What We Can Expect From A Commission for the Blind: Viewpoint From the Consumers

What We Can Expect From A Commission for the Blind: Viewpoint From the Consumers

Future Reflections May/June 1983, Vol. 2 No. 3
(back) (contents) (next)
WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM A COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
VIEWPOINT FROM THE CONSUMERS

an address delivered at the 1982 convention of the

National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

Traverse City, Michigan

November 6, 1982

by James Omvig
Reprinted from the March, 1983 Braille Monitor
I am extremely pleased to be here today and to have
the opportunity to speak with you concerning what we
should be able to expect, reasonably, from the
Michigan Commission for the Blind, or from any other
state commission for the blind.

First, let me provide you with a thumbnail sketch of
my background since it will indicate to you that the
opinions which I am about to express are not merely
hypothetical or fanciful ones, but are based upon
considerable experience and proven practices.

As most of you know, I am blind and have been for 30
years. I have been a client of the Iowa Commission for
the Blind and a student in its Orientation and
Adjustment Center. Therefore, I have had the
experience of receiving services from an agency.
Following my experience as an orientation student, I
attended college and law school as a blind person. I was
the first blind attorney ever hired by the National
Labor Relations Board. I worked for that agency both
in Washington, D.C. and in New York City.
Then, I returned to Iowa to enter the field of
vocational rehabilitation for the blind. I worked for the
Iowa Commission for the Blind for the next 9 years,
first as a rehabilitation counselor, then as Director of
the Orientation Center (in which I had previously been
a student) and, finally, served as Assistant Director of
Evaluation and Staff Development.

In 1978, I left the Iowa Commission to become the
Manager of the new Handicapped Employment
Program of the Social Security Administration in
Baltimore, Maryland.

In addition to this formal background and
experience, I have been attending state NFB
Conventions, now, for the past 14 years. I have visited
most states and have had the opportunity to become
familiar with most state programs for the blind -- both
the good and the bad.

By visiting the states, incidentally, one can conduct
quite accurate and meaningful surveys. There is only
one way properly to assess the effectiveness of a given
program for the blind: just take a look at what has
happened to those blind persons who have been served
by the agency. Are they employed in meaningful jobs?
Are they successful? Are they full of self-confidence,
and can they function independently? Can they travel
well? Are they active in their communities and
families?

If these and other questions can be answered, "yes,"
then the services are good, no matter what the agency
structure may be. And if the answers are, "no," then
the services are bad, no matter what the structure is.

Now, let me turn for a moment to blindness and to a
philosophy about blindness. In this area, the
Federation has learned well what some professionals
in the field either cannot or will not understand at all.
Blindness is simply a physical characteristic like
hundreds of other human traits. Like other
characteristics, blindness sometimes has its
limitations. Very often, of course, it doesn't. It all
depends upon what you are going to do.

In those few instances where limitations actually
exist, "alternative techniques" can be used to
overcome the limitation. An alternative technique is
simply a method of doing, without sight, what you
would do with sight if you had it.

And we of the Federation have come truly to
understand and believe, with our emotions as well as
with our minds, that blind people are ordinary normal
human beings who, given proper training and
opportunity (and these are large provisos), can compete
successfully with the average sighted person. We can
compete on the job, and we can compete and
participate fully in the affairs of the family and the
community.

We have learned that it is not our blindness but,
rather, society's attitude about blindness which has
kept us down and out through the years. In other
words, blindness is an attitudinal problem, a social
problem, not a physical one. To be perfectly blunt
about it, most people still think of us as helpless,
hopeless and unable to compete or participate in the
real world. More people continue to think of us as
beggars and rug weavers than as lawyers and college
professors.

It is this attitude, then, not the physical fact of
being blind, which we must face and overcome. And,
since those who are now blind and those who will
become blind have involuntarily assimilated the
negative pubic attitude about blindness, it is this
attitudinal problem which must be addressed by an
agency for the blind if it hopes to be effective.

With all of this background in mind, let me turn to
the agency for the blind: What should it be? What
structure is best? And, most important of all, what do
the blind have the right to expect from the agency?

Turning to structure, experience has shown over
and over that blind persons have the best opportunity
for good services from a separate agency or
commission for the blind. Funding is always better.
There is at least the possibility of developing a staff
which becomes expert in blindness, and staff members
and administrators do not get themselves sidetracked
on other issues or in other areas of personal interest or
preference.

On the other hand, I am not aware of a single case in
this nation where blind persons get a fair shake under
the super-agency structure. We are such a minority
among persons who are disabled that we always get
the short end of the stick --no emphasis is given to
programs for the blind, and administrators are usually
interested in some other disability group. And, it is
simply not reasonable to expect that a general rehab
counselor could be expert in all areas, including
blindness. Therefore, the separate agency always offers the best possibility.

