[nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
Fred Wurtzel
f.wurtzel at comcast.net
Tue Mar 16 20:29:49 UTC 2010
Hi List,
I decided to post the item I mentioned. I thoutht it was Dr. Jernigan.
Turns out it is Dr. tenBroek. Enjoy.
PROS AND CONS OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF BLIND PERSONS
Address by Professor Jacobus tenBroek
AAWB Convention, Quebec, June 19, 1955
The topic of this discussion immediately suggests the ambivalence, if
not the
outright hostility, aroused in most of us by the idea of preferential
treatment.
If it implies unwarranted favors and advantages, as it sometimes seems to,
how is
such treatment to be justified with reference to the blind, or, for that
matter,
with reference to any group? If the blind are normal, as they claim, why do
they
need to be treated differently? If their objective is really social equality
and
integration, is it not true that preferential treatment serves to perpetuate
special
status, with all its connotations of inequality and inferiority? Is there
anything
about the problems of the blind or of blindness which makes necessary or
desirable
some form of preferential treatment? "Any class," wrote one blind man,
"which demands
special privileges soon finds itself a dependent class" and "the blind of
America
have developed a progressive disease--that of dependency."
We espouse the principle, wrote another blind man, "that the blind are
normal
and competent people, capable of making their own way, on a basis of
equality." Yet
at the same time, we ask "special concessions and privileges on the basis
that we
are helpless and unequal." "We cannot have our cake and eat it too and such
measures
and propaganda stressing the inequality of the blind are bound to have a
most damaging
effect upon our primary goal of equality."
Let us begin our analysis of the pros and cons of preferential
treatment of
the blind at the beginning, that is, by defining the terms used.
Preferential treatment of the blind is treatment which singles out the
blind
for special favors, advantages, or benefits. In short, it is any special
treatment.
Preferential treatment may be based on an irrational whim, prejudice, or
taste--as
when one prefers strawberries instead of blueberries, or as when it is said
"gentlemen
prefer blondes." On the other hand, preferential or special treatment may be
based
on the possession by the group receiving it of some distinctive talents or
unique
qualities or peculiar needs having a relationship to a proper public policy
or socially
desirable objective.
There are no pros, there are only cons, with regard to the preferential
treatment
of the blind, which is founded in irrational whim, prejudice, or taste; and
the blind
cannot rightly claim, nor do they generally want, mere favoritism, public or
private,
any more than they claim or want the opposite: discriminatory disadvantage,
guilt-or-shame-motivated
rejection, kindness-inspired overprotection, or unthinking exclusion. The
pros and
cons of preferential treatment founded in special qualities or needs of the
group
depend in each individual instance upon three factors: (1) upon a faithful
determination
and accurate evaluation of the special qualities or needs of the blind; (2)
upon
a correct appraisal of the public policy or social objective sought to be
achieved
by the particular preferential treatment; and (3) upon the adaptation of
means to
ends, that is, upon whether the means are proper and there is a close and
substantial
relationship between the special qualities and needs of the blind, on the
one hand,
and the policy or objective on the other.
The other term that must be defined is "the blind." Who are the blind?
What
is blindness?
The term blindness in its literal denotative sense means loss of
eyesight; the
absence of visual acuity. It refers to a strictly physical condition. The
blind,
then, are simply those who cannot see. Nothing more, nothing less!
The term blindness, however, also has a wider connotative sense. In
this sense,
it refers to restricted social and economic contact, opportunity and
activity. To
be stripped of eyesight is to be shorn of full-fledged membership in
society.
The difference between the denotative and connotative meanings of
blindness
is exactly that between disability and handicap. Disability refers to a
physical
deprivation; handicap to the social consequences of that deprivation. The
distinction
may be seen in the fact that there are many disabilities which carry little
or no
handicap, such as the chronic laryngitis of Andy Devine, the undersize of
jockeys,
or the oversize of basketball players. Likewise, there are handicaps with no
disability,
such as the black skin of American Negroes or the religion of the Jews in
Nazi Germany.
Disability is properly the concern of medical science. We can do little
about the
physical fact of blindness except to cure it or live with it. But it is not
blindness
alone that we live with. We live with the other people, which is to say we
live in
society. It is society which creates and imposes the handicap of blindness,
for it
consists of the misconceptions of the sighted about the nature of the
physical disability.
The principal misconception, the one that embodies and epitomizes all the
rest, is
that blindness means helplessness--social and economic incapacity; the
destruction
of the productive powers; the obliteration of the ability to contribute to
or benefit
from normal community participation; in short, the lingering image of the
helpless
blind man.
Three comments about the social handicap of blindness are particularly
in order:
(1) To place responsibility for it upon the sighted is not to speak in terms
of blame
or recrimination. Far from it! The misconceptions are sanctioned by a
society motivated
mainly by benevolence, wishing above all else to be kind and helpful. (2)
Wherever,
as happens with increasing frequency, an individual blind person breaks
through the
social barriers, his success is likely to be attributed to his possession of
special
genius or compensatory powers either superhuman or supernatural which leave
the overall
image of blindness intact. (3) Public attitudes about the blind inevitably
become
the attitudes of the blind. The blind see themselves as others see them.
They accept
the public view of their limitations and thus do much to make them a
reality.
Most people exaggerate the physical and underemphasize the social
aspect of
blindness. Our distinguished and able chairman, Father Carroll, has defined
blindness
in terms of twenty lacks and losses. I am one of Father Carroll's numerous
admirers.
But I admire him more for his willingness to prepare a list than for the
list he
has prepared. It seems to me that he falls prey to the common fallacy. Note
what
a large percentage of the items on the list refers to the physical fact of
blindness
and its immediate physical and personal consequences; what a small
percentage refers
to the broadly social. What may be known hereafter as Father Carroll's Lacks
and
Losses reads as follows: 1) loss of physical integrity; 2) loss of
confidence in
the remaining senses; 3) loss of reality contact; 4) loss of visual
background; 5)
loss of "light"; 6) loss of mobility; 7) loss of visual perception:
beautiful; 8)
loss of visual perception: pleasurable; 9) loss of ease of written
communication;
10) loss of ease of spoken communication; 11) loss of means for
informational progress;
12) loss of recreation; 13) loss of technique, daily living; 14) loss of
career:
vocation; goal; job opportunity; 15) loss of financial security; 16) loss of
personal
independence; 17) loss of social adequacy; 18) loss of obscurity, anonymity;
19)
loss of self-esteem; 20) loss of total personality organization.
I would not have you believe that I under-assess the importance of the
physical
disability. Without sight, the range of perception is narrowed. Objects
which can
be seen from afar must be near at hand to be discernible by other senses.
