Aids For The Blind: Attitudes The Key

Aids For The Blind: Attitudes The Key

Future Reflections Sept./ Oct./ Nov.1984, Vol. 3 No. 4
(back) (contents) (next)
AIDS FOR THE BLIND:
ATTITUDES THE KEY
By Barbara Cheadle
There are always some things that a blind
person needs, or wants, that is impossible to buy
at the corner drugstore or even at the big downtown
mall. A blind person cannot, for example,
walk into a local stationery store and pick up
some Braille paper; or get a spare cane-tip at the
hardware store; or pick out a nice Braille pendant
watch at the jewelers. A parent looking for toys
for a blind child has fewer problems (most toys
on the market are just as good for the blind child
as for the sighted child). But try finding children's
Braille books in your book store, or a
Braille Scrabble game, a bell-ball, a tactile map
of the U.S., a Braille or large print spelling game
at your local toy store.
Most of us assume that somewhere, there are
places that provide the blind with all the technological
aids they need. However, parents of
blind children may get frustrated trying to find
those "places" and may be surprised, or disappointed
when they find aids they never knew
existed, or discover some aid they imagined
ought to be, simply isn't. There are no magic
technological answers for all the problems of
blindness, but there are more aids and more
places to get them than ever before in history. It
can even be a headache of a problem for a blind
adult or student to choose the right speaking or
Braille computer equipment, software, programs,
etc. Will you get an Apple, an IBM, a
K-Pro, or something else? For those who remember
what it was like a generation ago -- the
blind, the parents whose blind children are now
grown -- that is a happy kind of problem,
indeed!
A parent a generation ago who wanted to buy a
simple, wooden puzzle map of the U.S. would
have had to pay a $100.00 or more for one.
Mostly, though, there were very few aids (even
at those prices) available to either blind children or blind adults. Blind children were not even
eligible for library services from regional libraries
for the blind until 1952. The author of A
Handbook for the Blind, published in 1952,
didn't even mention Braille watches and considered
white canes controversial.
It's not that a piece of Braille paper, a Braille
watch, or a Braille Scrabble game is the stuff
that happy, productive lives are made of, but
consider what it means to the blind to be able to
get, say, a Braille watch easily and cheaply; or
conversely, not to have them available at all.
What if only a few were able to afford one; or for
that matter, what if only a handful of the blind
were to have any constructive use for one?
That's the way it was for the blind 50 year ago.
There were few expectations and even fewer
opportunities. Invariably, the best and happiest
days of a blind person's life were those spent at
the school for the blind. Life was empty after
school. No job, no family of their own, no
productive place in the community. The image
of a blind person in a rocking chair is not just the attitudes of that day.
It was how thousands of the blind quite literally
spent their lives. In such a world, aids for independent living simply did not fit. Like
Humpty Dumpty, the blind were broken, unfit;
and nothing could put them back together again.
Attitudes slowly began to change and along with the change came and increased interest in aids and services to the blind. At first, the emphasis was on easing the "terrible plight" of the blind; giving the blind something to fill up empty hours and something to take their minds off their troubles for a while. Helen Keller, in her 1930 testimony before a congressional committee in support of the Pratt Bill (later the PrattSmoot
Act which established federal funds for a
national Library for the Blind) summed up the
prevailing tone of the day with these words:
Books are the eyes of the blind. They reveal to
us the glories of the light-filled world. They
keep us in touch with what people are thinking
and doing, they help us to forget our limitations.
With our hands plunged into an interesting
book, we feel independent and
happy. Wouldn't you give anything in the
world for something to make you forget your
misfortune for one hour?
Today, of course, such a blatant appeal to
feelings of charity and pity toward the blind
would not be tolerated. We live in a different age.
The blind want a good education, good jobs,
equality and responsibility in the community -- not something to keep them quietly occupied
and out of the way. The aids of today reflect
these new expectations -- talking computers,
children's canes, talking calculator/clocks,
tactile toys and books for children, even beeping
balls. However, in 1930 Helen Keller's words
accurately represented the beliefs of her time.
Helen Keller did not act alone in 1930. She was a
spokeswoman, fund-raiser, and rallying symbol
of the American Foundation for the Blind. (Her
relationship with the AFB was unique. She was
no ordinary staff member or contract employee.
It would not be inconsistent with the facts to say
that the AFB practically "owned" her. She was
eir greatest asset in public relations and fund ing.)
