[NFBofSC] FW: [Brl-monitor] The Braille Monitor, November 2023
Steve Cook
cookcafe at sc.rr.com
Wed Nov 1 09:53:23 UTC 2023
Steve Cook
You are invited to join us on the 1st and 2nd Friday of each month at 8:00 PM Eastern for audio described movies using the below Zoom platform!
<https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8032543777?pwd=QTVQd2RzN3l6QnNmZ0FmSnp6NG8vQT09> https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8032543777?pwd=QTVQd2RzN3l6QnNmZ0FmSnp6NG8vQT09
Meeting ID: 803 254 3777
Passcode: 124578
From: brl-monitor-bounces at nfbcal.org <brl-monitor-bounces at nfbcal.org> On Behalf Of Brian Buhrow
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:19 AM
To: brl-monitor at nfbcal.org
Subject: [Brl-monitor] The Braille Monitor, November 2023
The Braille Monitor, November 2023
BRAILLE MONITOR
Vol. 66, No. 10 November 2023
Gary Wunder, Editor
Distributed by email, in inkprint, in Braille, and on USB flash drive, by the
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Mark Riccobono, President
telephone: 410-659-9314
email address: nfb at nfb.org <mailto:nfb at nfb.org>
website address: http://www.nfb.org
NFBnet.org: http://www.nfbnet.org
NFB-NEWSLINE® information: 866-504-7300
Like us on Facebook: Facebook.com/nationalfederationoftheblind <http://Facebook.com/nationalfederationoftheblind>
Follow us on Twitter: @NFB_Voice
Watch and share our videos: YouTube.com/NationsBlind <http://YouTube.com/NationsBlind>
Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, and orders for NFB literature should be sent to the national office. Articles for the Monitor and letters to the editor may also be sent to the national office or may be emailed to gwunder at nfb.org <mailto:gwunder at nfb.org> .
Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about forty dollars per year. Members are invited, and nonmembers are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:
National Federation of the Blind
200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21230-4998
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND KNOWS THAT BLINDNESS IS NOT THE CHARACTERISTIC THAT DEFINES YOU OR YOUR FUTURE. EVERY DAY WE RAISE THE EXPECTATIONS OF BLIND PEOPLE, BECAUSE LOW EXPECTATIONS CREATE OBSTACLES BETWEEN BLIND PEOPLE AND OUR DREAMS. YOU CAN LIVE THE LIFE YOU WANT; BLINDNESS IS NOT WHAT HOLDS YOU BACK. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND—IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR OURSELVES.
ISSN 0006-8829
© 2023 by the National Federation of the Blind
Each issue is recorded on a thumb drive (also called a memory stick or USB flash drive). You can read this audio edition using a computer or a National Library Service digital player. The NLS machine has two slots—the familiar book-cartridge slot just above the retractable carrying handle and a second slot located on the right side near the headphone jack. This smaller slot is used to play thumb drives. Remove the protective rubber pad covering this slot and insert the thumb drive. It will insert only in one position. If you encounter resistance, flip the drive over and try again. (Note: If the cartridge slot is not empty when you insert the thumb drive, the digital player will ignore the thumb drive.) Once the thumb drive is inserted, the player buttons will function as usual for reading digital materials. If you remove the thumb drive to use the player for cartridges, when you insert it again, reading should resume at the point you stopped.
You can transfer the recording of each issue from the thumb drive to your computer or preserve it on the thumb drive. However, because thumb drives can be used hundreds of times, we would appreciate their return in order to stretch our funding. Please use the return envelope enclosed with the drive when you return the device.
Vol. 66, No. 10 November 2023
Contents
An Apology and Thoughts about What Goes Into an Editorial Note
by Gary Wunder
A Roller Coaster of Emotion: The Highs and Lows of Federal Regulations on Website Accessibility (or the Lack Thereof)
by Kyle Walls
Updating and Clarifying the Regulations Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act
by Representative Tony Coelho
What is Blind: Reframing the Narrative
by Casey Martin
Words Matter
by Michael Hingson
Unlocking the Virtual Front Door—Ensuring Accessible Government Technology for People with Disabilities, Older Adults, and Veterans
A Blind Soprano's Experience with Stage Combat
by Madie Hendrix
Transformation of Jobs in the AbilityOne Program: Disability Advocacy, Leadership, and the Power of Concentrated Action
by Chai Feldblum
First Convention Experience
by Charles Ny
>From Imagination to Reality: Celebrate the Power of Braille, Community, and Partnerships
Progress to Make the Web More Usable and Friendly for the Blind
Finding Opportunities That Are Helping Me Live the Life I Want
by Hillary McFadden
Voices of History: The Pitfall of Speaking for the Dead
by Gary Wunder
Monitor Miniatures
An Apology and Thoughts about What Goes Into an Editorial Note
by Gary Wunder
Almost every article that appears in the pages of the Braille Monitor is prefaced with an editor’s note. Sometimes writing them is quite easy, with a brief biography of the author and an expression of appreciation for their contribution. I have sometimes been criticized for saying that an article is wonderful and am reminded that readers will make up their own mind.
Sometimes crafting the headnote is more difficult. If what we publish is a perspective that does not enjoy universal support, what should be said about it? A bad headnote with my position may bias readers against the opinion the author has offered, but where I have failed is in not noting that a given article expresses views that are not completely consistent with truths that we hold dear in the National Federation of the Blind. One recent article was “Cane I Stick Out Anymore” that appeared in the July 2023 issue. I like the article because it came from a person who unapologetically uses a cane. I liked it because it said that making a decision to use a cane is not always an easy one. A few people rightly and strongly objected to the idea that we would publish anything in the Braille Monitor that suggested it was okay to get free access to state parks or to get a better seat at a concert. They suggested that my headnote should have said that this does not really align with the philosophy that we have in the Federation, that being that we differentiate between what we absolutely need and what it might be nice to have. We work hard at not playing the blind card.
My sincere apology goes out to those who feel that I did not exercise proper judgment in drafting a thorough editor’s note. Regrettably, this may have given the impression that our philosophy is vaguely defined or nonexistent. This perspective doesn't align with the organization's beliefs. It would have been better had the headnote stated that while not every point in the article resonates with our organizational stance, much of its content is valuable and represents a contribution for which we are grateful. My using this experience as an opportunity to learn is crucial. I hope that readers understand the importance of discussing issues from varied and sometimes challenging perspectives, since these are topics any active and evolving organization must address.
In this issue, we are running two articles addressing the word blind. I welcome your thoughts about the way you feel about the perspectives they offer. Thank you for reading, thinking, feeling, and responding.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Kyle Walls]
A Roller Coaster of Emotion: The Highs and Lows of Federal Regulations on Website Accessibility (or the Lack Thereof)
by Kyle Walls
>From the Editor: Kyle works in our Advocacy and Policy Department as our Research and Regulatory Specialist. That title only begins to reflect what he does and who he is as you will see. He and his colleagues have worked hard to review and comment on long-overdue regulations to help clarify the intent of and see to the implementation the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enjoy the information and the way it is presented:
On a sunny summer day in Washington, DC, long before most people had even begun to imagine let alone understand an idea as conceptually huge as the internet, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law by then-President George Bush. The date was July 26, 1990, and the location was the South Lawn of the White House. President Bush remarked that, with the signing of the landmark legislation, “Every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.”
Then, just a few short years later, as the twentieth century was drawing to a close and the twenty-first century was dawning, concepts such as a website, email, and “surfing the net” started to become practically household ideas all across the country. In the waning years of the last century and the early years of this century, many American children and teenagers became familiar with having a computer that was connected to the World Wide Web in their school libraries or in a home office that their parents used. I was one of those teenagers. For all of the younger readers, yes, the dial-up noise that we heard every single time we wanted to connect to the internet is just as bad and annoying as you’ve been told, but it was also a sort of chime, marking our passage through the doorway to a whole new online world.
Unfortunately, that digital world, much like the physical world the ADA was initially passed to reshape just a decade earlier, was not accessible to people with disabilities. It would take another ten years before any meaningful action was taken to rectify the problem of inaccessibility in the digital space. On July 26, 2010, on that same South Lawn of the White House that President Bush stood on exactly twenty years earlier to sign the ADA, President Barack Obama held a ceremony to announce the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to address the shortcomings in the accessibility of the websites of public entities (ADA Title II) and private companies (ADA Title III).
