SHIFTING BALANCES IN THE BLINDNESS FIELD

SHIFTING BALANCES IN THE BLINDNESS FIELD

Shifting Balances in the Blindness Field
An Address
Delivered by Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director
National Federation of the Blind
At the Annual Convention
Charlotte, North Carolina July 2, 1992

The German scientist Max Planck said: “A new truth usually
doesn't triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light
but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.” In more prosaic language I say that those who
base their actions on yesterday's perceived truths (whether real or imagined)
are poorly equipped to deal with today's realities and are likely to have
much time for reflection in tomorrow's leisure of unemployment.
Today we are talking about the future of services for the blind.
The fact that we are, along with the popularity and recurrence of the theme,
means that there is a felt need and that there are problems. But we are talking
about something more. We are talking about the shifting balances in the blindness
system of this country. We are talking about the governmental and private agencies,
blind consumers, and the relationship between consumers and professionals. In
a broader sense we are talking about the very survival of the blindness field
as we have known it.
The most notable thing about the blindness field is how different
it is today from what it was twenty or thirty years ago. From the 1920s to the
1960s the unquestioned leader among the governmental and private agencies doing
work with the blind in this country was the American Foundation for the Blind,
and there was a reasonable amount of coherence and unity. As to the organized
blind movement, the National Federation of the Blind didn't even exist until
1940, and it didn't become a major factor in the field for quite a few years
after that. Today everything has changed. If what I am about to say is to do
any good at all, it is absolutely essential that we deal with facts, not just
wishes or claims or fantasies.
Let me begin with the American Foundation for the Blind. It
was established in 1921, and its mission was fairly clear. It was to coordinate
the efforts of the professionals in the blindness field throughout the country,
help create and guide new agencies, do research, serve as a mechanism for resources
and referrals, and generally act as a focal point for agency activities. Realistically
viewed, most of those functions no longer exist as prime objectives.
In the 1920s the Foundation was instrumental in establishing
and providing initial guidance to quite a number of state agencies. In Iowa,
for instance, where I was formerly director, the American Foundation for the
Blind worked in 1926 and 1927 with the state legislature and the school for
the blind to establish the Iowa Commission for the Blind. It sent staff members
to help get programs started and to find and train personnel. The same was true
in a number of other states. That mission no longer exists. Today the state
agencies are well established, and they don't now generally look to the
Foundation for guidance; nor do they feel any particular loyalty to it. Rather,
they look to their state-federal relationships, their own national organizations
and committees, mechanisms within their state borders, and alliances with consumer
organizations. This is not to criticize but simply to state facts.
In the twenties and thirties the American Foundation for the
Blind, if not alone in the work, was certainly the principal leader in developing
specialized tools and appliances for the blind: Braille watches, measuring devices,
household aids, and the like. The Foundation also took the lead in developing
the talking book machine, and for a time it was virtually the only organization
producing talking book records. All of that has now changed. The Foundation
is a relatively minor participant in the production and sale of specialized
tools, aids, and appliances. It does not even sell or ship these from its own
premises but relies on a catalog fulfillment company to do the work. If the
Foundation were to go completely out of the specialized tools and appliances
business today, there would scarcely be a ripple. The Foundation is, by no means,
the principal manufacturer or distributor. That part of its original mission
is now largely (and in the main, successfully) finished.
As to the production of talking book records, the Foundation
still does it, but there would be no great problem to anybody but the Foundation
if it ceased the activity. Others have now taken the lead in the field. Again,
this is no criticism. In fact, quite the contrary. It emphasizes the success
of the Foundation's pioneering effort.
The Foundation played a key role in helping design and pass
some of the principal legislation which determined the direction of the blindness
field and which still underpins many of the opportunities that we as blind people
enjoy, but that was decades ago. The golden age of the Foundation's influence
in shaping federal legislative and administrative policy was probably the 1930s
and the early '40s when the Books for the Blind program of the Library of
Congress was established, Title X (the Public Assistance for the Blind section
of the Social Security Act) was adopted, the Randolph-Sheppard Act was passed,
the Rehabilitation Act (Barden-La Follette, 1943) was amended to include the
blind, and a whole new spate of other legislative and administrative policies
came into being. Indeed, the Foundation did not singlehandedly make these achievements,
having at times to compromise with others in the field and even now and again
failing altogether to get its own way—but few would argue that the Foundation
was not at the center of the action or the dominant force.
