[humanser] Jury finds IA Dept. for Blind's guide dog policy does not discriminate

[Carmella D Broome]

Some comments, for consideration.  Just my thoughts as I've been mulling
this thing over.  I'm really not trying to provoke anyone. I'm trying to 
come at this from the help me understand perspective that maybe I just am 
not appreciating all the particulars or whatever. I'm just trying to sort 
all this out.  I don't really know enough about the
center or the case to make any clear pronouncements as far as my opinion.
There's just something about  the all or nothing stance here that doesn't
sit well with me.  It seems  kind of pajoretive and rigid. "You deserve 
dignity and independence and  we want to help you regain those things. You 
have the right to use personal assertiveness, and to make choices as you are 
not a child and we want you to be a confident and capable blind person. But 
we're going to tell you this
is  the way to do things and if you don't then  we won't even work with  you
to meet your stated goals and needs. We only  serve people  that do things
the way we say because what will people think of us if we modify anything or
come up with a policy for how to  address the needs of those who use guide
dogs."   What if someone is diabetic and has no feeling in their finger tips
from neuropathy?  Will they be forced to take a Braille class even though
they won't be able to read Braille?  Wouldn't this modify or compromise the
program and just open  the floodgates for total anarchy where students  just
think they can do whatever they want.    I don't think so. I think fair and
reasonable are words that make a lot of sense in situations like this. There
has to be balance somewhere.

Again, I don't know, but  most people would seem to be rational and open to
reasonable compromises. Its a lot of doing to take something to court like
this unless the individual feels that no effort was made to work with them
to come up with some kind of solution.

Analogies are interesting. I suppose that, in a perfect world, a  person who
is blind could go to any rehabilitation center and get  first hand exposure
to using all methods of mobility, including cane,  guide dog, sighted guide,
using any of these with a GPS, and whatever other options are out there.
Oftentimes, presentations are given about these various options, but
consumers don't  get to   experience them first hand or experience them
extensively enough to be able to make an informed decision.
Each of these may be the best choice in various settings, including sighted
guide.

Yes, I said sighted guide can be a valid choice. I believe that.  Part of
adjustment to blindness training, in my opinion, is helping people know when
to insist on being completely self sufficient and when it is okay, or even
adviseable to ask for help.

If the only issue had been that the center has a certain way they teach
things, that any student has to go through the same  learning modules, or
whatever they're called, and that  the belief is that their way of
providing cane and O&M training is so thoroughly unique and therefore  can't
be  tested
out of, regardless of previous training, I can accept that fine.

My problem with the  IADP situation is that part of the argument made was
that blind
people need to learn to travel without assistance from anything that
provides visual help.   In other words, cane only.  That seems to suggest
that  cane trumps dog or that those who use a cane are actually more
independent and self sufficient than those of us who choose to travel  with
a guide dog.  It implies that the blind person is relying on the dog to do
everything, or most  everything, when this is not the case.  A dog is not
the same thing at all to sighted guide. We don't just grab on and  go where
the dog goes because the dog knows how to get places without our doing
anything.

Given such statements, I wonder if the jury was left with the impression, as
many people have, that
a guide dog  knows where to go and how to get there and that, as Chris Rock
once said, "they just give you a dog to drag your blind ass around," and
read traffic lights, and  execute the entire route just because I say,
"Maggie, WalMart."  That  would be unfortunate.  I can certainly understand
a facility saying, "Look, you can't bring your sighted guide with you to
lead you around everywhere you go here.  That just isn't something we can
accomodate because it isn't reasonable."  That would defeat the purpose.
Most of us don't  consider  sighted guide  an independent means of
traveling but most would say a  cane and a guide dog are  independent means
of traveling in which the blind person is actively participating and
responsible for the ultimate outcome.

I wonder if  they were told about the communication that happens between
handler and dog, the  work
that goes into them being a team, the way each communicates with the other
but how it is  ultimately up to the blind person to  make decisions about
when to cross a street and  which way to tell the dog  to go.  Just like a
cane, the dog helps  the blind person to avoid  obstacles, to detect steps
and curbs, and to not veer into traffic. This all assumes the dog is
properly trained and that the training is  reinforced by the handler, of
course.  Was there testimony from trainers from a reputable school?  How
about by folks  from any of the guide dog organizations, either  NAGDU or
GDUI, since the center  shouldn't  be  exclusively in either camp given
state funding.

I think testimony from someone who worked there isn't exactly un biased
testimony.  The woman who works for IADP and uses a dog is in a weird spot
with possible conflict of interest.  She's not going to put her job on the
line, even if she does feel uncomfortable with the situation.  Someone from
an outside org should have also been involved. I don't know if this was the
case or not.

