I was elected to the presidency of the National Federation of the Blind one year ago. During the past twelve months I have come to have a greater understanding of the spirit of our movement than ever before. It has been a year of real unity and tremendous growth. I have worked closely with Dr. Jernigan, who (shortly after last year's convention) agreed to serve as Executive Director of the Federation; and, of course, I have worked with you the members concerning state and local problems throughout the nation. Although I have been a member of this organization for almost twenty years, and although I have served in a number of capacities, I have come during the past twelve months to appreciate in a different way the scope of our activities, the complexity of the work we do, and the depth and breadth of leadership we have. If anyone doubts the level of our commitment or the unity of our purpose, let that person come here today and see the blind in our thousands at this convention.
This year has been one of the busiest we have ever had. Our position as a leader in affairs of the blind has become ever more widely recognized.
Our position as a leader in affairs of the blind has become ever more widely recognized.
The Xerox Corporation held a training session last November for its district personnel managers. The meeting took place in the secluded Xerox Corporation Training Center at Leesburg, Virginia. Only one organization involved with the blind (and, for that matter, only one dealing with the handicapped) was invited to come and speak. The invitation was extended to the National Federation of the Blind. Our message was clear and strong-blind people want work, and we are good employees. I am confident that our November meeting with Xerox and the contacts since then will result in more and better jobs for blind workers.
Another company that sought our assistance is Creative Marketing and Design. This company works with eye doctors to promote eye examinations. But examining the eye is not always enough. The most upbeat, positive organization dealing with blindness is the National Federation of the Blind. Creative Marketing and Design recognized this and asked for our help, so we gave it. Every mailing they do this year (and there will be more than a million letters) will contain our literature and spread our messsage of hope and opportunity.
We have participated in meetings of the World Blind Union Executive Committee and the North America Region. Dr. Jernigan has served as our representative on the Executive Committee of the World Blind Union. The focus of our participation has been to improve opportunities for the blind of this country, as well as the blind of the world. Although there had not been an election scheduled for the spring meeting of the North America Region, Dr. Jernigan (in recognition of his outstanding contributions to help the blind become first-class citizens) was chosen president of the World Blind Union North America Region.
Dr. Jernigan (in recognition of his outstanding contributions to help the blind become first-class citizens) was chosen president of the World Blind Union North America Region.
His election to the presidency of the North America Region makes him an honorary officer of the world organization.
Last summer at the convention Dr. Jernigan reported that the airline battles were widespread and intense but that progress was being made. That is still where we are today. The problem is typified by what happened to Sharon Gold and other Califomians who were returning home from last year's convention. They were arrested for sitting in exit row seats to which they had been assigned by the airline, and then United personnel became so hostile because Sharon and the others would not move that they were not only personally abusive but almost incited mob violence.
This is not an isolated instance. Unfortunately it is coming to be the rule instead of the exception. We will have a full discussion of the airline problem later in the week, but there are a few things I should mention to you now.
Last July, immediately after our convention, officials of the Air Transport Association and the Regional Airline Association came to the National Center for the Blind for discussions. A week later the next step was taken. I (along with a representative of the Air Transport Associa Page 34 tion) appeared on a news program, which was carried on the Cable News Network. The debate was, to say the least, spirited. ATA attempted to justify its discriminatory seating policies by saying that small children could not be seated in the exit row. But of course, we are not children, and we will not be treated like children. The message was delivered to ATA, and it was also broadcast to the nation on television.
Last August, in response to our "persuasion," the federal Department of Transportation requested public comments on air travel discrimination issues concerning the blind. The Department received 732 comments responding to its notice. Two hundred forty-nine (or 34 percent) of these comments came from people who did not identify themselves as blind but supported the views of the Federation. Four hundred fifty-six (or 62 percent) came from blind people or organizations representing the blind. Over 96 percent of the comments favored nondiscrimination and supported the position of the National Federation of the Blind.
Over 96 percent of the comments favored nondiscrimination and supported the position of the National Federation of the Blind.