And the
blind person who has not scuffed his shins on low-lying implements and toys
carelessly
left on the sidewalk or stumbled over a curb, or bumped his head on an
overhanging
awning or branch has never left his armchair. These are undeniably
embarrassing or
uncomfortable experiences; but they are properly to be classified as minor
annoyances
or distractive nuisances like shaving in the morning or removing your glass
eyes
at night. In my experience, blind people who are willing to move and put one
foot
out in front of the other always somehow get where they want to go.
In any event, the main point is that the real affliction of blindness
is not
the physical disability or its immediate consequences but the social
handicap. It
therefore becomes most important to analyze the precise nature of the
handicap. Of
what does it consist? What are the elements which compose it? What does it
mean to
be excluded from society? What are the rights of membership of which the
blind are
thus deprived?
To answer these questions one must identify the main features of
American society,
for it is denial of participation in these which constitutes the handicap of
blindness.
The process of answering the questions therefore is one of re-surveying
American
social and political thought and constitution ideals, one of restating the
principles,
doctrines, and concepts that are contained therein.
The task of restating American social and political assumptions and
goals is
complicated by a number of facts and factors. Major American social and
political
principles, such as the dignity of the individual, liberty, equality, and
private
property, are so intermingled and overlapping that it is difficult to
separate any
one of them out for single treatment.
Emphasis on the various elements has shifted at different periods in
our history,
in the documents which have embodied and expressed different movements,
forces, and
times, and among the prominent political writers and speakers. Equality was
the dominant
note in the Declaration of Independence. Property assumed relatively a
stronger position
in the Constitution. During the nineteenth century when fortune and
geography gave
the nation military safety, and free land and the open frontier gave
individuals
a sense of economic safety, security was assumed and liberty was elevated
into a
primary position. Today, as Ralph Henry Gabriel writes, "When the
traditional foundations
of culture crumble, ... when government by law gives way to government by
irresponsible
force, the preoccupation with liberty as an end in itself is replaced by a
new search
for security, mental, social, economic, and even physical."1
Sometimes, indeed, going far beyond mere shifts in emphasis, the
elements are
presented as irreconcilably contradictory. Read for example this passage
from William
Graham Sumner: "Let it be understood that we cannot go outside this
alternative:
liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; non-liberty, equality,
survival of
the unfittest. The former carries society upwards and favors all of its best
members;
the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members."2
Finally, the task of stating American social and political principles
is made
difficult by the fact that they are not fixed and immutable as the laws of
the Medes
and the Persians were reputed to be. To the extent that they are a living
reality
in a developing democracy, they are constantly growing, maturing, and
changing. Every
generation, every decade is a formative period in the constitutional life of
the
nation. In our generation, the creative interpretation and application of
American
social and political principles in the sphere of international organization
and in
the social and economic sphere are in process.
Yet, despite these difficulties in stating them, the major elements in
the set
of widely accepted and persistently enduring political principles and social
ethics
are identifiable and subject to description and characterization. The
"easily remembered"
formulations can be found in the landmark documents of our history. These
documents
not only express and embody movements and periods of the past but are as
well basic
forces of government in the present and for the future. They include the
Declaration
of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, the Preamble to the United States
Constitution,
the state constitutions, the Civil War amendments to the United States
Constitution,
and the more famous pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court.
1. Liberty. In American political thought, liberty has many aspects and
sources.
It is both positive and negative. It is political, economic, personal, and,
in a
broad sense, social. It is founded by some in positivism; by others, in
natural law;
by still others in moral law. It sets in equilibrium constitutionalism and
democracy.
In part, liberty consists in protection against the will of the
majority, no
matter how regularly manifested and how lacking in oppressiveness or
arbitrariness.
In this aspect, it is embodied in an array of restraints on governmental
action and
the organized power of society. The existence of a constitutionally arranged
governmental
structure and distribution of powers, in fact, the existence of a
constitution at
all implies a system of limited government. The Constitution, too, contains
many
explicit prohibitions on government. Though some exist elsewhere in the
Constitution,
the Bill of Rights and the other amendments are, of course, a catalogue of
these.
Among them are the protection given life, liberty, and property, the
requirement
of established and regular procedures by government, and the guarantee of
immunity
from unreasonable intrusions into the privacy of one's person, house,
papers, and
effects. The many safeguards against improper conviction for crime refer not
only
to the technical aspects of criminal justice, but bespeak the basic right of
personal
freedom, i.e., freedom to move about as one pleases and to be not subject to
surveillance
and custodialization by the agents of the state. Likewise, freedom from
slavery and
peonage is decreed, implying not only self-ownership but free labor and the
right
to the rewards of labor.
A dominant part of American social and political thought has always
been a notion
that these rights, thus fixed in the Constitution, are the indivestible
possessions
of individuals even when not so guaranteed. Whether derived from natural
law, moral
law, higher law, or various other concepts about the fundamental nature of
man and
society, this notion has found constant expression throughout our history.
Its standard
formulation is in the Declaration of Independence: "[T]hat [men] are endowed
by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty,
and
the pursuit of happiness." These rights governments were instituted to
secure and
protect, not to create and confer.3
The conception that rights which are regarded as very important are
somehow
natural rights or derive from a higher law results from a philosophic view
which
has lost much of its persuasion and support in recent decades. The Founding
Fathers,
however, and most American statesmen down through the Civil War period, made
it their
starting point. Natural rights thus became inextricably woven into the
fabric of
American social and political thought and popular belief. They lurk just
below the
surface of many of our State papers, judicial pronouncements, and political
orations
of today. Of those Americans who do not accept this particular philosophical
conception
most still insist upon the great importance and basic character of the
rights proclaimed.
So far, I have spoken of the constitutional side of constitutional
democracy.
The democracy side is a positive aspect of liberty. It has to do with the
individual's
right to participate in government, in the determination of social direction
and
policy. Its foundation is the doctrine of popular sovereignty and the
consent of
the governed. Its implementations are the right of suffrage, the right to
seek and
hold office, and the right of the majority to rule. Its indispensable
conditions
are freedom of speech, press, and assembly.4
Liberty is positive in another phase besides that of the co-sovereignty
of citizens
of a republic. Government is responsible for the protection of the rights of
the
individual. This cannot be wholly achieved by the government itself
refraining from
invading them. It must prevent others from invading them. It must eliminate
and control
the conditions which nullify them or make their exercise impossible. It must
foster,
promote, establish, and maintain the conditions which make their exercise
possible
and significant. This is especially true if the right is active rather than
passive;
if it involves doing and not just being; acquiring and not just having;
speaking
and not just listening. Congress, as Webster declared in his famous debate
with Hayne,
is under an obligation to exercise the powers delegated to it in the
Constitution
for the purpose of achieving the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the
Constitution--to
"establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and
our posterity....."5
Men have a right to live, to personal freedom and personal security.
