by Lauren L. Eckery
(This article was printed in the January 1987 issue of the Braille Monitor. Lauren and Jerry Eckery were born blind and they are very active in the leadership of the NFB of Nebraska. Jerry is employed in a professional position with the IRS and Lauren recently obtained her Master's degree in Social Work. They have a lovely daughter and own their own home. They are an intellegent, well-educated, and competent couple. All these facts reveal something about the progress the blind have made. Yet, the experiences Lauren describes in this article demonstrate all too well the problems that remain for all blind people in this country, regardless of their personal competency.)
In an article I wrote when my daughter Lynden was two years old, I praised the child care setting she was in. I praised its children for seeing blindness more as we blind adults do. It was evident through their questions and their observations of me as I spent weekly two-hour sessions at the school, that these young children saw and believed the reality of my blindness.
The director of the preschool, who had become a good friend of mine, whose skill with children was obvious, was pleased to have me at the preschool--not just to sing with the children but also to give them an education about blindness. I trusted that Lynden was in good hands. I trusted a friend who knew and understood about blind ness, from my example.
Was I naive? Did Lynden, her father, and I eventually experience deprivation because of "our limitations" or those of someone else? Let me relate some examples of the "progress" of our relationship.
When Lynden was two, I did not take her to preschool on a regular basis. If she missed out on some of the activities at school, it was purely due to her sporadic attendance--or was it? She was too young to know or care that the rest of the children, on a certain day, were dressed in western outfits or that the rest of the children had brought paper valentines to pass out--everyone but Lynden. I let it pass; she was too young. I suspected a problem but didn't want to be labeled a "paranoid," and I reasonably expected that Lynden would eventually tell me about special occasions coming up at school. No problem.
Last fall, when Lynden was four and a half and "River City Roundup" was happening all around Omaha, we bought her a western outfit that could double as a Halloween costume. It was pretty enough to be worn anytime. When I asked which day the children would be dressing up for "River City Roundup," the director informed me that she hadn't decided--that she would let me know.
One day Lynden came home in tears. "Mommy, the other kids weared western clothes, and you didn't let me wear mine." I told her that no one had informed me that this was the day for such clothing to be worn. She was angry because she was convinced that I "should have known." Could she trust me as much after that?
When Valentine's Day rolled around, once again I asked to be informed as to when the children would be exchanging cards. Lynden piped up, "I'll tell you, Mommy." The director assured me that she would tell me. I bought cards, typed them up, and had them ready in early February. The night before the day, Lynden announced that she would be taking the cards tomorrow. Only because I was beginning to understand that the preschool director, my friend, "was a little scatterbrained" was I able to stay on top of this situation. Still, I was not particularly angry.
In March Lynden had a birthday--her fifth. She wanted to have Amanda, her best friend--the preschool director's soon-to-be adopted child-- over for the birthday celebration at Showbiz Pizza Place. We invited her. Three days before the party when we had not been given a definite answer, I made one of the most frightening but also one of the most real phone calls of my life. The director's reason for not answering the ruquest was that she didn't know if the girls would behave in such a noisy place. She stated in no uncertain terms that the only way that Amanda could come was if they dropped her off at Showbiz and one of them stayed.
Suddenly it was apparent to me that I was expected to be as obedient and as much under her control as the preschool children she supervised each week. I was at a turning point at which I could either choose to back off and say, "That would be fine," or to do as I did.
I asked if they were worried about our blindness. At first there was total denial. When it came down to the details, though, she was afraid to have us walk the children home for fear that Amanda, who was not "trained to obey us like Lynden is," would run off; that she might dart into the street while we waited for the bus, and we wouldn't see it happening; that we_might lose the girls on the way from the bus to Showbiz and "How could you keep track of them in that noisy place?"
When I explained, she stated that I was being defensive, not caring about the concerns of other people and risking the children's safety just to make a point. I said that I had a right to "defend" our position, and that she could choose whether that was really behaving defensively or not.
She said that she had no idea that I was so "angry about being blind;" that she had been so proud of me for the way "I handled it with the kids." She eventually stated that she thought Jerry and I should learn our limitations, just as everyone else does, for Lynden's sake if not for our own; that we were deluding ourselves if we thought we could function as independently as sighted people. And I was horrified to hear her say, "And you know that Lynden is going to know the difference. She's going to understand that she can't have friends over without parental supervision like other children do because of your limitations. She won't be angry about it, because she will understand."
I answered that Lynden would be puzzled and, indeed, angry when other people (teachers, other children's parents, etc.) decide for us that she and/or her blind parents "have to do things differently," when she is going to know from living with us daily for all the years of her childhood that such limitations are unnecessary. She may even begin to think that there is something wrong with her because she's being consistently left out of normal activities.
