Independence and the Necessity for Diplomacy

Independence and the Necessity for Diplomacy

(back)

(next) (contents)

The Braille Monitor, August/September

2001 Edition

Independence and the Necessity for Diplomacy

An

Address delivered by Marc Maurer

President

of the National Federation of the Blind

July

6, 2001

Marc Maurer

delivers the 2001 Banquet Address.

The science

fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote that the primary diplomatic question is

shall there be talk--or war? In the struggle of the blind to achieve first-class

citizenship and equal treatment within society, diplomacy has been an essential

tool, and in a number of cases its practice by the National Federation of the

Blind has risen to a high art.

So

what is diplomacy, who are the diplomats, what are the arenas for this art,

and what are the objectives to be achieved? The dictionary tells us that diplomacy

is "the art or practice of conducting international relations, [or] tact

or skill in dealing with people." Ambrose Bierce, in a more pungent definition,

says that diplomacy is "the patriotic art of lying for one's country."

The Italian statesman, Benso di Cavour, questions the skill of diplomats. "I

have discovered [he says] the art of fooling diplomats; I speak the truth,

and they never believe me." The American comedian Will Rogers avers that

"diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock!"

The old adage asserts that, when a diplomat says yes, this means maybe; when

a diplomat says maybe, this means no. It adds, if a diplomat says no, he is

no diplomat.

Such

pithy statements suggest that there is an element of duplicity in diplomacy,

but Dwight D. Eisenhower puts this suggestion in perspective when he observes

that "the opportunist thinks of me and today. The statesman thinks of

us and tomorrow." Incidentally, General Eisenhower also said at the end

of the European campaign in World War II, "I say we are going to have

peace--even if we have to fight for it."

From

the point of view of the National Federation of the Blind, diplomacy is the

art of persuading others that the philosophical foundation we represent should

be considered and, after it has been understood, adopted. This point of view

is forthright, distinctive, unmistakable. Although it has been expressed in

many ways, it has remained the same since the inception of the National Federation

of the Blind in 1940. We do not believe that we have learned everything there

is to know about blindness, but we are certain that the principles which caused

the Federation to be formed reflect reality; they serve as the bedrock of Federationism;

and we the blind will not be deterred from their implementation.

The

blind have the right to govern themselves. Nobody can represent the blind except

those elected by the blind to do it. The blind have a right to equal treatment

within society. The blind can be as independent and productive as anybody else,

if there are acceptance and understanding by the public at large and by the

blind themselves and if adequate training for the blind is available. The blind

do not want custodialism or mollycoddling; we can and will stand on our own

feet and do our own thing. Perhaps most important of all, we the blind will

speak on our own behalf and will not let others declare our intentions for

us, interpret our lives for us, or control our destinies--that is our responsibility,

our right, our mechanism for liberation, our passport to freedom!

To

one degree or another, each of us in the Federation is a diplomat--charged

with the duty of persuading members of the public and blind people that the

perspective about blindness represented by our philosophy is the way to independence.

This is, in fact, one of the prime purposes for the formation of the Federation.

If there were no need to spread the word about the philosophy of independence,

much of the urgency for maintaining the organized blind movement would be gone.

All of us are part of the diplomatic service. When we speak, we speak for the

Federation with a unified and positive voice--the voice of the organized blind.

Who

is it we want to reach with our message of freedom? The persuasive voice of

the Federation is directed toward the public at large, the agencies established

to serve the blind (both public and private), governmental bodies, corporations

and businesses, other organizations of the blind, individual blind people who

are not a part of any organization, and ourselves. Our message is clear and

uncomplicated. We want to work in peace and harmony with anybody prepared to

promote the interests of the blind. We are ready to commit our time, our energy,

our financial resources, our imaginative effort, our enthusiasm, and our other

talents.

However,

we will not join forces with those who expect us to do all the giving and sacrificing

so that they may share the benefits. Furthermore, we will oppose those who

try to limit opportunity for the blind. We want peace and harmony, and in most

cases this is precisely what we get. We who are blind enjoy enormous good will

from members of the public and from the vast majority of officials in the field

of work with the blind. However, there are exceptions.

Harmony

is always worth having unless it is obtained at the cost of fundamental fairness

or missed opportunity. In such circumstances harmony becomes an oppressive,

intolerable burden. As President Woodrow Wilson said, "There is a price

which is too great to pay for peace, and that price can be put into one word.