That, however, was more than fifty years ago, and the 1990s
bear little resemblance to the 1930s and '40s. Certainly the Foundation
is no longer a controlling factor in legislative or executive decisions concerning
the blind. We who are blind now speak for ourselves through our own organization,
the National Federation of the Blind, and we are the most powerful force in
such matters in Washington and the state capitals today. Of course, the governmental
and private agencies for the blind still have a major presence in legislative
and executive decisions concerning blindness, but they speak with many voices—and
certainly with no dominance or central influence on the part of the Foundation.
Again, I cannot emphasize too strongly that what I am saying is not meant as
criticism but only as a recognition of fact.
The Second World War and the period immediately following brought
a shift in emphasis for the Foundation. Because of the thousands of children
who developed retrolental fibroplasia (today we would call it retinopathy of
prematurity), there was a crisis in education. In California, for instance,
where I was living at the time, there were in the early 1950s more than 1,200
young RLF children who were blind—and the residential school could handle
only about 200. What was to be done? RLF had largely been conquered, and when
the wave of hundreds of blind children had passed through the population, there
was every reason to believe the number would return to normal. It made neither
economic nor political sense for the state of California to build five or six
new residential schools for the blind. It was simply not in the cards. At the
same time the parents were not going to permit their blind children to stay
at home and not have an education. The answer was obvious. They would have to
be placed in the public schools in their local areas—which, incidentally,
made the endless arguments (arguments often stimulated by the Foundation) about
which environment is better for the education of a blind child, the residential
or the public school, not only pointless but downright harmful and diversionary.
Regardless of the quality of the training or the competence of the teachers,
most of these children were necessarily going to be trained in the public schools
in their home communities.
To its credit, the American Foundation for the Blind stepped
into the breach. It had a major new mission, the establishment of university
programs to train teachers of blind children, the recruitment of the teachers,
the finding of teachers to teach the teachers, and the development of educational
materials to make the process possible. Important as that mission was (and it
was extremely important), it has long since passed. The university programs
to train special education teachers for the blind are now completely mature.
They demonstrate no special loyalty to the Foundation not any evidence of following
its leadership or asking it to coordinate their efforts. In fact, as adult children
are wont to do, they often find themselves competing with the Foundation for
money and leadership. Whatever else may be said for the loose national confederacy
to which most of the university programs belong—that is, the Association
for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER)—the
organization is not now controlled or dominated by the American Foundation for
the Blind. This is true despite the fact that the Foundation was instrumental
in establishing many of the university programs and that in the 1970s it gave
sizable amounts of money to the AER, which at the time was using another name.
As a natural concomitant of its work with the university programs,
the Foundation began to organize and give direction to parents of blind children.
In fact, a few years ago the Foundation was instrumental in organizing NAPVI
(the National Association for Parents of the Visually Impaired). It provided
a staff member to the organization, gave direction and leadership to it, and
helped it set policy. Recently, however, the Hilton Foundation gave the Perkins
School for the Blind a $15,000,000 grant, running over a five-year period; and
Perkins effectively took control of NAPVI, giving it many tens of thousands
of dollars, much more than the Foundation could possibly muster. The Foundation
competed for the Hilton grant, but it lost—another sign of the shifting
balances in the blindness field.
With respect to those shifting balances, there is still another
factor. The Parents of Blind Children Division of the National Federation of
the Blind is now probably the major force in the field. Certainly its magazine,
Future Reflections, is the largest circulation publication for parents
and educators of the blind, as well as the most influential. In any case the
Foundation (to the extent that it has any part left to play in organizing and
directing the activities of parents of blind children) is now only a minor participant.