To be clear, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, websites are required to be accessible to people with disabilities, but frequently companies and state and local governments will argue that the law does not provide a clear definition of what it actually means to be accessible. This is where a federal regulation that explicitly defines digital accessibility would be exceedingly useful; both for people with disabilities who need to access the websites and for the entities and companies that are legally required to provide that access. This is why the 2010 announcement of an ANPRM to address that very issue was met with such fanfare, enthusiasm, and anticipation for the rule that was sure to be published in the next few years. Right?
Not exactly. Nearly six years later a supplementary Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM), seeking a response to more than 120 questions about digital accessibility, was published on May 9, 2016. Critically, this SANPRM also separated the Title II and Title III regulations, choosing to focus exclusively on Title II. Of course the Federation, along with forty-nine other organizations, submitted formal comments answering many of the questions posed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). It wasn’t exactly what we were hoping for, and it was a significant hurdle to jump over, but finally, twenty-six years after the passage of the ADA, and six years after the announcement of forthcoming digital accessibility regulations, there was real movement toward making the online world accessible to people with disabilities.
Unfortunately, that small glimmer of hope would be short-lived. Just eighteen months after the publication of the Supplementary Advance Notice, the Department of Justice announced that it was withdrawing the website ANPRM altogether on December 26, 2017. The Grinch himself, with his heart three sizes too small, couldn’t have stolen more holiday cheer than the DOJ did that day for all.
So, for years that’s where we were. Shopping, reading, blogging, vlogging, and any host of other things that people do online became commonplace. Constantly connected smartphones had long since become the norm in American society. The 2010s gave way to the new roaring twenties, where an unprecedented pandemic made digital connectivity and accessibility more important than ever. Yet, there was still no federally defined standard for accessibility when it came to the online arena. It was outrageous. So the Federation intensified our campaign to get the regulations released.
At the 2021 Washington Seminar, we unveiled the Twenty-First Century Mobile Apps and Website Accessibility Act, which was a priority once again for our 2022 Washington Seminar. On February 28, 2022, we (along with 180 other disability advocacy organizations) sent a letter to the assistant US attorney general for civil rights regarding the promulgation of website regulations. At the 2022 Convention in New Orleans, we passed Resolution 2022-01: Regarding Need for Federal Legislation Requiring All Websites and Applications to be Accessible. On September 29, 2022, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Representative John Sarbanes of Maryland introduced our Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act, a more focused version of our Washington Seminar legislation, in both the Senate and the House. At the 2023 Convention in Houston, we passed Resolution 2023-01, demanding the promulgation of Americans with Disabilities Act website accessibility regulations.
Though a long time in coming, finally, it seemed like someone was paying attention.
On August 4, 2023, more than three decades after the signing of the ADA, and more than a decade after the publication of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Justice published the ADA Title II Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After thirteen years of waiting and thousands of hours of advocating, the federal government had finally taken the next step in the promise made during those two White House South Lawn celebrations. This was the moment we had been anticipating for years. This was cause for another celebration, a date that would live on in memory for decades to come as the day we finally got the regulations we had been demanding for so long. We were beside ourselves with excitement. And then we started to read the NPRM.
The proposed rule established WCAG 2.1 AA as the accessibility standard. We liked that.
The proposed rule defined large public entities as having fifty thousand or more residents and gave those entities two years to meet the WCAG 2.1 AA standard. Small public entities were defined as those having less than fifty thousand residents and they were given three years to meet the standard. We felt the deadlines were a little long, but we were willing to accept them.
The proposed rule maintained the defenses of undue burden and fundamental alteration that were established in the original ADA. We had no quarrel with that.
The proposed rule created seven new exceptions that entities could use to weasel out of their obligation to make aspects of their websites accessible. Wait… what?
This was shocking and unacceptable. At no point could we have imagined that something so concerning would have been released by the DOJ. The seven proposed gateways descending into inaccessibility were:
* An exception for archived web content.
* An exception for pre-existing conventional electronic documents.
* An exception for web content posted by third parties on a public entity’s website.
* An exception for third-party web content linked from a public entity’s website.
* An exception for course content on a public entity’s password-protected or otherwise secured website for admitted students enrolled in a specific course offered by a public postsecondary institution.
* An exception for class or course content on a public entity’s password-protected or otherwise secured website for students enrolled, or parents of students enrolled, in a specific class or course at a public elementary or secondary school.
* An exception for conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured.
As you can tell, these seven exceptions would allow for a tremendous amount of content to be exempt from the accessibility requirements set forth in the rule. Particularly egregious are the two exceptions regarding password-protected course content at elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools. If the rule were to move forward as is, it would allow password-protected content on a school’s learning management system (A.K.A. most of the content used to teach children and college students in our increasingly digital world) to be inaccessible. This ridiculous exception would erect a major barrier for blind students, blind parents, and even blind educators.
The exception for pre-existing conventional electronic documents is just as outrageous. The NPRM gave examples of formats that would fall under this category. They include word processor files, spreadsheet files, presentation files, and PDF files. Every file type listed is easily made accessible, usually with only a few extra minutes of effort, making this exception wholly unnecessary.
It is abundantly clear that the Department of Justice did not consult with blind Americans during the creation of this proposed regulation, otherwise it likely would not have created such broad and unwarranted categories of exceptions. For that reason, we wanted to ensure that our comments regarding this rule were precise, thoughtful, and well-reasoned. We studied the NPRM for several weeks, held numerous brainstorming sessions, and passed around multiple drafts. We took the time and did the research to provide the best possible answers to all questions we thought were relevant, while making our position clear that we absolutely opposed all seven exceptions created by the proposed rule. In the end, we created a powerful set of comments, answering all relevant questions posed in the NPRM and letting the DOJ know, in no uncertain terms, exactly how we felt about the proposed rule. President Riccobono officially submitted our comments to the DOJ on September 19, and we posted them to the Policy Statements page of our website the next day. I sincerely encourage you to go read the entire document. It’s not a short read, so you might want to grab a snack and get comfortable before you begin, but I can honestly say it is perhaps the most important set of federal comments that I’ve had the privilege to be a part of during my tenure with the Federation.
But we aren’t the only ones who had something to say. At the time of this writing, the submission deadline for comments to the NPRM has just closed. Checking in with regulations.gov, the website where the vast majority of federal agencies accept comments and responses to proposed regulations, I see that there are 346 individual comments that were submitted. Many of those are from Federation members. Even though the Department of Justice didn’t consult with us before releasing their proposed rule, they are certainly going to hear from us now. I just hope they’re paying attention, for real this time.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Tony Coelho on the big screen via Zoom.]
Updating and Clarifying the Regulations Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act
by Representative Tony Coelho
>From the Editor: Former Representative Coelho appeared twice during the 2023 National Convention, once as a winner of an award, and once as a presenter on the agenda. His remarks will appear later in this issue, but for the moment here is his reaction to the proposed rulemaking the Department of Justice has submitted for public comment. As the Father of the ADA, Representative Coelho’s remarks are noteworthy and on the mark. Here is what he said to the Department of Justice:
September 22, 2023
Rebecca Bond
Chief
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 440528
Somerville, MA 02144
Re: RIN 1190-AA79
Dear Chief Bond:
I write in response to the Department of Justice's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities. I have spent my entire adult life helping advance the lives of people with disabilities. As a United States Congressman, I was the primary author and sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, I have a strong interest in the regulations proposed to implement the ADA.
The current proposed regulation is particularly important, as it will govern how people with disabilities are able to interact with the new world in which we all live—the digital world. This regulation will, quite simply, mean the difference between full inclusion and second-class citizenship for people with disabilities in state and local government services, programs, and activities. Because virtually all state and local government services, programs, and activities are moving, at least in substantial part, online, the proposed regulation will either facilitate or block access for people with disabilities to the most important aspects of community life: public education, policymaking, health care, voting, transportation, libraries and sources of arts and culture, law enforcement, courts, government contracts and employment, civil rights enforcement, housing, and emergency services, just to name a few. People with disabilities simply will never be able to be full members of their communities without full and equal access to the online information and programs provided by their state and local governments.