One cannot pay the price of self-respect."

Some

will argue that nobody could oppose this philosophical approach. After all,

the elements of it are fundamental to democracy; they are an essential part

of an independent life. Furthermore, some may tell us that the notion of the

necessity for diplomacy among entities dealing with blindness is out of proportion.

Diplomacy serves (they may say) to manage affairs of state between nations.

Conflicts, recriminations, and wars cannot exist among organizations and programs

dealing with blindness. To those who possess such a naive, uninformed attitude,

I say, "Don't you believe it!" There are conflicts aplenty, and the

need for diplomacy is urgent--especially because we the blind are so often

misunderstood.

Consider,

for example, the unfortunate situation in which certain individuals have attacked

the National Federation of the Blind with statements that are both critical

and false. Two such people are William Penrod and Kent Jones of Kentucky, who

proclaim that they are certified orientation and mobility specialists (or as

they abbreviate it, COMS). Penrod and Jones feel a strong attachment to being

certified; it gives them status and makes them feel important. Furthermore,

they have been attempting to persuade all other professionals in the field

of blindness in Kentucky that their approach is the only one. Those who have

been certified by their organization should be regarded as valuable and worthwhile,

they tell us. Those who have not been certified may be dismissed as irrelevant.

If you have been admitted to the old-boy network, you are all right. If you

are not a member of the club, forget it.

In

a paper circulated throughout the state last fall, these professionals charge

that the National Federation of the Blind is in direct opposition to every

practicing certified orientation and mobility specialist and that affiliation

with the National Federation of the Blind means abandoning professionals in

the field of work with the blind. Whatever it is that caused them to write

such false accusations is unclear. However, the National Federation of the

Blind has been working with the University of Louisville during the past few

years, and these two so-called professionals appear to have been worrying that

the influence of the Federation in university programs to instruct teachers

of the blind might continue to increase. Apparently Messrs. Penrod and Jones

fear such cooperation. Why would those who claim professional status object

to working closely with the blind--especially the blind who have organized

for collective action? Is there something about them that they don't want us

to learn?

There

are a number of other misstatements contained in the paper, but it is not necessary

to list them all. It is sufficient to note that two allegedly prominent individuals

in work with the blind are encouraging others to believe that professionalism

and professional status are reserved to themselves and their organization.

Association with the National Federation of the Blind, the unspoken implications

repeatedly suggest, is unprofessional and unsafe. Their argument is that professionalism

should be left to the professionals, and the blind (especially the organized

blind) should keep out.

If

they think they can prevent us from having major input into the nature of the

programs that affect our lives, they are mistaken. This is the very essence

of the problem we have had with a number of self-serving entities that have

decided to tell us what is good for us. If we think the advice we get is wrong,

we reserve the right to ignore it, reject it, or confront it. Furthermore,

we expect to have a voice in the designing of the programs being established

and conducted for our benefit--we expect it whether the designers like it or

not. We have a right to participate in decisions that determine our future,

and we will be heard!

It

is essential that we be clear. Although the authors of the paper may feel uneasiness

about working with us, we have no animosity toward them. We want to cooperate

with them in harmony. We have been informed that they have been trying to organize

opposition to the National Federation of the Blind, but we have no wish for

conflict. Their paper is their own; it has not been adopted by any organization.

Their effort at creating confrontation is their own; it has not been espoused

by any group. We invite them to join with us in building programs that offer

opportunities to the blind which have not yet become available. We shall use

what diplomatic skill we possess to let them know that we are willing to join

with them in mutual harmony and respect if they come to the effort with the

same spirit.

Fashion

designers do not often focus on the needs of the blind, but, when it happens,

the results can be bizarre. An Indian designer has issued a line of clothing

(known as a range) particularly manufactured to meet the specialized requirements

of the blind. A Reuters wire story, sent from Bombay on April 10, 2001, gives

details. Here are excerpts from the article.

"One

of India's most innovative fashion designers, Wendell Rodricks, [the article

begins] has launched a collection with Braille embroidery and bead-work designed

specially for the visually impaired.

"The

outfits have Braille embossed in the form of French knots and bead-work to

make it easy for the visually impaired to know the color."

I

interrupt the article to say that adding features to help identify color (while

not absolutely necessary) seems like a good idea, provided that it is not done

in such a way as to be obnoxious or obtrusive. However, there is more to the

article.