Once more I repeat that I am not being critical. The American
Foundation for the Blind filled a need with respect to the education of blind
children and the counseling of their parents which could not have been filled
by anybody else at the time and which absolutely demanded attention. It is simply
that this part of the Foundation's mission has now been largely accomplished.
There are those who would argue (in fact, I am one of them) that some of the
Foundation's advice to the parents and many of its policy guidelines to
the universities were custodial in nature, overly defensive about what was called
professionalism, and more involved with complexity and prestige than common
sense and the good of the child—but these criticisms must be viewed in
context. When considered from the distance of the years and the magnitude of
the task undertaken, the criticisms soften and take perspective. There was no
viable alternative, and the Foundation did what it could with the knowledge
it had and the resources it possessed. It deserves our appreciation, not our
spleen.
The Second World War brought other changes besides those affecting
the education of blind children. It moved the United States to the center of
the stage in world affairs. Among other things, this meant that our country
would take the leading role in helping other nations develop programs for the
blind. The American Foundation for the Blind was the natural leader and coordinator.
It played a principal part in establishing the World Council
for the Welfare of the Blind, and in November of 1945 it took control of the
American Braille Press for War and Civilian Blind and renamed it the AFOB (the
American Foundation for Overseas Blind). The AFOB was technically a separate
organization, but its board was almost identical to that of the Foundation.
Throughout the world in the forties and fifties the Foundation was generally
recognized as the leading force in the blindness field in the United States
and as our chief spokesman in overseas matters.
All of that has now changed. In the late sixties and early
seventies the AFOB went through an alteration. It changed its name to Helen
Keller International, began to acquire a different board from that of the Foundation,
and ultimately broke the ties almost completely. Then, in the changing climate
of public opinion about overseas projects, Helen Keller International very nearly
went bankrupt. It is now largely financed (and, therefore, in reality substantially
controlled) by the U.S. government and spends the major part of its money (a
sizable budget) in prevention of blindness projects in other countries. Meanwhile
the American Foundation for the Blind no longer has preeminence in overseas
activities.
In 1984 the International Federation of the Blind and the World
Council for the Welfare of the Blind (the two major world organizations in the
field) merged to become the World Blind Union. The North America/Caribbean Region
of the World Blind Union consists of organizations of and for the blind in Canada,
the English-speaking nations of the Caribbean, and the United States, and is
generally recognized by other countries as the principal mechanism for action
affecting the blind in this part of the world—particularly, regarding overseas
matters. The Foundation is a member of the regional structure, but it is certainly
not dominant.
I have already alluded to the $15,000,000 grant which the Perkins
School received from the Hilton Foundation. Some of this money is being spent
inside the United States, but much of it is being used to develop projects and
give aid overseas. With respect to dollars spent in overseas aid, Perkins is
now a major factor—and with money goes influence. I think it is fair to
say that (with the exception of providing a certain amount of professional literature)
the American Foundation for the Blind does not today have any significant commitment,
influence, or mission beyond the borders of this country. This is in no way
to belittle or take away from the work which the Foundation did in this area
in the past or the work which it may do in the future. It is simply to state
facts as I believe them to be at present.
Let me turn next to NAC (the National Accreditation Council
for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped). In the 1960s the American
Foundation for the Blind created COMSTAC (the Commission on Standards and Accreditation).
It financed COMSTAC and provided it with an executive director. The objective
was to establish for agencies in the blindness field a system of accreditation,
which the Foundation hoped would come to be universally accepted, bringing influence
to the Foundation and harmony to the field. The exact opposite occurred. After
a brief existence, COMSTAC established NAC, which confidently announced that
it would be completely self-supporting in no more than five or six years and
that it would encompass most of the agencies.
What followed is a study in failure. NAC was never accepted
by even as many as twenty percent of those that it wanted to accredit. Through
the sixties, the seventies, and the eighties it bled the Foundation financially
and politically, a black hole of controversy and cost. NAC has been the Foundation's
Vietnam—and (as with America's Vietnam) disentanglement, admission
of mistakes, and loss of face have been bitter medicine to swallow. My conversations
with Foundation officials indicate that the Foundation has spent more than $9,000,000
on NAC. It has now stopped the expenditures, and NAC is in its death throes.