But, we must always be mindful of this: There is no
magical formula which says that services from a
separate agency will automatically be what they
should be. You can have the best structure in the world
and still have service which is not only poor but which
borders on being criminal if the program continues to
be staffed by some of the "great minds" of the 18th
century.

Attitude and philosophy are everything! The agency
must "believe" in blind people, believe that it is
respectable to be blind, and it must be willing to do as
much work as it takes to pass on that positive belief to
blind persons and to the community at large.
Therefore, to have superior service, you must have
both a proper philosophy and a proper structure.
Now, I want to turn specifically to a discussion of
those ingredients which have proven to be successful
in any good program for the blind:

There must be a proper agency philosophy! It has
been said that, "philosophy bakes no bread." But, it has
also been said with equal wisdom that, "without a
philosophy, no bread is baked." Incredible as it is, I
know of some agencies in this country which proudly
proclaim that they have no philosophy and whose only
apparent philosophy seems to be to "serve the blind."
How? What is the goal? What hope does such an
agency offer blind clients?

The agency must have a strong, positive,
constructive philosophy about blindness, and it must
be committed to that philosophy. The only philosophy
about blindness which works that I know of is that of
the NFB. (I have already spelled it out in some detail.) I
can think of no other philosophy which an agency could
adopt. The sad fact, of course, is that even those
agencies which say they have no philosophy really do.
Although not expressed, by all that they do they tell
their blind clients that blindess is a disaster, that blind
people are helpless, and that blind people can never
expect to compete successfully with sighted people;
but that we should be grateful, anyway, for what they
have given us.

The commission board must be a meaningful part of
the program. While it is true that the board should
meet periodically to set broad policy, good board
members will also take the time to learn about
blindness and to develop a real understanding of
proper philosophy. Board members should be willing to
use their time and personal contacts to help sell the
program to the general public, to elected officials, and
to talk with employers about hiring the blind.

The staff must consist of persons who truly believe in
the blind and who are committed to doing whatever it
takes to pass on that belief to others. In other words, the
staff members must have the proper philosophy about
blindness and they must recognize that their purpose
for being is to serve the blind, not simply to protect
their own vested interests.

At the Iowa Commission, we developed some
extremely sound practices in building and training a
staff. If a blind person wished to join the staff, he or
she must first successfully have held some other job in
competitive employment to demonstrate both to that
individual and to others that regular, competitive work
is possible for the blind. Because of this experience,
such a blind staff member would be in the best possible
position to give real help and guidance. He or she could
then serve as a role model for blind clients and was
much more credible in what was told to blind clients.
I tell you of this Iowa policy knowing full well that
most agencies send some bright, young blind persons
to school, help them get Master's Degrees, and then
hire them to "help others." I shudder to think of the
"help" such a person is equipped to give.
I suppose I don't need to tell you what chance for
employment at the Iowa Commission a blind
person -- partial or total --would have where that
individual continued to be so ashamed of being blind
that he or she refused to carry a cane, use Braille or
other alternative techniques, or even refused to admit
to being a blind person. Such a person would have no
chance whatever. Again, we were selecting a staff to
serve the blind, not to provide employment for
someone who couldn't get a job some place else.
Sighted staff members had to be willing to undergo
training as blind persons, sleepshades, cane travel, and
all. Again, they had to come to understand blindness
and to know, from personal experience, that the
philosophy really works. In addition, when they were
practicing cane travel alone on the streets of Des
Moines, members of the sighted public assumed they
were blind, and treated them accordingly. It was
helpful for them to experience and cope with those
things which happen to us every day. And, of course,
both blind and sighted staff members were given
extensive, philosophical training before they ever
came into contact with a blind client.
The agency, from the director on down, must be
willing to "listen" to what the blind have to say and to
work in a spirit of partnership with the organized blind.
We are the persons affected by the services, and we
have the right to have a voice in what those services
will be. Through our collective experience, we know
well what works and what doesn't --what is good and
what is bad.

Again, as bizarre and outdated as it is, some
agencies continue to operate on the worn-out theory
that, "we know what is best for you." This type of
thinking should have vanished along with the 19th
century.

And, when I said that the partnership should be with
the "organized blind," I meant exactly that. Some
agencies refuse to listen to us but get their input from
blind "individuals." While you can always get an
expression of the attitude you want through careful
"selection," this practice has no place in the agency
which has the best interests of the blind at heart. Such
"individuals" have no reason to have any knowledge
about what is needed. Meaningful information and
input can be gathered only from those who have had
the good sense to join together and to share ideas and
experiences --the organized blind.

