THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR August 1983

 

WEBMASTER NOTE: This copy of the Braille Spectator is being made available due to a scanned copy of a print version of the publication. The conversion process may of introduced spelling and formatting issues. In an attempt to prepare the document for the web, Non printable characters were removed and tags were added to make the document accessibly compliant. 

 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, INC.

 

Althea Pittman, Editor The Braille Spectator Maurer Law Firm, P.A.

Suite 100 Court Square Building

200 East Lexington Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202

 

 

Reader (Cassette Version): Connie McCraw

ORGANIZATIONAL OFFICERS:

James Omvig, President

364 Marydell Road

Baltimore, Maryland 21229

Marc Maurer, First Vice. Pres. Althea Pittman, Second Vice

President

Judy Rasmussen, SecretaryAl Maneki, Treasurer

9736 Basket Ring Road Columbia, Maryland 21045

 

The BRAILLE SPECTATOR is published quarterly as a newsletter to members of the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND and

others who share an interest in the work of this organization. The recorded edition, available on cassettes, can be obtained from the editor upon request.

Changes of address and additions to the circulation list should be sent to the editor. Address all news items, articles and letters to the editor.

 

NATIONAL CONVENTION HUGE SUCCESS!

byJames Omvig

Ninety-three enthusiastic Marylanders made up ourdelegation at the 1983 National Federation of the Blind Convention in Kansas City, Missouri. This means that we ranked third among the states in convention attendance - Missouri was first and Louisiana was second.

This was the largest convention we have had for a number of years, if not the largest ever. Almost 1,700 delegates were registered.

The spirit was high and the agenda was full. Complete details concerning the convention can be found in upcoming issues of the Braille Monitor, so I shall not repeat them here.

Something of the enthusiasm of the convention and of the Federation as a whole can be seen by what happened with the PAC Plan during the convention. For several years we have been striving to reach that time when we would have at least 1,000 members as regular contributors giving at least at an annual rate of $250,000. We went into the convention with 953 people giving at an annualized rate of $231,000. Although PAC cards are still coming in, it would now appear that we will be very close to the goal which we had set.

Although Maryland had some increases during the convention, we still have a long way to go if we are to do the job we can and should do. While we continue to be the top state on PAC, several other affiliates are moving up rapidly and plan to overtake us if we don't get on the move. If you are not a regular PAC contributor, I urge you as strongly as I can to do your share to help fund the movement. We have a great deal of work to do which is not now being done simply because necessary funding is unavailable.

While we are on the subject of financing, Sandy Sanderson of Alaska was the top Associate getter again this year and was awarded the $1,000 prize for his effort. Tom Stevens of Missouri, Sharon Gold of California, and Karen Mayry of South Dakota were the second, third, and fourth place winners. The president of the NFB of Maryland was 8th in the nation. We should all put in considerably more effort to sell Associates.

The 1984 National Federation of theBlind Convention will beheld in Phoenix, Arizona, during the first week of July. The NFB of Maryland will be making special transportation arrangements. You should make your plans now to attend so that we can dramatically increase the size of the Maryland delegation inPhoenix.

 

1983 NFB OF MARYLAND CONVENTION

--by James Omvig

You should make your plans now to attend the 1983 Convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. It will be held the weekend of October 14-16 at the new Marriott Hotel in Gaithersburg. The hotel is located near the junction of Interstate 270 and Montgomery Village Avenue approximately ten miles north of the D.C. Beltway.

The accommodations and rates are excellent. There will be plenty of space for all of our meetings and for a large banquet. The hotel has two restaurants, one inexpensive, one expensive; two lounges, one upbeat and one quiet; and a swimming pool with exercise room and saunas. There is a McDonald's Restaurant about a block from the hotel and Roy Rogers is close by.

The rates will be $35, plus tax, per room whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 persons occupy the room. In addition, if there are families with small children, arollaway could be added so that 5 could stay in a room at no additional charge.

Convention registration will begin at 6 p.m. on Friday evening, October 14 (there will be a $5.00 registration fee). A State Board meeting (open to all) will be held at 8 p.m. and Resolutions and Nominating Committees will meet following the Board meeting. A full agenda is planned for Saturday culminating with our annual banquet beginning at 7 p.m. There will be a hospitality hour before the banquet.

Our national representative will be Miss Peggy Pinder, a blind lawyer, President of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa and National Board Member. Having Peggy at our convention will be a real treat.

For your convenience, hotel reservation cards are stapled in the print issue of theSpectator inside thefront cover and arefolded inside the mailer of the cassette edition. No return postage is required. Please complete your reservation card and send it to the hotel as soon as possible. Seventy-five rooms have been reserved but more can be made available if we can determine early enough that more will be needed.