Last September Congress passed (with our urging, and the urging of others) a bill to prohibit acts of discrimination against the handicapped by the airlines, and President Reagan signed it as Public Law 99-435. You will be hearing about the process for adopting regulations to implement the law later in the convention. The first step is called a regulatory negotiation-- or, in federal jargon, a "reg neg." This means that we (along with others who are affected, including the airlines) have been sitting down in the presence of federal mediators to try to work out a rule that will prohibit discrimination in air travel. The process started in June. The mediator leading these negotiations will be speaking at this convention later in the week. With all that has happened over the past year--the pattern of abuse, the arrests, the questions for the Department of Transportation, the interest by a substantial and growing number of members of Congress, the passage of a new federal law, and negotiations over the nondiscrimination rules--it is clear that we are marching toward freedom on the airlines. And we intend to continue that march until we get there.
It is clear that we are marching toward freedom on the airlines. And we intend to continue that march until we get there.
We are also active in matters concerning vendors. Over a year ago we helped eight Maryland vendors file grievances. The problem was that the Maryland Division of Vocational Rehabilitation had illegally required the vendors to pay for repairs of state-owned equipment and then had failed to make promised reimbursements. The vendors came to the Federation for help. The state agency had no intention of paying, but we know the law and how to use it. Last September the vendors received reimbursement for equipment repairs totaling $45,000. The payments came as a direct result of the actions we took.
Dennis Groshel is a blind vendor at the Veterans Administration Hospital in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The Veterans Administration has been taking the position that its facilities are exempt from the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Therefore, the VA Hospital in St. Cloud was planning not to renew a contract with the Minnesota state agency. If the plan to terminate the facility had been permitted to go forward, Dennis (a Federation member) would have been out on the street by mid-July.
The position of the Veterans Administration is a direct violation of the law. At our urging the Minnesota state agency requested an arbitration, and Jim Gashel has been named as one of the arbitrators. We are going forward with this case, and we expect to win.
In Michigan the Commission for the Blind requested our help when a tank construction facility operated by the Department of Defense decided not to honor the Randolph Sheppard Act by awarding a contract for a large cafeteria and vending operation. A request for arbitration was made and the panel was appointed. All of a sudden the Department of Defense decided to negotiate. Being good military strategists, the Defense Department had a fallback position. If there was to be a vending facility, they said that the vendor must pay a percentage of the income of the operation to the employees at the plant to improve their morale. It was a bad day for the Tank Corps. The vendor will not pay a percentage, but he or she will take over the tank plant cafeteria and vending operation in November.
In Kansas we are involved in an arbitration to assist Jerry Griggs. Jerry has been a staunch Federationist for many years. Ironically, the dispute in Kansas is with the Federal Aviation Administration, but the problem does not involve the airlines. Jerry Griggs is facing a situation of illegal competition from a commercial enterprise. At first the state agency in Kansas was unwilling to fight to protect Jerry's rights, so we had to bring pressure. It has worked. The state agency has now asked for our help in the arbitration, and Jim Gashel will serve on the arbitration panel.
Lessie Hall is a blind vendor and a longtime Federationist from Memphis, Tennessee. We are helping him in a dispute involving a promotion. Lessie has sixteen years' seniority in the program, and he was qualified to operate the vending facility he sought; but he was passed over. The Tennessee Commissioner of Human Services has already determined that the State's promotion decision was illegal, but the stand was not awarded to Lessie. He should have been promoted, and we intend to prove it.
The South Carolina Commission for the Blind told Melvin Barrineau (a blind vendor) that he must sell Pepsi products from his vending machines and that he could not sell Coca-Cola. We agree with Melvin that decisions of this sort are properly the choice of the vendor, not the state. It is the vendor, not the state, who must make a living from the business. If the vendor decides to stock products that no one will buy, he or she (not the state) will pay the price. Conversely, if the vendor has what people want, he or she will make a profit-so we are going to have an arbitration in South Carolina.
Don Hudson and Richard Jack are blind vendors in Colorado. Last year Dr. Jernigan reported that we had initiated a lawsuit on their behalf because the agency for the blind had decided that a vending operation in a mail handling-center in Colorado would be too profitable to give to one blind vendor. The agency wanted to split the operation and divide the profits between two vendors. In short these officials seemed to feel that the substantial income was too much for a blind person and that modest (perhaps meager) earnings would be enough. When we suggested that perhaps the same principle should apply to the salaries of the agency officials-that is, split the income and put two into the position when the earnings get too high, they did not seem to think the situations were the same. The case is now before an arbitration panel.