The American Foundation for the Blind had been established in 1921 as a private non-profit agency
for the blind. In the 20's and 30's the AFB was
a leader and pioneer in work with the blind.
(That's no longer true. In fact, the American
Foundation for the Blind is one of the greatest
hindrances to progress that the blind face
today.) In those early years however, the AFB
accomplished some things for which the blind
will always be grateful. It was the AFB that
pioneered, for example, in the development of
the talking book and Braille watches. Because of
the AFB's efforts, blind people were listening to
long-playing phonograph records years before
they were commercially available.
By the 1950's, the American Foundation for the
Blind was THE authority on blindness. They
also had a monopoly on the aids and appliances
business. Oh, you had the American Printing
House for the Blind which served blind school
aged children and some small, local outfits here
and there; but the AFB was really the only show
in town. It was also true that their products were
overpriced, service poor, and attitudes toward
the blind condescending and arrogant. But in
those days no one questioned that. After all, God
is not custodial or arrogant. God is God.
There was another force building in the land in
the decades of the 40's and 50's that would
forever change the course of history for the
blind. It would impact the blind in all areas of
their lives -- employment, financial aid to the
blind, education, legislation, rehabilitation services,
and aids and appliances for the blind as
well. The National Federation of the Blind was
founded in 1940. The NFB was to be the collective
voice of the blind -- the blind speaking
for themselves.
Many agencies for the blind welcomed the organized
blind and worked harmoniously with
the NFB. Others felt threatened and reacted
with anger and hostility. They couldn't believe
that blind people could actually manage their
own lives and speak for themselves. Some of the
institutions, such as the sheltered workshops for
the blind, felt their pocketbooks and superiority
jeapordized when the NFB came along demanding
better wages, working conditions, and equal
treatment for blind workers.
The hostility turned ugly. Blind people were
threatened with the loss of their jobs or fired
outright because they dared to join the NFB.
Confidential files of blind clients were opened
and exploited in an attempt to discredit blind
Federationists. Finally, the National Federation
of the Blind turned to Congress for help.
In 1957, John F. Kennedy (who was then a
senator from Massachusetts) introduced a bill
"to protect the right of the blind to self-expression
through organizations of the blind." Needless
to say, the hostile agencies vehemently
opposed the bill. Among the agencies for the
blind that lined up against the right-to-organize
bill was the American Foundation for the Blind.
Though the bill was never passed, the impact of
the congressional hearings and the determination
of the organized blind was enough to make
the agencies back off. The blind did win in fact,
if not by legislation, the right to organize and be
heard.
All of this has relevance to the topic of aids to the
blind. By the 1970's the blind were simply no
longer willing to buy a cane, and custody with
that cane.
The blind began to have some alternatives when
the Iowa Commission for the Blind, under the
direction of Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, began marketing
a superior solid fiber-glass, metal tipped
cane. Then came the hollow fiber-glass cane. Its
lighter weight made it more desirable than the
solid cane, and soon the NFB took over its
production and distribution. Today, the NFB
has some 80 per cent of the cane market. The
NFB sells the straight fiber-glass cane, the NFB
III telescoping cane and children's canes. The
canes are the best on the market and the
cheapest.
In the 1970's, Independent Living Aids stepped
into the picture and gave the blind an alternative
in all other kinds of aids and appliances.
Independent Living Aids has since declined and
other companies, such as Aids Unlimited, have
taken a good share of the market. The AFB still
sells aids and appliances, but the service is only
a shadow of its former size and dominance.
The AFB's custodialism and the competitive
alternatives to the AFB were not the only factors
in their demise in the aids and appliances
business. Another reason was graphically illustrated
when talking clocks first came on the
market. The AFB offered the talking clock at
$90.00 -- about the highest retail price possible.
The NFB made a deal for some talking clocks
and started selling them for $80.00, and the
promise to drop the price as soon as possible.
The price was dropped -- several times. The
price was first cut from $80.00 to $68.00, then to
$58.00, and finally to $45.00. The AFB went out
of the talking clock business. One wonders why
the AFB -- a national non-profit organization -- couldn't have found a way to give the blind
consumer a better deal. Maybe it says something
about management or ethics or both.
Some of the problems we face in the 80's regarding
aids for the blind are variations on the
problems faced 50 years ago. Fifty years ago,
attitudes about blindness stifled the development
of aids. Today, negative attitudes encourage
the proliferation of the ridiculous. For example,
there is a six or eight handled mug for the
blind. The thing has handles sprouting out all
over it! One wonders if the inventor believed that
the blind grow six hands to compensate for the
lack of sight! Then there are the special, nonskid
snowshoes for the blind, special shower
attachments and the "bird call" signals for the
blind at street crossings. There is even an
elaborate, expensive -- and totally useless -- electronic travel guidance system at the University
of New Mexico.