As a second enclosure in this edition of the Spectator, I am attaching PAC cards. If you are not on the PAC Plan, please complete the card and return it with your blank voided check to the national office so that you can be among those helping to fund our national movement.

I shall look forward to seeing each of you in Gaithersburg. If you have blind friends who are not members of the Federation, invite them to come along to join in the hard work and festivities.

 

LET THERE BE LITERATURE

by Mary Ellen Reihing

For years the American Foundation for the Blind has published slick looking "professional" books which purported to say what life is like for blind people - especially children. Far from helping us, these books have reinforced the concept of blindness as an overwhelming tragedy and blind people as nothing more than pathetic creatures needing constant expert care.

"If only," Federationists used to groan, "we had books available for parents and teachers. We could show them the difference between our upbeat good sense approach and the absurd drivel published by the AFB."

Two NFB publications admirably fill the need. They are AResource Guide for Parents and Educators of Blind Children and Your School Includes a Blind Student.                             Both are written in clear concise English - not high-flown jargon. Both are thoroughly researched, coherently organized and, above all, philosophically sound.

The Resource Guide discusses children from birth through high school and career planning. Without equivocation or melodrama, it confronts parental attitudes and public misconceptions about blindness. Tips and techniques are explained thoroughly but simply.

Your School Includes a Blind Student is designed for the classroom teacher who is confronted with the prospect of the blind child in the classroom for the first time. It covers subjects from art to algebra and puts the teacher at ease through its easygoing matter-of-fact style.

The book was written by Mrs. Doris Willoughby, a teacher with over 20 years’ experience, both in teaching classes of sighted children and special education of the blind. Mrs. Willoughby is an active Federationist who thoroughly understands the necessity of working closely with the organized blind movement to make better educational opportunities for the children she teaches.

Now that we have our own positive professional literature about blind children, we face the challenge of seeing that it reaches all parents in Maryland and throughout the country.The books are inexpensive ($5.95 and $3.75, respectively). Does your local school distribute this material? Does your public library have copies? If not, what can you do about it?Plenty!

Because one Federationist decided it was worth doing, all the libraries in his area learned of our material. It is now prominently displayed on their shelves and widely circulated. The project took very little money; libraries were happy to buy the material when they saw its quality. It took only one person with a simple determination to see that the work got done.

 

THE WALK-A-THON: THE MOVEMENT, THE MESSAGE, AND THE MONEY

byPatricia Maurer

It’s almost time. Time for the 1983 WALK-A-THON and what a WALK­ A-THON it will be! As Spectator readers know the Greater Baltimore Chapter is again sponsoring a WALK-A-THON to raise money for the National Federation of the Blind. The WALK-A-THON will be on October 9, beginning and ending at the Inner Harbor. It's a 20 kilometer (12 mile) walk. All chapters should come and walk to teach the public about blindness and the National Federation of the Blind. If you want brochures or want to make pledges just let me know.

Speaking of the brochure, our brochure looks great. It's black and yellow and has a big Nike tennis shoe on the front. The poster carries the same theme. Both can be seen from a good distance. We are dividing up into teams to get these brochures delivered all over the city.

Attorney General Stephen Sachs, Chairman of the WALK-A-THON Advisory Committee, has written a letter to the Greater Baltimore Committee, a committee of approximately 800 business people from the community. The letter asked for contributions, for prizes, and for assistance in distributing brochures. We are quite pleased with the response to this mailing.

Public service announcements are now ready and will soon be aired. Channel 13 has produced spots. Oprah Winfrey, Stephen Sachs, and Dr. Jernigan will all three be seen on television making announcements about the WALK-A-THON. These spots will be distributed to all the Baltimore area TV stations.

The Baltimore City Schools also plan to help. Brochures will be distributed to each school. We plan to speak to as many schools as we can about blindness. It is another way to educate the public.

As you can see the WALK-A-THON is off to a flying start. The momentum is building and will keep building until the day - the day of the walk. I hope I'll see you on October 9 at the Inner Harbor.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot, there are still T-shirts available in small, medium, and large for $5.00 each, plus $1.50 for postage. If you want a T-shirt or if you want information about the WALK­ A-THON, please write P. 0. Box 6399, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230, or call 644-4445.