I appreciate the Department's proposal to clarify that state and local governments' web presences are covered by the ADA, although that coverage has long been clear. I also appreciate the clarification that compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level A and AA is the standard for web accessibility, although soon WCAG 2.2 will be the most appropriate standard.
However, the proposed regulation includes several exceptions that completely undermine the benefit of the proposed rule. I cannot support a regulation that would so drastically undermine current law, as well as the intent of the ADA.
The ADA was not intended to be static, applying only to the world as it existed in 1990. Its principles are designed to apply, even as technology changes. As expressed in the ADA's legislative history, "the types of accommodation and services provided to individuals with disabilities, under all of the titles of this bill, should keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of the times." (H.R. Rep. 101-485(II), at 108 (1990), 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 391). Thus, the ADA requirement of equally effective communication applies equally to print, in-person, telephone, and web-based communications. In fact, accessible communication via the internet is easier to achieve than most other forms of communication, as it does not typically require a covered entity to provide a human interpreter or special equipment such as a TTY.
The ADA already provides for defenses to the effective communication requirement if accessibility would constitute an undue burden or fundamental alteration. Importantly, neither defense provides a blanket exception to the effective communication requirement. The undue burden defense depends on the actual circumstances, including the difficulty and expense of accessibility and the resources available to the covered entity. Both the undue burden and fundamental alteration defenses take into consideration the development of future technologies, such as artificial intelligence solutions that will make accessibility even easier. Unfortunately, the proposed regulation goes far beyond these defenses and provides permanent blanket exceptions to the accessibility requirements for broad swathes of content. These exceptions do not take into consideration either the ease or difficulty of making web content accessible, the (often free) resources available for doing so, or the likelihood that accessibility solutions will continue to develop to be even less expensive, less difficult, and more automated.
First, and above all, no exception to accessibility should be permitted for any new web content posted after the effective date of the regulation. There is no basis for assuming new web content would be difficult to make accessible and, in fact, decades of real-world experience shows that new content is easily "born accessible." The existing defenses of undue burden and fundamental alteration are more than sufficient to address any new types of technology that might be difficult to make accessible. It is unacceptable that the proposed regulation forces people with disabilities to carry the burden of inaccessible content when it would be no burden for covered entities to achieve accessibility of new content. Therefore, no exception should apply to new content, including archived content that was posted after the effective date, new educational content, new conventional electronic documents, new third-party content and links, or new individual-specific conventional electronic documents.
The proposed exceptions are also problematic, even as to pre-existing content, because they provide a permanent exception to accessibility even though the exempted content is important and accessibility could easily be achieved over time. As with physical facilities, the goal is not only to make new facilities accessible and leave large swathes of existing buildings to stand as permanent barriers. Instead, the ADA requires physical facilities to engage in ongoing accessibility barrier removal over time. Similarly, a rule which permanently exempts existing web content would fail to ever reach the goal of equal access—a goal that is easier to achieve for digital content than it is for physical facilities. Rather, pre-existing web content, like pre-existing physical facilities, must become accessible over time. The undue burden defense provides an existing mechanism for such gradual remediation of existing content.
Most currently inaccessible content is not inaccessible because accessibility would be difficult, but simply because the website owner did not require accessibility. Much existing inaccessible content could be remediated or replaced during the two- and three-year compliance periods the proposed regulation provides. For the remainder, the undue burden exception provides a mechanism for later compliance. Thus, for example, archived content should be made accessible over time. This is particularly important for covered entities, such as libraries, for whom the archive is part of the program. Pre-existing educational content should not be made accessible only when triggered by the registration of a particular disabled student, with all the risks that the student will be diverted from the class in order to avoid accessibility and the risk that accessibility will not be accomplished timely. Instead, it should be made accessible over time, with priorities established based on the importance (e.g., mandatoriness) of the class or content and the number of students who take the class. Pre-existing third-party links or content, pre-existing conventional electronic documents and individual-specific electronic documents should also be made accessible over time.
Regarding third-party content and third-party links, such content and links should not be permitted to be inaccessible, even if it pre-exists the effective date of the regulation, if it is used in any way to access a public entity's programs, services, or activities. Whether content or links are "used" for the government program should be defined broadly to include content that provides information about the entity's programs, services, and activities.
Finally, any inaccessible content must be accompanied by a requirement that the covered entity make a plan to remediate the content and provide a mechanism for people with disabilities to request the material be made accessible and for accessibility to be provided (and thereafter maintained) with a short, firm deadline. The means for requesting access must be easy for website users to find and particularly associated with any inaccessible material. Without such a mechanism to request and receive accessible format versions of inaccessible content, the exceptions will be a complete bar to important government information and programs. In addition, people with disabilities should not be required to repeatedly request accessibility for each document they will encounter. In continuing programs, such as education, for example, once a parent or student requests accessibility of pre-existing documents, future documents the student or parent will need to encounter or use must be made accessible without a subsequent request.
State and local government services, programs and activities are increasingly being offered through online means. At the same time, in-person access to information and participation in such programs is being restricted in favor of online access. Town, City, and County offices are reducing their staffing as more and more services and information are offered online. Therefore, residents no longer have sufficient options to avoid using online services and information. Denial of access to the digital world is not merely a closure of one of many means of access. It is a complete exclusion from access. There simply is no other feasible way of interacting with one's government. The pandemic has already accelerated this trend and it will only continue and grow. For that reason, it is absolutely essential that people with disabilities have full and equal access to online information and services by their governments. And it is absolutely unacceptable that large swathes of that information and services be foreclosed to people with disabilities. This rule not only closes off large swathes of government information and services but proposes to do so permanently and even for new content. Such unequal access fails to recognize that accessibility solutions are constantly developing to overcome accessibility barriers and that, even now, accessibility is achievable. Such unequal access fails to recognize the essential nature of government programs, services, and activities—they are not optional. And such unequal access fails to value the contributions of people with disabilities to their communities—if they are allowed to contribute.
I urge the Department to proceed with the proposed regulation without the proposed exceptions for new content and without permanent exceptions for existing content.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Casey Martin]
What is Blind: Reframing the Narrative
by Casey Martin
>From the Editor: Casey Martin is a member at large in our North Dakota affiliate and was surprised by the question, “Are you blind?” Even with all of the education in speech-language pathology, political science, and certification in professional ethics, the question seemed too difficult to address. Here is the story and the thinking that went into an eventual answer:
In a small NFB leadership meeting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was challenged with the first question about my blindness that I was unable to answer. To describe my conundrum, it is important to get some perspective. I have achromatopsia, a congenital genetic retinal disorder that results in me being completely colorblind, light sensitive, and low vision. I was a thirty-seven-year-old student pursuing my master's in speech-language pathology and had the definitions of handicap, disability, and impairment drilled into me through years of disability support work, along with educational pursuits in speech-language hearing sciences and ethics.
All of this, and the question that got me to wonder, was when then North Dakota NFB President Jesse Shirek and affiliate president of the affiliate in the District of Columbia Shawn Callaway asked those present if we considered ourselves blind. Initially, it seemed like a straightforward question, but the meaning behind that "label" was something I never bothered to ponder.
As an aspiring speech pathologist, we learn about a language technique used at an early age called Fast Mapping. This describes a child's ability to rapidly learn new vocabulary by applying knowledge about labels to help categorize words and their semantic features. A child for instance will use the label "farm animals" and immediately think of goats, cows, sheep, horses, etc. This is a meta-cognitive skill that we continue to develop as we learn how to quickly catalog information about specific words within our language. It serves to contextualize language within known paradigms for faster retrieval from our lived experiences.
Upon hearing the word blind, some people have the image of Stevie Wonder or Matt Murdock [Daredevil]. Others might think of a friend, family member, or colleague who is blind. Others still might draw upon an image of someone using a cane or needing assistance crossing the street. The result is that everyone upon coming across the term blind has their own internal context of what it means to them, and with this simple question from Shawn and Jesse, I realized that my own semantic knowledge of the term was incorrect despite living with my condition and being trained vocationally in disability supports for two decades.
