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.
A Publication of the
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, INC.
May, 1978
Volume II, Number 2
Alfred P. Maneki, Editor
The Braille Spectator
9736 Basket Ring Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Address Correction Requested
THE BRAILLE SPECTATOR
John T. McGraw, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MARYLAND, ILC.
Alfred P. Maneki, Editor
9736 Basket Ring Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
(301) 992-9608
Associate Editors:
Denise Mackenstadt
Beth Schuster
Publication Staff:
Connie McGraw
Bernice Lowder
Doris Samuels
NFB of Maryland
503 Cherry Hill Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21225
(301) 355-5122
Address Changes Should Be Sent To:
Denise Mackenstadt
554 Wickham Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21229
This newsletter appears every third month beginning in February. Material to be considered for a particular issue should be received by the editor on or before the first of the publication month.
THE EDITOR’S LOG
Hearings were held on this organizations Commission for The Blind Bill on Tuesday, Feb.28 before the House Committee on Environmental Matters, Delegate Johns. Arnick, Chairman, and on Wednesday, March 1, before the Senate Finance Committee, Senator James Clark Jr., Chairman.
In both hearings, members of the NFB of Md. made oral and written presentations. Inadequacies on the manner in which programs for the blind are operated were pointed out, and the rationale for a reorganization into a single administrative unit was argued. Some members gave testimony to their own difficulties encountered while trying to secure rehabilitation and educational services.
On both days the committee rooms were filled to capacity with NFB members, and with supporters of the opposition - agencies and the ACB. The NFB of Md. was the only organization supporting this legislation. The Dept. of Education (D.V.R.), School for the Blind, State Library for the Blind, and the American Council of the Blind were in the opposition. The BISM has not adopted a position on this bill. Members of both legislative committees indicated that their mail had been heavily biased against this legislation.
The massive opposition was not unexpected. Mr. Spurier and his crew· were the first to speak in opposition. They gave the old presentation, heard at past NFB conventions, the numbers of blind people served, the number of "closures" and their “concern" for consumer input. They did acknowledge difficulties but laid the blame on inadequate funding rather than organizational structure or attitudes within the Dept. of Education. Their statement about the small percentage (1.7%) of' D.V.R. clients being blind seems to lend support for the argument that programs for the blind are being over looked because of larger concerns elsewhere. James Campbell, Chairman of the Board, Md School for the Blind, also testified in opposition. His case was concerned more with funding, management, and legality, rather than with the quality of education delivered by his school.
Curiously, his only reference to education was that the Commission bill failed to deal with the education of multi-handicapped blind children, without reference to the important elements in the education of children. He presented an interesting history lesson of the school progress during the 125 years, from its first class of blind black children to its current success of securing private funds for the construction of a swimming pool and its unblemished record of fiscal responsibility. His greatest claim for the school's graduates seemed to be that many of them are now employed in various capacities on the school campus. His final offering before both committees was the opinion of the school's attorneys that the school is a private institution and cannot be subordinated into a larger state body corporate. Therefore, the illegality of the Commission bill. But does the school also use the same claim to secure annual state appropriations?
James Murray of the State Library for the Blind and Physically Handi- capped was present, but did not testify probably due to lack of time. We are unaware of the nature of his opposition, as the organized blind have had generally good relations with Mr. Murray and his library staff. Overall, within limitations, they have been quite responsive to the views of the organized blind. Of course, officers of the A.C.B. were in attendance, also
claimingto represent blind consumers,
to testify against the bill. It was this writer’s first encounter with this band of malcontents. Given the history of the struggle to secure control of the organized blind movement and the harsh relations that have existed to the present, we must try to judge the A.C.B.’s performance in the most objective manner possible.
At best their arguments were fraught with inconsistencies. The went to great lengths to point out their dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in the delivery of services to the blind. Yet, they are opposed to an independent commission. They have submitted their own bill in the senate (S-1123) which would establish a commission within the Dept. of Education. They failed to establish any credibility for the manner in which the Dept. of Education has operated the DVR, not contradicting the NFB testimony on the DVR’s performance. Their only case against BISM is that it has been “taken over by the NFB” and from this, must not be serving the best interest of the blind. (This attack was neutralized before the Senate Committee on Wednesday, when Ralph Sanders, the BISM president, testified against the bill, stating that BISM has not yet taken a position on commissions. He assured members of the committee that BISM would work most cooperatively in carrying out mandates of the General Assembly, whatever those mandates might be.