Unfortunately,  an animal also requires care and  reinforcement and
correction and so on. It is  not just a tool. I've known  people who will
say they think  a guide dog is a great mobility aid, but don't want  the
responsibility.   With an animal, there has to be a bond. The dog has to be
worked regularly or it will not retain its skill. If it is separated from
its handler for extensive periods of time, the bond will be damaged and the
working relationship will be damaged.  Cane skills may get rusty, but those
can be improved with practice.  Dogs can do this to an extent, but not if
the lack of use goes on for too long and not if the bond with the primary
handler is severely compromised.   Dogs aren't robots. How would an agency
such as the IADP  accomodate this?  Surely, there would be times when the
blind person would be allowed to choose to work their dog enough to keep its
skills up and so that the handler's skills don't get rusty either.  Would
the blind person be expected to return the dog to the school and have to go
and retrain with another dog at some later point. That  makes no sense at
all to me.

If  students there must  do all travel without any sighted assistance, I
suppose that means  asking for help from anyone sighted at
any point when executing a route, even  asking for directions  or to know
which streets are in front of and parallel to, is forbidden also.   GPS is
out, too.  To me, part of  being a well adjusted blind person is knowing
when to ask for help  instead of getting more lost or  putting oneself in
possibly dangerous situations, such as when at an intersection near lots of
loud equipment, for example.  Sighted people get lost and ask for
directions. If I'm in a hurry  to get somewhere and have a meeting or
something, and I  somehow realize I'm not  where I thought I was, I might
not always have time to  backtrack and figure things out for myself.  Does
that make me less  independent?  Or is it better to ask appropriate
questions to get back on track so I can make it where I need to be on time
and not completely frustrated and rattled.    Do I look less  independent
asking help or wandering around clearly confused and unsure where I am,
whether I'm using a dog or a cane?  Does that make me less independent?  I
don't think so.  It makes me someone who makes use of available resources. I
still have to decide what to do with the information I' given. That is
active not passive, unless I just let people tote me across the street, etc.

Even with a dog, there are times when I have to do the same things as far as
asking for an explanation of the intersection I'm approaching or  for
directions or for help across the street if there's a lot of noise.  Being
independent means nothing if I get creamed by a  car I don't hear, either
because there is too much background noise. I can hear it now, "Wow, that
blind girl just  got run over,
but at least she was trying to cross the street by herself and didn't ask
for help because she's so independent."

Some people have major veering problems and  a dog truly may be the safest
thing for these people, if the problem  persists despite lots of work  with
an O&M  instructor.  If someone keeps veering into traffic and can't master
that, for some reason, I'd much rather them have the option of learning to
work with a dog than to refuse to  travel due to fear  of winding up in
oncoming traffic.  Same goes if someone has a slight hearing loss where they
may not hear the quietter cars that are becoming more and more of a
challenge for all of us.  Having a dog may  truly be helpful as these
people will have  the added confidence that comes with working with an
animal who knows intelligent disobedience  in case the blind traveler
misses the sound of an approaching vehicle. I'm not talking about severe
hearing loss where it would always be unsafe for  the person to call
intersections.  I'm talking about how slight hearing loss can be  dangerous
for anyone with limitted vision who is trying to listen to  traffic
patterns. I'm not saying dog is better than cane.  I don't think there is
necessarily a better than. I think it is a matter of preference.  However, I
think there may be times, just as when a cane is best, that using a dog may
be the best thing.


In terms of O&M, I'm not sure good cane skills are as important as good
orientation skills.   Plenty of people, me included, can cross streets all
day long and follow a route but have trouble with orientation concepts. I'm
not one of those who couldn't find my way out of a paper bag but this does
make me less confident when  I travel, particularly in  unfamiliar areas.
Something in my brain just  gets scrambled when it  comes to some of that.
I'm not sure why that is. I have a guide dog, but I  know I'd have the same
problem with a cane. Reason being that it is about what's going on in my
brain,  not which  mode of travel I use.

Now, I know that using a cane properly is the mobility part of the usual
O&M.  Mobility instructors  usually don't have much experience with working
with guide dogs, and some of the guide dog schools don't even employ any
actual O&M instructors.    If I'm learning a new area, I may very well need
the help of an O&M instructor, whether I use a dog or a cane.  I don't
expect that person necessarily to have experience with guide dogs, though it
is true that schools do offer exposure to this for  those who teach O&M.  In
the past, instructors I've worked with  have largely  been there to assist
me with the orientation and making sure I am aware of any major concerns
with a route or area.  They allow me to work my dog and may point out a
problem they observe with what the dog is doing but that problem is mine to
handle unless the dog is continuing to  do things that put me at risk.  The
instructors  I've worked with have simply brainstormed with me and we've
communicated about how we would work together given their lack of experience
with guide dogs.

If my skills or the guide  dog's work are so poor   that  we are repeatedly
doing unsafe things in an instructor's presence, the  instructor can suggest
I contact the guide dog school or just say they don't feel able to  continue
helping me as I am not progressing towards stated goals or improving in
skill or responsive to  feedback, etc.  The same should be true if someone
is using a cane. It is pretty  clear what is  safe vs what is unsafe.
Boundaries are necessary and just as with clients, I have to draw lines at
times around what I will and will not continue to help with if the person
isn't working with me to accomplish their goals. That person should document
such issues, just as counselors do when  something may come back up where we
have to justify our actions taken, etc.