These so called "aids" only hinder the progress
of the blind. They are unnecessary and unwanted.
Worse, they continue to perpetuate the
myth of the helpless blind. They take money
and attention away from the development of
really helpful aids -- such as talking computers
or computerized Braille printers. If only the
inventors of these gadgets would first consult
the organized blind and find out what is really
needed and wanted.
Money, along with technology, is another factor
we face in this decade as we attempt to close the
gap between what is available to the sighted and
what is available to the blind. The market is
simply not big enough to make it profitable for
most businesses to research, develop and market
aids for the blind. That's why the development
of aids can lag so far behind the technology, and why prices are often so outrageously high. It's
also why non-profit agencies get involved with
aids and appliances. Non-profit organizations
can help keep prices down and encourage the
development of new aids. The NFB, for example,
helped promote the development of the reading
machine, kept prices down on talking clocks and
calculators, offers aids and appliances to members
and other blind individuals at cost and
engages in other activities to promote the availability
of affordable aids.
Despite the problems, the blind have it better
than ever before. They have the opportunity to
shop around for the best product at the best
price. The blind also have the knowledge and
opportunity to ask questions. Does this company
or agency have a positive, progressive philosophy
about blindness? Does their treatment of
the blind in their literature, hiring practices and
fund-raising rhetoric reflect that positive attitude?
And it's important for the users of these
services to ask these questions. After all, if an
organization provides a useful service -- say,
the production of Braille books -- but are custodial
and demeaning in their attitudes toward
the blind, what does that tell the public about
blindness and how the blind should be treated?
Obviously the public will consider such service
providers to the blind as the "experts," and take
their cues from them. And if the "experts" are
wrong, who is going to correct them? The public?
Their fellow professionals? Of course not. The
blind, and parents on behalf of their blind child,
must take the responsibility of "watchdogging"
the agencies, institutions, and companies that
provide aids and services to the blind.
Over the past couple of years, the NFB and
specifically the NFB of Kentucky, has been
doing just that with an organization that has
special significance to blind children -- the American
Printing House for the Blind (APH). The
APH is the agency through which federal funds
for educational materials for blind children are
funneled. Since 1879, blind school-age children
have been entitled -- through their school -- to
educational materials (such as Braille writers,
Braille and large-type textbooks, etc.) from APH.
APH also produces other Braille and recorded
matter for any group (such as the Library of
Congress) that wishes to contract to buy from
them.
But fewer and fewer groups are doing that. The
APH is no longer the highly respected, non
controversial agency it once was. Here's the
facts. As of March 31, 1983 there were 479
employees at APH; only 13 of those were legally
blind. None of the blind workers held secretarial,
clerical or managerial positions. Most of the
legally blind staff are Braille proofreaders
(APH management felt that blind people were
not "versatile" enough to handle jobs in the
printing plant). The APH has sent out fundraising
letters that were as one blind man put it,
"Simply awful." They characterized the blind as
helpless and pathetic. There have been other
problems, too. Scandals of conflicts of interest,
lost contracts, and staff reductions.
The services and materials the APH can offer to
blind children and adults are important. But
what good is it if they are giving these important
services with one hand, then snatching the
benefits away with the other? It's like they are
helping the blind take one step forward by
providing necessary educational materials,
then pushing the blind back two steps by denying them employment opportunities and
perpetuating the myth of the helpless blind.
We cannot stand by and see the good APH -- or
any agency -- can do destroyed by their own
limited view of the capabilities of the blind. The
National Federation of the Blind has been talking
and negotiating with the American Printing
House for the Blind, but progress has been slow.
In the National Federation of the Blind, we often
say that the real problem of blindness is not the
physical loss of sight, but the public attitudes
about blindness. Some people would like to see
blindness as only a technological problem. They
point to all the new "fabulous" technological
aids as the magic solution to the problems of the
blind. Well, it isn't that way and it never has
been. Attitudes and expectations are the key.
History tells us that; experiences today reaffirms
it. Blindness does mean the need for
alternative or adapted tools as well as alternative
techniques. But aids for the blind must
always be kept within their proper perspective
lest they become stumbling blocks instead of
stepping stones to progress.
(back) (contents) (next)