"The

collection, [it continues] mostly in white, black, and flesh colors, has been

designed in washed cotton, silken crepe, rippled jersey, and stretch lycra

to emphasize the feel rather than the look.

"Since

putting buttons in the wrong button-hole [the article continues] is a common

problem, the Goa-based designer has taken care to number the button holes in

Braille.

"Rodricks

held a preview of the range titled 'Visionnaire' in a leading Bombay fashion

store on Tuesday with top models draped in his creations.

"`This

is the most spiritually valuable collection I have ever designed. People say

I have contributed internationally to the blind,' Rodricks told Reuters after

the show.

"Leading

Indian models [the article continues] sashayed before a media crowd in flowing,

wispy, white tunics, sarongs, and halters looking chic yet mystical.

"`People

are obsessed with how they look, but I wanted to put feeling in these clothes,'

said Rodricks, forty."

That

is what Reuters distributed all over the world less than three months ago.

I ask you, as you prepared for this banquet tonight, did you have any trouble

deciding which buttons should be inserted into what holes? Would it have helped

to have the buttonholes numbered in Braille? Of course, the person who created

these outfits is only a fashion designer and can't be expected to have any

perspective about blindness, but he got the idea from a blind professor. How

do you suppose the professor looks in class?

And

another thing, what can it mean for clothing designed for the blind to be mystical

or spiritually valuable? Though spirituality is both necessary and desirable,

clothing should be made of physical matter, not spirit. The very thought of

such clothing conjures up images that are at least as wispy as the items designed

by Rodricks.

Undoubtedly

he believes his efforts are helping, but they have caused misinformation to

be printed in newspapers around the world. This misinformation could be amusing

if it were not so damaging. However, if the public accepts the misleading suggestion

that the blind are so lacking in ability that we can't even get the buttons

in the right holes, how can we hope to receive equal consideration for education,

employment, or other pursuits?

Despite

the Rodricks portrayal of blindness, or perhaps because of it, our diplomatic

efforts continue. At one time many, many people believed that the blind were

incompetent. Assertions of our incapacity still exist, but they are fewer today

than in former times and often less blatant. We will continue to provide the

information about our talents and abilities, and we will never quit until the

truth about us is known and accepted throughout our country and beyond our

borders. This is the commitment we have made; this is the commitment we will

keep; this is the nature of the National Federation of the Blind.

A

woman who became blind in her retirement years, Frances Lief Neer, was discouraged

and frustrated by blindness. She had not discovered the National Federation

of the Blind, and information was lacking. She felt she had little left to

contribute. Not knowing what to do, she signed up for a college course in what

they call vision rehabilitation. With her personal experience of blindness

and her new college education, she wrote a book entitled Dancing in the Dark.

Although

there are a few passages in this book that contain genuinely good advice, and

although the tone is often superficially upbeat, emphasizing the necessity

for good cheer and persistence, the experience of this blind author is so limited

and her understanding of blindness is so minuscule that her admonitions are,

to say the least, fanciful. Nevertheless, she offers recommendations she urges

others to follow.

Chapter

seven of this book is entitled "Public Life: The Bank, the Post Office,

and Public Restrooms." The public restroom section contains the following

passage:

"This

is, in all polite company, a delicate topic. But blind people must be brave!

[That is what she says, brave!]

"You

might need [she continues] a public restroom almost anywhere: in the waiting

room of a railroad terminal or airport, in a restaurant, at a theater or museum,

and so on. What to do? You ask someone to help and get yourself escorted to

it. Generally a service person connected with the facility, a flight attendant

or porter, for example, will be available to do this for you.

"Once

you have been taken to the door, [she continues] unless you're sure of the

layout inside, it's best to wait until you hear someone else entering and ask,

'Excuse me, will you please help me into the restroom?' After you go in, you

can also ask to be shown to a stall."

The

author continues with advice about what to do once inside the bathroom, recommending,

among other things, that blind men not mistake the sink for a urinal. If she

included that piece of advice to be funny, it isn't. If she really thinks we

are likely to make such mistakes, she didn't learn much in college.

The

book also includes a section on dining out. Here are a few excerpts.

"I

used to dump food and water on myself, on tablecloths, and on the floor until

I learned a few important rules [the author says].

1.

Find out where your wine or water glass is. When you pick it up, return it

to that spot.

2.

Lean over your plate when you eat. Your posture will have to be a little less

upright than you're probably used to, but your food and fork are over the dish.

3.