They offered no testimony directly accusing the BISM of rendering poor services. Then, on what basis do they select the Dept. of Education for an enlarged role in services to the blind? Their dissatisfaction should logically support the NFB proposal for an independent commission. And following this approach their optimum strategy should be to offer amendments which would satisfy their concerns, i.e. the makeup of the commission’s board, language affecting the School for the Blind, powers to deal with discrimination cases against the blind, etc. The result that can be expected from their action of discrediting the NFB bill and asking for support of their own bill, both of which contain common aspects, is not the creation of a commission, not even their kind of commission, but the death in committee of both bills. Therefore, the perpetuation of the status quo. However, they have already indicated their dissatisfaction with the status quo. This raises obvious questions; What are their motives? Whose interests are they really serving?
Another disturbing aspect of their criticism by implication: it is somehow immoral for the NFB and BISM to share common beliefs on some issues such as consumer representation. However, somehow there is nothing immoral about the A.B.C. and D.V.R. sharing common beliefs on other issues.
As we said earlier, this was our first encounter with the A.C.B. We were most disappointed and saddened by their performance, for we strongly believe that the blind of Maryland deserve better than what the A.C.B had to offer to these committees of the General Assembly. The A.C.B. performance, notwithstanding, is our belief that these two days of hearings on the Commission bill have had an impact. Given the nature of the NFB testimony, the number of NFB members in attendance and later meetings in large groups with key legislators, the General Assembly must certainly realize that changes will have to be made in the delivery of services to the blind. They must realize also that organization will have a stronger bill for their consideration in 1979. Delegates and Senators might view the opposite ends of the spectrum taken by the NFB and the A.C.B. as a sign that the blind community is divided as to exactly what corrective measures should be adopted. But as they review the testimony, they will no doubt raise the same questions about the A.C.B. that we have raised, and in the end the larger numbers of the NFB membership should satisfy them the larger organization is indeed the representative voice of the blind.
Reflecting on the future, there is much to be accomplished before an independent Commission can become a reality. Still too many members of the General Assembly do not understand the problems of the blind. The executive leadership of the state government has not yet made its views known on an independent Commission. The special interests of the Department of Education and school for the blind will not give away any part of their bureaucratic empire without a battle. We can expect the A.C.B. to continue its hostile and unproductive actions. The achievement that the NFB of Maryland seeks will not be accomplished by its leadership alone, nor will it be accomplished with the help of friends throughout the community. It will be accomplished only through concerted efforts of the entire membership. Every member must communicate with his legislators. Every member must participate in visits to the capital. This organization must use every talent and resources that it can bring to bear on this issue the superior judgment, dedication, and sophistications of its membership.
These hearings were only a small part of the opening battle. How long this battle will last, we cannot predict. What is certain is that no one can afford to let this battle linger indecisively for too long. Those who wish to bring about changes in services to the blind must work effectively but with compassion so as not to create unnecessary ill will. The commission bill was defeated this year, and it may again be defeated next year, but all of the elements involved the Department of Education, the school for the blind, the state library for the blind, the B ISM and blind consumers must know by now, things will never be the same in the realm of services to the blind in Maryland.
Summary of legislative activities
this session if the General Assembly proved to be a most active one for members of the NFB of Maryland. In spite of the fact that not all of our bills were passed, valuable progress has been made, and it appears likely that our entire legislative package will be enacted into law in the coming years:
- Commission for the blind bill; H-12551 with amendments (Delegate Torrey C. Brown) and S-969 (Senator Harry J. McGuirk) and Senator Victor L. Crawford.) H-1251 was heard before the house committee on environmental matters on Tuesday February 28 and S-969 was heard before the Senate Finance committee on Wednesday March 1st. H-1251 was defeated in the committee. S-969 was referred to the legislative policy review for further study and recommendations before the next session of the General Assembly begins.
- State supplement to SSI; S-625 (Senator Clarence and. Mitchell III) and H-2091. Senate Appropriations committee reported favorably and the Senate passed S-625. S-625 was then referred to the House Appropriations Committee, where no action was taken. H-2091 was assigned to the house Ways and Means committee, which defeated this bill.
- The BIS M package; H-909-912(delegate Benjamin L Cardin) and S-851-854(senator James Clark junior.) The house bills were referred to the house Ways and Means committee and the Senate bills were referred to the Senate Finance committee. Each dash 909(changes in language pertaining to B ISM in the Maryland general code) and H-912(providing Per dium payments) to members of the BISM board) Passed both chambers. H-910(expanded vending facilities) and H-911(pertaining to BISM budget) were defeated in committee.