 

 

THE BLIND TEACH STUDENTS, PARENTS, AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE

(Editor's Note: Beth Scheuster is an intelligent blind teacher who teaches elementary school in Columbia, Maryland. Several years ago she faced discrimination in employment. With thehelp and support of the National Federation of the Blind the prejudice which prevented Beth from getting a job was beaten back. Since that time, she has been teaching successfully and is most highly regarded by her colleagues, by her students, and by most parents in Columbia. Nevertheless, discrimination may happen to the blind teacher in spite of talent and proven performance. In the letters printed below which appeared in the Columbia Flier, a newspaper circulated in Columbia, Maryland, some parents expressed prejudice against Beth Scheuster. They tried to blame her blindness when their son's performance failed. However, the work of the National Federation of the blind has changed public attitudes. More than fifty parents of elementary school children deplored the unwarranted attack and raised their voices in defense of this successful blind teacher. The work that we do in educating the public pays benefits for us all.)

 

Why have the blind leading the class?

From: Mr. and Mrs. Lanneau H. Davis, Jr. 

Owen Brown

Our son is in the kindergarten program at Talbott Springs Elementary School in Columbia. His teacher is legally blind. This handicap might be alright at the high school or college level, but certainly not kindergarten. We're frightened.

We have the following concerns:

 

1. kindergarten teachers must make observations to evaluate the student's performance in general. The teacher then fills out a checklist of specific observations that requires her to make recommendations for the following school year. We feel that the teacher is unable to make these specific observations. We base this statement on the outcome of a conference held with the teacher, the principal of the school and the teacher's supervisor at the end of the first reporting period. We had our son perform many tasks that the teacher indicated our son couldn't perform. We're not pleased with the Kindergarten Report Form.

2. There seems to be an inability to select materials or resources which will help our son meet his needs or accomplish goals (if there are any program goals, objectives or time lines established to teach the basic learnings). This is evident by the purple dittos and other assignments sent home, which we have kept as supportive data. We're still waiting to see reading readiness skills taught.

3. The reading specialist has to come in to read a story to the children. The children then draw a picture. The teacher and/or aide then writes a phrase or sentence on the paper in cursive writing. Why?

4. We feel that identify concept skills, the school and teacher are unable to processes, content, developmental tasks and attitudes needed to help young children function individually at their level and build a sound basis for future learning.

5. The Howard County Board of Education, supervisor and the principal of the school are aware of these concerns voiced from us and other parents; and yet the same behavior continues.

6. The quality of instruction is poor and thus our children are programmed to fail.

Research has shown that nearly every child can benefit greatly from early childhood education, so long as the program is appropriate and meaningful to him.

If the aim of Talbott Springs Elementary School is to increase the number of disadvantaged students, they're moving in the right direction. Meanwhile, our son is the one who suffers!

 

Many parents are outraged

From: Michael R. and Maureen A. Hamilton Oakland Mills

It is regrettable that "Why have the blind leading the class?" was written, much less published. The letter was nothing but a cruel, vicious, opinionated attack against a good teacher and the staff at Talbott Springs Elementary School in an effort to justify a child's unsatisfactory Kindergarten Report Form. It outraged many parents to find out that someone would go so far as to exploit a teacher's handicap (which many of us never knew existed) and the "inadequacies" of Talbott Springs Elementary School.

The "handicap" is that the teacher is legally blind. The word blind brings to mind the necessity of a seeing-eyed dog and a walking cane, which is not necessarily the case in being legally blind. This teacher's blindness is synonymous with impaired vision. It is not the same as being blind. It was pointed out by the teacher's brother that she has been legally blind since childhood.  She was educated in a normal classroom environment and has led a normal life while being afflicted by this "handicap."

It was implied in the letter that the teacher could not see well enough to read to her students. The reading specialist mentioned is reading in kindergarten class for the children's benefit. It was felt if the specialist were to become acquainted with the students now, then the job of correcting reading problems next year would be much easier for both the specialist and the children.

 

The parents indicated that being legally blind is all right for a high school teacher or college instructor, but not for a kindergarten teacher. If the child were a high school student, would this still be true?

It was also noted that kindergarten teachers must have the ability to make specific observations in order to evaluate a student properly. The child's parents do not believe that this teacher is capable of doing this. In reference to a teacher's conference, they stated, "We had our son perform many tasks that the teacher indicated our son couldn't perform." If the Kindergarten Report Form was to be closely reviewed, it would be seen that only a very small portion of the grading categories can be observed in other than a classroom environment.

The other major factor in the child's unsatisfactory educational advancement was �aid to be the "shortcomings" of Talbott Springs Elementary School. The letter indicated in three places that the school was incapable of providing an educational program tailored to suit the individual needs of their child. This is true. With the number of students in our schools, this is not only unrealistic but impossible. Our school system made a great step toward this with the advent of grouping by abilities, but the only way to achieve individual education is through private tutors. The parents spoke of their son's suffering. They should think of the suffering they caused from their unbased, malicious, false accusations aimed at innocent individuals. The legal blindness they spoke of is far less of a handicap than the blindness displayed in their misguided beliefs.