It reminded me that our language choices also vary depending upon the communication partner. While I often refer to myself as having "low-vision" or that I am "legally blind," these terms serve to create a more precise picture of my functional vision for communication partners. While others may not know what constitutes these definitions, it generally creates a different impression than saying I am "blind." I have learned through the years that saying blind carries with it a certain stigma, and this word in their minds often results in underestimating my ability. My personal language choice is further affected by being trained to use Person First Language; however, this is at odds with the growing trend of Identity First Language. I see the benefits of both Person and Identity-based language, but it has occurred to me that my continuation of the status quo with what I consider myself only reaffirms that societal stereotypes surrounding the term blind, and I am certain I am not alone in this realization.
To shape the way I think about a term, I need to examine the information presented with this label. To do this I must first consider what blind means to me. When asked if I considered myself blind, I thought, "Of course not," I have some functional vision. After some consideration though, I realized I was using a narrow definition of blind. Now in this regard speech pathologists are uniquely trained to assess certain questions, as we must consider both an educational and clinical approach to answers. Any individual working with people knows that when it applies to humans, there is never a one-size-fits-all definition. That said, it dawned on me that I needed to adopt a more fluid definition of what blind means, not just the cookie-cutter someone who cannot see. Even still, I needed to remember that there are degrees of blindness (i.e., color blindness, legal blindness, and cortical blindness) and that I still fit several of those degrees contained within the term blind. The obvious analogy is that many other labels have degrees or are viewed as a spectrum, but why does blindness carry a different meaning to so many?
After considering what I think about the label blind, I need to come to terms with some realities to reframe what I know about the label. Labels are tricky in that they can misrepresent important aspects, but in many years studying social sciences, everyone agrees that labels do not define someone. Beyond that, we know that all decisions are based upon information, and it is up to the Federation to become the main disseminator of information about the blind community, including expanding what the very definition means. What I have seen thus far is that the Federation works well internally, however, in a more globalized society, we as the Federation need to be sure we are writing the narratives about ourselves and in doing so defining the labels to others elsewhere.
Each chapter should push for broad information and knowledge sharing as a key component to their platform. Many of the struggles we face and the changes we seek affect others, and we can and should bring similar like-minded individuals and groups into our movement. At the conference in North Dakota, we ran into several cases where even the service providers who support blind people were unaware of the programs that each offered. This exposes a gap in the ways in which blind individuals can be empowered and access information. Knowledge and information sharing should be incorporated as a founding principle to the movement since true independence comes from the power of choice and acting as our own decision-maker. Choices and decisions are entirely dependent upon the information to which we have access. The Federation has a communications team and a research team, but separately these are in their own spheres, and it comes to the states to act as the information teams. Bring about the exchanges in your community and reshape the narrative of what it means to be blind.
Each chapter and affiliate should dedicate a portion of their website and larger conferences to providing important information about services and supports in their region because this varies across the nation. This should be checked and updated often. The Federation knows how to identify what aspects are important and should charge itself with making this easily accessible for anyone needing support, regardless of whether they are in the movement. One of my projects for graduate school was an audit of the North Dakota Department of Health's Autism brochure, and I found and reported many dead links. Imagine a parent trying to find support for their child, only to be met with link after link of inaccurate, unattainable information. When our community already faces a massive barrier to information, we should be doing everything to streamline information sharing and bring in any other group or support that we can find to help. Providing accurate information leads to best practices for decision-making, and that is in the best interests of all people regardless of vision abilities.
Much like I need to retrain myself, I feel the NFB needs to reshape the way others view the label blind and embark on a collaborative effort to provide consistent and continuous information to revitalize and rebuild from the bottom up. I did not answer Jesse and Shawn then, but I will here: YES, Jesse and Shawn, after some consideration I do consider myself blind.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Michael Hingson]
Words Matter
by Michael Hingson
>From the Editor: The author of this article is well known to many of us in the National Federation of the Blind. He has had more than fifty years in the organization, has done outstanding work academically to become an engineer, worked in that field for a while and then became a financial analyst and expert, spent more than two decades doing public speaking which he continues today, worked with us for many years selling the KNFB Reader, and is actively involved in issues aimed at making technology both usable and accessible. Here he shares with us some perspectives about the use of the words visually impaired, the word blind, and a way that may point to our being more inclusive.
In January of 2021, I joined the Israeli company accessiBe as its chief vision officer. Among my responsibilities, I was asked to create a podcast, which began operations in August of 2021 with the title Unstoppable Mindset: Where Inclusion, Diversity and the Unexpected Meet. The intent of the podcast was and is to be inspirational. I have had the pleasure of interviewing over 150 guests who come from a wide variety of jobs and life experiences, many of which have no relationship to the world of persons with disabilities. I’ve also had the opportunity to talk with a number of people who work in the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) arena. Many of our discussions have been quite lively, and all have been constructive and informative.
When talking with these people, unless they have some specific relation to persons with disabilities, when I ask guests to define the term “diversity,” they mention a number of topics including race, gender, sexual orientation, and other things, but rarely if ever mention disabilities as part of their definitions of diversity. When the topic of blindness comes up in our discussions, I and others who happen to be blind are usually referred to as “visually impaired”.
Since beginning the podcast, I have thought a lot about this term “visually impaired”. I have listened to many people talk about it, and I have also listened to other terminologies that people have used to describe me and the rest of us. I thought it was high time to write an article about this in order to discuss why we need to move away from the term “visually impaired” to a different descriptor that is not only more accurate but better promotes who and what we are.
Language plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions and understanding of various aspects of life. When discussing people with sight loss, it is essential to use accurate and inclusive terminology that respects our experiences. By addressing the inaccuracies and misconceptions surrounding the term "visually impaired," we can foster a more inclusive and respectful society including helping to raise our own personal expectations and self-respect.
The term "visually impaired" is widely used to describe individuals with sight loss. However, this term is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, the word "visually" suggests that the person's appearance is affected by their sight loss, which is ridiculous by any standard. People with sight loss may have different visual acuity levels, but our physical appearance remains unaffected. We are not visually different simply because we may not see or we may not see well.
Secondly, the term "impaired" implies a sense of deficiency or inferiority. This terminology perpetuates the notion that individuals with sight loss are less capable or limited in some way, which is both incorrect and unfair. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that people with sight loss can lead independent and fulfilling lives with the right support and accommodations.
To address these inaccuracies, an alternative term that is gaining recognition and acceptance in some quarters is "blind or low vision." This phrase accurately acknowledges the potential range of sight loss without implying any physical changes or deficits in the individual's capabilities.
The term blind typically refers to individuals with complete or nearly complete vision loss. However, it is important to note that blindness is not an all-encompassing term. People who are blind often have some residual vision, and the degree of vision loss can vary greatly among individuals. We all know that people who are blind can use a wide variety of tools to accomplish the same tasks that nonblind people perform. By the way, those same nonblind people also use tools and technology to accomplish the same tasks.
On the other hand, low vision encompasses those persons with varying degrees of vision who typically have some eyesight and who often choose not to view themselves as blind. Like totally blind people, these individuals also benefit from assistive technologies, magnification tools, or other aids to enhance, to one degree or another, their remaining vision.
Adopting the phrase "blind or low vision" promotes inclusivity and helps challenge the societal misconceptions surrounding sight loss. It emphasizes the capabilities and potential of individuals with sight loss rather than focusing on any limitations due to a loss of eyesight. This shift in language fosters a more respectful and empowering narrative, ultimately leading to greater societal acceptance and integration.
To create meaningful change, it is essential to raise awareness and educate the public about the use of appropriate terminology. This can be done through various means, such as educational campaigns, media initiatives, and inclusive language guidelines in academic and professional settings.
Additionally, it is crucial for us to self-advocate and assert our preferred terminology. By expressing our preference for blind or low vision (BLV), we can challenge existing misconceptions and encourage others to adopt more accurate and respectful language. The concepts I am suggesting here have already been used by other minorities to work toward a change in their own self-image. For example, for many years people who had issues regarding hearing were described as “deaf or hearing impaired.” If you pay attention, you will not hear “hearing impaired” used today, at least not much. Today, and as I have learned through discussions with deaf people around the country, people who are deaf absolutely insist on being described as “deaf or hard of hearing.” Deaf people have already recognized the value and need to move away from any description of them that includes the word “impaired.” We can do the same thing within the blindness culture.