They have
the right to marry, have and rear children, and to maintain a home.6 They
have a
right, so far as government can assure it, to that fair opportunity to earn
a livelihood
which will make these other rights possible and significant.7 Men may not
be bound
to the place of their poverty and misfortune; they may move freely about the
country
in search of new opportunity.8 They have a right freely to choose their
field of
endeavor, unhindered by arbitrary, artificial and man-made impediments.9
They have
a right to enter the common trades, callings, and occupations of the
community. They
have the right, if they are free, to manage their own affairs as they see
fit, unless
and until there is interference with the equal rights of others to manage
their affairs
or there is injury to the welfare of the community.
"It is not enough," wrote the President's Committee on Civil Rights in
1947,
"that full and equal membership in society entitles the individual to an
equal voice
in the control of his government; it must also give him the right to enjoy
the benefits
of society and to contribute to its progress.... Without this equality of
opportunity,
the individual is deprived of the chance to develop his potentialities and
to share
the fruits of society. The group also suffers through the loss of the
contributions
which might have been made by persons excluded from the main channels of
social and
economic activity."
2. The Dignity of Man. Deeply imbedded in this conception of liberty is
a democratic
view of the individual, of his role in society, relation to the state,
essential
dignity and worth. It is the individual who possesses rights which are
fundamental
and inalienable. He is at the beginning and the end of the State. He
organizes it
and gives it authority. Its powers are conferred to protect his rights and
to assure
the conditions necessary for their maximum expression. The State exists for
his benefit,
not he for its. "In democratic society," wrote Charles Merriam, "regard for
the dignity
of man stands behind the throne of public order, a constant reminder of the
need
for liberty and justice as well as order, a constant plea that the human
personality
shall not be forgotten in the multiplications of laws, in the ramifications
of administration
or in the antiquarianism of formal justice."10 Democracy breathes respect
for all
men and seeks to preserve their individuality and autonomy. This spirit is
violated
wherever men are alienated or sheltered from the mainstream: not only in the
overt
gestures of rejection but in the sentimental embrace of patronage and
protection.
Humanity is degraded and individuality disparaged by treatment of the person
as a
unit in a category determined by irrelevant traits, defined and measured not
in unique
terms of personal character and achievement but in the stereotype terms of
physical,
or national, or racial difference.
3. The Rights to Property and to Contract. The rights to property and
contract
have likewise been regarded as fundamental in the American system. The right
to property
along with life and liberty is listed as one of the three great rights of
all free
men in Chapter 39 of the Magna Charta. It appears thus also in the American
State
Constitutions, early and late, in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in the
United
States Constitution, Amendments V and XIV and elsewhere.11
The rights to liberty, property, and contract are interlocking if not
interchangeable
concepts, The right to contract is sometimes stated as an incident to the
right to
property; sometimes as an independent aspect of liberty. Property is
described by
some as sufficiently broad to incorporate all other rights of individuals,
including
liberty; and liberty is often regarded by others as broad enough to
encompass the
right to acquire, use, and enjoy property. The three rights of liberty,
property,
and contract are thus intimately associated in American thinking.12
Property and contract rights are not unlimited; but on the contrary,
are subject
to public control in the public interests. They may be abridged, and, in
some cases,
destroyed altogether, if that is necessary to protect the community against
injury
or danger in any form, against fraud, or vice, or economic oppression, or
serious
public inconvenience, or depression, or other disasters. The power to
control is
coextensive with the social and economic activities of men. It finds its
limit in
the nature of the acts forbidden or required and its justification in the
direct
relation of these acts to the public welfare or to the equal property rights
of others.
The power of the State over property and contract rights, however, is
not merely
negative or incidental to the power to legislate for the health, safety,
morals,
and general welfare of the community. The basic character of the right and
the purpose
of government regarding it cannot be minimized or ignored. That purpose, as
in the
case of liberty, is to protect and preserve, maintain, and nurture the
right. The
power to regulate the use of property and contract, consequently, may not,
save in
very rare and special circumstances, be converted into the power directly to
take
property and contract rights. And in discharging its primary and affirmative
duty
with respect to these rights, the State must keep constantly in view the
essential
values of private property in our system. It is a central factor in the
organization
of society. It is an impelling source of motivation. It is a principal
incentive
for productive activity. It is a reward for labor and contribution. It is at
once
the object of individual enterprise and success and the means of achieving
success.
And contract is the form of expression and governing instrument, not only of
most
business activity, but as well of most of the transactions of daily life.
4. Equality. Only second to liberty itself in our history has been the
ideal
of equality. In fact, equality has always conditioned liberty and determined
its
character just as liberty has always conditioned equality and determined its
character.
In the Declaration of Independence, the first of the "self-evident truths"
is that
all men are created equal; and all men are equally "endowed by their Creator
with
certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness."
Alexis de Tocqueville, in 1835, described equality in America as "the
fundamental
fact from which all others seem to be derived and the central point at which
all
my observations constantly terminated." In his view, it gave "a peculiar
direction
to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to
the
governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed." It "extends far
beyond
the political character and the laws of the country, and... has no less
effect on
civil society than on the government; it creates opinions, gives birth to
new sentiments,
founds novel customs, and modifies whatever it does not produce."13
Equality, even more than liberty, stood in the forefront of the
historic struggle
in the nation to abolish property in man and the institution of slavery;
and, along
with liberty, emerged in the Civil War amendments to the Constitution. The
Thirteenth
Amendment, freeing men from slavery and nationalizing the right of freedom,
nationally
guaranteed what slavery denied: the equal right of all to enjoy protection
in those
natural rights which constitute freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment, in the
three redundant
clauses of Section I, re-embodied these same objectives and added an
explicit guarantee
of the equal protection of the laws, thereby adding another confirmatory
reference
to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are equally
entitled
to the protection of government in the enjoyment of their natural and
inalienable
rights.14
Like liberty, equality has many phases. One of them relates to the
doctrine
of proper classification. The laws must be aimed at the achievement of a
public and
constitutional purpose. They may not be motivated by hatred, vengeance,
favoritism,
or private gain. Legislation framed with a discriminatory purpose,
manifesting "an
evil eye and an unequal hand" contains an elementary antagonism to the idea
of the
equality of men. Once legislation is endowed with a public and
constitutional purpose,
it still must meet other tests. Because there are real differences among
men, regulation
would be altogether ineffective if it had to apply to all or none. The law
must therefore
be selective. But to be equal, it must treat all those similarly situated
alike.
The differences between men that underlie selection must be real differences
and
must bear an intimate relationship to the purpose of the law and valid
social goals.
