parts of a single social entity and the economy as a whole would bear the burdens which its operations and imperfections so largely create. Economically, politically and psychologically, as well as morally and spiritually, "no man is an island entire to itselfe; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the Maine . . . any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind . . . therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."107

___________

61 Gordon, Business Fluctuations 121-122 (1952).

62 L. R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution 167 (1947).

63 Illustrative of this view was the post-war statement of the National Planning Association: "The first goal for post-war planning should be a foundation for better living through provision for enough jobs, and lasting jobs. We must prepare now . . . for a full and continued employment under a peace-time economy." National Planning Association, Fiscal Policy and Full Employment 1 (Planning Pamphlet No. 43 1945).

64 See Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society (1945).
Gordon, Business Fluctuations (1952).
Hansen, Economic Policy and Full Emploment (1947).
Harris
(Ed.), The New Economics (1948).
Klein, The Keynesian Revolution (1947).
Kalecki, Oxford University Institute of Statistics. The Economics of Full Employment (1947).
Morgan, Income and Employment (1947).
Fellner, Monetary Policies and Full Employment
(1947). Cf. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1947).

65 Full Employment Act of 1945. Hearings before Sub-committee of the Committee on Banking and Currency on S. 380, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 118 (1945).

66 Id. at 104.

67 Id. at 86.

68 60 Stat. 23 (1946), 15 U.S.C. ยง1021 (1946).

69 Quoted in, Merriam, The New Democracy and the New Despotism 13 (1949).

70 James L. Beebe. The Dangers of the Welfare State. 15-16 (unpublished ms. of a speech delivered before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Dec. 9, 1949).

71 Gordon, Business Fluctuations C.5 (1952).

72 Moreover, variations in investment appear to hold the key to alternating periods of boom and bust. "In the mutual interactions between consumption, investment, and income, investment rather than consumption is the dynamic, initiating element." Id. at 119.

73 That private financing standards may no longer be used to condemn public debt is a proposition to which most economists now agree. Government debt merely represents a transfer of resources from one segment of the economy to the other.

74 Groves. Postwar Taxation and Economic Progress (1946).

75 War preparedness probably obviates the possibility of a condition of chronic demand-deficiency for the foreseeable future. However, the task of measuring the direction and nature of economic forces is one for economists rather than for welfare students.

76 Meriam, Relief and Social Security 703 (1946).

77 Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, 64 Stat. 477 (1950), 42 U.S.C. c.7 (Supp. 1952).

78 A. Myrdal. Nation and Family 147 (1941).

79 See Kendrick, Public Finance 565-583 (1951); Meriam, op. cit. supra note 76, at 693-695.

80 Meriam, op. cit. supra. note 76, at 699.

81 For the fiscal year 1951, the Federal share of the Aid to Needy Aged, Aid to Needy Blind, Aid to Needy Children and Aid to Needy Disabled programs was $1,122 millions (46.6%). The state share was $1,024 millions (42.6%); local government share $262 millions (10.9%). Sources of Revenue for the State Share of Public Assistance. Fiscal Years 1949-1951, Federal Security Agency Bulletin, Feb. 10, 1953, p. 1.

82 Personal Income Taxes accounted for 48.1%, Corporation Income Taxes 34.6%, Gift Taxes 0.1%, and Estate Taxes 1.2% of all Federal Revenues in the Fiscal Year 1952. Source, State Dep't of Social Welfare, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Feb. 17, 1954.

83 Federal Security Agency Bulletin, Feb. 10. 1953, op. cit. supra note 81, at 1.

84 Personal Income Taxes accounted for 9.3%, Corporation Income Taxes 8.5%, and Estate and Gift Taxes 2.1% of all State Revenues in the Fiscal Year 1952. Source, State Dep't of Social Welfare, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Feb. 17, 1954.