Even so, the Foundation understandably finds it difficult to make a clean break
and a public statement that the chapter of its Vietnam must be closed and left
in the past.
In a number of discussions during the past few months, Carl
Augusto (the recently appointed president and chief executive of the Foundation)
has talked with me quite frankly about the condition and future of his organization.
I gather from him that the Foundation's assets have dropped from a worth
of about forty million dollars four or five years ago to a present value of
something over twenty-four million and that the hemorrhaging (though slowing)
continues. I also understand that the Foundation eliminated some twenty percent
of its staff positions during 1991, making massive layoffs. In my opinion this
does not mean that the Foundation will go bankrupt or cease to be a major participant
in the affairs of the blind, nor do I think it would serve the best interests
of the blind if such were the case. Rather, I think it means that the Foundation
must redefine its mission, free itself from its Vietnam, and accept the realities
of the present day.
As to redefining its mission, the Foundation has recently been
working on the matter. Under date of January 15, 1992, Mr. Augusto sent me a
letter concerning extensive planning sessions the Foundation conducted during
1990 and 1991, and along with the letter he enclosed a statement entitled the
“AFB Mission.” Here it is:
The mission of AFB is to enable persons who are blind or visually
impaired to achieve equality of access and opportunity that will ensure freedom
of choice in their lives. AFB accomplishes this mission by taking a national
leadership role in the development and implementation of public policy and legislation,
informational and educational programs, diversified products and quality services.
To advance this mission, AFB works to: develop and disseminate
knowledge, programs, and products that can be used by professionals providing
service to persons who are blind or visually impaired, by educational institutions,
by legislators, by employers, and by others in a position to widen and improve
equal access; to initiate or join with coalitions of other organizations, when
appropriate, to accomplish specific goals or objectives; to promote the positive
image of persons who are blind or visually impaired in the media and the community,
and to provide a diversified and stable funding base for the organization to
ensure ongoing support for the strategies and activities required.
The mission statement [the document continues] calls for AFB
to move toward a more selective national leadership role in effecting the fundamental
changes required to achieve equality of access and opportunity for persons who
are blind or visually impaired. It defines AFB's national leadership role
as an information broker, an agent of change, a leader, and innovator.
That is what Mr. Augusto sent me as the Foundation's new
mission statement, and I can only say that I find it somewhat disappointing.
It seems to me that it is too much couched in generalities and does not contain
enough that is different from yesterday's largely finished activities. It
announces almost no new initiatives, no specifics, and no clear direction for
the future. Perhaps the Foundation will go back to the drawing board and further
define its role and how it intends to achieve it. I hope that it will, for the
blind and the blindness field need the Foundation—not a Foundation looking
back to the past but the kind of creative organization of the formative years—vital,
resilient, determined, and innovative.
It is a positive sign that the Foundation and the Federation
have been working together with increasing closeness during the past decade.
Bill Gallagher and I have become warm personal friends, and Carl Augusto shows
an interest in continuing to strengthen the ties. He was at last year's
convention and indicated a positive desire to speak on this year's program.
These things would not have been possible twenty years ago.
In this discussion of shifting balances in the blindness field,
why have I spent so much time on the American Foundation for the Blind? The
answer is simple. The Foundation has played such a major part in the development
of the blindness system in this country during the past seventy years that any
meaningful discussion of where we are and where we are going must take it into
account and give it significant emphasis.
But there are other forces to be considered. One of them is
the AER (the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually
Impaired). The AER resulted from a merger between the AAIB (American Association
of Instructors for the Blind, which later changed its name to the Association
for Education of the Visually Handicapped) and the AAWB (the American Association
of Workers for the Blind). The AAIB was established in the middle of the last
century, and the AAWB came into being in 1905. The merged organization (AER)
was meant to encompass most of the professionals in work with the blind in both
Canada and the United States. It has a large membership on paper and is potentially
the leading force among the agency professionals—but the potential has
never been realized, and there seems little likelihood that it will. The problem
is that AER has almost no central authority. It is so loosely knit that in many
ways it is an organization in name only. Its constituents show no prime loyalty
to it and no ability to act in concert on tough questions and meaningful issues.