All other differences are irrelevant and must be ignored. "Class
Legislation," said
Justice Field in summing up this doctrine, "discriminating against some and
favoring
others, is prohibited, but legislation which, in carrying out a public
purpose, is
limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects
alike
all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment."15
Another phase of the idea of equality is the rule of law. If all men
are created
equal and equally possess certain rights, and if governments are instituted
to secure
and maintain those rights, and men therefore are equally entitled to such
protection,
the protection can only be afforded by uniform rule, that is, by law. One
way of
putting this is the expression "Equality before the Law." Another way is in
the celebrated
words of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights: "That the government of the
Commonwealth
may be a government of laws and not of men" Thus, in this aspect, the
doctrine of
equality is in effect a command that the government act by established and
regular
procedures and by uniform rules. It is a command that the purely personal,
the arbitrary,
capricious and whimsical, be reduced and eliminated from the exercise of
power. It
is a command that the rules be fixed and announced in advance in a way which
will
make them freely and publicly available. It is a requirement of a degree of
certainty
and predictability in government action and of a system of rights growing
out of
uniform rules. It is finally an order that administrators as well as
legislators
act within these confines.
In still another phase, equality is not negative and procedural but
positive
and substantial. Anatole France referred to "the majestic equality of the
laws which
forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in tile
streets, and
to steal their bread." But the demands of equality are not met by the equal
treatment
which results from the absence of the laws or from the indiscriminate
application
of the laws to those who are dissimilarly situated. Moreover, the demands of
equality
are not exhausted by the doctrine of classification and the rule of law. The
equal
protection of the laws refers to the quality of the laws as well as to the
mechanics
of their operation. The reign of equal laws involves as well the reign of
just laws,
and the maintenance of equality in the enjoyment of rights is at the heart
of the
system of justice. Equality thus must be the very purpose of governmental
action
and policy as well as a test and measure of its means. It must "give
direction to
public opinion," determine "the tenor of the laws, impart "maxims to the
governing
authorities," and modify "whatever it does not produce."
Particularly is the government under a duty to guarantee equality of
opportunity.
Without that, freedom itself cannot last and becomes an illusion. The only
aristocracy
that a system founded upon equality can tolerate is an aristocracy of
personal merit
and achievement. Uniformity and regimentation, on the one hand, and status,
influence,
and power based on birth, social position, or inheritance on the other hand,
are
equally incompatible with equality. Equality of all men presupposes respect
for the
rights of others. In a society of equals, therefore, men are free to be
different.
All limitations on opportunity, all restrictions on the individual based on
irrelevant
differences of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and the like,
are in
conflict with equality and must be removed and forbidden. Access to the
mainstreams
of community life, the aspirations and achievements of each member of
society, are
to be limited only by the skills, energy, talents, and ability he brings to
the opportunities
equally open to all Americans.
>From what I have said so far, a number of propositions emerge:
(1) Preferential treatment of the blind based on favoritism, privilege,
whim,
prejudice, patronage, pity, charity, self-interest of others, or feelings of
like
or dislike, cannot be justified and indeed does a great deal of harm. On the
other
hand, preferential treatment which takes account of the special qualities or
needs
of the blind or aspects of their situation not shared by others, which is
aimed at
a desirable social objective and which employs proper means properly
adapted to
this purpose is not only justifiable preferential treatment but is treatment
which
should be at the foundation of all public and private policy toward the
blind.
(2) Blindness has a dual aspect: the physical and the social. The first
is the
disability; the second is the handicap. Treatment of the disability is a
medical
task. Overcoming the handicap is the function of rehabilitation.
(3) The handicap consists mainly of the misconceptions of the sighted
about
the physical disability which result in social exclusion. In all but the
physical
sense, and even to some extent in that, it consists of a loss of full
membership
in society; a denial to the blind of the rights and goals which others
share--liberty,
equality, property, dignity.
(4) Overcoming the handicap of blindness, therefore, means removing the
bars,
exclusion, and denials of which the handicap consists: conferring on the
blind the
title deeds of social freedom and membership; the rights of liberty,
equality, property,
and dignity; in short, their reintegration into society.
(5) Programs which address themselves to this purpose or which move in
this
direction, while they necessarily involve preferential treatment, meet all
the tests
and standards set up for good policy. Such special arrangements might better
go by
the name of equal treatment. Indeed, to lift from the backs of the blind the
special,
heavy, and unnecessary burdens which society has caused them to bear and to
call
this preferential treatment can hardly be regarded as anything but the
bitterest
irony. Programs which move in the opposite direction, which accept and build
upon
the public misconceptions about the nature of the physical disability, which
presuppose
the incapacity and abnormality of the blind and which institutionalize that
presupposition
in segregation and custodialization--all programs, in other words, which
continue
or intensify social exclusion or which are motivated by patronage, charity,
whim,
prejudice, or self-interest involve preferential or special treatment which
increases
the handicap. They perpetuate the very attitudes and conditions which they
should
be designed to prevent.
(6) Preferential treatment is also justified which: (a) tends to
ameliorate
the immediate physical consequences of the physical disability of blindness;
or (b)
pending the day when integration has been achieved, mitigates the financial
and other
consequences of social exclusion or offsets the disadvantage resulting there
from
by means which do not further entrench the public misconception or which do
so as
little as possible.
(7) To be consistent with the standards dictated by the basic
principles of
our social, political, and constitutional system, programs for the blind
must:
(a) Allow the blind to manage their own personal affairs and proceed on
the
assumption that they are capable of doing so.
(b) Not only permit the blind, but stimulate and encourage them to
develop their
potentialities, share in the fruits of society, and contribute to its work
and progress.
(c) And to do this, not only permit, but stimulate and encourage the
blind to
work, to engage in individual enterprise, to exercise free judgment and free
movement
in the search for opportunity, freely to choose their fields of endeavor and
to enter
the common callings, trades, occupations, and professions of the community.
(d) To stimulate and encourage the blind to do these things by relying
on the
normal incentives, principal among which are financial remuneration and the
improvement
of one's economic lot and social status.
(e) Permit, stimulate, and encourage the blind to acquire, enjoy, and
use property,
real and personal, not just for immediate consumption purposes but as a
motivational
source of endeavor and a means of economic improvement.
(f) Protect the essential dignity of the individual: by recognizing the
worth
of the human personality and treating it as a community asset rather than a
community
liability; by supplying aids and services without humiliation, without undue
intrusion
into the privacy of the recipient, without imposing upon him the badges and
indicia
of a needy and special status, without subjecting him to the personal
judgments of
social workers influenced by humanity, charity, approval, or other emotions;
by making
possible a standard and circumstance of living not conspicuously different
from that
enjoyed by the rest of the community; by leaving recipients free to make
their own
decisions as to spending, living arrangements, and personal matters.
(g) If the demands of equality are to be met, public financial aid must
be granted
as a matter of right, the element of personal discretion exercised by
administrators
and welfare workers must be eliminated, the amount and conditions of the aid
must
be specified in uniform rules made accessible to recipients and prospective
recipients
and sufficiently exact so that recipients may determine to what they are
entitled
and what their responsibilities are. Legislative and administrative
standards must
be established which are uniformly applied, which treat all welfare
recipients alike
who are similarly situated with respect to a valid purpose of the welfare
law, and
which vary the amount and the condition of the grant when there are real
differences
among recipients in terms of their relationship to the welfare program.