Language has a profound impact on how we perceive and interact with the world. When discussing individuals with sight loss, it is imperative to use terminology that accurately reflects our experiences and promotes inclusivity. The term "visually impaired" falls short in this regard, because it perpetuates misconceptions and implies physical changes that are not inherent to sight loss. By replacing it with the phrase blind or low vision, or BLV for short, we can foster a more accurate, respectful, and inclusive society that values our capabilities and contributions.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Ronza Othman]
Unlocking the Virtual Front Door—Ensuring Accessible Government Technology for People with Disabilities, Older Adults, and Veterans
Presented to the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging
September 21, 2023
>From the Editor: When I came to the National Federation of the Blind, I thought that I was an expert on blindness. I had sixteen years of experience under my belt, and I was active, healthy, was in the National Honor Society, and had a part-time summer job. I knew what the blind could do and was constantly told how amazing I was for doing it. What the National Federation of the Blind did for me was dispel many of the misconceptions I had about what the blind could not do and caused me to redefine the docile role I thought we must play in society. I found it difficult to write, but my colleagues in the Federation didn’t. I found it difficult to think about talking to people in high places, but my colleagues in the Federation thought nothing of it and did it regularly. When I read testimony that the National Federation of the Blind presented to Congress, I was on an emotional high, and fifty years later I find myself in that same state of mind as I read what Ronza Othman is saying to the Congress about the rights of blind people to have access to the blessings that technology should be bringing to everyone. Here is what she said in speaking truth to power:
Testimony of Ronza Othman, President, National Association of Blind Government Employees; President, National Federation of the Blind of Maryland
I would like to thank Chairperson Casey, Ranking Member Braun, and all of the other members of the Special Committee on Aging for this opportunity to offer testimony on accessible technology in the federal, state, and local government. My name is Ronza Othman, and by day, I’m an employee of an executive-branch federal agency, where I am an attorney and manage equal employment opportunity and civil rights programs. However, I’m testifying before you in my personal capacity, as in my spare time I serve as a leader in the National Federation of the Blind, the transformative membership and advocacy organization of the nation’s blind. My roles include serving as the president of the National Association of Blind Government Employees (NABGE), where I engage with current, retired, and prospective employees of federal, state, local, and pseudo-government agencies across the nation. I’m also the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland (NFBMD), representing blind and low-vision Marylanders who work for government but who also, like most Americans, engage with local and state government for a variety of reasons. Both NABGE and NFBMD are affiliates of the National Federation of the Blind.
When I use the word “blind,” I am referring to the millions of Americans who are legally blind. Some have no usable vision, but most have some usable vision; there is a broad spectrum of blindness, but I use the word “blind” inclusively of the entire spectrum.
The National Federation of the Blind recognizes that access to information and communication technology (ICT), including hardware, software, web and mobile applications, and other platforms and information, is a critical civil right for the blind and other Americans with disabilities. Moreover, the tools and strategies that are used to provide access to information and services to people with disabilities also have a mutually beneficial impact on the quality of life for all Americans, including the ever-growing population of older Americans.
Technology has been a true equalizer for blind and low-vision Americans, as well as many others with disabilities. So much of the information we receive on a daily basis is communicated visually, and the proliferation of technology has enabled our community to not only gain access to that information at the same time as our non-disabled counterparts, but technology advancements enable us to engage with that information and act on it. Most of us carry a phone in our pocket, many of us have a computer at home, and many of us interact with other technology devices like smart speakers, home security systems, home appliances, medical devices, and so much more. Today, I can use the phone in my pocket to operate my Ring Doorbell, operate my vacuum, set my thermostat, reheat my leftovers, and half a dozen other tasks in my house when I’m not even at home. These are all mainstream technologies, not adaptations made for people with disabilities. In essence, when a manufacturer or developer chooses to build a product and includes accessibility at the beginning, virtually everyone can use it.
But when it comes to engaging with our government, these technologies are woefully behind. Often, government-procured, maintained, or developed ICT is not accessible to those of us with a variety of disabilities, including the blind, low vision, and print disabled. Technologies and systems that federal, state, and local governments operate to engage with the public and provide services that include: agency service listings, data, and contact information; benefits and services portals and forms; utility and tax payment systems; parking and other citation systems; court record systems; and thousands of other services. Individuals with disabilities need to access these systems just like other Americans do.
Many of us with disabilities use assistive technology such as screen readers that audibly read what is visually on the screen. Some use magnification software that enlarges what is on the screen or enhances color contrast so it is easier to read. Others use voice dictation software that allows the individual to verbally direct the technology. Many assistive technology users cannot use a mouse to control technology, and instead use keyboard commands. Many cannot independently operate dynamic touch screens—think of a touch screen that has the “OK” or “Submit” button in different places depending on what screen you are on. In all cases, there is no reason the individual couldn’t operate the technology except that it didn’t incorporate accessibility principles at the start. As a result, we find ourselves at the mercy of others to help us access these technology platforms.
For example, why should a Social Security beneficiary with a disability have to give up their right to privacy by having to tell a security guard or other bystander their Social Security number to check in for an appointment when anyone else can independently check in? Why does a blind veteran have to share their health information with a staff member—and anyone else in earshot—to complete intake paperwork at a VA facility when no one else has to suffer this indignity? Why does a blind or low-vision college student have to have a friend or colleague tell them their grade on an assignment at a state college or university when others can fail or pass in private? Why is it that people with disabilities have to give up their privacy to engage with their government when their non-disabled counterparts get to engage with their government with dignity and respect? The answer is simple: government isn’t doing enough to make its systems, technology, and services accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Across the nation, the disability community experienced obstacles when attempting to obtain information and resources during the COVID-19 public health emergency. COVID-19 transmission data was posted on government websites, but, more often than not, it was inaccessible to assistive technology. In the early months of the pandemic and before at-home tests were available, the public relied on the government to communicate, and often to schedule, COVID-19 tests. More often than not, the government either directly posted inaccessible testing information or linked to inaccessible testing information third parties operated. The same thing happened when COVID-19 vaccines became available as well. This was not isolated to one single government entity—it was by and large the norm across the federal government, for many state health department websites, and for many local jurisdiction websites. Though this information was aimed at the public, it affected the employment space in significant ways because many employers required tests and/or vaccines.
It is neither difficult nor costly to make electronic information and communication technology accessible for individuals with disabilities. If accessibility is baked into the system at the development stage, it’s simply coding in a way that ensures information is tagged properly and navigable by assistive technology. Most coding is very simple and easy, and it doesn’t alter the visual appearance of the platform or entity. For example, ensuring proper tags and labels on website buttons requires a short line of script. Ensuring that keyboard commands work in the same way a mouse click does is usually very simple and straightforward. And yet, those of us with disabilities experience technology accessibility barriers every day for routine tasks.
Imagine making a pizza and adding the pizza sauce. Now imagine making a pizza and omitting the pizza sauce prior to baking it. Then, imagine trying to put the sauce on after the pizza has been baked, sliced, and some of it served. It’s a difficult but not an impossible task to “fix” the pizza, but it’d have been a lot easier to have just added the sauce from the beginning.
In addition, some systems that are supposedly accessible require a significantly higher level of effort and more time to complete the task if the operator is using assistive technology. For example, a commonly used cross-agency federal database requires three mouse clicks to conduct a search. However, if using keyboard commands with assistive technology, there were over forty keystrokes to get to the same results page. While it took four to five seconds to run the search using the mouse, it took four to five minutes to run that same search with keyboard commands. There is no innate difficulty or a higher level of effort to use a keyboard instead of a mouse unless the developers create that difficulty and higher level of effort when building the platform.
For those of us who work for federal, state, and local government, the problem of technology inaccessibility is compounded by the fact that inaccessible technology is everywhere, but we are at its mercy to do our jobs. If we don’t do our jobs well, then we don’t keep those jobs. If we don’t keep those jobs, then we’re out on the street trying to find new jobs and dependent on government services and benefits we can’t access due to the same inaccessibility issues we had when we were working. It’s a vicious cycle. More than 50 percent of Americans with disabilities are unemployed or under employed, and more than 70 percent of Americans who are blind or low vision are unemployed or under employed. The CDC says that 25 percent of the population of the United States has a disability, and of those, the United States Census Bureau reports that 7.5 million have a visual disability. Those are a lot of Americans who aren’t working, and many of them are caught up in this vicious cycle.