Be generous with napkins. Get extras, and put a couple of them under your chin

and a couple more on your lap. If you have a cloth napkin, spread it across

your chest in self-defense. This may not look elegant, but it will save you

a lot of cleaning bills and even more embarrassment.

4.

If you've got a small plate of food, a salad maybe, put the plate on a larger

plate so that what you spill falls on the big plate and not on the table or

on you. (At home you could use a tray.)"

Or

you could just eat in the bathtub so that you could rinse off afterward. I

admit that I added this last piece of advice myself, but it fits in with the

general tone of the rest of this mishmash of folderol.

It

is tempting to dismiss this volume as the work of a nut. Nevertheless, this

book has been circulated to a number of institutions, and its author has sought

approval from individuals of note including, among others, Dr. Dean Edell,

who praised the work as "compassionate" and "provocative"

and as "a valuable source book for the visually impaired, for their friends

and families, and also for professional workers." Is this really valuable?

Who could seriously believe it? How about provocative? I can think of a number

of blind people who will be provoked.

However,

Frances Neer is not the only person capable of expressing an opinion about

blindness; we also have the capacity to write. Sometimes our efforts at diplomacy

take the form of exposing the ill-considered misrepresentation of our circumstances

foisted off on the public by others. We will correct the misrepresentations

with as much skill and tact as we can, but we will do it. We will no longer

tolerate the lies about us to masquerade as the truth. The author recommends

persistence; she will never meet an organization that personifies this quality

more than our own. We never quit; we never give up; we never stop. We know

it is respectable to be blind, and we insist that others recognize this. If

they will not, they will meet the force of the blind organized to take collective

action--they will meet the National Federation of the Blind.

It

is not only members of the public or self-proclaimed experts who sometimes

tell us that our blindness makes us strange or unusual. Occasionally individual

blind people who are seeking to excuse outlandish behavior declare that blindness

has created within them characteristics which have nothing whatever to do with

the loss of sight. In 1997 we received a letter from a law firm requesting

our assistance. It says in part:

"My

client is seeking a divorce from her husband after over twenty years of severe

spousal abuse. Her husband happens to be blind.

"The

disturbing part of this case revolves around this man's current position that

his blindness is somehow responsible for his abusive behavior. It is further

complicated by the fact that he now claims, despite twenty years of commuting

to Manhattan to work in a supervisory position and the earning of a doctoral

degree, that because of his blindness, he cannot be a functioning member of

society and needs someone to provide for his every need from cooking to typing,

etc.

"His

attorney is alleging [the letter continues] that a great majority of all blind

persons are unemployed and that the disability of blindness causes people to

become cruel, abusive, emotionally unstable, and [that they] often suffer from

alcohol abuse rendering their lives a shambles. The husband now claims his

expenses will exceed $10,000 per month in that no low-cost or free services

are currently available to the blind.

"The

blind are forced to hire a cook, chauffeur, typist, housekeeper, etc., or be

banished to a life of misery."

These

are excerpts from a letter written by a lawyer requesting our help. The arguments

made by the blind husband are not merely a cruel, underhanded, and despicable

fraud, but slimy as well. The man may have a warped soul, but blindness did

not warp it. He may also be an abusive, besotted, miserable human being, but

blindness did not cause the abusiveness, generate the misery, or induce the

intoxication. We are prepared to support the blind who behave with decency

and fairness, but such a man we cannot support.

We

tell it like it is, and we do not countenance abuse. Those that would attempt

to hide vile behavior under the cloak of blindness can expect nothing from

us but opposition. Their effort at disguise will do them no good. There is

far too much at stake to permit such twisted logic to stand unchallenged. Blind

people are not as described by this man, and we will not permit him to bedevil

our lives by the notion that we are. He may be miserable, but we are not, and

no amount of flimflam can induce us to change what we have determined to be.

This, too, is part of the National Federation of the Blind.

In

a tolerant age toleration itself sometimes becomes intolerable. Freedom of

speech and of the press are among the most fiercely protected rights guaranteed

by the Constitution of the United States, and they should be. However, there

is no obligation to offer a platform to a dangerous crank.

Professor

Peter Singer became the bioethics expert at Princeton University in 1999. He

was appointed to this post despite his having published books in which he has

advocated the killing of disabled infants. According to Singer, "The killing

of a defective infant (he sometimes substitutes disabled for defective) is

not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

Singer adds, "By a person I mean something like a rational or self-aware

being." Because babies are not self-aware, according to Singer, and because

disabled babies are a burden to society, again, according to Singer, killing

them is, as he says, "not wrong at all."