It has many members but little influence, and it is likely to stay that way.
Let me illustrate. In the summer of 1988 at an AER convention
in Montreal a number of us decided to try to see if we could pull the blindness
field in Canada and the United States together for concerted action. Accordingly,
the Committee on Joint Organizational Effort (JOE) was established. Those invited
to attend as initial members (it was thought we might later expand the membership)
were the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Canadian Council of
the Blind, the AER, the American Foundation for the Blind, the National Library
Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, the American Council of the
Blind, the Blinded Veterans Association, and the National Federation of the
Blind. The first JOE meeting was held in March of 1989 at the National Center
for the Blind in Baltimore and was hosted by the National Federation of the
Blind. All who were invited attended except the American Council of the Blind,
which thereby emphasized and increased its growing isolation from the main stream
of the blindness field.
Although the first JOE meeting spent much of its time smoothing
tensions and establishing relationships, it dealt with substantive issues as
well. One of these involved Braille literacy. After much discussion we unanimously
agreed upon the language of a statement. Present as representatives of AER were
its immediate past president, its then current president, and its president
elect—presumably the top leaders of the organization. Most of us left that
meeting feeling that we had achieved a binding agreement. Yet, the AER board
agonized, wanted to water down the statement, and ultimately rejected it.
At the second meeting of the Committee on Joint Organizational
Effort, which was held at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Toronto
in November of 1990, the need to find a way to increase Braille literacy was
further discussed. At the third JOE meeting, held at the American Foundation
for the Blind in New York in January of this year, Braille literacy was again
considered. Once more, AER was represented by its immediate past president,
its current president, and its president elect. After much discussion and refinement
of language we unanimously agreed upon the following statement:
Recognizing that ongoing assessment and due process are requirements
of the law, the members of the Committee on Joint Organizational Effort endorse
the principle that in planning the educational program for a blind or visually
impaired child, these guidelines be followed:
* If reading and writing are to be taught and if the parent
or parents and the decision makers for the school want the child to be taught
Braille, this should be done.
* If reading and writing are to be taught and if the parent
or parents and the decision makers for the school want print to be taught, this
should be done.
* If the parent or parents and the decision makers for the
school cannot agree, then both Braille and print should be taught.
This was the statement we agreed upon, and if it had been any
milder, it would have been worthless. Also, remember that it had been discussed
over a three-year period at three succeeding meetings and that top AER officials
had participated throughout the process. Yet, under date of April 12, 1992,
Dr. William Wiener, president of AER, sent a memorandum to the members of the
Committee on Joint Organizational Effort entitled “Recent JOE Agreements.”
Here is what he said:
As you may know, because AER is a membership organization,
its Board of Directors requires that major policy decisions of the Association
be reviewed by its duly elected representatives. Based on this policy, the officers
of the Association that attended the last JOE meeting presented our agreements
for confirmation by the Board of Directors. It is the purpose of this memorandum
to report the decisions that were made.
In general the Board is supportive of the efforts of the JOE
to discuss issues that affect blind people. Because our differences are sometimes
great, it should not be viewed as negative when consensus is not reached. It
is felt by the Board that honest discussions will result in an increased ability
to understand each other and that agreement is not a required outcome.
The Board was appreciative of our efforts to reach consensus
on the issue of Braille Literacy. After a lengthy discussion, however, the Board
voted not to support our concluding agreement. The Board felt that the wording
of the agreement left the statement open to different interpretations. A statement
that can be viewed differently by different groups serves no useful purpose.
The Board did, however, endorse that AER supports the goal that no child should
ever find the implementation of legislation an obstacle to his or her best educational
process. The JOE discussions on this issue have been useful as they have inspired
the Board of AER to move ahead to define its own position on Braille Bills.
