An article I submitted in April has been published in this month's
issue of the Braille Forum, together with opposing views.  I
thought folks may be interested.
Jamal

----------
 THE Braille Forum
Vol. XXXVI August 1997 No. 2


         BLINDNESS, SPECIAL POLICIES, AND FUTURE SUCCESS
                         by Jamal Mazrui

     At the outset, let me be clear that the views expressed here
are my own as an individual and ACB member.  I realize they are at
odds with some positions ACB has taken as an organization over the
years.  I appreciate that this publication permits minority views
on controversial issues.
     Our ACB mission statement reads as follows:  The American
Council of the Blind strives to increase the independence,
security, equality of opportunity, and quality of life for all
blind and visually impaired people.
     In furthering this mission, we examine, support, and oppose
various government policies and programs.  By and large, public
policies are means rather than ends in themselves.  Some of them,
such as basic civil rights laws, are perceived as so important to
equal opportunity that they acquire the status of ends.  For
example, if someone fundamentally opposes the non-discrimination
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it would be
difficult to consider him or her as a supporter of the ACB mission.
     On the other hand, our mission does not generally favor
special policies for blind people.  Legitimate arguments can
definitely be made which support separate treatment as a means to
the end of equality.  For example, sound government should assure
that specialized services are available to teach us such skills as
braille literacy, cane travel, and guide dog handling.  Other
matters, however, are more complex and debatable policy questions.
This is true especially when we consider long- as well as short-
term consequences, and attitudinal as well as concrete effects.
     Are separate government agencies for the blind necessary to
assure quality services in vocational rehabilitation (VR)?  Should
government-sponsored vending programs only offer employment to
individuals with visual disabilities?  Should we receive better
treatment by the IRS and Social Security Administration than any
other group with a physical or mental impairment?
     Obviously, such questions are tough to answer, and this
submission does not pretend to do so.  Surely, however, these
matters should be periodically examined and publicly debated,
accounting for historical developments, present values, and future
prospects.  The seriousness of our mission demands no less.
     In the first few decades of this century, blind people were
systematically excluded from public programs available to others
with inherited or acquired impairments.  Accordingly, programs for
the blind were often justified on these grounds.  Over the last
several decades, however, consumer groups and professional
organizations have gained substantial knowledge and experience
concerning the needs of visually impaired people who would achieve
personal independence and economic productivity.
     Over the last decade, the financial viability of the United
States has become seriously threatened by massive long-term debt
and continuing operating deficits.  All major political parties and
a majority of the American public have conveyed the sentiment that
the budget must be balanced in the foreseeable future if we are to
protect our way of life and especially that of future generations.
Therefore blind people, like all citizens, can no longer routinely
ask for additional money for separate programs.  We face an
imperative to make taxpayer-funded programs work better and cost
less.  By sincerely addressing this imperative, we help the general
quality of our lives, not just the blindness-related aspects.
     Let us be clear that separate treatment can still mean
optimal, contemporary public policy.  Any significant public policy
decision involves a balancing of financial costs, philosophical
values, and empirical evidence.  In some cases, financial costs may
be so great as to make a policy untenable.  For example, a policy
that guaranteed blind people all the technology they want would fit
into this category.
     In other cases, philosophical reasons for separateness prevail
over other values.  For example, government funding should be
specifically allocated toward alternative formats to the printed
word.
     In still other cases, empirical statistics could favor
separateness.  An example of this would be if objective research
showed that blindness VR agencies perform better than combined ones
in competitive employment outcomes (it has not so far).
     When financial, philosophical, and empirical decision-making
factors are identified and balanced, a lot of one can outweigh a
little of others, and vice versa.  Thus, with one of these
combinations, we may continue to support particular separate
disability programs, such as for people with visual impairments.
     Of course, it is not practical to simultaneously evaluate all
cases of disability separateness, whether blindness-specific versus
cross-disability, or disability-specific versus mainstream.  The
process of reauthorizing a law, such as the Rehabilitation Act or
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, is a particularly
appropriate time to do this, since policy makers and media outlets
give increased attention then to that subject area.
     As a culture adopts progressive values supporting equal
opportunity for a previously disenfranchised constituency, the need
for special treatment in public policy lessens.  For example, some
affirmative action policies for African-Americans that were once
necessary due to previous discrimination may no longer be needed
because our culture has advanced in its respect for ethnic
diversity.  Some separate programs, in fact, may now be
counterproductive because they reinforce racial distinctions that
tend to segregate in effect.
     Similarly, we may be reaching a point when some eyesight-based
distinctions in public policy are questionable in terms of present
circumstances and future results.  Continuing to promote the array
of separate programs may inadvertently entrench age-old
misconceptions about the innate abnormality of our lives due to
blindness.
     To be sure, cross-disability programs have often neglected to
include adequate accommodations for non-visual users.  A major
explanation is that funding and advocacy resources on
blindness-related issues have been channeled overwhelmingly toward
separate programs.  The separate system is self-perpetuating
because people it employs resist dilution of budgets and staff they
now control.  Yet, the political power of blind people would almost
certainly make cross-disability programs responsive if portions of
the time and effort now spent on promoting separate programs were
spent instead on making broader ones non-visually accessible.  The
political power of people with disabilities as a whole would also
be strengthened, resulting in stricter enforcement of fundamental
civil rights provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Rehabilitation Act, and Telecommunications Act.
     In the world of today, traditional means of promoting the
mission of ACB are sometimes unwise.  Our long-term best interests
will tend to be better served by supporting public policy based on
new approaches.  These include outcome-oriented justification of
separate programs, universal design whenever practical, and
personal responsibility for the collective success of our society.