(This letter was signed by an additional 59 people.)

 

Distinguished Twins

From: Mr. and Mrs. R. A. Frazer, Jr.

Oakland Mills

Last year our twin sons had the Talbott Springs kindergarten teacher that Mr. and Mrs. Lanneau criticized last week. Our sons were actually in two separate kindergarten classes except during reading, as they were at the same reading level. Thus, they had the same teacher three days a week.

Since our sons are IDENTICAL twins, the majority of adults with two healthy eyes cannot seem to learn which child is which. (No, they are not dressed alike.) But their kindergarten teacher was the first teacher in three years (nursery school included) to be able to distinguish our boys' individuality!! In "twin circles," that's a sign of a very alert teacher!!

I was also a volunteer during this teacher's class last year, so I have seen how she conducts class - she's great.

 

Employ the Blind

From: Dr. Alfred P. Maneki Oakland Mills

The complaint ("Why have the blind leading the class?" March 10) that blindness "might be alright at the high school or college level, but certainly not kindergarten" is reminiscent of my own experiences in seeking career opportunities in mathematics. "Blindness might be alright for foreign languages and social work, but certainly not for math and science!" How unfair, because it is simply not true.

In teaching, and in many other professions, we have found that sight is not an absolute requirement for competent job performance. We are continually finding different ways of doing tasks for which sight was once thought to be required ...

The Howard County Board of Education and the Talbott Springs Elementary School are to be commended for their progressive policies in equal employment opportunities for blind teachers.

 

 

A CONTINUING DISPUTE

by Paul Flynn

A Parable

Once there was a man whose name was Mr. Axall who had an acute case of wartaphobia. When someone asked Mr. Axall what he thought of Mr. Kelly's writing, Mr. Axall replied, "Mr. Kelly has a wart on his nose - in fact Mr. Kelly is a wart." Nonetheless, only a few years after that crushing remark, Mr. Kelly was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. Mr. Axall found that event very puzzling, but after a little thought, he finally decided that all of the members of the Swedish Committee who voted Kelly the Prize must also have warts on their noses.

I.   On May 5 of this year, I and eight other teachers received written notice that our employment at Archbishop Curley High School was to be terminated on June 10, 1983. The reason given for our termination is the drastic decrease in enrollment. That was the reason they gave. For some, it may have been true. For me the reason was different. The facts proclaim it! The testimony is clear, and it discloses the motives which are unmistakable. My dismissal was based on prejudice. I was fired because I am blind.

Archbishop Curley High School is a Catholic school for boys in East Baltimore and under the ultimate authority of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. The school is administered by an order of Franciscan priests. Father Xavier, the brand-new principal of the school, has just completed his first year. In contrast, I have finished twenty years at the school teaching English to sophomores and seniors. I am a tenured and certified teacher with an Advanced Professional Certificate from the Maryland State Department of Education, and I am the most senior person there - I have more years of service than any of the other teachers who were also terminated.

 

There is convincing evidence that the drop in enrollment is not the true reason Father Xavier has terminated me. There is irrefutable evidence that I was terminated because of Father Xavier's prejudice against me. Father Xavier has said on several occasions - and we have the documents to prove that he said it - that a blind teacher is, because of his blindness alone, incapable of effectively. Teaching sighted high school students.

Five days after I received my pink slip, on May 10, I had an interview with Father Xavier in which I asked him to rescind his decision to terminate my employment on the grounds of my many years of dedicated and acceptable service to the school. He refused, saying that the decrease in enrollment required him to hold on to his decision. At one point in this interview Father Xavier said he was surprised that I was so disturbed. When I asked him why he said, "With your connections you should have far less trouble finding another job than any of the others that were terminated."

 

I called Dr. Jernigan, President of the National Federation of the Blind, and told him that I was in dire need of his advice. I gave him a brief account of my problem. Later, when my wife Joan and I met with Dr. Jernigan, he listened carefully and asked some tough questions as I presented a case for my contention that I was about to become a victim of prejudice. Dr. Jernigan agreed that discrimination had occurred. The NFB would fight this prejudice and support me in my efforts to gain fair and reasonable hearing.

Father Xavier caused a delay of more than a month. But despite those dilatory tactics, the hearing was set for July 21, 1983, before the Grievance Committee of the Archbishop Curley School Board.

Mr.  Rochowiak, President of the School Board, chaired the Grievance Committee, which consisted of three other members of the School Board. The hearing lasted about an hour and a half. After the parties to the dispute had left, the committee discussed the case for about an hour and forty-five minutes. They upheld Father Xavier's dismissal of me.