In another arbitration involving the Tennessee agency, we have won a favorable decision on behalf of Betty Moffit. The award involves a payment of damages totaling $9,174.13. Betty has said that when she is paid, the entire amount (including the thirteen cents) will come to the Federation. More than the money, we were able to use this arbitration to protect the vending facility operated by Betty from illegal competition. This is another solid victory for blind vendors and the Federation.
This is another solid victory for blind vendors and the Federation.
During the first weekend in April we held a vending conference in Detroit. It was one of the best attended, most enthusiastic meetings of blind vendors we have ever had. Opportunities for collective buying were discussed, and plans for more extensive self-organization and involvement by blind vendors were laid. The conference illustrates (and the cases I have outlined underscore) the fact of what it means to be a vendor in the National Federation of the Blind.
During the last few months Little Randolph-Sheppard Acts (prepared from model legislation which we drafted for the purpose) have been adopted by the legislatures of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Rounding out the picture of vending matters, we are now in the final stages of negotiations for new vending regulations in Maryland. Similar regulations are now in draft form for the state of Indiana. One battle, one state, and one issue at a time, we are changing what it means to be blind--not only for blind vendors but also for the entire blind population. This is why we have the National Federation of the Blind.
It has been another successful year in our dealings with the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC).
--In North Carolina the Governor Morehead School for the Blind gave NAC the boot last fall.
--The same decision was made m Rhode Island and announced at the convention of our affiliate. Rhode Island Services for the Blind dropped NAC accreditation at the end of 1986.
--The trend has continued in 1987. Earlier this year the Center for the Visually Impaired in Elyria, Ohio, dropped its NAC accreditation.
There are also growing signs that the American Foundation for the Blind (NAC's founder, principal funding source, and long-time sponsor) is having second thoughts. Only a month ago the American Council of the Blind tried to persuade the Mississippi Welfare Board to force Mississippi Industries for the Blind to accept NAC accreditation. From NAC's point of view the discussion was not held at a low level. Dennis Hartenstein, Executive Director of NAC, and Otis Stevens, former President of NAC and the First Vice President of the American Council of the Blind, came to argue for NAC. But we were also represented at the meeting. When the votes were cast, the decision was unanimous--no NAC for Mississippi Industries for the Blind.
Blind workers in sheltered workshops are among those who suffer most under the stigma of second-class status.
Blind workers in sheltered workshops are among those who suffer most under the stigma of second-class status. Their wages and working conditions are unbelievably bad. More than that, they are constantly threatened and subjected to abuse-especially, if they try to organize (a right which the rest of American labor secured almost fifty years ago.) So we continue to work to assist our blind brothers and sisters in the shops~and this has been a year of progress.
The Raleigh Lions Clinic case in North Carolina started four years ago at the time of our 1983 convention in Kansas City. Several of the shop workers wanted to join a union. Shop management said no. Union cards were signed, and a hearing was held in 1983. The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board found in our favor. He ordered the Raleigh Lions Clinic to permit an election for the union. But the workshop appealed to the entire National Labor Relations Board in Washington. We filed a brief on behalf of the blind workers.
In September of last year there was a further hearing before another hearing officer. We submitted another brief. The decision came down on March 11, 1987. The National Labor Relations Board ordered that the results of the 1983 election must be tallied and announced. Unfortunately, because of the vulnerability of the workers and the pressure exerted by management, we did not win the election. That is not unusual for the first time in these cases. But this decision means that the Raleigh workshop is subject to the National Labor Relations Act. The negative election results cannot erase or diminish the victory we have achieved once again before the National Labor Relations Board. The blind have the right to organize. That is the encouraging and indisputable victory in Raleigh, and we will go from there.
Last year at this time the management interests of the workshops were seeking federal legislation to allow them to receive contracts reserved by law for small businesses. We said that this would be fine if the workshops would behave like businesses and stop claiming to be places of therapy. In fact, shops claim to be work places when that suits their interests, and therapy places when that suits their interests. We told them they could start by paying decent wages and recognizing our right to organize. But the workshops were not buying it. They wanted the small business contracts, but they were not prepared to treat the blind like other workers in small business in order to get them.
Congress agreed with us. Parren Mitchell, then Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, bluntly told the workshop management representatives that no bill would clear his committee without first providing at least the minimum wage to blind workers. I wish I could say that the workshops agreed, but as you might expect, they did not. As you might also expect (in view of our stature and influence) their legislation did not pass the Congress. The lesson for the workshops is clear. We the blind are now on the scene, organized and determined. Legislation about sheltered shops which does not receive our endorsement is unlikely to pass. That, too, is why we have the National Federation of the Blind.