At length I told her that I thought the whole situation boiled down to a matter of trust, to which she immediately replied, "Laurie, I trust you implicitly!" She explained that she could tell when children came from less than desirable parenting, and that she would hold me up as an example of one of the best parents in the neighborhood; that she was proud of the way that Jerry and I were carefully teaching Lynden, taking her places, keeping her dressed neatly, and so forth, and she knew that we loved her.
It was difficult for me to believe that I really could not trust this "friend," and she could not believe that I thought she did not trust me. I said, "When someone says to me on the one hand that they trust me implicitly but on the other hand will not allow their child to be with us without sighted supervision, something doesn't fit." My stomach turned at the thought of how I, with my unusual amount of assertiveness, had probably changed the direction of our relationship forever. I would probably lose a good friend; I had "caused" a chasm between Lynden and her best friend. And would I be forced to put Lynden in another preschool? I realized quickly through my panic that the problem wouldn't be solved in this way. It was more likely that this same kind of situation would occur again and again. I could not trust as implicitly as I had trusted previously, but Lynden's education at this preschool had, up to now, been excellent.
But if the director couldn't see blindness for what it really is any more clearly even after observing it, what other "blind spots" might there be in Lynden's education there? (I now know that they also sex role stereotype children--"boys wear doctors' hats; girls wear nurses' hats"--and I am aware of other issues which are upsetting to me.)
However, much as I might have wished for it, there is no such thing as "the perfect school setting" for Lynden or for any other child. I knew, therefore, that I had to negotiate.
Our compromise, after talking with other Federationists (I thank God for other Federationists), is that the next time Lynden is asked to Amanda's, she will be allowed to go only if one or both of us is along. Will the director and her husband squirm? Will they be angry? Time will tell.
We thought things had blown over by the time Lynden enrolled in dance class with several other children. However, on one occasion she was kept from going to dance class because she had a rash. Although we had paid for this class, we were not consulted about this decision. Later Lynden did not inform us of her recital. Neither did the preschool.
The night before the recital, at 9:30 p.m, with no chance for us to invite friends along, the director called us, realizing that "we might not know about it." The children were to have brought a letter home from the dance class. We did not get Lynden's letter. Thinking that Lynden had accidentally forgotten it, I asked her about the letter. I was informed that the letters had all been taken away from them at preschool and given to the parents later.
We attended the recital, knew very little about Lynden's dancing, and I really began to wonder if I was being deprived because of my blindness. At home I cried about what I had missed.
The next day when I asked Lynden why she didn't tell us more about her dancing, she said, "You can't see." Suddenly I realized that lately she had begun to play tricks on us and to get very angry. I realized that she was angry about our blindness.
She was also feeling that we "missed out" on her dance.
We learn from our mistakes. When I mentioned this last situation to one of the most competent Federationists I know, he cleared up my own doubts about my blindness by asking, "Did you have Lynden show you what she was learning?" We had alluded to it, but we had not gotten down on the floor to have her show us.
When I explained to Lynden that we missed out on her dance not because we couldn't see but because we had not asked her to show us what she was doing, she was immediately relieved. She gleefully showed us the entire dance routine, taking on the role of the dance instructor. It was hilarious, entertaining, and enlightening.
Suddenly it appeared that she understood that we could be trusted, that we didn't necessarily not know what was going on just because we can't see. Her general behavior was back to normal.
Suddenly it appeared that she understood that we could be trusted, that we didn't necessarily not knowwhatwas going on just because we can't see. Her general behavior was back to normal.
I know that we will have to deal with situations similar to the ones I have described in this article. I know that I must continue to improve on my own assertiveness. I know that I must be wiser than to trust even good friends when it comes to dealing with issues of blindness, and I know that I must trust my own knowledge and stand by it. I know that Lynden will be confused for some time, but I hope that someday she will read what I have written and will be reminded of what she said to me when she was not quite five years old: "Mommy, I wish you could see."
Oh, dear, I thought. Not a pity party from my own kid! "Lynden, what would be different if I could see?" I inquired.
"'Cause then, Mommy, people wouldn't talk to you like you were a kid."
Editor's Note: In an addendum to this article, Laurie later wrote: It is one thing to be able to verbalize our Federation philosophy well; it is sometimes quite another thing to be able to live by it. In our childhood most of us were not properly prepared to meet the blatant prejudices--not to mention the subtle ones--faced by blind people in our daily lives. Assertiveness skills and awareness of discrimination come slowly to those of us who have spent most of our lives influenced by nonFederationists. The poignancy of this article will, perhaps, be enhanced for you by the fact that my sister, who is also blind, is (with the cooperation of all the parents involved) very successfully supervising several other children besides her own.