Finally,
equality requires--as does liberty, the dignity of the individual and the
essential
notion of property--that the purpose of the welfare law be opportunity as
well as
security. Relief rolls should provide relief; but they must also provide the
means
of escape from them. Reintegration into society through open and equal
access to
the mainstream of community productive activity must be an object of welfare
law
and a measure of its adaptation if the fundamental political and
constitutional principles
of our system are to be honored in the fact as well as held out in the
promise.
Measured by these standards, evaluated in the light of these
considerations,
how do our programs and provisions for the blind prove out? The answer must
be mixed.
Some programs are well-adapted to these principles; others poorly; and still
others
are in flat contradiction of them. Unfortunately, some of the most important
programs
fall into the latter two categories.
The rapidly growing and recently created system of orientation and
adjustment
centers--focusing on mobility training, personal care, prevocational manual
skills,
and the development of attitudes which make these other activities possible
and fruitful-are
properly oriented and adjusted to reduce the immediate physical consequences
of the
disability of blindness, to uproot the conviction of incompetence, and to
impart
self-confidence, hope, and a zest for living.
The home teacher system, though hampered by the need to deal with the
blind
person in his home and then only in occasional short visits, substantially
moves
in the same direction as the orientation center. It is most effective when
used as
a case-finder for the center and otherwise works in close collaboration with
it.
It is least effective when it emphasizes handicraft as mere busy work or
when it
teaches Braille to clients who will never have any use for it.
White Cane laws, now enacted in almost all the states, by giving the
blind a
legal position in traffic and moderating the discriminatory harshness of the
contributory
negligence rule, make meaningful for the blind the human and constitutional
right
of free movement, just as the cane itself makes more meaningful the physical
capacity
of free movement.
What about good vision requirements established in many laws and
regulations
dealing with jobs, licenses, and the like? Some of these are, of course,
perfectly
in order. Where sight is indispensable to the performance of the task--as in
hunting
with a gun, driving a truck, or working as a photographer of wildlife for
the National
Park Service--the blind are legitimately excluded. Where sight is not
indispensable,
as is the case in thousands of jobs public and private from which the blind
are now
barred--the continued exclusion of the blind can have no special
justification. In
many of these cases, the bars remain up because those who tend them have
only their
misconceptions to guide them.
Laws and regulations giving preference to blind persons with respect to
jobs
are not mere favoritism if they are based on the special qualifications of
the blind
to perform the tasks assigned. This is clearly so when the blind are called
upon
to work in or administer programs affecting the blind. In that circumstance,
blindness
is an enabling asset endowing the worker with special knowledge, experience,
and
the confidence of his clients which probably cannot be secured in any other
way than
by being blind. Of course this enabling asset should be given determinative
weight
only when other things are equal. For the blind to be given preference in
other situations
in which blindness does not contribute to the ability to do the work would
be as
unjustifiable as to discriminate against the blind in jobs in which
blindness does
not detract from the ability to do the work.
What about vending stands for which the blind are given rent-free
locations
on public property, in connection with the establishment of which they are
given
a preference and protection against vending machine competition, and with
respect
to the operation of which blindness is not an enabling asset? These special
arrangements
will not withstand merited criticism once the blind have achieved a footing
of complete
economic equality. Until that time arrives, however, the vending stand
program is
preferential treatment which is justified as a small offset to almost
universal economic
discrimination against the blind; and one in which bona fide jobs are
provided for
qualified blind workers at comparatively negligible cost to the public; and
one in
which the blind are presented to the public in an aspect of competence and
normality.
If the management of the vending stand programs is to be consistent with the
standards
above discussed, it must keep supervision and control at an absolute
minimum; allow
the operator to purchase his stand and equipment with only an option to
repurchase
by the public; give the operator complete independence in the management of
his business
affairs retaining only the power to revoke the license if the operator
proves incompetent
or becomes publicly obnoxious; protect the operator's profits against
confiscation
for the support of supervisory personnel or sub-marginal stands which the
administrators
have mistakenly established in unprofitable locations. The control system,
on the
contrary, reflects the custodial attitude toward the role and abilities of
the blind,
a conviction that the blind are incapable of running their own businesses
and incompetent
to lead their own lives.
Let us turn next to public assistance. Liberty in the direction of
one's affairs,
the whole basic principle of self-management, is violated by the means test.
Under
it, the individual recipient soon loses control of his daily activities and
the whole
course and direction of his life. The capacity for self-direction presently
atrophies
and drops away. With each new item budgeted or eliminated, with each new
resource
tracked down and evaluated, the social worker's influence increases. This is
an inevitable
concomitant of the means test. It results from the nature and extent of the
system.
It is bred and nourished by the provisions of the statutes and the rules
issued under
them. It is in the flexible joints of the cumbersome machinery. It is in the
detail
and intimacy of the investigation. It is in the inescapable confinements of
the budget.
It is in the idleness defeatism, and waning spirit of the recipient.
Whatever the
social worker's wishes and intentions, her hand becomes the agency of
direction in
his affairs. The "concern of assistance with the whole range of income,"
wrote Karl
DeSchweinitz, "always contains a threat to the freedom of the individual.
Even when
there is no conscious intent to dictate behavior to the beneficiary, the
pervasive
power of money dispensed under the means test may cause the slightest
suggestion
to have the effects of compulsion `Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.'"16
Not only is liberty violated by the means test but so also are dignity
and equality--and
for many of the same reasons. Dignity is jeopardized by the initial
financial investigation,
by the searching inquiry into every intimate detail of need, living habits,
family
relations, by the setting up of a detailed budget of expenditures subject to
repeated
examination and review, by the continuously implied and often explicit
threat that
if behavior is uncooperative or unapproved, aid will be reduced or stopped,
by the
wholesale substitution of agency and social worker controls for the personal
direction
of personal affairs, by the unwarrantable intrusions into privacy involved
in each
of the foregoing and the galling humiliation of the whole process, and,
finally,
by the constant tendency of the whole system to push living standards down
below
a minimum of decency and health.
The excessive individualization of the whole design and process of
means test
aid is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of equality. A system which
makes so
much depend upon a minute examination of every aspect of the individual's
situation
necessarily involves personalized judgments by officials and invites
arbitrary and
whimsical exercises of power, prevents the enforcement of a uniform rule
even when
the legislative provisions and administrative regulations are detailed and
exact,
renders it impossible for the recipient himself to determine to what he is
entitled,
constitutes the very thing intended to be prevented by the idea of "a
government
of laws and not of men," and flies in the face of basic requirements of
proper classification.
Since with respect to the purposes of public assistance law most individuals
are
parts of groups standing in the same relationship, those who are similarly
situated
are not treated alike and real differences are frequently disregarded.