As President, I have appointed an Ad Hoc Board Committee chaired by Toni Heinze
to develop a statement that clearly defines our beliefs. It will not be “model
legislation” but rather important points to be considered in formulating
a position on any particular version of the Braille Bills. I believe this will
be a useful tool as we move forward to insure that blind children and adults
receive the best possible education and rehabilitation.
It is our goal to complete this task by our biennial meeting
in Los Angeles. I will be sure to share this information with the Committee
on JOE as soon as it has been approved by the AER Board.
There you have the AER memorandum—and there you also have,
in AER's own language, the reason why it is not, and cannot be, the leader
of the governmental and private agencies in this country or, for that matter,
even a strong force in their conduct. The AER totally rejected the actions of
its top leaders on what should have been almost a non-controversial issue, and
even if the Board had approved, there is no reason to believe that the individual
agencies and members of AER would have paid any attention or altered their policies
in the slightest. Again I remind you that I am not criticizing. I am only stating
facts as I see them and suggesting that those in the blindness field (all of
us) must either avoid the world of fantasy and face reality or risk destruction.
Let me next turn to the ACB (the American Council of the Blind).
It was formed in 1961 at the end of the NFB's civil war, partly from people
who were expelled from our organization and partly from those who quit. It,
too, has an identity crisis and a problem of mission. At first its goal seemed
simple—hate the National Federation of the Blind and get revenge. But that
was over thirty years ago, and a new generation has risen. Hate and negativism
are poor materials for long-term building, and thoughts of revenge are mostly
the dream of the weak and the solace of the dispossessed. At our conventions
you will observe that the American Council of the Blind is rarely thought of
or mentioned, but at their meetings the circumstances are different. We are
frequently the topic of discussion and the subject of snide allusion.
As to mission, the Council has a growing problem. In the sixties
and seventies, when the American Foundation for the Blind and some of the other
agencies were in bitter conflict with us, the ACB was used as a buffer. When
there was a hotly contested issue, the agencies could trot the Council out and
say: “The Federation does not represent the blind. Here is another consumer
organization, which agrees with us.” In short, the Council served as a
company union. But that was before the 1980s when the Federation and an increasing
number of the agencies started drawing closer and working in partnership. As
the process continues and accelerates today, the Council not only ceases to
be an asset to the agencies as a company union but actually becomes an embarrassment
and a liability. It does, that is, unless it is willing to change its stance
and join with the rest of us in trying to build a new basis for positive partnership
in the field. At a minimum this would mean stopping the pretense that it is
the largest organization of the blind in the country (a claim which nobody,
including its own members, takes seriously anyway) and ceasing the hate campaigns—in
short, leaving fantasy and facing reality. The American Council of the Blind
can be a real force for constructive action if it will, and we will gladly work
with it if it takes that road.
There are, of course, numerous other organizations and agencies
in the blindness field, but many of these have not taken a significant role
in the politics of it. The Blinded Veterans Association, for instance, falls
into this category. Comparatively small and generally respected, it has traditionally
limited its activities to matters concerning veterans. The National Council
of State Agencies for the Blind, the organization of residential schools, the
organization of state vision consultants, the National Council of Private Agencies
for the Blind, and a number of other such groups have been loosely associated
and have generally not attempted to exert much influence outside their particular
specialties—and even in those areas of specialty, they have largely been
forums for discussion and exchange of information rather than rallying points
for broad-based, united action. Obviously all of this can change, and there
is a good deal of evidence that in some instances it will. The balances are
shifting.
In addition to the groups I have mentioned, there are individual
agencies which have a national constituency and scope of operation that potentially
give them influence far beyond what they have ever developed or chosen to use.
I think of the Hadley School for the Blind, Recording for the Blind, and the
American Printing House for the Blind as prime examples. All three of these
agencies are reaching out to play broader roles than they have ever attempted
before, and their presence is being felt.
The Rehabilitation Services Administration and the National
Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress
are also factors in the equation. They have broad constituencies and will necessarily
play key roles in determining the nature and effectiveness of the blindness
system in the years ahead. They will influence and be influenced by the coalitions
which are built and the philosophies which are developed. With the leadership
that they currently have, it seems clear that they will make positive contributions.