Mr.  Rochowiak's choices in reaching his decision were quite simple. He had no decent alternative. In an earlier confrontation with the School Board, Father Xavier had made it clear that he would not tolerate interference. If the School Board did not support his administrative decisions he would close the school. The School Board caved in. Father Xavier held the whip hand. The School Board dared not face a showdown. Father Xavier's threat was sufficient a blind teacher would be sacrificed.

Of course, this is not the way the School Board President, Mr. Rochowiak, told the story. He said that there were three reasons for upholding the decision to terminate. Despite the fact that my contract with Archbishop Curley High School declared that teachers with the greatest seniority should be given the teaching jobs available, he said I could be replaced by an untenured teacher. This could be done if the untenured teacher was a member of the Franciscan Order. Mr. Rachowiak went on to explain that in certain circumstances I could be replaced by an untenured lay teacher. The school, he said, needed someone to teach remedial reading.  Although there is only one class of remedial reading scheduled for the entire high school, he said I could be replaced by an untenured teacher who is certified in this area. Finally, he said that the reason for termination had not been discrimination. He wouldn't discuss it, and he wouldn't consider the evidence I brought to bear on the point. He simply and boldly asserted that it didn't exist.

I.  Before making a final comment or two on the hearing, and saying something about the future of our protest, let me tell you, as briefly and clearly as I can, why we think Father Xavier's primary reason for dismissing me is prejudice.

 

 

I first noticed what I will call, for the moment, Father Xavier's "uneasiness" at my presence in the school, in the course of an interview I had with him sometime in mid-September. In that Father Xavier was our new principal, he was having get acquainted meetings with all the members of the lay faculty and my turn had come.

Our conversation was going along agreeably enough until he suddenly, if rather cautiously, introduced the subject of my cane into our talk. He said that he was worried, greatly troubled in fact, by the prospect of my injuring a student with my "stick," as he calls my cane. He told me that he was tormented by the vision of a crippled student, my victim, and by the expensive and successful lawsuit which would surely follow such a calamity.

He pleaded with me, in his most ingratiating manner, to spare the students, the school, himself, and myself, from such a calamitous event. And to the end of sparing us all he urged me to go up to my classroom early, that is, before the halls and stairs began to teem with vulnerable students. He also urged me to leave my classroom late, after the students had left halls and stairs empty for me and my dangerous cane.

In vain I told Father Xavier that my cane had never been a weapon in my hands. I told him that in my nineteen years at Curley I had never injured or sent a single student, fellow teacher, or anyone else to the floor or to the nurse. I stood up at this point, showed him my cane, put it in his hand so that he could feel how light it is. And then I demonstrated how flexibly and harmlessly I handle it. There is no evidence that I have ever injured a student. No one at the school before Father Xavier has ever said anything to me about my dangerous "stick."

Then I told Father Xavier, in a friendly manner, that I have an excellent walking record at school. But I should have known a man will not be joked out of his deeply rooted prejudice. I am afraid Father Xavier didn't really hear my assurances, for, after I had had my say, he simply restated his apprehension and dropped the subject. But there is solid evidence that he was still brooding about me and my cane more than two months later. Here are two sentences from his November 30 evaluation of one of my classes: "I have seen you travel through the corridor during traffic and unfortunately some students have complained that your walking stick 'jabbed' them. I alerted you that, God forbid, if something happens, we will be held responsible."

I think that in his first cautious expression of fear Father Xavier was saying that I, a blind person, am a dangerous being that should not be there - there among the sighted. He was trying to restrict my freedom and even to exclude me, to banish me from the school, because of his groundless and prejudicial fear of me.

My final comment on this cane business is this: I am sure that Father Xavier did not take kindly to what he must have considered my stubborn and unreasonable refusal to be guided by his well-meant and prudent advice. I did not follow his travel plan.

It wasn't until late November that I learned of still another one of Father Xavier's September expressions of prejudice. On November 30, I showed Mr. Ed Jones, Chair of the English Department, Father Xavier's evaluation of one of my classes. (I will have something to say about this evaluation later). As soon as Mr. Jones had finished reading this blatantly prejudicial report, he told me something that Father Xavier had said to him back in September. Mr. Jones told me that Father Xavier had said that a blind person (that would be me of course) shouldn't be teaching sighted high school students. I think that remark of Father Xavier's - the cane business - as well as other evidence that I will bring in later, indicates (and quite forcibly), that Father Xavier came to Archbishop Curley High School with the uninformed and incorrect, but strong and settled, conviction that a blind person is incapable of effectively teaching sighted students. His remark to Ed Jones and his alarm about my cane is the first instances of his prejudicial attitude toward me and my teaching abilities, but they are not the last or the most egregious.