Means test aid also violates the notion of individual opportunity,
access to
the mainstream of community productive activity and normal incentives. Since
means
test aid requires that all income and resources of the recipient be applied
to meet
his current needs, and since the public assistance grant is reduced by the
amount
of any such available income or resources, the usual financial motive for
effort
and endeavor is removed from the recipient unless the recipient can gain
enough and
with sufficient certainty to be independent of the relief rolls.
Granting aid as a matter of right contradicts practically all of the
tendencies
inherent in the means test and produces a system more consonant with the
political
and constitutional assumptions and goals of American democracy.
Aid as a matter of right requires the establishment of fixed and
uniform rules
specifying the terms and conditions of the grant. Thus the principal
features of
the system must be laid down by the legislature. This contrasts with the
means test
variable grant, based on individual need individually determined by the
administrative
agency under discretionary authority conferred by the legislature. Those who
are
similarly situated are therefore necessarily treated alike and under
standards comparable
with those governing assistance to other groups in the community.
Granting aid as a matter of right protects the liberty of the
individual to
manage his own affairs and conduct his daily life free of authoritarian
controls
and caseworker supervision.
It protects the dignity of the individual. He is treated as a member of
a class
entitled to be dealt with in a manner determined by law, not by
individualized administrative
discretion. The occasion is eliminated for invasion of the individual's
privacy,
supervision of his personal behavior, and humiliating probing into the
intimacies
of his life; and a seminal principle is established which stands as a
barrier to
all such actions.
Finally, rehabilitation. The primary task of vocational rehabilitation,
as I
have said, is the overcoming of the social handicap--not the physical
condition.
It consists in the creation of an environment within society, within public
programs,
and within the blind themselves, which will be in the fullest sense
conducive to
normal livelihood and normal life. It involves opening up the channels of
social
participation, that is, enabling the blind to enjoy the benefits of socially
determined
standards of liberty, equality, property, and dignity. Its time-tested tools
are
vocational orientation, vocational training, counseling, and guidance which
stimulates
and opens up horizons--and finally, of course, placement in remunerative
employment
in the common callings, trades, pursuits, and professions of the community.
In the proper conceptions of its function as well as in the use of
these time-tested
tools, the vocational rehabilitation program of the United States must in
large measure
be pronounced a failure. The hope and opportunity are to be measured in
miles; the
actual accomplishment must be measured in inches.
Rehabilitation so far as the individual rehabilitant is concerned is a
complex
process in which mental and emotional elements are predominant. It involves
myriad
adaptations not merely physical in nature but social and psychological. In
effect,
the entire personality must undergo reconstruction; the blind person's
conviction
of his own incompetence accepted from the public misconception must be
uprooted;
a rebirth, a new act of creation must be wrought. In this process, ambition,
hope,
and self-reliance are essential ingredients. Consequently, rehabilitation by
the
command of the counselor, or submission to his attitudes and preferences, or
by the
coercion which results from conditioning public assistance upon it is a
contradiction.
It is therefore futile. It is as futile as ordering a person to restore his
emotional
balance while adding to the very factors which cause the unbalance. Since
the objective
of rehabilitation is restoration to a normal useful role in society, the
standards
of success are in large measure culturally determined. The rehabilitated
person,
thus, is one for whom the assumptions and goals of the community have become
as significant
as for others, who has in fact achieved equal opportunity to enter the
calling of
his choice, to acquire, use, and dispose of property, to exercise the right
of personal
independence, and to operate on the other assumptions and principles before
listed.
Just as the habits of freedom are not learned by experiencing slavery, so
ambition
is not learned by destitution, self-management by authoritarian controls,
incentive
by denying the hope of gain, or self-respect by second-class citizenship.
Rehabilitation
by command or coercion cultivates the very traits which frustrate and
prevent rehabilitation.
A rehabilitation program which continually impresses upon the client a sense
of his
helplessness and dependency, which enshrouds him in an atmosphere of
disbelief, doubt,
and defeatism, and which exhibits attitudes of guardianship and
custodialism, must
inevitably sap the fibre of self-reliance, undermine hope, deter
self-improvement,
and destroy the very initiative which is indispensable to rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation
by stimulation, by opening up new horizons, by assisting the client in the
achievement
of goals of his own choice, by incentives carefully planned to encourage
productive
activity by the expectation of normal rewards--retention of earnings,
improvement
of standards of living, accumulation of real and personal property--places
rehabilitative
effort in conformity with the political assumptions, economic impulses and
behavioral
standards imposed by democratic thought and current social knowledge.
Optimistic and skillful counseling, built on personal experience with
the handicap
and its problems, is required to accomplish this delicate work. Under the
present
program such counseling has not been supplied. On the contrary, too often
rehabilitation
officers have themselves subscribed to the conviction of the incompetence of
the
blind. Little has been done under the present program to halt the tendency
of shunting
the disabled into a limited series of stereotyped occupations, to provide a
staff
which will have and exhibit full confidence in the blind, and which will aid
the
blind to enter fields of their own choosing. Little has been done under the
present
program to strengthen placement as an inescapable function of the
rehabilitation
agency. For the blind this is the arduous culmination of a long and arduous
process.
It cannot be accomplished by automatic referral to employers. It can only be
accomplished
by the application of highly specialized and individualized techniques of
affirmative
contact with employers, aggressive seeking of employment opportunities,
personal
demonstration, and follow-up. Little is done under the present program to
remove
the obstructions to employment of the physically handicapped which exist in
the public
mind, in the statutes, ordinances, administrative rulings, judicial
decisions, and
institutional practices. Above all, the true nature of handicap and the
elements
which compose it, particularly the social and the psychological as
distinguished
from the physical and medical elements; the proper functions and goals of
rehabilitation;
the relationship of disability of dependency, especially economic
dependency; the
part presently played and properly to be played by public financial aid
under social
insurance and public assistance in the process of rehabilitation; the
determinative
character of the reintegrative objective and the bearing upon it of liberty,
equality,
property, and dignity--these basic and urgently pressing questions have
never been
sufficiently analyzed by the responsible officials in Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Until this whole pattern is changed, until a great deal is done to
reorient
the training and functions of rehabilitation workers, to strengthen guidance
and
counseling services, to improve techniques and focus rehabilitation
attention on
the placement of rehabilitants in competitive employment, and to remove
legal, administrative,
and other obstacles to the employment of the blind in the public service,
the trades,
professions, and common callings of the community--until that happy day
rehabilitation
of the blind is likely to continue to be measured in inches and not in
miles.
Americans are familiar with the unhappy divergence between creed and
conduct
in many phases of our national life. Myrdal's observation of the disparity
between
social equality as a cherished political norm and our unequal treatment of
the Negro
is but one instance of a pattern that is all too pervasive. The field of
blind welfare
provides another, one which has been less noticed but is not less
conspicuous or
significant.
FOOTNOTES
1. Gabriel, THE COURSE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT 22 (1940).
2. Sumner, THE CHALLENGE OF FACTS AND OTHER ESSAYS 25 (Keller ed.
1914).
