[il-talk] trying again

[David Meyer]

Dear Ms Reaves: This letter is a response to your article in the magazine
section of May 3, Livid in the Loop. This article is quite problematic.  As
you might suspect, your article is one that would evoke an emotional
response, particularly by those of us who are blind that read it. From my
perspective the problem with your article is not the question posed,
Rather, it was your response to it. Personally, I believe that the person
who posed the question had a right to feel angry and hurt by the way she was
treated.  On the other hand, the blind person who was grabbed prior to the
verbal exchange might also have had a right to feel defensive.  First of
all, let me say that it was not appropriate for the blind person to have
snapped at this individual if she tried to keep him out of traffic.  On the
other hand, it is not appropriate to bodily grab a blind person while he is
walking down the street, just as it is not appropriate to grab a sighted
person doing the same thing.  A better way to approach this dilema would
have been to verbally ask the blind person if he were ok, or perhaps she
might have verbally pointed out that the blind person was about to walk into
traffic before offering further assistance.  Another thing the writer might
have done was to simply ask the blind person if he needed help.  He could
have either said yes and accepted the help offered or If the answer would
have been no, the writer could have respected his right to decline
assistance by not offering any further help. In defense of the writer posing
the question you attempted to address, I'm sure this person was startled to
see the blind person walking into traffic and without thinking very much
about it, did the first thing that came to her mind, hold the blind person
back to keep him from eminent danger.  On the other hand, the blind person
was in all likelyhood startled and angry himself when he was grabbed.  And
it is these feelings of anger which may have prompted him to snap at the
individual trying to help, something that he shouldn't have done and in all
likelyhood wouldn't have done had he had time to think about his response.
It seems to me that there was enough emotion on both sides of the exchange
to evoke immediate action and reaction by both parties rather than reasoned
responses. The real problem with your article as I see it was the way you
responded.  You strongly suggested to the writer that if she were to see
that blind person again, she should bite him in the ankle and then scream,
"rabid dog, rabid dog!" Though you probably meant for your response to be
sort of tongue and cheak, you forgot one thing.  As a newspaper columnist
and as one who's job it is to advise people on questions they might have
regarding interactions they have with others, you are seen at least by some
people as an authority figure.  Put another way, there are people who might
actually take you seriously and that is perhaps the most damning peace of
this entire article. You refer to the blind person as a jerk for snapping at
the lady who wished to help.  Though I will not refer to you as a jerk
personally, certainly your advice to this woman is about as low and
repugnant as any I have come across. You are right to point out that the
blind person should have been more courteous in his interactions with
people.  At the same time, you are compromising your professionalism with
the response you gave.  As an author-columnist, you should do what you can
to hold yourself out as a roll model rather than to advocate savagery. Along
with this letter, I will send you a copy of courtessy rules of blindness
which might serve to guide you in future responses, should you be consulted
again with a similar inquiry. Sincerely, David Meyer, President National
Federation of the Blind of Illinois Chicago Chapter