The September examples signify a fixed opinion. Father Xavier's rooted prejudice is even more strongly and openly displayed in his November 30 evaluation. There are several examples in early June and an even stronger display of discriminatory opinion shown during the July 21 hearing. The very basis of our protest is that this outrageous prejudice played the decisive role in his decision to get rid of me.

 

Under our contract the principal has the right to come into the veteran teacher's classroom once each year and evaluate that teacher. My turn came on November 30. Father Xavier arrived at the beginning of the period, stayed the entire period taking many notes. It was a morning class and later that same day, November 30, his written evaluation of that morning class was in my hands.

It is an extraordinary, devastating document. The evaluation swiftly reduces me to atoms. I am telling you the literal truth when I say he found everything I did on that occasion either wrong or ineffectual, or both. He also noted a few things that I failed to do, should have done but did not do because, in his opinion, I am absolutely incapable of doing them. Why? Because I am blind.

He said that my presentation was incredibly dull and that my students found it boring and that he did too. He said that my voice was at times inaudible and that my humorous remarks fell on deaf ears. In other words, he came to condemn and condemn he did.

 

Even if I were to assess his evaluation of me as a fair-minded one, I must say that the evaluation is incomplete, inaccurate, and markedly unperceptive. It stands alone among all of the many I have received through the years. My teaching has been evaluated by earlier principals and heads of the English Department and I have always, till now, been rated a good or a very good and even an excellent teacher.

His damning dismissal of me and my teaching is emphatically contradicted by those many favorable evaluations, by my excellent reputation among my fellow teachers, by the thousand subtle and strong compliments of countless students, by the gratitude and praise of many parents, by my Advanced Professional Certificate, and by my own strong and unquenchable appreciation of my own worth.

But it is not enough to write off Father Xavier's evaluation as merely poor or simply the honest opinion of one man. The evaluation is replete with blatant expressions of prejudice. In reality, it is an attack. You will recall the sentences I quoted earlier from his evaluation - sentences in which he breaks in with still another warning about my dangerous "walking stick."

I think Father Xavier is so open in his expressions of prejudice because he is, or at least was, absolutely unaware that his comments are discriminatory. Here are a few of the most obvious and ringing expressions of his prejudicial attitude toward me, my teaching, and toward my very presence in the school: "I think it unnatural for a teacher to lecture and an aide to come from the back to see if a student is paying attention...I think our students are left at a disadvantage. Only one sense is used: the skill of listening. Our students, as you know, adapt to all of the senses readily. One sense that is used is indeed hearing; the hearing skill has adjusted to today's grandiose world of electronics... I strongly feel that movement in the classroom, chalkboard usage, bulletin board usage, are some of the very necessary prerequisites of educating the caliber of students we have. To handle them differently is sacrilegious to the concept of education."

The final sentence of his evaluation begins with: "Mr. Flynn, I offer these comments objectively and administratively. " In view of the foregoing comments from Father Xavier, this sentiment is not merely ironic. It approaches affrontery and may well be described as balderdash.

I did challenge and refute a number of his assertions in my written response to his evaluation. Let me note a few of those responses here: I told him I am mobile and do in fact move about the class. I told him I use the chalkboard and that sometimes I cause things to appear on the bulletin board. I also reminded him that literature, my subject, is not visual art, and so on. But I felt that my effort to defend myself was probably useless, because I knew that I was addressing a man who "knows" beyond doubt or correction that I was, am, and will always be, incapable

 

 

 

 

 

 

of doing the job.

Father Xavier's opinion is that my blindness is so incapacitating and so intolerable that, not only am I guilty of failing to serve the academic needs of my students, but I am also guilty of the most heinous affront to God himself. In his words my teaching is "sacrilegious."

During the July 21 hearing I finally heard Father Xavier's response to the charge of prejudice. He said that he was shocked and hurt that anyone could think that he, "a man of the cloth," could be prejudiced. First, I am blamed for offending against God. Then the defense to obvious discrimination is that the man of God wouldn't do it. Such a method of argument is so obvious an attempt to avoid the facts and shift the focus of inquiry that it is hard to know how to comment. One is tempted to say, "Can you believe it?" Discrimination speaks for itself, and no effort to hide it will change the plain and obvious facts.

One gratifying element in this story is that many teachers and students at the school support me in my effort to retain my job. As I write this article we are preparing an appeal of the School Board's action. As has been the case so often, we in the NFB are fighting to end discrimination. This time the fight involves me. but it is not only for me that we fight. It is for all of the teachers and all of the students - for each of us and for all of us.