3. For illustrative statements of this doctrine see, Johnson and
Graham's Lessee
v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat 543, 572 (U.S. 1823); Story, MISC. WRITINGS 74 (1835);
Justice
Matthews in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Justice Cardozo in
Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1937); see also Justice Murphy
dissenting in
Yamashita v. Styer 327 U.S. 1, 26 (1946).
4. Winston Churchill speaking at Fulton, Missouri, March 1946.
5. Under the general power of the states, often called the "police
power," wrote
Justice Barbour in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 139 (U.S. 1837),
"[I]t
is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State to advance
the
safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its
general welfare..."
Said Justice Field in Barbier v. Connolly 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1884),
"[N]either the
[14th] amendment--broad and comprehensive as it is--nor any other amendment,
was
designed to interfere with the power of the state ... to prescribe
regulations to
promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people,
and to
legislate so as to increase the industries of the state, develop its
resources, and
add to its wealth and prosperity."
6. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 263 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).
7. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915). Justice Hughes there said,
"It requires
no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common
occupations
of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and
opportunity that
it was the purpose of the amendment [14th] to secure."
8. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).
9. Truax v. Raich supra note 7; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578
(1897).
10. Merriam, THE NEW DEMOCRACY AND THE NEW DESPOTISM 84-85(1939).
11. Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull 3 Dall. 386 (1798); Chancellor
Kent, 2 KENT.
COMM. 1 (1827).
12. Braceville Coal Co. v. People 147 Ill. 66 (1893).
13. DeTocqueville, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 3 (1945 ed.).
14. tenBroek, ANTISLAVERY ORIGINS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1951).
15. Barbier v. Connolly 113 U.S. 27 (1885).
16. DeSchweinitz, PEOPLE AND PROCESS IN SOCIAL SECURITY 56-57 (1948).
(
back
)(
contents
)(
next
)
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:09 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
I understand that as an organization we have adopted a resolution regarding
the college policy. I am simply trying to seek further understanding and
clarification regarding our collective position regarding this resolution.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I am aware, the
only resolution we have passed regarding the college policy was the one that
was passed at last year's convention. This resolution specifically mentions
what should be and what should not be in a college policy. However, it does
not specifically mention anything about whether or not students should or
should not financially participate in the costs associated with tuition or
room and board. Since the Commission is looking to change this part of the
policy, I was just simply trying to understand what our position as an
organization was regarding this issue. I have tried looking up past
resolutions to see if there were any other resolutions regarding this issue,
but I could not find any record of past resolutions on either the website or
in the list archives. If you know of any further resolutions that speak on
this issue, then please let me know because I would like to represent the
position of our organization when speaking out on this issue.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth
> From: f.wurtzel at comcast.net
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:21:53 -0400
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
>
> Hello,
>
> I have some thoughts on this thread.
>
> First, there is nothing prohibiting any student from paying all of their
> college costs, now. After reading the tone of some of these comments, it
> seems like there is a little bit of judgementalism creeping in. A college
> education is a way to level the playing field for blind people. If any
> student is in a position to take on debt or pay up front, more power to
> them. If another is not able to do so, there is a program passed by
> Congress to provide assistance. There is no particular virtue in paying
> your way or any shame in taking advantage of available assistance. If the
> Commission has this assistance available, everyone ought to have full and
> equal access to it regardless of circumstances. Means tests are very
> destructive. I have seen 2 people in some states where there are means
> tests treated very differently, though there circumstances were virtually
> identical. This is not right. We may want there to be no discrimination,
> however, it still exists. Blindness still limits job opportunities and
> holds some people down in their ability to earn as much as a similarly
> situated sighted person. I understand the equal treatment argument. Dr.
> Jernigan wrote a speech about the pros and cons of preferential treatment.
> I encourage you to read it. There can be negative effects of taking
> preferential treatment. A college education is arguably the best path to
> opportunity. Paying taxes and being a first-class citizen is a way of
> paying back for the privilege of having help with school. Not getting a
> degree may prevent individuals from ever having the chance to pay taxes
and
> fully participating in all the wonderful gifts of citizenship.
>
> Second, we, together have adopted a position on our collective wishes for
a
> college policy, as an organization. Everyone is certainly welcome to their
> views, but as an organization we are working to accomplish mutually
> developed goals. We have passed more than one resolution on college
policy.
> Resolutions are our way to develop positions for our organization. If we
> decide to change our position it needs to be decided together. It is in
all
> of our interests to show unity on organizational matters. Whether we are
> working to assist Christine to get her job back or assure people who are
> blind can rent apartments or work in the job of their choice, our ability
to
> be successful depends on our solidarity.
>
> We have a tradition of fighting like cats and dogs until a position is
> arrived at. After that we support each other until we succeed.
>
> I am trying not to be a finger wagging old fogy. The old fogy part is
> unavoidable. I am trying to talk about what has made us strong and
> successful as an organization.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of J.J. Meddaugh
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:29 PM
> To: NFB of Michigan List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
>
> Elizabeth,
> Speaking as someone with a student loan currently, there are several
> programs in place by the government to allow for delayed payments of
student
>
> loans. Essentially, those meaning certain income requirements have the
> ability to have their loan payments defered until a time where they can
> afford to pay. Also, there are several payment options available, and as
> long as one is in communication with the government about the loan, there
> are ample opportunities to make suitable payment arrangements.
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> J.J. Meddaugh - ATGuys.com
> A premier Licensed Code Factory and KNFB Reader distributor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
> To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
>
>
> >
> > I agree with your thoughts, but should blind students be required to
take
> > out loans for college when the unemployment rate is higher among the
blind
>
> > then it is for the general population? I understand that right now it is
> > difficult for anyone to find and keep a job, but it seems as though it
is
> > even more difficult for a blind person to find and keep a job. So with
> > this in mind, should blind students still be required to take out loans
> > that they may not be able to pay back to fund their college education?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Elizabeth
> >
> > > From: jj at bestmidi.com
> >> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:36:36 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
> >>
> >> Personally, I am not opposed to the idea of students paying for their
own
> >> educational expenses with the help of student loans, PEL Grants, and
> >> whatever other means are necessary. This type of drastic shift would
need
>
> >> to
> >> be phased in over time and account for other circumstances where this
> >> type
> >> of policy would not make sense. But if we want to be considered as
> >> equals,
> >> we need to pay as equals. This policy would also allow for a major
> >> redirection in funds to hire additional counselors, pay for much-needed
> >> technology, provide braille textbooks where appropriate, and improve
> >> training opportunities. In essence, any expense that would not be
> >> realized
> >> by a sighted individual would be covered.