In the last few months alone, a number of our members have reported that they’ve encountered inaccessible technology in their jobs in federal, state, and local government. For example, a substitute teacher in one county school district was told that she could no longer be assigned to the district’s middle schools because their attendance reporting system was no longer accessible with her screen reader. A state employee newly hired to work at a call center for a state comptroller’s office had her job offer rescinded after the state determined its tax information database was not accessible with a screen reader. A federal employee was not able to renew her contracting management certification because the training platform the agency—and most of the federal government uses—is not compatible with assistive technology. A Department of Defense employee was kicked out of a training program in which she had been enrolled for five years, and nearly completed, when her agency determined that its testing systems were not accessible to assistive technology users. Dozens of state employees in a number of states could no longer enter their time and attendance in their states’ timekeeping systems due to updates that broke accessibility. These are just a handful of examples, but there are hundreds if not thousands of others.
One other particular situation sticks out in my mind due to the implications to the safety of our communities that the lack of accessibility has created. Law enforcement entities use certain databases across the country to enter information about law enforcement officers who are under investigation, which would render their testimony potentially problematic. Prosecutors have to check those databases and disclose in discovery that any officers are under investigation. However, if they fail to do so, the entire case is likely to be thrown out, and potential criminals are set free. In the last few weeks, I’ve heard from two different blind prosecutors from different sides of the country who have had near misses in terms of disclosing this information to opposing counsel in discovery. The reason: the system is not accessible to assistive technology. Imagine a scenario when it wasn’t a near miss, and because the prosecutor did not have effective and accessible tools, they unknowingly failed to disclose such important information, which then resulted in a case being thrown out and a potentially violent criminal being released to commit another crime. Had the technology been accessible, this wouldn’t be a concern.
As a hiring manager, I enjoy when I can hire individuals with disabilities, not simply because I am one myself. People with disabilities solve a hundred problems even before they start their workday, and so my experience is that they tend to think more critically, be more creative, and work harder. When they encounter inaccessible technology, they work to find creative solutions and workarounds. In my experience, and having talked with thousands of individuals with disabilities in the workforce, I can tell you that the vast majority of individuals with disabilities underreport their experience with inaccessible technology; they don’t want to appear vulnerable or incapable to their bosses, and so when they raise the alarm, it’s as a last resort after they’ve tried unsuccessfully, usually for quite some time and with significant effort, to fix the issue or work around it themselves. And thus, the challenges we know about, I suspect, are just the tip of the iceberg.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act has, for decades, set a minimum standard for technology accessibility at the federal level. The investigation this committee conducted, and the resultant report, demonstrates how unsuccessful federal agencies have been at self-managing, self-enforcing, and self-implementing Section 508. The Department of Justice’s report from earlier this year on federal website compliance with Section 508 also demonstrates the utter failure of the United States Government to fulfill its promise to ensure that federal information and communication technology will be equally accessible to people with disabilities as it is to their non-disabled counterparts.
Nonetheless, much of the raw material is there in Section 508. The application of the Web Content and Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 standards—in fact adopting a single web content accessibility standard—means that those governed by Section 508 all operate from the same playbook. The recommendations of this committee in its report from last winter, if implemented, will improve accountability to the benefit of employees and the public alike. But the United States Access Board is insufficiently staffed to do the work that needs to be done. There is no agency with the power to enforce Section 508, and there are virtually no consequences for agencies that violate it. The General Services Administration (GSA) is supposed to regulate procurement and acquisition, and the federal government is supposed to buy accessible, but there are no consequences when it doesn’t. To add insult to injury, GSA actually claims—in public meetings of the Access Board and other public appearances—that it is doing a good job leading in the 508 compliance space, when any disabled employee encountering inaccessible technology in the federal space will tell you the exact opposite. So, we find ourselves in that vicious cycle I mentioned earlier that harkens back to the unemployment rates upwards of 50 and 70 percent.
In terms of state and local governments, again, the raw material is there for some of the more thoughtful and forward-thinking jurisdictions. For example, the Maryland General Assembly passed two laws in recent years—one applicable to the Executive Branch and the other to all public school districts—requiring the procurement of only accessible technology and establishing a technology standard that is modeled after the Section 508 standards, implementing a one-year remediation period when procured technology is not accessible, and implementing a monetary penalty for those vendors who fail to cure by the deadline. Though these laws are fairly new, we’ve experienced some success as a result, for example, when the Maryland Department of Transportation rescinded, revised, and reposted a solicitation for new kiosks for the State Motor Vehicle Administration.
The State of Colorado adopted a law that requires the development and use of nonvisual access standards that are applicable to all state procurement, use, and development of technology. The State of California adopted a similar law, which also requires any state contractor to address complaints of non-compliance. Other states with laws that address the development, maintenance, procurement, and/or use of information and communication technology include: Alabama; Arizona; Connecticut; Illinois; Indiana; Kansas; Louisiana; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Missouri; New York; Oklahoma; and Virginia.
However, there is no uniform approach among these laws. Some of them apply to local government entities within a state, and most do not. Some apply to what the government procures, and some laws only apply to what the government develops itself. Some laws apply to colleges and universities, some apply to K-12 institutions, and some apply to neither. Some apply to the Executive Branch of the state, and some apply to all branches of government. Some follow the 508 minimum standard, some direct the state Chief Information Officer or someone else to develop a standard, and some specify a particular version of WCAG. Because there is no uniform technology standard, no uniform scope, and no uniform accountability or enforcement standard, regulations are necessary for proper implementation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which should set those minimum standards.
In August of 2023, after a delay of more than a decade, the Department of Justice finally released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making for regulations on Title II of the ADA pertaining to websites and mobile apps. This rulemaking addresses the requirement that state and local governments must make technology, mobile applications, and digital experiences related to their programs, services, and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities. In the Arabic culture, we have an expression, and it translates to “It’s like fasting for a long time and breaking your fast on a raw, spoiled onion.” Devastatingly, it appears DOJ is poised to implement regulations that add seven unnecessary and frankly insulting exceptions to the requirement that state and local government entities make their technologies accessible. Previously, there were two exceptions—undue burden and fundamental alteration—and they are sufficient to ensure that the ADA does not create an impossible, or even a difficult, standard for those to whom it applies. These seven new exceptions include:
* Archived content (such as minutes of public meetings that are at the heart of civic engagement);
* pre-existing conventional electronic documents (like water quality reports, crime statistics, education scorecards, and other information posted in pdf, Word, Excel, or similar platforms that provide vital information about a community);
* content posted by third parties on a public entity's website (such as public comments, reviews, and government contractor deliverables);
* third-party web content linked from a public entity's website (such as COVID-19 testing and vaccine locations, government contractor-produced materials and information, and anything the government outsources to a third-party);
* course content on a public entity's password-protected or otherwise secured website for admitted students enrolled in a specific course offered by a public postsecondary institution (literally any course content using a learning management system such as Canvas or Blackboard which is basically the norm, shutting disabled students out of post-secondary education);
* class or course content on a public entity's password-protected or otherwise secured website for students enrolled, or parents of students enrolled, in a specific class or course at a public elementary or secondary school (literally any course content using a learning management system such as Canvas or Blackboard which is basically the norm, shutting disabled students and their families out of elementary and secondary education); and
* conventional electronic documents that are about a specific individual, their property, or their account and that are password-protected or otherwise secured (such as property tax bills, vital records, and court documents).
These exceptions are problematic in so many ways, not the least of which is that they undercut decades of work disability advocates have done to improve access to information, and that these exceptions will have the effect of shutting students out of their own education when education is the strongest tool in the arsenal of an individual with disability given the unemployment and under-employment crisis in America for our population. These exceptions will set not only employees with disabilities back into the technology stone age, but will also force those who are engaging with government to return to a time we thought we’d left behind.
I believe that federal, state, and local governments can and must do better. In the federal space, adopting the recommendations from this committee’s report will make a significant difference. In addition, I am suggesting some additional actions that will help solve this problem.