When

I first heard of the appointment of Professor Singer, I thought surely there

must be some mistake. I am aware that a few people (both blind and sighted)

hold the opinion that life for a disabled person is not worth living. I am

also aware that there are those who view disabled individuals primarily as

a burden upon society. According to such people, the disabled are to be tolerated

at best, but not welcomed or loved. However, the major centers of learning

have not, until now, espoused these views. To advocate that an entire class

of human beings be the proper target for death is, I had believed, unthinkable

in rational moral society. Yet Professor Singer was appointed as the bioethics

professor in the Center for Human Values at Princeton. Singer makes an argument

that there is a distinction between killing a disabled infant and killing an

older person with disabilities, but the distinction is thin and the argument

hollow. Singer would be the arbiter not only of our destinies, but of our very

existence. He has arrogated to himself (at least in theory) the authority reserved

for God to decide who shall live and who shall die, and he is doing it as a

prominent professor at an eminent educational institution.

In

Hitler's Germany the first group to be selected for extermination was the disabled.

Only later was there a systematic effort to exterminate a whole race.

I

find myself, as I am sure you do, morally revolted by this man's teachings.

The very suggestion that death is the best alternative for the disabled will

cause the misjudgments that so often occur to become more egregious--the suggestion

itself is likely to cause death.

What

can we do to stop this man? We can join with each other to denounce the depravity

of his counsel. We can combine to assert our right to live and be free. We

can offer a creed which has at its core the liberating comprehension of the

normality and productiveness of the blind. We can spread the word about our

independence and our unwillingness to be browbeaten by the professors in their

halls of ivy. We can fight for the laws that continue to guarantee our right

to an equal existence with others and to the liberty that they enjoy. And we

can band together with the unshakable commitment that, if anybody--a bioethics

professor, a doctor, or anybody else--if anybody lays a hand on one of us,

at no matter what age, for destructive purposes, we will respond with absolute

determination and fury. Our children are no less important to us than anybody

else's. And even if blind children are not directly descended from us, their

future is our future. In every meaningful sense they belong to us, and we will

protect them. There is a time for diplomacy and a time to put it aside. When

the academics plan for the killing of our children, the time for talk is at

an end, and the time to act has come.

Last

winter a man sent a letter to the National Federation of the Blind requesting

our help because he himself is becoming blind. The fears and frustrations that

often accompany the onset of blindness are expressed in simple, straightforward

terms. Here, in part, is what the letter says:

"I

am writing this letter because I don't know what else to do. My eye doctor

has informed me that it is only a matter of a short time until I lose my sight.

To be honest with you, I have never been frightened of anything in my life,

that is, until now. I know that I will not be able to keep my job, but I might

be able to stay in another position within the company."

Notice

that this man is giving up at least a part of what might be his without a struggle.

He is accepting the notion that his capacity to work is diminished because

of blindness and that his talents will no longer serve him as they once had.

But there is more to the letter.

"I

don't have a computer, [he says] recently divorced, no family for support,

and my ex is refusing to let me see my kids because they deserve a new daddy

that can see them."

I

interrupt to ask, did the divorce come because this man's former wife also

thought she deserved a husband who could see her? As if sight were more important

than the affection and love of a father for his own children. But we are not

finished with the letter.

"Any

information you might be able to send me [writes the man] will be greatly appreciated.

How do I get to and from work? Do my laundry? Cook my food? Do the shopping?

Pay my bills? Read my mail? As it becomes more and more difficult to see, I

get more and more frightened. My biggest fear is ending up on the street or

in a home for the blind where I will be forgotten."

These

are the words of a man facing blindness. The fear of blindness is real. Finding

a method to reach beyond that fear is necessary to establish the mindset for

independence. His former wife has indicated that his children deserve a daddy

that can see, which must be a blow to his feelings of dignity and self-esteem.

However,

he has written for help, and we are prepared to give it. With the support and

assistance of thousands of blind people, he will come to know what possibilities

there are for him, and he will cease to feel despair. This too is an element

of our diplomacy; this is part of the public education program we carry into

effect everyday. This is one more reason for the National Federation of the

Blind.