Then, there are the vendors of technology. They, too, are becoming
an important part of the mix. Thirty years ago they did not exist, and such
technology as we had came almost exclusively from the American Foundation for
the Blind and the American Printing House for the Blind. Today the situation
is totally different. There are an increasing number of commercial and nonprofit
producers and distributors of both high and low tech items, and their influence
is growing. Their products affect our lives, and their sales representatives
and service personnel mingle with us on a continuing basis. Whether they want
to or not (and, for that matter, whether either they or we like it or not),
they will necessarily be a significant factor in the discussions and alliances
that are shaping the future of the blindness system.
Of course, technology has brought major changes in the lives
of the sighted just as it has in the lives of the blind, but there is a significant
difference. When the sighted moved from medievalism to the industrial revolution,
then to the automobile, the airplane, and later to the electronic age, they
had 200 years to do it, and there was time for adjustment and acclimatization—but
not so with us. Our move from medievalism to electronics has happened in less
than thirty years, with all of the upheaval such compression brings. Yes, technology
is changing our lives—and there are political as well as technological
implications.
So the vendors and distributors of technology will play an
important part in determining the course of the blindness system, and there
are also others who will. Some of the agencies in New York and other parts of
the country, for instance, now have financial resources (more than one of them
with upwards of fifty million dollars) which far exceed those of the American
Foundation for the Blind or the others I have mentioned. Will they choose to
become factors in the national mix? They could—and some of them may. Perkins,
for instance, (although possibly a little less wealthy than a few of the rest)
is well financed and energetically led. Whether it will choose to raise its
profile and whether that will be good or bad will turn entirely on its motives
and actions.
Whatever all of this may prove, surely there can be no doubt
about at least one thing. The blindness field in this country is in ferment,
and the old alignments and power bases are gone, gone forever. New forces are
emerging. New balances are being struck. Will this be good or bad, positive
or negative? It depends on what choices we make, what wisdom we show, and how
responsibly we act.
So far, I have talked about others. Let me now say a few words
about us, about the National Federation of the Blind. What does the new reality
mean for the Federation? Well, for one thing, it means that we must be careful
not to get too big for our pants. We may be (and I think we unquestionably are)
the strongest force in the affairs of the blind in this country today—but
we are not the only force. There are others, and their views must be taken into
account. If we make the mistakes of some of those who were leaders in the blindness
field in the past, if we fail to reach out in cooperative good will, our momentum
will slow. Our progress will stop. We do not want to boss or lord it over others.
We know what that feels like. We have been treated that way too often ourselves
to want to do it to anybody else.
But let nobody misunderstand what I am saying. We are just
as determined as we always were, never again to be treated like second-class
citizens or kept from having a say in our own destiny. We have had a bellyful
of that—and we are strong enough to see that it doesn't happen again.
We still have teeth, and we know how to use them.
The blindness system in our country today is seriously threatened.
Unless it can pull itself together in true partnership (with all, or at least
the major participants, working in mutual respect), it may very well perish.
Budgets are tightening; the environment is deteriorating; population is rising;
and resources are dwindling. In addition, other disability groups (once disorganized
and invisible) are finding their voice and reaching for power. They are now
a growing force to be reckoned with, and there is no turning back.
As we look ahead, the
future is bright with promise. We as an organization are stronger than we have
ever been, and we are prepared to work in partnership with any and all who are
interested in helping the blind move toward opportunity, equality, and freedom.
These are the things we want, and these are the things we intend to have—opportunity,
equality, and freedom. A measure of our progress can be seen in the increasing
number of governmental and private agencies and members of the public who are
joining with us in common cause, but the real indicator of our progress is what
is happening within us as blind people. By the thousands and tens of thousands
we have gained confidence, determination, and self-respect—and no force
on earth can turn us back. This is the meaning of all I have said. This is the
message of the shifting balances in the blindness field. Let us join together,
and we will make it come true!