The good agency must be an "advocate" for the civil
rights of all blind persons. It must be willing to become
involved and to have confrontations. However, it must
be mindful of the fact that it does not "represent"
anybody. Only those elected by others can do that.

The good agency must operate on the "presumption"
that all blind people are capable, that everybody can do
something, and that we have sufficient intelligence to
choose wisely what we can and want to do. (Incidentally,
like sighted persons, we should also have the freedom
to choose unwisely.) The agency's role should be to
help the blind person develop sufficient self-confidence
and skills so that the individual can decide what he or
she wishes to do. Once this decision is made by the
blind person, the agency should help that person
prepare for the employment objective. Frankly, who
cares what the agency "thinks" an individual can or
should do. Therefore, testing and evaluation should be
at a minimal level.

The heart of any good program is an effective
Orientation Center. The purpose of a good Orientation
Center is to assist blind persons in becoming
independent: by teaching self-reliance and self-
confidence; by teaching needed skills; and by teaching
the students what the social attitudes about blindness
are, why they are what they are, what will happen to
you because of those social attitudes, and how to cope
effectively with those things which are done or said to
you.

This center should be "pre-vocational" in nature:
That is, it should be a place where individuals can
"learn how to be blind." Vocational training should be
provided wherever sighted persons get theirs, after
the orientation process has been completed, and the
training should be integrated with programs for
sighted persons since, presumably, the blind will work
alongside the sighted for the rest of their lives.

Such a center must be an "attitude factory." It must
be a place where blind adults from throughout a state
can come to live on a residential basis to build hope,
self-confidence, to learn that it is respectable to be
blind, and to learn basic skills and alternative
techniques. The atmosphere must be such that, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, the student is being told,
"come on, you can do it. You can do more." And there
must be blind staff members available who can serve
as role models and who, when a student says, "I can't
do it," can say, "Look, my friend, I'm as blind as you
are. I know what can be done and how it can be done so
don't say you can't; just do it."

You have to help the student get to the point where
he or she can say, "Yes, I am blind. So what! I like
myself and I am okay. I can do anything I want to do."
If you don't build self-confidence and self-esteem, then
nothing else you can do makes any difference.
So, these should be the objectives in any good
Orientation Center. How can these objectives be
accomplished? The answer to this question is simple if
you understand that the problems connected with
blindness are primarily attitudinal, and if you really
want to do something constructive to solve those
problems.

Everything you do in such a center must be related
to the proper philosophy. Here are some of the
ingredients which are absolutely essential in any good
center.

Blindness must be discussed and the word "blind"
must be used and stressed. If we will ever accept our
blindness, we must first admit that we are. Like black
persons who attempted to solve their problems by
pretending that they were white, blind persons who pretend that they are sighted are fooling themselves
and are cop-outs. Blacks solve their problems by
making it respectable to be black, and we will solve our
problems by making it respectable to be blind.
Therefore, such phrases as, "visually impaired,
visually limited, or sightless" should not be used.
There must be frank, individual and group discussions
about blindness. Students must learn the proper
philosophy in their heads through discussion. Then, to
set those feelings into honest emotions, students must
be required to do all kinds of things which will teach
them that they really can function. In Iowa, we used
such techniques as water skiing, grilling steaks,
running power tools and cutting wood for our
fireplaces.

The center must be located in a busy, urban area. I
know that many centers are in secluded locations away
from people and possible danger. However, if the
purpose of the center is to help the students become a
part of society, then training should be where the
action is. The facility should be near enough to
restaurants, stores, theaters and bars that the
students have a reason to leave it. Much confidence
building can be achieved simply by going out into the
world.

The students must be treated as adults, not children.
Therefore, there should be no "hours" at the center.
Nor should there be bed checks. Adults come and go as
they please.

The same training should be required for all students
at the center. Again, some centers have one kind of
training for the totally blind and another for the
partially sighted. If you understand that the problem is
attitudinal, and if you intend to teach a proper
philosophy, then all students must have the same
training.

All students--both partial and total--should be
required to use canes at all times. Again, in some
centers canes are used only during travel class.
However, if you wish to travel well and to be
independent, you must use the cane over and over until
it becomes a reflex action. In addition, use of the cane
helps to build confidence and helps the student to
admit that he or she is blind since, by using it
constantly, you are telling everyone around you that
you are blind.