With

all of the false information printed and distributed about the blind, with

all of the pain and emotional heartache associated with becoming blind, and

with all of the attacks upon our motives and programs, it may seem that the

prospects for us are dim. However, there are also the other elements--the successes,

the accomplishments, the triumphs--which give balance and perspective. The

blind people who have found work, the blind parents who have gathered the resources

and sustained the inspiration to raise children with promising opportunities,

the blind students who have gained an education, the blind children who have

learned to read and who are just beginning to explore the world of infinite

possibility, the blind people who have entered public life, and those who have

engaged in high adventure depict an entirely different comprehension of blindness

and illustrate the hope and faith that we possess.

Two

years ago, in 1999, we determined to support the efforts of Erik Weihenmayer,

a blind mountain climber, to reach the top of the highest peak in the world,

Mount Everest. At ten o'clock on the morning of May 25, 2001, Nepalese time,

Erik Weihenmayer reached the spot on the globe where he had intended to go

and where we had intended to help him go. He is the first blind man ever to

stand so high. For him to get there required enormous courage, tremendous physical

strength and sacrifice, and an undauntable mental attitude.

He

did not go alone. He was accompanied to the top by eighteen other people, the

largest team ever to reach the summit of the mountain. But he was accompanied

in spirit by many, many thousands more--blind people from every corner of the

United States, who had dreamed with him, hoped with him, prayed for him. It

is not only that the tens of thousands of the members of the National Federation

of the Blind helped to raise the money for the expedition--though that is,

of course, important--but we also believed in him, in his capacity to understand

the danger, to plan (along with others) the expedition, to carry his load and

do his part in dealing with the challenges of the climb itself, and to bring

the plan to its ultimate success. His faith is our faith; his spirit is our

spirit; his extraordinary exploit exemplifies the organized blind movement--our

movement. Not many blind people will ever climb Everest, but all of us have

our own mountains to conquer, and we will.

We

congratulate this pioneer for going where no other blind man has gone before.

We welcome him back to our midst as the objective symbol of a pioneering organization

dedicated to ensuring that blind people everywhere have the opportunity to

go where no other blind people have been before. We welcome him back as a colleague;

we welcome him back as a member of the National Federation of the Blind.

At

the beginning of our organization, when a tiny group of blind men and women

came together at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1940 to form the National Federation

of the Blind, our founding president, the brilliant blind professor, Dr. Jacobus

tenBroek, described blind people as living "in material poverty, in social

isolation, and in the atrophy of their productive powers." There were

virtually no jobs, almost no education beyond the school for the blind, few

programs to teach productive skills, only a small number of books, and practically

no hope.

However,

Dr. tenBroek and those few who joined with him believed that conditions could

be changed and that a brighter, more productive future could be forged. Dr.

tenBroek's words to that first gathering are equally applicable to us today.

Part of what he said is: "We have long known the advantage and even the

necessity of collective action. Individually we are scattered, ineffective,

and inarticulate, subject alike to the opposition of the social worker and

the arrogance of the governmental administrator. Collectively we are the masters

of our own future and the successful guardian of our own common interests."

The Federation would, Dr. tenBroek said, "unify the action and concentrate

the energies of the blind, for an instrument through which the blind of the

nation can speak to Congress and the public in a voice that will be heard and

command attention."

Fifty

years later, in 1990, the second long-time president of the Federation, Dr.

Kenneth Jernigan, who was also the most brilliant builder of programs for the

blind of the twentieth century, could say, "The blind are not psychologically

or mentally different from the sighted. We are neither especially blessed nor

especially cursed. We need jobs, opportunity, social acceptance, and equal

treatment--not pity and custody. Only those elected by the blind can speak

for the blind. This is not only a prime requisite of democracy but also the

only way we can ever achieve first-class status."

These

are the things that our presidents of the past have told us--separated by fifty

years. To speak for ourselves; to plan for our own lives; to join with each

other for the enhancement of opportunity; to believe in our own capacity; to

take every reasonable step for the integration of the blind in our communities;

to work in harmony with our sighted friends and neighbors; to share with one

another the progress we have made; to teach our colleagues and ourselves the

goodness of tomorrow, provided that we keep faith with Federation members who

have begun our movement and built it, and provided that we do our own part--these

are the things the Federation has always done. These are the things we will

continue to do.

We

insist that our fundamental humanity be recognized with all that this implies.

We want the planners to think about us when they make decisions and not to

ignore us as though we do not exist. Furthermore, we want them not only to

think about us, but to consult us as well.