The Dark Ages are with us yet. The blind man, of course a beggar, is at the monastery gate gratefully receiving his hunk of bread and his cheese, his cup of diluted wine, a few coins, and, at parting, a husky and heartfelt blessing from the good Friar Hubert to send the wretch on his way. God did not intend that the blind should join the Order, or teach the sighted - then, now, or ever.

It is strange how a change in one's life will sometimes change one's perception of the familiar. I have often read, and several times even heard Dr. Jernigan say, "We know who we are, and we will never go back." I consider myself something of a devotee of fine language and have always thought that the saying was a rather good rhetorical flourish.  But now that I have been driven from my place, my job, "We know who we are, and we will

·never go back," goes through me like a strong wind.

1. Time passed and May 5 came and with it my notice of termination. I continued to teach my classes, prepared, gave, and graded the final exam, turned in my books, my grade cards, and I had completed my twentieth year.

But in the first few days of June I again experienced or witnessed several more examples of Father Xavier's discrimination against me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Femi Phillips is one of the teachers who was terminated. He is untenured and uncertified. But when Mrs. Joyce Triplett, Chairperson of the Math Department, suddenly resigned, Father Xavier immediately offered Mr. Phillips Mrs. Triplett's courses. Mr. Phillips declined the offer, saying that he was not qualified to teach some of the courses, advanced calculus among them.

And then someone else resigned named Mrs. Anne Malanowski. Mrs. Malanowski was to have been the only lay teacher to be retained in the English Department. And although she is untenured, she is certified to teach remedial reading. It was because of her expertise in remedial reading that she was to have been retained. But on the second or third of June, she resigned.

Did Father Xavier offer me her courses? Did he give me the opportunity to accept or decline such an offer as he did Mr. Phillips? No.  Why didn't he make the offer? He didn't get around to answering that question until July 21, the date of the hearing. He said on that occasion that he had not offered me Mrs. Malanowski's courses because he "knew" I couldn't teach remedial reading. Mrs. Malanowski was to have taught remedial reading to one sophomore class and regular level 2 English to four other sophomore classes. I have taught sophomore classes, levels 1, 2, and 3,during sixof mytwenty years at this school but Father Xavier didn't fail to offer me that remedial course because he "knew" I couldn't teach that particular course but because as I hope I have shown, he doesn't think I am capable of teaching anything to any class of sighted students. And so he was acting with perfect, if deplorable and indefensible, consistency in not offering me Mrs. Malanowski's courses, with or without remedial reading.

Mrs. Malanowski told the following incident on different occasions to two of our fellow teachers: A day or two before she resigned Father Xavier called her into his office and told her that he was going to terminate her then but that if and when he was able to make Mr. Flynn's termination stick, that is, defeat me at the hearing, he would then rehire her for academic 83-84.

Why was he so eager to get rid of me? Because I am an incompetent teacher? His refrain has been and continues to be "I am sorry to say that it was necessary to terminate Mr. Flynn and a number of other fine teachers as well because of that drastic decrease in enrollment." That refrain and a few other maneuvers brought him the victory of July 21.

Yes, all four members of the Grievance Committee found his justification persuasive. Father Xavier's conduct at the hearing didn't surprise me. At times he displayed offended innocence, sometimes he used silence, or brazen denial, several lies, and even selective amnesia -all ofthese were used togain hisend.

We may take our case to the Court of Equity, the next step in the Grievance Procedure spelled out in the contract, and if we fail there, to a public court. We may bypass the Equity Court if we are free to do so and take Father Xavier straight to court.  We have put out a press release and two local newspapers, The MorningSun and The Evening Sun, have already expressed keen interest in  the story.

As you see,   the future is,         as always,   uncertain.     But we  are studying our options and shall do our best   to make       the final disposition      of this case   what should   be -   a   defeat     of prejudice   and a victory  for      still  another one of    its    potential victims.

 

RECRUITING AND BUILDING IN MARYLAND

by Althea Pittman

On a rainy Sunday in May a team of enthusiastic NFB'ers headed for Western Maryland. We were going to recruit new members in Hagerstown and Cumberland and to work with our chapters there. Marc Maurer headed up the team. Marla Miller, Mary Ellen Thompson, and Pat Maurer also worked in Hagerstown.

The Hagerstown Chapter held a membership seminar on Wednesday evening of that week. Several new people attended the meeting along with those already in the chapter. We showed the film "We Know Who We Are" and discussed the philosophy of the organized blind movement. The chapter decided to meet on Saturdays so that more could attend meetings. The chapter now meets on the first Saturday of the month at 1:00 p.m.