Congress should strengthen Section 508 by implementing a uniform and centralized complaint process administered by a single federal agency such as the Access Board similar to that operated by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The Department of Justice must receive and publish data and statistics annually on accessibility for not only websites but all federal ICT.
GSA should implement a uniform procurement process for all federal agencies that requires 508 compliance testing prior to installation on agency systems and removes those procured technologies from agency enterprises if they are found to be non-compliant or become non-compliant.
Congress should appropriately and sufficiently resource the Access Board in terms of staffing and empower it to hold federal agencies accountable.
Congress should request that all federal agencies report to Congress on which ICT have received 508 exceptions, which exceptions were applied, the date of the expiration of the exceptions, and the plan for removing the ICT should the ICT not be 508 compliant at the expiration of the exceptions.
All senior executives should have a critical element in their performance plans that includes 508 compliance metrics.
Federal agencies should apply the same heightened scrutiny for Section 508 compliance that they apply to IT security compliance.
Congress should withhold funding to those federal agencies who fail to meet 508 compliance standards.
In terms of applicability to state and local government entities, I suggest the following:
* DOJ should not implement the seven new exceptions in its final ADA Title II regulations.
* State CIOs should come together to develop a model policy that follows the Section 508 technology standards and adopts the current WCAG standard, and these standards should be applicable to all local jurisdictions as well.
* State legislatures should enact laws that require accessibility, apply the same standard as the federal government, and impose monetary penalties on entities that willfully fail to comply with accessibility standards when selling to government or fail to cure in a timely manner.
* Employers—federal, state, and local—should ensure that their systems, software, hardware, and other ICT is accessible to those with disabilities when they build, develop, or procure it. The pool of individuals with disabilities who are seeking employment is large, those individuals in that pool are capable of doing good work if they have the tools they need, and those individuals will strengthen the workforce.
I am a blind government employee. The people who are members of the organizations I lead are blind, low-vision, and otherwise disabled individuals. We work in government because we care about this country and the people who live in it. Though our eyes don’t work in the typical way, we are capable of serving the public and doing so well—provided the technology is built, procured, maintained, and developed with non-visual and other basic accessibility in mind. We are not limited by our disabilities—we are limited by a government that fails to include our needs in its technology infrastructure in a day and age where technology advances at the speed of light. This is not a capability problem—this is a willingness problem. Does federal, state, and local government have the willingness to be different? Time will tell!
----------
A Blind Soprano's Experience with Stage Combat
by Madie Hendrix
>From the Editor: This was originally published in Spotlight, the Newsletter of the National Federation of the Blind Performing Arts Division, available quarterly to the division’s members. I had never given any thought to the combat scenes that are sometimes played out in the performance of opera, and until this article, I never wondered about how a blind person would do more than sing. I hope you find this as informative as I have.
Before moving to the article, let’s learn a little bit about its author. Madie Hendrix is a blind coloratura soprano currently residing in Atlanta, Georgia. She has performed at churches throughout the southeast and has sung Carmina Burana and Beethoven's 9th Symphony with the Alabama Symphony Orchestra. Notable operatic highlights include her portrayal of Jennie in Street Scene by Weill and Fanchette in Le Mariage Aux Lanternes by Offenbach. She recently won the Harrower Scholarship for Voice and the 2023 Georgia State University Honors Recital. She completed her BA in voice at the University of Montevallo in 2020 and received a master’s degree in voice performance at Georgia State University in May of 2023. She is currently pursuing an artist diploma at Georgia State, where she is expected to sing the role of Genovieffa this fall in GSU's production of Suor Angelica.
Madie aims to bring access and equality to the operatic stage and wishes for her blindness not to be a barrier to performing, but rather for it to open the door for diverse and inclusive casting. Here is her article:
When I learned a stage combat instructor was coming to do a seminar for my Opera Workshop class, I was very excited, but also quite nervous. I really wanted to participate, but, being a blind singer, I wasn't sure how. I knew that sitting in the back listening (even if I had a friend describe what was going on to me) wasn't going to truly benefit me.
I'm a pretty shy, introverted person and don't usually speak up in class, but I knew I really needed to for this. So after our instructor Marcus introduced himself and we went over some safety precautions, I let him know that I am blind but did not want my disability to limit my participation. He had such a kind, down-to-earth personality and responded with, "I'm honored to work with you. This is a first for me, but we will make it work!"
Marcus definitely kept his word! I was able to do everything my peers were doing, and it felt amazing to be included in this type of class. Below is a list of the skills I learned, along with descriptions of how I was able to do each exercise safely.
Falling
Learning how to fall was definitely scary at first. I had to trust that the space around me was clear. I started learning the concept of falling backwards with a chair. I went from standing up to sitting down in a chair that was right behind me. At first I used my normal technique of reaching behind me to make sure the chair was there, placing the palm of my hand on the seat before I sat down. Then, I was challenged to not use my hands at all—to trust that it was there. So from standing, I took a deep breath and sat down in the chair without checking. Breathing really did come in handy because next, the chair was taken away. It helped at first to have someone's hand on my back as I began to fall, but I was able to eventually fall backwards without the support.
These same concepts were applied to falling forward and sideways. If falling from a standing position is a little too scary at first, I suggest falling from a kneeling position. I found this a lot less intimidating to begin with since it wasn't as far to the floor!
Slapping/Punching
Having a tangible reference point was very important for this. My partner and I stood facing each other. I was able to get a sense of exactly where they were by standing toe to toe with them at first. Then I took two steps back (my partner remained in place). I then put my left hand out, and my partner grabbed it with their right hand. This gave me some resistance as I took one step forward and made a slapping motion out to my left with my right hand. I made sure to follow through with the gesture so it looked strong and so my arms ended up being crossed. My partner would make the slapping noise by hitting their leg with their left hand (in an opera, though, this noise might be drowned out by the orchestra). It took some time to learn how to accomplish it safely, but I'm so glad this is now a tool in my toolbox!
Hair and Ear Grabs
This wasn't nearly as challenging as I thought it might be! I learned this by folding my fingers into a claw and pressing into the back of my partner's head. Then they grabbed my wrist with their hand and held on, which created the visual illusion that their hair was being pulled. Running around the space in that position together created quite the scene!
Conclusion
I'm so grateful to have had this experience. This is something I really thought wasn't possible for me, as the liability issues were just too great. But I know it is indeed possible now, and I have gained some very important skills so that I am just as prepared as my sighted colleagues. Equality is so important to me, and I wish for the stage to be an inclusive, diverse, safe home for all who wish to perform on it.
I hope this was insightful/helpful to all of you! If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. Thank you for letting me share my experience!
Follow Madie On
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MadieHendrixSoprano?mibextid=b06tZ0
Instagram - @MadieHendrixSoprano
YouTube - https://youtube.com/@MadieHendrixSoprano?si=SJOnO0AbQz4YvuFw
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Chai Feldblum]
Transformation of Jobs in the AbilityOne Program: Disability Advocacy, Leadership, and the Power of Concentrated Action
by Chai Feldblum
>From the Editor: For a very long time we have been fighting against the concept of subminimum wages. The AbilityOne Commission has been responsible for overseeing the AbilityOne program, and one of our long-term goals has been to have more than token representation on the Commission, understand its inner workings, and develop significant relationships that could lead to building bridges and changing the program. In this presentation, we hear from an excited presenter who believes that the stars have aligned and we are beginning to see the progress we have so long sought. May I offer in this note my support to mostly unsung heroes who have gone where Federationists were not initially welcomed and who managed to build bridges that have led to further understanding and significant progress. Here is what Chai Feldblum said on the last afternoon of our 2023 National Convention:
Hello, everyone. Actually, I'd like to call myself a freelance troublemaker—making good trouble. And I know I am in great company right now in terms of making good trouble.
First, thank you, President Riccobono for extending an invitation to me to speak at this convention. It's really an honor and also very exciting to be talking to a group that I am hoping will work in great partnership with what I and my fellow three citizen members are trying to do right now at the AbilityOne Commission.