An example of what I am saying also occurred in amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is the law requiring the minimum wage for most workers in America and permitting sub minimum wages to be paid to the blind. We have long sought an end to the practice of paying the blind less than the minimum wage--and here, too, we have made progress.
We have long sought an end to the practice of paying the blind less than the minimum wage-and here, too, we have made progress.
Because of legislation which we supported that was passed last fall, any blind worker who receives a subminimum wage now has a right to require the workshop to prove in a hearing that the subminimum wage is justified. I mean this literally. Any worker has the right to a hearing, and if the workshop does not show up to prove that the subminimum wage is justified, the presumption of the law goes with the blind worker. Even if the workshop does come to the hearing, the presumption will be that the minimum wage must be paid unless the workshop can prove that the subminimum wage is reasonable. We will use this provision to the fullest. With vigorous action we can cut the widespread practice by the sheltered shops of paying blind people subminimum wages. This, too, is why we have organized.
One thing more concerning the sheltered shops: We continue to work to change the Javits-WagnerO'Day Act. This is the federal law that gives contracts to workshops if 75% of their direct labor is performed by the blind. But the workshops are run by the sighted, and the sighted get better jobs and more pay than the blind-and they are less likely to be laid off than the blind.
The workshops are run by the sighted, and the sighted get better jobs and more pay than the blind.
We intend to change that. On May 21st of this year we had a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Employment and Housing. I testified in that hearing, along with Don Morris of Maryland (formerly a manager in a shop program) and Willie Armstrong (a shopworker from Alabama). The Javits-WagnerO'Day Program is symbolic and symptomatic of the problems faced by the blind, and we are determined to make changes. We are determined to have first-class citizenship, with all that the term implies. If the questioning of witnesses in the hearing means anything (and I have data to indicate that it does), we are on the verge of major breakthroughs. The days of business as usual in the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Program are coming to an end.
We continue to lead the way in representing the interests of the blind before the Social Security Administration.
We continue to lead the way in representing the interests of the blind before the Social Security Administration, and our relationship with top officials of that agency continues to be good. David Rust, the new Associate Commissioner for Disability at the Social Security Administration, will be attending this convention. His presence symbolizes the close ties we have with Social Security.
Here is only one example: the notice that was sent to about 36 million Social Security beneficiaries last January carried new information to explain that blind and disabled beneficiaries can work and have earnings. Similar notices, sent in prior years, gave the misleading impression that earnings by blind people were not permitted. This year's notice more accurately and clearly explained the facts. The rewrite occurred because of our convention resolution last year. In fact, we were consulted on the precise language of the notice that was sent out.
Of course, we also help with Social Security cases involving disputes concerning benefits and eligibility. A prime example is the appeal filed by Bill Saker of Colorado. Bill sought our help when the Social Security Administration claimed that he was no longer eligible for disability benefits. Bill is blind, and he was not working. The dispute with Social Security involved about $7,000 which we thought Bill was entitled to receive. The issue was whether the income he received during an internship made him ineligible to receive benefits. We thought that it did not, and we were right. Bill has now received the full amount of the benefits to which he was entitled. Althea Pittman of Maryland also had a problem with Social Security. Quite some time ago she received a notice stating that an overpayment of $21,000 in disability benefits had been made to her. She first sought the advice of someone not involved in the National Federation of the Blind. Not surprisingly, Althea was advised that she would have to pay back the money, all $21,000 of it. But she did not have the money to pay. Even so, Althea signed a statement saying that she did not want a waiver, and she did not disagree with the overpayment. She only wanted to work out a schedule for paying back what she thought she owed. That is when we got involved. And (again, not surprisingly) it now appears that Althea was entitled to every penny of the disability benefits she received.
In the case of Sandy Sanderson, of Alaska, the Social Security Administration sought to recover $37,184. This is the amount they said he had received as an overpayment. In November we had a hearing in Anchorage, and the decision came down in December. Need I tell you the result? It is important to the blind that the National Federation of the Blind exists~in this case, $37,184 important.
Then, there is the Peter Wilson case. If you study the Monitor (and all of you should) you know about this case. The Social Security Administration said that Peter Wilson was not eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. He had resources (money put aside) in excess of $33,000. In the normal case he would not have been eligible to receive SSI benefits.