> >> I realize not all would be in favor of this shift, but I feel it could
> >> ultimately lead to better services if implemented correctly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> J.J. Meddaugh - ATGuys.com
> >> A premier Licensed Code Factory and KNFB Reader distributor
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
> >> To: "'NFB of Michigan List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 11:31 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi Elizabeth,
> >> >
> >> > I agree, completely, with what you say, here. Though Geri Taeckens
has
> >> > worked hard and has made some positive improvements, this policy is
> >> > severly
> >> > lacking and is an anti blind student policy document. It needs to be
> >> > thrown
> >> > out and written from the ground upp.
> >> >
> >> > If the Commission wants the college to complete another form, it
needs
> >> > to
> >> > be
> >> > their responsibility to do so, not the student's. It will turn into a
> >> > gotcha game and keep some eligible people from going to school. The
> >> > federal
> >> > government already asks for all the needed information, why should
the
> >> > student have to do it again?
> >> >
> >> > How about not giving those who change majors additional time. In some
> >> > cases, it may add another year to the time needed to finish. If the
IPE
> >> > approves a change, then all policies for college attendance should
then
> >> > apply.
> >> >
> >> > Even though the MOU section has been changed, it still does not
require
> >> > the
> >> > Commission to step in and resolve the problem. Despite promises at
our
> >> > convention, Kerry Bradly did not ever get her math book in Braille.
The
> >> > Commission was not able to do a simple thing like get a book
Brailled,
> >> > how
> >> > will they resolve complex technical problems?
> >> >
> >> > I hope students are in the audience on Friday to voice their concerns
> >> > and
> >> > objections to this horrible policy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
> >> > [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> >> > On Behalf Of Elizabeth
> >> > Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:48 PM
> >> > To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Should Students Participate in College Costs?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to all of you who have commented on my revisions to the
college
> >> > policy either on or off the list. However, as I have thought about
some
> >> > things a bit more, I am wondering weather or not college students
> >> > should
> >> > help with the cost of going to college. In a previous version I
> >> > submitted
> >> > to
> >> > the Consumer Involvement Committee Chair, I included a section on
> >> > students
> >> > contributing financially to the costs of their college education
based
> >> > on
> >> > the dollar amount awarded to those who receive Supplemental Security
> >> > Income.
> >> > I did not include it in this draft simply because it sounded a bit
> >> > confusing
> >> > to me, and I was not quite sure how to write it so that it would be
> >> > less
> >> > confusing. I will post it below for your comments and suggestions.
> >> >
> >> > But I guess what I am really wondering is weather or not students
> >> > should
> >> > be
> >> > responsible for contributing financially to the costs of their
college
> >> > education. I am currently not a consumer of the agency, nor do I live
> >> > on
> >> > campus, so I cannot comment on whether or not this is currently the
> >> > procedure. However, from what little I have heard about the new DELEG
> >> > form
> >> > is that it would require all students to write down all their current
> >> > expenses and sources of income to determine how much a student's
> >> > family,
> >> > not
> >> > the individual student, can financially contribute towards their
> >> > college
> >> > education.
> >> >
> >> > Personally, I am not in favor of this new system for a couple of
> >> > reasons.
> >> > The first one being that I don't think it is the Commission's
business
> >> > to
> >> > know every detail of how a student chooses to spend, save, and use
> >> > every
> >> > cent of their income. Second, I don't think that it is right for the
> >> > Commission to consider the income of student's parents when they are
> >> > serving
> >> > the individual and not the family. The last time I checked, the
income
> >> > of
> >> > someone's parent, especially for someone over the age of eighteen,
was
> >> > not
> >> > a
> >> > source of comparable benefits. And finally, looking at a students
> >> > income
> >> > as
> >> > a way to determine vocational services is basically saying that you
> >> > have
> >> > to
> >> > pay to play, or in this case to receive an education. And since the
> >> > income
> >> > of the student's parents is considered as part of the equation, the
> >> > amount
> >> > the student has to pay could very well be beyond what the student can
> >> > afford.
> >> >
> >> > So, I don't know, should students be required to help pay for their
> >> > college
> >> > education, and if so, how exactly do we create a system that is
simple
> >> > and
> >> > fair to all students? I mean, after all, the client of the Commission
> >> > is
> >> > the
> >> > student and not the student's parents. And even though the financial
> >> > aid
> >> > system may include the parent's income, does that mean that the
> >> > Commission
> >> > needs to do the same as well even though they are serving the student
> >> > and
> >> > not the parents? Anyways, who the heck knows, maybe I'm just making a
> >> > mountain out of a mole hill, but I'm just a little ticked off that
the
> >> > Commission has been working on this thing for almost two years now,
and
> >> > still has yet to have a discussion about this new DELEG form that
> >> > appears
> >> > to
> >> > be magically hidden into the policy. I don't know, I guess I'm just
> >> > pissed
> >> > off about the whole process in general, and the fact that the college
> >> > policy
> >> > is on the agenda when I was told that it would not be ready in time
for
> >> > this
> >> > meeting.
> >> >
> >> > Elizabeth
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Student Contribution:
> >> >
> >> > Students requesting sponsorship from the Michigan Commission for the
> >> > Blind
> >> > will be required to make a small contribution to their college or
> >> > vocational
> >> > training. The purpose of this contribution is to prepare students for
> >> > financial responsibility after graduation. Before a student can
receive
> >> > sponsorship from the Michigan Commission for the Blind, they must
> >> > complete
> >> > and sign a copy of the Student Contribution form indicating their
level
>
> >> > of
> >> > contribution. Students giving a financial contribution shall be
> >> > responsible
> >> > for making payments directly to the college or university. If
students
> >> > cannot make the payment all at once, they are encouraged to ask the
> >> > college
> >> > or university about monthly payment plans.
> >> >
> >> > All students who choose to live on campus and subscribe to a dining
> >> > program
> >> > will be required to pay the register's office one-half the current
> >> > amount
> >> > awarded to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries. All
> >> > students
> >> > who choose to live on campus, but do not subscribe to a dining
service
> >> > will
> >> > be required to pay the register's office one-third the amount awarded
> >> > to
> >> > Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries. Any student who
does
> >> > not
> >> > live on campus will be responsible for all expenses associated with
> >> > off-campus housing. It will be expected that all students will be
> >> > responsible for making this contribution regardless of their level of
> >> > income.
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________________________
> >> > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> >> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >> > nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> > nfbmi-talk:
> >> >
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comc
> >> > ast.net
> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> > Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2741 - Release Date:
> >> > 03/12/10
> >> > 09:42:00
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >> > nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> > nfbmi-talk:
> >> >
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/jj%40bestmidi.co
> m
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> nfbmi-talk:
> >>
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/lizmohnke%40hotm
> ail.com
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
your
>
> > inbox.
> >
>
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W
> L:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfbmi-talk mailing list
> > nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nfbmi-talk:
> >
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/jj%40bestmidi.co
> m
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comc
> ast.net
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.436 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2741 - Release Date: 03/12/10
> 09:42:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/lizmohnke%40hotm
ail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comc
ast.net
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list