Guide dog schools do this when a team has not done what is necessary to
graduate and be sent home.   The schools put  lots of time and money (often
donated money as they are non profits) into their dogs and they do have
certain criteria for graduation. They hahve the final say in which teams go
home and which students will leave without a dog, but the dogs are matched
with students based on each students' individual needs. It is not a cookie
cutter thing.  Training is often individualized also due to particular
student needs.  Safety and ability to work successfully as a team are bottom
line requirements.

People have  to be comfortable using their particular mode of travel before
they can
truly focus on orientation, in my opinion. It is very difficult to  do work
on  orientation when one is concentrating on simply learning to use cane or
dog or whatever. In both cases, this is why the initial work is focussed on
proper  technique and confidence with the method in question.  Otherwise,
the person is going to be too distracted to be able to  stay focussed on
orientation issues.    There has to be a certain level of comfort to be able
to multi task that way.

Just because a person  uses a dog, that doesn't mean they can't go back and
learn  better cane skills. I'm not sure how that would be different from
learning to use a cane and then a dog.  Dog users should probably practice
with their canes often enough to feel comfortable with the  skill.  I do
think we should all know how to properly and efficiently use a  cane in case
we need it and that dog users should keep a cane with us.  Cane users should
probably always keep an extra cane with them.  Do we all do this?  I doubt
it. In all truthfulness, though, if something  happens to my dog such that
she suddenly becomes ill or incapacitated,  I will likely be too upset to
travel safely for  at least a day or so. Again, knowing when we are just in
no shape to  travel independently is no different than someone who drives
knowing when they're too upset or otherwise impaired to  operate a vehicle.
We need to be able to focus  on  traveling safely. If its for  a more long
term issue, then yes,  being comfortable using a cane again would be
important.

The other concern is that  each state generally only has one rehabilitation
facility for the blind, correct? Its not as if this woman had other options.
Probably, if she's working with state voc rehab,  she's  going to have
trouble being sent out of state. She also may not want to go out of state
due to difficulty   spending time with loved ones when not at the center.
Are the  course requirements spelled out at the rehab center as far as
descriptions and objectives being  given in a form document to each
potential student? Did she know all this when she  entered the program with
her dog?  Was all this formalized in preexisting documents?  I have trouble
believing no one has ever tried to use a dog in the rehab program there
before. What has happened in the past?  Was this just something that got
blown out of proportion?  Did she know what the deal was and choose to
challenge it by just walking in there with her dog so she would then be told
she couldn't use the dog and take it to court?    Maybe she just felt that
strongly about the situation or maybe she truly didn't know and assumed that
she would have the right to use her dog as she does in most other settings.

Do  students receive official grades and a transcript? Sylabi for each
class? Any freedom to choose electives?  These are not institutions of
higher education.  They don't give out college degrees.  Colleges and
universities do have  differing reputations also but I don't think  that
comparison really works for me.  I did make choices about which colleges and
universities I wanted to attend. I made those choices based on various
factors.  For grad school, for example, I wanted to focus more on clinical
work than on research so wanted a program where a thesis wasn't required.
The USC program was this way. They also were in state, which meant less
money than going out of state. They  allowed me to study  marriage and
family  therapy  in addition to  the basic counseling coursework.  I could
take the MAT or the GRE and I  took the  MAT.  I liked having that option.

Even with guide dog schools, there is a range of choices.  Are some better
than others?  I think most of us who use dogs recognize that reality.
Students who might make it through one program wouldn't evenbe accepted into
another.   Some offer home training, and others offer programs for those
with multiple disabilities. Some  pushfor high drama graduation  ceremonies
and meeting puppy raisers. Others don't require this. Some offer more follow
up support and so on.  Rehabilitation facility choices are much more
limitted. Where else would this student be expected to go if she insists on
using her dog for some or all of her training?

With all due respect,  how is  having an  Individualized Employment Plan
where a person is seeking to complete certain goals any different from each
person who is blind  having  individual needs  or reasons for attending a
rehab center.   Consumers need to be empowered to make decisions about their
own needs to at least some extent, in my opinion.  They should be presented
with rationale for options but be allowed some flexibility in  making
certain decisions based on stated goals. It can be documented that  the
higher ups or those in charge or whatever they're called advised against
such choices due to feeling that the client wouldn't  receive maximum
benefit  from the program, but that they believe in empowering the  user of
services, as an adult, to make certain choices. This doesn't mean completely
changing an entire  program, but it may mean  modifying something to meet a
person's needs. This is no different than allowing a student to use adaptive
technology or a reader to take a test, getting extra time, etc. That doesn't
mean   they don't meet prescribed requirements.  It may just mean they go
about meeting them differently.  That is different, in my opinion, from
opting out  entirely and getting a complete exemption from something that is
required of all students.  Isn't that what reasonable accomodation is?


Maybe I'm just missing a vital piece here, but those are the things I've
been thinking about.
Carmella