The blind students with some vision should use
"sleepshades" during all training. The great temptation
of students with some vision is to attempt to use that
vision, even when it is completely useless. They also
like to try to pretend that they are sighted through the
use of sighted techniques. The reason for this is simple:
People want to be "normal." It is normal to be sighted.
Therefore, if you use blind techniques you are not
normal. False logic, but that is how minds work.
If you are blind enough to be at the center, you are
blind. Vision will not be useful in many situations.
Therefore, the student must learn blind techniques,
learn that they work, learn not to be ashamed of using
them and learn, during training, to use the combination
of blind and sighted techniques best suited to that
individual. Following this kind of training, the student
will be in the position of knowing when to use sight or
when to use a blind technique.

All students must be trained in Braille. While some
students with some vision will argue that they don't
need Braille, everyone should be exposed to it. The
student may just learn that it is more efficient than he
or she thought and that reading large print at 20 to 30
words a minute isn't so hot after all.

Proper practices must be established regarding eating.
And, no, I don't mean "techniques of daily living."
Assuming that all students need classes in techniques
of daily living is insulting and teaches a negative
philosophy rather than a positive one. Sometimes you
do find a student who needs help in this area. Very
often this is a student who has come out of a residential
school for the blind. When the situation occurs, staff
members should work with this individual quietly and
privately.

When I refer to earing, I am talking about this Iowa
policy: I know that many newly blinded people are
embarrassed to eat in front of the sighted. Therefore,
they are quite content to have someone serve them in
the seclusion of a group dining room. At the Iowa
Commission, we had a public cafeteria in which
students could get their breakfasts and lunches (they
went through the line themselves). However, we closed
the cafeteria for evenings and weekends. Along with
this, we had a rule which said that students could not
cook in their rooms, nor could more veteran students
bring their meals to them. The obvious intent of this
practice was to make students go out into the public to
find food and to be seen. The only way to overcome the fear of eating or functioning in front of others is to do
it until you feel comfortable.

The good center should have no psychologist or
psychiatrists in it. Students should be assumed to be
mentally fit. If you are trying to overcome
stereotypical thinking on the part of students, and
since there is a severe stereotype about psychologists
and psychiatrists in our country --only crazy people
see them, the student who is forced to see one on a
daily or weekly basis will simply believe that things
are worse than he or she thought.

Am I saying that I am opposed to all psychologists or
psychiatrists? Of course not! On rare occasions, a
student may develop emotional problems. When this
occurs, send that student to a competent professional
(be careful, though, that you have chosen the
professional wisely since, if you have not, the
professional will most likely try to help the client
"adjust" to blindness in a manner which will help no
one). If the orientation staff can't tell the difference
between fear of blindness or real emotional problems,
the staff had better be replaced: Don't use that
problem as a reason for bringing in the psychologists
or the psychiatrists.

There should be no house mothers or babysitters in the
center. The students' time is valuable, and they should
be able to have someone to work with them nights and
weekends. Therefore, there should be staff members
available in the center at all times to help solve
problems, give counseling, and talk about blindness.
Again, I know that in most centers this does not occur
and house parents are on hand. I must say that I was
particularly dismayed when I learned last night that
the Michigan Center has nurses on duty to "care for
the trainees." This practice could only lead the student
to feel that he or she is a patient in some strange kind
of institution.

The students should be exposed to organizations of the
blind and to successful blind persons. This point surely
speaks for itself.

Now, let me take a very few minutes to round out the
picture of a good agency. There should be competent
home teachers and rehabilitation counselors who truly
believe in the blind and who can motivate blind
persons from throughout the state. They must be
persistent: That is, if a newly blinded persons refuses
to accept services from the agency after one or two
contacts, they should keep returning and trying. Of
course, this should not be confused with trying to force
the blind person to accept services which he or she
does not want, a practice which should never be
allowed. Very often the newly blinded individual will
assume that there is no hope and that nothing can be
done.

Then, there is the matter of vending facilities: The
blind vendors should truly run the businesses. In many
states, the agencies really run the vending facilities
and, in reality, the blind are only cashiers. If you truly
believe that blind persons can function competently
and independently, then let them run the businesses.
Let them do their own hiring, firing, purchasing, price
setting, bookkeeping, etc.

Finally, the State Library for the Blind should be part
of the agency for the blind. Experience has shown that
the service is much better and is much more
coordinated when this is the case. In addition, Federal
rehabilitation funds can be put into the library when it
is part of the agency.

These, then, are some of the thoughts which I have
concerning what the blind should be able to expect
from a good agency. I hope these opinions are helpful
as you assess the value of the Michigan Commission for
the Blind in the upcoming session of the Michigan
legislature.
(back) (contents) (next)