The Social Security Administration said that no one with $33,000 could remain eligible for SSI checks. Besides, the officials did not approve of Peter's plan to go to Harvard. In a hearing (which Sharon Gold handled) we said that Peter was entitled to exclude the $33,000 because it was needed to finance his education at the university.
We pointed out that the law permits him to receive SSI benefits while he is in school. The decision has been made. Peter is attending Harvard and using the $33,000- and the SSI checks are still coming.
Last September Kevan and Debbie Worley and their two children went to the Trailways Bus Station in downtown St. Louis. They were planning an outing for the day.
Little did they know that their proposed trip would become an incident focusing national attention on the need to protect the rights of blind people to travel without unreasonable interference.
Little did they know that their proposed trip would become an incident focusing national attention on the need to protect the rights of blind people to travel without unreasonable interference.
Kevan wanted to buy bus tickets for his family to travel to Festus, Missouri, about 40 miles south of St. Louis. The agent at the bus station refused to sell the tickets. She said that Kevan and Debbie would need to present a letter from a doctor. They explained that they only wanted to buy bus tickets to Festus and that they wanted to pay the regular fare. They did not want a handicapped ticket or a reduced fare, so no doctor's statement would be needed. But the agent persisted in refusing to sell them tickets.
You know the rest of the story. The police came and arrested Kevan. He was the victim of physical violence and verbal abuse. Even so, he (not the police officer) was charged with disturbance of the peace. Kevan did not violate the law, however. We demonstrated that in the courts. There was no disturbance of the peace caused by Kevan. Within hours of the incident the blind of the nation were rallying for a public protest. We made signs, and we picketed the bus station at the very spot where Kevan had been thrown to the pavement by the police. The press came in force. Even the police came, and grew increasingly friendly-as well they should. The Kevan Worley case is behind us, but we must not forget its lessons. That, too, is why we have the National Federation of the Blind.
Connie Leblond, one of our leaders in Maine, filed a complaint against Head Start when she was told that her blind son could attend classes only when the regular teacher was present. When the regular teacher was sick or absent, Connie's son Seth must stay home. Our complaint against this kind of unreasonable treatment was filed, and the decision was made last fall. The Office for Civil Rights ruled that this behavior of the Head Start Program is discrimination and that it must be stopped.
The Office for Civil Rights ruled that this behavior of the Head Start Program is discrimination and that it must be stopped.
This spring we got a decision in the Carol Coulter case. Carol is a Federationist from Missouri, who wanted to operate a day care center to keep small children. She was denied an unrestricted license solely on grounds of blindness. The Missouri Division of Family Services tried to require her to have a sighted person present with the children at all times, but Carol Coulter (with our help) fought back. The ruling on her civil rights complaint has been made, and the unrestricted license will be granted.
Then, there is Debra Duncan. She was denied a day care license in California because of blindness despite the fact that she cares for two children of her own. Her case will go to a hearing before the California State Department of Social Services later this month. Debra will not be alone. We will be with her, and we expect to get the license.
When Sheila Killian and a sighted friend tried to patronize a Raspberries Ice Cream Parlor in California, they were not served because of the presence of Sheila's dog guide. After a law suit, which we backed, the Raspberries Ice Cream Parlor had to pay Sheila $3,900. That was an expensive lesson. It is one that should be learned by anyone in the country who tries to deny the rights of the blind. Expensive or not, we will continue to teach--and when we do, we will expect service with a smile.
Geerat Vermeij is a blind marine biologist at the University of Maryland. He was scheduled to participate in a research cruise to the Aleutian Islands; but a professor at the University of Alaska (the institution which operates the ship) raised objections to his going. The reason--need I tell you?~was concerned with safety. Dr. Vermeij is prominent in his field and has traveled throughout the world doing research. Nine years ago, in fact, he went on a research cruise on the very ship in question. In the resolution of this case you can see the Federation at work. Jim Omvig (from his headquarters in Alaska) and I (working from the National Center in Maryland) collaborated. The matter has been resolved. Geerat Vermeij will participate in all activities of the research project (from ship to shore and otherwise), and there will be no discrimination-- but there probably would have been if it had not been for the National Federation of the Blind.