Irrelevant questions concerning physical disabilities of job applications; S-518(senator Julisn L. Lapides) This bill was passed by both the house and the Senate. It was heard by the Senate committee on Economic Affairs and by the house committee on economic matters.
- Insurance discrimination bill; S-869(senator Arthur Dorman and senator Edward T Conroy). This bill was originally not a part of the NFB package, it was conceived as a result of conversations with the senators at our legislative banquet. Heard before the Senate committee on Economic Affairs and house committee on economic matters the bill was passed by both the House and Senate.
- House resolution 103; introduced by delegate Hugh Burgess. Similar to house resolution 76 considered a year ago, this resolution called for a review of state programs for the blind. Again the NFB of MD was in opposition due to the biased composition of the study committee. Resolution 103 was defeated in the house committee on Ways and Means.
National Convention 1978
Welcome to Baltimore!
Welcome to Maryland!
We know that by now each chapter is preparing for greetings galore to the out-of-state registrants of the convention.
July 1 - July 8,
1978 promises to be the busiest week of the year for all Maryland NFBers. Several of the committees are now preparing for some of the many functions that will occur during the week. The NFB of MD has a reputation for providing friendly and fulfilled hospitality. This year our task will be to provide such for all registrants - a few details that will be of interest are:
- MD suite will be staffed during the day when the convention is not in session. Chairperson Connie McCraw.
- Night hospitality will be provided each evening with a cash bar available. There will be an area for conversation and an area for music. Chairperson: Willie Thompson.
- All Maryland NFBers will be identified by special hats. (Does that make us the hatspitality committee as well as the hospitality committee?) Chairpersons: Azalee Thompson and Al Maneki.
- Assistance during the convention will be provided by area youth groups. Chairperson: Doris Samuels.
- Remember to encourage as many registrants as possible, since we are hosting the convention, we know that our delegation will outnumber every delegation chairperson: YOU
The planning committee for the 1978 NFB convention wishes to give special thanks to doctor Kenneth Jernigan who was available to provide assistance and advice at a recent planning session. Co-chaired by Mr. Ralph Sanders, national president and Mr. John McCraw, state president.
Tours, eating establishments, fundraising and other important convention details are being completed.
Joe Bardari, Gary and Denise Mackenstadt, Don and Shirley Morris, Ralph and Margaret Thompson, Jean Agin, Betty DeSimone, ray and Bernice Lowder are among others.
Question: will this be the greatest convention yet?
Correction: this will be the greatest convention yet!!!
Willnetta Sutton, coordinator.
The Blind and Mathematics
The following letter was written to the editor of the Baltimore evening sun. A slightly edited version appeared in the sun's letter to the editor column on Tuesday, 4 April, 1978.
27 March, 1978
Dear Editor:
Your article on chisanbop, (Tuesday 21 March, 1978), a method for performing a medical operations with the thinkers, it's US promoter, this Bernadette Lieberthal: “it's mainly for elementary peoples but also for remedial students and the blind... Blind people have never been able to comprehend whole number systems and now suddenly they have a tool.
I am compelled to register a most vociferous objection to this blatant stereotyping of the blind as possessing inferior arithmetic faculties. Blindness is a physical characteristic and not an inherent limitation; blind people exhibit the same range of talents and shortcomings as any other class of people that may be selected for close investigation.
Individuals are presently employed in the mathematics and computing professions as scholars, teachers, and technicians. An exhaustive Braille code is available for all mathematical notations. Computer technology has offered a wide variety of occupations to the blind.
It is unfortunate for quotations such as the above to appear in the media, for these only serve to foster the notation that blindness equates to helplessness and hopelessness. This public misconception, rather than blindness itself, is the true villain of the blind.
Today blind people in greater numbers are developing as awareness of their lesser position in society. We have organized ourselves as the National Federation of the blind to destroy the myth which is responsible for this lesser status and to demonstrate to the public at large that with proper training and equal opportunities blind people can be useful and productive members of the community.
Concerning my own background: I have been blind since birth, received the PhD in mathematics from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1970, served on the mathematics faculty at North Dakota State university, and presently work for the Department of Defense as a research mathematician.
Sincerely yours,
Doctor Alfred P Maneki
1st vice president
NFB of MD
SPECS
12 energetic members were on hand for the door-to-door candy sale on Saturday, 22 April, 1978. Commencing at 9:00 AM, and taking ample time for lunch, over six cases of candy were sold by 3:30 in the afternoon. The day was sunny and cool - ideal outdoor weather. A few aches and pains by the end of the day, but an enjoyable experience for everyone.