[nfbmi-talk] Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment

Michael Powell mpowell at wowway.com
Wed Mar 17 17:56:05 UTC 2010


I thought the same thing when I saw it too.
It could have made for interesting reading originating at three in the
morning.

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of J.J. Meddaugh
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:27 PM
To: NFB of Michigan List
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment

Someone needs to show Larry how to reply privately.
Nick? grin.

J.J. Meddaugh - ATGuys.com
A premier Licensed Code Factory and KNFB Reader distributor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Posont" <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment


> fred are you still up from larry
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
> To: "'NFB of Michigan List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:10 PM
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Pros and Cons of Preferential Treatment
>
>
>> Here is the Dr. ten Broek article.
>>
>> wWarmest Regards,
>>
>> Fred
>>  _____
>>
>>
>> )
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> (
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/president.nfb.mi
%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mpowell%40wowway
.com





More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list