In the banquet speech at last year's national convention Dr. Jernigan described the details of the Terry McManus case. A bus driver told Terry that he would have to sit in a seat for the handicapped when there was only standing room on the bus. Terry said he preferred to stand, and he did. Rather than driving the bus, the operator asked all of the other passengers to leave. Terry stayed, and he stood. The rest of the story you know. The bus was driven on its route with Terry still standing-and all alone. This spring the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ruled that the Port Authority of Pittsburgh had violated the law. Our determination no longer to be second-class citizens was vindicated once again.
Last year Mary Freeman of Maryland sought a job with the Internal Revenue Service of the United States. She applied in the usual manner. She took a competitive civil service test, and she passed it with an excellent grade. But the Baltimore District Office of the IRS still refused to hire her. Had she been sighted, Mary Freeman would have had a job at IRS without difficulty. But Mary Freeman is blind.
When Mary applied for the job, she was told that she would need to be trained by Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind. Sighted people are trained by IRS. They are paid during their training. But IRS told Mary Freeman that she would be responsible for obtaining her own training from Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, and that she would not be paid while she was doing it. No job would be guaranteed even if she successfully passed all of the required tests.
This was discrimination. As part of our assistance to Mary we contacted the appropriate IRS official in Washington. Significantly, he had attended last year's convention in Kansas City. Sometimes I am asked what good it does to have government officials here to speak to us. The next time I get such a question I think I may simply say, "Mary Freeman." The matter was settled quickly. On March 9th of this year, Mary started her training at the IRS District Office in Baltimore.
She was not required to go to the Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind, and she was paid from the day her training began. She is now working every day as a taxpayer service representative and is being considered for promotion. This is another example of what we can achieve through collective action and organized effort--in other words, the National Federation of the Blind.
Ben Rushton is a blind father living with his children in South Carolina. Several years ago, when he was blinded in an automobile accident, his former wife brought legal action to remove the children from his custody on the grounds that a blind father could not exercise proper parental supervision. Don Capps and other Federationists assisted with this case, and the decision has now been reached. This spring the court agreed with us and said that blindness is not grounds for withdrawing child custody.
This spring the court agreed with us and said that blindness is not grounds for withdrawing child custody.
This is one more case in which the rights of blind parents have been protected by the know-how and determination of the organized blind.
Again this year there are more and better scholarships than ever before. You will meet the students who are receiving them at this convention. Past results demonstrate that the Scholarship Program has been an unqualified success. Our Scholarship Program has been widely publicized-- being mentioned in Seventeen Magazine, newsletters from Congressional offices, and student aid publications. As a result of our effort, blind students have better opportunity than ever before, and we are also reaching people we have never reached.
The current round of remodeling and renovation at the National Center for the Blind is almost finished. The Records Management Center, recording studios, new offices, dining facilities, and other renovations at the National Center for
Page 42 the Blind are nearly ready for use. Beyond a doubt our National Center is the most productive and the finest facility of its kind in the nation. With this resource goes responsibility. We must ship specialized aids, appliances, and materials to state and local affiliates throughout the nation and to others who need them, and the figures show that we are doing it.
During the past year we have duplicated and distributed 7,000 Presidential Releases, and we have sent out more than a million pieces of literature.
The volume of material we are handling has increased more than twenty percent over what we were doing a year ago; and this does not include circulation of the Monitor, which is also up substantially and accelerating. As you know, we began making the Monitor available on cassette a few months ago, and this means still wider circulation to come. Two years ago, when we were producing 18,000 issues of the Monitor each month, I thought we were close to the saturation point; but the rate of increase during the intervening time has been faster than ever before in our history. Today we are producing almost 26,000 copies per month--and still growing.
Our aids, appliances, and materials have been moved to new quarters, occupying more than 14,000 feet of shelf space, and this does not include the more than 28,000 boxes of material stored at the ground floor level in the Barney Street Wing. We have now computerized the operation, and this should increase efficiency and result in even better service.
We now distribute the American Bar Association Journal on tape, and we are publishing Future Reflections (the magazine for parents of blind children) and also The Voice of the Diabetic (the newsletter of our Diabetic Division). The circulation of these publications is increasing at a rapid rate, and there are others-trie Blind Educator, the newsletter of the National Association to Promote the Use of Braille, Slate and Style (the magazine of the Writers Division), The Brief (which as you would imagine is published by the National Association of Blind Lawyers), the newsletter of the Merchants Division, and the magazines and newsletters of other divisions and local affiliates.
The Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) Program is still one of the most successful efforts we have ever undertaken.
The Job Opportunities for the Blind (JOB) Program is still one of the most successful efforts we have ever undertaken. This year alone we have distributed 14,000 JOB Bulletins to blind applicants, and we have provided information to 6,000 employers. More than 2,000 blind job seekers have been assisted by the program since our last report, and the number of blind people who have been employed (which is, after all, the figure that counts) has topped the 700 mark since the beginning of the program.
During the past year guests from a number of foreign countries and many agencies doing work with the blind have visited the National Center for the Blind. Last fall the chairman of the Royal National Institute for the Blind came from England to examine our programs and learn about our success. This spring an industrialist who manufactures products for the blind in India came to the Center and talked with us about the future of technology. Shortly after last year's convention a representative from one of the organizations for the blind in Israel toured the Center and sought advice about methods for promoting self-organization for the blind in that country, and there have been more--many more. All of the things I have been discussing with you can be summarized in a very few words: hope, opportunity, information, and the belief that it is respectable to be blind. Recently a letter came to me which illustrates what we are, how we are perceived, where we are going, and what we must do. The letter came not from some other country or California or Tennessee or New Mexico but from Baltimore. This is what it said:
I am a young mother at the age of nineteen. My son is eleven months old and his name is David. David is blind.
I received a packet of information through the mail from your organization. I can't send money, but I would greatly appreciate your help.
I was scared from the start about being a mother, but now raising a blind child terrifies me. I want to be the best mother for David that I can, and I want him to lead a normal childhood.
I have heard relatives refer to David as poor blind David and I don't want that. I want them to think of David first, not his blindness.
I am so happy to have found your organization. If it would not be any trouble, could you send me information about your organization.
Sincerely,
How can we respond to that letter? This blind boy and his mother urgently need our help, and of course they will get it. The circumstances surrounding their situation (our educational mail campaigns; the confusion of the parents of blind children and their need for help; our accumulated resources of literature and know-how; our members who have achieved success and who still recognize the importance of participating in the movement and continue to draw strength and knowledge from it while serving as role models; our capacity to care; and our strength to make the caring count)--all of these bring together in a single composite what we are and what we must remain.
During the past twelve months we have grown mightily, but we have not diluted our commitment or our personal intimacy of relationship to each other or the people who seek our help. We are stronger today and better organized than we have ever been, but with all of our accomplishments much still remains to be done.
We are stronger today and better organized than we have ever been.
As I look back through the year just ended, I am proud of what we have achieved together--you as members and I as President--and I am extremely grateful to each of you for the support and trust which you have given to me, your new President. I have tried to merit that support and trust, and I shall continue to try to merit it. Regardless of the accomplishments I make in the years ahead (and hopefully there will be some) or the mistakes (and certainly there will be many), I will need to count on your continued understanding and backing. In this, the first year of my presidency, I find that I do not know as much as I would like to know, but there is one thing of which I am absolutely certain. The letter from the young mother with the eleven-month-old son named David strikes home to me. I myself have a son named David. He is three years old, and so far as I know, he has normal sight. When my son David and that other David (the blind elevenmonthold child of the nineteen-year-old mother) come to manhood, they must find a better world for the blind than we have today.
When my son David and that other David (the blind eleven- month-old child of the nineteen-year-old mother) come to manhood, they must find a better world for the blind than we have today.
That is my job. That is your job. That is our job as members of the National Federation of the Blind-and we must not fail to accomplish it. We do it for the leaders who laid the foundation of this movement and pioneered its development leaders like Muzzy Marcelino, who died last fall; we do it for ourselves and the blind of today; and we do it for the blind of tomorrow, the children who are now too young to do it for themselves-- the blind children and also the sighted children, who will live fuller lives if the blind are not degraded as subhumans and written off as second-class citizens. In the tradition of Dr. tenBroek, who brought our Federation into being in 1940, and of Dr. Jernigan, who is here today as the living symbol of our achievements and our battle for freedom, we must continue to build and look to the future. We in the National Federation of the Blind are dreamers and planners and builders.
The past year (with all of its problems) has been good, because we have worked to make it good. The coming year (again, with all of its problems) can be even better; and I believe it will be, because we will work to make it better. This is my commitment; this is my pledge; and this is my report to you.