     (Editor's Note:  It should be pointed out clearly that the
American Council of the Blind has not changed its position on the
importance and value of separate state agencies for the blind.  The
matter was discussed at the 1997 ACB convention in Houston.  Tapes
of that convention will be available in coming months.  A taped
copy of all ACB correspondence with the National Council On
Disability is still available by contacting the ACB National
Office.  To ensure that our position is fully elucidated, we
include below the most recent resolutions regarding the importance
of separate state agencies and ACB's continued interest in
preserving and gaining new ground in this arena.) [end of note].
Resolution 96-13
Supports categorical and specialized services for persons who are
blind throughout the re-authorization process for the
Rehabilitation Act
     WHEREAS the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is scheduled to be re-
authorized in 1997; and
     WHEREAS, despite  the knowledge, experience and
recommendations of the entire blindness community,  there is an
unprecedented erosion of categorical and specialized services; and
     WHE
staff to make every effort to preserve, protect, defend, and
strengthen categorical and specialized service delivery to persons
who are blind and visually impaired, in the re-authorization
process for the Rehabilitation Act, and as other threats to
categorical and specialized arise.
Adopted:
Cynthia Towers, Secretary
Resolution 96-22
Calls upon state and local affiliates of the American Council of
the Blind to take a leadership role in working with other
organizations to form coalitions to work toward the protection of
categorical and specialized services, and residential schools for
the blind as an option in the continuum of educational services;
calls upon the Board of Directors of the American Council of the
Blind to work collaboratively with other organizations to create
materials which can be utilized by the above mentioned local and
state coalitions and calls for the identification of at least two
states to pilot coalition approaches and efforts
     WHEREAS, the political climate in virtually every state is
focusing on measures that would combine service delivery into large
"super-agencies" for the alleged purpose of cost-cutting; and
     WHEREAS, this has already resulted in the delusion of
categorical services which are absolutely indispensable for the
rehabilitation of people who are blind; and
     WHEREAS, in addition, in several states the value and
relevance of schools for the blind is being seriously questioned by
legislators and the media; and
     WHEREAS, the American Council of the Blind has a history of
supporting both categorical services and schools for the blind as
part of the continuum of educational options that must be made
available for students who are blind;
     NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the American Council of the
Blind in convention assembled on this the 6th day of July, Tulsa
Convention Center, that state and local affiliates of the American
Council of the Blind are urged to take a leadership role in forming
coalitions with other organizations working with blind people
including but not limited to, the National Association of Parents
of the Visually Impaired, affiliates of National Industries for the
Blind, and state and local chapters of the Association for
Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired;
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED  the National  Office and Board of the
American Council of the Blind work collaboratively with these other
organizations and with the American Foundation for the Blind to
create and disseminate materials that state coalitions can use to
maintain categorical services and schools for the blind; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED  that the organizations collaborating
at the national level identify at least two states to pilot
coalition efforts  so as to refine and document model approaches to
creating such cooperative efforts within 60 days of the end of this
convention.
Adopted:
Cynthia Towers, Secretary