On Thursday morning early we headed for Cumberland. Judy andLloyd Rasmussen joined us. Webegan calling prospective members in the area, talking with them about the Federation and giving them literature. We spent hours discussing what they had read and also what they thought ought to be done in the chapter.

On Saturday morning, prior to the State Board meeting, we had a membership seminar. Mr. Omvig, Mr. Maurer, and others discussed what the Federation means to them. Mrs. Maurer talked about the work that needs yet to be done and how the Cumberland Chapter can help.

Our Cumberland Chapter made us feel right athome. Itwas afine lunch and in the afternoon the Board meeting was held. Many people who are new to the organization stayed for the Board meeting.

When we returned home, we added new names to the Monitor and Spectator mailing lists. Approximately forty names were added. Many more received literatures. The Maryland affiliate is out spreading the word. Let's work together to build our chapters and to recruit new members.

 

TAKING THE TRUTH TO THE TALK SHOWS

--by Charles Biebel 

I've been asked to tell how I get Dr. Jernigan on so many talk shows. It's really easy and you can use these same ideas to get other Federationists on the air where you live.

The first thing I do is find out the names of the talk shows and who the hosts are. Then I call up the radio stations to talk with the hosts or producers. I was scared to doit atfirst, but it's easy now. I've found that calling is more effective than writing letters to local stations.

When I talk to the talk show hosts, I tell them about the Federation and that public attitudes are the real problem of being blind, not the lack of sight. I mention some of the problems, like the fact that 70% of all blind people are unemployed. I offer to send information about the Federation and Dr. Jernigan. I always send them Dr. Jernigan's resume, congressional fact sheets, and the brochure called "What is the National Federation of the Blind." Once I had to send a station fifteen questions to use for the interview. I kept a copy in case that ever happens again. It's really important when a station requests material to send it to them immediately. It helps to give us a good reputation.

Once Dr. Jernigan was on a talk show, I sent the station a thank you letter right away. That may make it easier to get Dr. Jernigan or somebody else at another time.

When a talk show host isn't interested, don't give up. One of the announcers here in Baltimore wasn't interested in having Dr. Jernigan on because he said that wouldn't be the kind of material he has on his show. So, I'm going to call him back again and try to get Bill Morgan on to talk about his walk when he comes to Baltimore.

Another important thing I do to get Dr. Jernigan on talk shows is to set up a mutually agreeable time for both Dr. Jernigan and the station. Sometimes I confer with both to work out the details and sometimes the station prefers to make the necessary arrangements. So, I've learned to be flexible.

I make it a point to let the people in our chapter know when Dr. Jernigan will be on a talk show and I will tell them where to tune in. Getting our people on the air can be lots of fun. It took just a letter to “Focus on the Family" to get Mrs. Walhof on their nationwide program. It would be super if we could get their host, Dr. James Dobson, to our convention in Phoenix next year.

In the near future I'11 try to get Reader's Digest to print the Federation's views on the sheltered workshops. The more we get our message out, the easier it becomes to change what it means to be blind. I often tell talk show hosts that their program is the best vehicle we have to get our message out. So, when you try to get somebody on a talk show, just do the best you can. It's for all of us.

 

 

THE RED-LETTER LEGISLATIVE DAY

by Marc Maurer

With due and proper ceremony Governor Harry Hughes signed into law the 1983 amendments to the Maryland White Cane Law. The signing ceremony, which took place on May 31st, 1983, was the culmination of a long and fruitful effort on the part of the organized blind movement. There we were, the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. When our White Cane Law needed strengthening, we went to the legislature and told our story. The White Cane Law prohibited discrimination against the blind in public places. The penalty for practicing discrimination was a $50.00 fine. This was not enough. The penalty was so slight that nobody paid it any mind. It was cheap for hotel operators, restaurant owners, and merchants to ignore the rights of the blind. An old saying proclaims "You get what you pay for." In other words, if it costs a lot, it must be worth a lot. If you don't have to pay it can't be worth much. This is the philosophy that characterized the civil rights of blind people in Maryland. It was a philosophy that could not be allowed to remain in force.

The civil rights of blind people are worth more than $50.00. This is the message we sent to the legislature. We wrote hundreds of letters. We held an open house for legislators at the Annapolis Hilton. We demonstrated the abilities of blind people. We traveled to the halls of the legislative offices in Annapolis. Our testimony before legislative committees was heard and the message of independence and equality went home. The proof is shown by the result. The White Cane Amendments of 1983 in Chapter 649 of the laws of Maryland, raised the penalty for discriminating against the blind from $50.00 to $500.00. This law was signed on May 31, 1983.