We

must have books; we must have training in Braille, cane travel, and the other

specialized techniques used by the blind; we must have programs which emphasize

the positive opportunities available to the blind; and we must have laws that

accord us equality of opportunity and equality of access to information. All

of this we expect.

Despite

the arguments of the so-called professionals who tell us that becoming affiliated

with us is equivalent to abandoning professionalism; despite the representation

of fashion designers that we cannot get the buttons in the right holes; despite

the authors who tell us that we cannot eat with grace and require multiple

napkins or that we might mistake the sink for the urinal; despite the claim

by certain blind people that blindness causes cruelty, abusiveness, and alcoholism;

despite the teachings of the professors who believe that, in certain instances,

we do not even have a right to continue to exist--we will find a way to succeed,

and our sighted friends and colleagues will join with us in celebrating our

success.

More

of us are employed today than ever before in history, and in a broader array

of endeavors. Greater numbers of us are becoming educated, and the fields of

study are as diverse as the curiosity of mankind. Many of us are establishing

businesses of our own and becoming successful by every economic measure. Furthermore,

our organization is growing and accepting ever-greater challenges. Among others,

we have decided to build our own Research and Training Institute for the Blind,

which will have a spirit much different from that encountered in certain corners

of Princeton. We have decided to build it because one of the elements frequently

missing from research is the experience of the blind themselves. We look to

the future not with gloom, but with joy; not with despair, but with optimism;

not with dispirited disgruntlement, but with a determination to build for ourselves

and for those who come after us.

Some

of us have been in the Federation a long time, going back half a century; some

of us are new to the cause. Some of us are college-educated with post-graduate

degrees; some of us are not. Some of us have financial security; others have

barely enough to make ends meet. Some of us have learned cane travel and the

other skills of blindness; some of us are only now becoming aware of specialized

techniques. Such minor differences are of no importance whatsoever. In everything

that matters, we are one--we are the blind--we are the people of the movement

who have come together to make things happen, to create opportunity, to dream,

to work, to explore.

Our

diplomatic service is the force for change. Some may become discouraged; we

will not. Some may be tempted to quit; we will not. Some may be encouraged

to believe that the defeats which inevitably come to us all will end our journey;

they cannot. Our organization will not be deflected from its course or turned

from its purpose. The struggle for recognition of our basic humanity has been

long--reaching back through more than half a century to the time of the beginning

of our movement, and the effort to fulfill our dream of being able to use our

talents to the fullest stretches ahead of us. But we are closer to it than

we have ever been, and our momentum is accelerating.

When

I look into the hearts of Federation members, I know that there is absolutely

nothing that can prevent us from completing our mission. It will not be easy

or simple. However, we know our business, we know the language of diplomacy,

we are prepared to bide our time if we must, and we know how to work. We possess

the dedication, the commitment, the courage, and the talent; nothing else is

required.

Whatever

the costs, we will pay them. Whatever the challenges, we will meet them. Whatever

the sacrifices, we will make them. We have the capacity to wait if we must,

but not forever. We are on the move; the opportunities are great; and the time

is now.

Ours

is an unquenchable spirit. We go to the work with joy, and we will not fail.

Our future cannot be determined by others; the decision is in our own hands.

Join me, and we will build our own tomorrow!

Life

Insurance

Life

insurance constitutes a very special gift to the National Federation of

the Blind. A relatively easy and direct form of planned giving is a new

life insurance policy. You can make the NFB the beneficiary and owner

of a life insurance policy and receive a tax deduction on the premium

you pay.

For

example, at age fifty you purchase a $10,000 whole life insurance

policy on yourself and designate the NFB as beneficiary and owner

of the policy. The premium cost to you is fully tax-deductible each

year. You may even decide to pay for the entire policy over a specific

period of time, perhaps ten years. This increases your tax deduction

each year over the ten-year period and fully pays up your policy.

You

may, however, already have a life insurance policy in existence and

wish to contribute it to the NFB. By changing the beneficiary and

owner to the National Federation of the Blind, you can receive tax

savings, depending on the cash value of the policy. Your attorney,

insurance agent, or the National Federation of the Blind will be able

to assist you if you decide to include the NFB in your planned-giving

program through life insurance. For more information contact the National

Federation of the Blind, Special Gifts, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore,

Maryland 21230-4998, phone (410) 659-9314, fax (410) 685-5653.

(back) (next) (contents)