Look, Mom!, No Cane!

Look, Mom!, No Cane!

Future Reflections Winter/Spring 1990, Vol. 9 No. 1
(back) (contents) (next)
LOOK, MOM!, NO CANE!
Reprinted from the April, 1986, Braille
Monitor.
When the Matilda Ziegler Magazine (which has
been around since the early part of the century)
carried an article by Frances Koestler about
Telesensory Systems and the Sensory Aids Foundation,
David Andrews was moved to express his
opinion. Federationists are like that --a trait
which sometimes endears us to others, and sometimes
doesn't. Andrews took particular exception
to Koestler's comment that Candy Linville was
able to travel (after a month's practice in the
same area) without using cane or dog. Of course,
a man could walk downtown without his shirt or
a woman without her shoes, but it is questionable
whether this would be an accomplishment or a
spectacle. It might be noted in passing that Frances
Koestler has for many years been closely
associated with the American Foundation for the
Blind. Therefore, it is not surprising that her
attitudes differ from those held by blind persons
of an independent (or, as some would put it,
"militant") frame of mind. Be this as it will, here
is what David Andrews had to say:
Chicago, Illinois, January 23,1986
Mr. Michael Millar, Editor Matilda Ziegler Magazine New York, New York
Dear Editor:
I read with interest Frances Koestler's article
in the January, 1986, edition of your magazine on
Telesensory Systems, Inc., and the Sensory Aids
Foundation. I thought the article was good except
for a couple statements at the end.
Koestler said, "What she does not use is any
sort of mobility aid. She learned to do without
cane or dog while still in public school." This
statement referred to Candy Linville, daughter of
John Linville, one of the co-founders of TSI.
Koestler then went on to describe how Candy and
her mother spent a month teaching Candy how
to travel around her college campus without a
cane.
I think that Koestler's statements are very
demeaning to blind persons and damaging to all
of us. First she implies that those of us who use
canes or dogs are somehow inferior to Linville.
She then goes on to say what an exceptional
person Linville is. Secondly, her statements are
misleading to a person just losing his or her sight,
a person who might be already reluctant to use a
cane or dog.
Yes, it is possible to travel in a familiar area
without a cane or dog. However, Koestler herself
said that it took Linville and her mother a month
to learn one area. Most of us do not have this kind
of time to devote to that kind of project. More
importantly, how would Linville travel in an unfamiliar
area? Would she tell a prospective
employer, "Yes, I can start work in a month, but
first I must learn how to get to your building!"
Furthermore, Koestler and Linville seem to
be saying that it is bad to be seen with a cane or
dog. I personally use a cane every day and travel
all around the Chicago area in conjunction with
my job. I see my cane as a symbol of independence,
not dependence. I am proud to be
seen as a blind person who can travel anywhere I
want to go, unassisted. I do not want to be like
Linville who must slide her feet around and shuffle
off to work or school.
I view my cane, or dog guide, as a tool just like
the Optacon, which Linville's father and James
Bliss developed. Each should be used for what it
can do for an individual. Koestler was the editor
of the Ziegler Magazine for many years and has
probably been around blind persons all of that
time. In addition, she has also written about
blindness issues before. She should know better
than to promote the belief that a blind person
should do everything he or she can not to appear
as a blind person by carrying a cane or using a dog.
Sincerely,
David B. Andrews
(back) (contents) (next)