85 Smithies, Federal Budgeting and Fiscal Policy, in A Survey of Contemporary Economics 198 (Ellis, ed. 1948).

86 One other course of action is, of course, available. Insurance premiums may be allowed to remain constant throughout all phases of the cycle while other fiscal devices, as government spending programs, are proportionally expanded to overcome the pressures represented by these constant tax levels.

87 Towle, Common Human Needs 2 (Federal Security Agency, Social Security Board, Bureau of Public Assistance, Report No. 8, 1945).

88 Erikson, Childhood and Society 32 (1950).

89 Pre-potency refers to the position occupied by a given group of needs on a scale or hierarchy of needs. Hunger, sex, sleep, etc. are the most pre-potent of all needs in the sense that if one were deprived of everything in life, his major motivation would be the satiation of these physiological needs. A. H. Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, 50 Psych. Rev. 370-396 (1943).

90 See B. Buell and Associates, Community Planning for Human Services, C. 3. (1952).

91 Towle, op. cit. supra note 87, at 4.

92 Maslow, supra note 89, at 378-379.

93 Id. at 380-382.

94 See Maslow, Depravation, Threat and Frustration, in Readings in Social Psychology 281-282 (Newcomb & Hartley, ed. 1947).

95 Any interference with the achievement of a goal which evokes an emotional response is called a frustrating event and the emotional response to this interference is called frustration. Dollard et al., Frustration and Aggression 7 (1939).

96 Readings in Social Psychology, op. cit. supra note 94, at 260-261.

97 Helen H. Permian, Are We Creating Dependency? 18 Public Aid in Illinois 3-4 (July 1951).

98 Saul, Emotional Maturity (1947).

99 Id. at 7-16.

100 Differing and often contradictory motivations of the "individual-needs" concept should, of course, be carefully distinguished. Many case workers appear to have seized the idea enthusiastically because of certain implications which they draw from Freudian psychiatry. It is assumed that welfare recipients are in some sense more neurotic than the mass of their fellow men; that one or a few neurotic tendencies inevitably involve the entire personality. Thus, each welfare client is said to present a unique constellation of personality problems, which are remediable only through individual psychotherapy. See Hamilton, The Theory and Practice of Social Casework (1951); Hollis, Social Casework in Practice (1946). The broad lines of welfare policy, however, are seldom motivated by these precise professional assumptions. The major policy motivation for the "individual-needs" notion appears to be Elizabethan rather than Freudian. Present-day legislators appear to support the individual-needs doctrine for moral and economic reasons: they believe that it is morally iniquitous to support by tax monies those who are not and cannot prove themselves individually to be in the most dire need; they believe that meeting individual need is much less expensive than the satisfaction of general or group need.

Initiated by economy-minded policy makers and implemented by psychiatrically-oriented case workers, the "individual-needs" concept has been woven tightly into the fabric of public welfare.

101 See pp. 295-296 infra, for a discussion of extended welfare aid to pathologically disturbed clients.

102 Towle, op. cit. supra note 87, at 5 [Emphasis added].

103 Twenty-eight states presently allow public inspection of public welfare rolls. The swiftly growing popularity of this objectionable practice is evident from the fact that in 1953 alone twenty states adopted it. Berman and Blaetus, State Public Assistance Legislation, 1953, Social Security Bulletin, Jan., 1954, p. 3.

104 See p. 289 supra.

105 This view is not unanimously held by all administrators and case workers. It does, however, characterize the attitudes of the great majority of present day professional workers who belong to the "Diagnostic" or Freudian school of social case work. The small minority designated as the "Functionalist" or Rankian school hold that most clients have essentially sound personality structures which have undergone temporary disorganization. See Keith-Lucas. The Political Theory Implicit in Social Casework. 47 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1076 (1953).

106 Ross and A. Johnson, The Growing Science of Social Case Work, in Principles and Techniques in Social Case Work 52-53 (Kasius, ed. 1950).

107 John Donne as quoted in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations 1039 (12th ed. 1950).

Back to Contents