I actually believe we are at a potentially transformative moment for increasing employment of people who are blind. That is due to a lot of work that NFB has been doing since 1940 when it was first established, and a lot of that success is due to the fact that NFB is an organization of the blind and not for the blind. I love your tagline: "Live the life you want." A life like that would include having a good job, and by a good job, I mean a job that provides real economic security by providing solid wages and benefits; a job that uses a person's full potential and offers the opportunity for career growth; and a job that provides a sense of self-worth and meaning.
So what I want to talk about today is how the AbilityOne Program can be a player in helping to achieve that outcome for people who are blind. I will tell you, this is not really the role that the AbilityOne Commission has played over time. Indeed, NFB has legitimately criticized the AbilityOne Program for its philosophical underpinnings, for its use by many of the nonprofit agencies in the Program of 14c certificates to pay sub-minimum or sub-prevailing wages, and, to be honest, the practical manner in which the program runs. The mindset of any number—not all, but any number of nonprofit agencies—that they are successful if they find a blind person a job, a person with a significant disability a job, and that person is in that job for thirty years. That's success. That is the mindset that has been in play for a long time. That's the mindset we are now trying to change.
I want to say something about technology in terms of this being a potentially transformative moment. There are amazing advances in technology happening now that are creating a whole new range of access for people who are blind that will help them be very successful in jobs, help them demonstrate their full potential, and there are companies that are aware of the financial benefits in developing and disseminating this technology. We need to leverage that.
I love saying "Let's capitalize on capitalism. Let's make it worth it for people to do things that will help us get employed." So I want to call out particularly Gina Kline and Margaret Knowles. They're in the audience here today. They're in the forefront of leveraging this effort. Gina founded two entities. One is called SmartJob. You can check it out on the web. It is developing an ecosystem of companies, developing new access technologies. And the second is Enable Ventures, which invests in these companies to help them scale up.
We at the AbilityOne Commission now are putting different expectations on our nonprofit agencies. We are telling them we expect them to work with their employees to understand what jobs they could have outside of their AbilityOne contract and to help them get that job. How different would that be? We're working with Gina and her group because there is technology out there to help make that move into the competitive economy, and we will make sure that NPAs (nonprofit agencies) know how to use those.
Now, any type of change requires stars to align. I will tell you something a lot of you know: There have been a lot of efforts to transform the AbilityOne Program over the course of time. In fact, a lot of those efforts were done by NFB. NFB in fact ran a successful campaign to get Anil Lewis, whom you're going to hear from soon, appointed as a citizen member of the AbilityOne Commission during the Obama administration. He served from 2012 to 2017.
I'm guessing that he can share many stories with you of trying to make change at the AbilityOne Commission and not getting anywhere. Anil, would you feel you had been a lonely voice crying in the wilderness sometimes? [Anil yells out yes.] Let me tell you, you need the stars to align to have social change be successful, and the stars are aligning now. That's why it's so important for NFB to be involved to keep pushing what the four citizen members of the Commission are calling the "grand experiment" to transform the AbilityOne Commission. So, these stars are aligning.
Number one, four new citizen members of the Commission were appointed at the same time in August 2021. I was on the transition team for the Biden Administration. I was given the job of analyzing the AbilityOne Commission, and one of the things I said was, there's room for four citizen members, there are only two there, they've been there for a really long time. How about having four new citizen members all appointed at the same time, and that's what happened.
Two years ago, August 2021, we came on as a critical mass. So, we didn't have to be the lone voice in the wilderness. Not only that: let's just say that we are a critical mass to be reckoned with. Two of the citizen members, Bryan Bashin and Gabe Cazares, are longtime members of NFB that many of you know. Let's just say they're not exactly shrinking violets. Our fourth citizen member, Chris Brandt, has been a leader in closing sheltered workshops, stopping 14c, and advancing employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Go, Chris!
The second star to align has been the career staff at the AbilityOne Commission. As a former political appointee at the EEOC for nine years, I can tell you that a political appointee might have the best idea about new initiatives, and if the career staff doesn't like it, it's not going to happen. No one even says anything negative. Just somehow, it just doesn't happen.
Well, we are lucky now in how the career staff has responded to the changes that the citizen members have been pushing. Kim Zeich, who had been the deputy director during many years that the AbilityOne Program operated in one way, totally got and supported two years ago what we started to do. She totally got and supported what we started to do as citizen members. That was hugely important in terms of success. And we got a new general counsel, Marlin Paschal, who knew a lot about procurement. Let me say he has learned a lot in the last two years about disability rights and ideology, and he has been very open to helping with change.
There is a new approach, again by people changing who have been there for a while and new people coming on. You've got three people from the AbilityOne Commission staff attending this convention right now: Amy Jensen, acting deputy executive director; Bradley Crain, our specialist in CIE and getting people out into the competitive employment—not a skill set that the AbilityOne Commission has had before; and Chris Stewart, who's the first blind lawyer working at the Commission. This makes a difference. Let me tell you, they all rock.
Again, simple things like budget: We all know what's in the budget is what matters. After I got invited to speak here, I checked to see whether the agency would pay. Yes. Not only that, but Kim was really sorry she couldn't come. She had another engagement.
She says, "Let's make sure Amy Jensen can go. Let's make sure Chris Stewart can go. Let's make sure Bradley Crain can go." What you spend money on tells you a bit about what you care about. So, I'm very glad to have Amy, Bradley, and Chris here. Let me tell you, I think we're coming every year.
The third star to align was the report issued by the National Council on Disability in October 2020. You got to hear from Andrés Gallegos earlier this morning. You know how important NCD is. In 2020, they issued a report calling for the complete dismantling of the AbilityOne Program because it is so flawed at its core, according to the report. They said yes, we want to use federal contracting dollars, which is what the AbilityOne Commission does, right—having these dollars to give contracts to help people who are blind and people with significant disabilities. The way we do it is get rid of this program that has these special set-aside jobs, and we have Congress pass a law requiring every federal contractor to hire a certain percentage of people who are blind and have significant disabilities.
Now, that report was my first exposure to the AbilityOne Commission. I read it and thought, ha! That's an agency that needs some reform.
As someone who likes challenges, I decided to say to the White House that I'd be interested in going inside to try to help, so long as I have some other good troublemakers. But I've worked with Congress my whole life on the ADA and other laws. There's no way I saw the chance of Congress passing a law requiring every federal contractor to hire a particular percentage of people who are blind or have significant disabilities. It wasn't going to happen. Even if it did, what sort of enforcement was there going to be, if people didn't meet their quota?
But the report was a catalyst for change. It was a catalyst for change because it was a dramatic statement that the AbilityOne Program was so flawed at its core that it had to be done away with.
So, the question is, can one actually transform the program even given some of its inherent flaws? And that's what I and the other three citizen members took on as a challenge and what I believe we are now starting to do.
Just for those who don't know, in terms of reminding ourselves of the flaw inherent in the program, it was begun in 1938. It was premised on the assumption that blind people couldn't do anything in the general economy. In fact, they weren't being hired in the general economy; they were working in sheltered workshops doing simple manual production and not getting paid very much. But that was the reality in 1938. The NFB was still two years away from being established, so the organized blind movement at the time focused on getting a law that would require the federal government to buy products from these workshops employing blind people. One advocate said this: "The best way for the federal government to help blind people is to buy the brooms and mops that blind people are making." That was the idea. Okay, well, that was fine at the time because they weren't able to get jobs elsewhere.
That's not what we want, having jobs where you're making brooms and mops. They set it up to not have integration because the whole idea was to create jobs for people who are blind; they made a requirement that 75 percent of what they called "direct labor hours" in making the products had to be done by blind people. They didn't include supervisors because hey, how could blind people be supervisors, right?
So the premise was not a premise that any of us would accept today in terms of the capacity of blind people to work. But that was the initial basis. This program has been updated, has been changed, only once, in 1971—fifty-two years ago. And it was changed to expand it so it was also contracts for services, not just for products, and to include people who were called severely disabled, which was actually defined as people whose disability made them unable to work in the "normal competitive economy."
Those are the flaws: the premise on which it's based, on the fact that it's contrary to integration at its very core, and, as I said, for years using 14c certificates.
How are we changing it? Well, number one, we issued a regulation prohibiting the use of 14c certificates on any AbilityOne contract. Thank you, NFB, for your consistent advocacy in this area.
Let's be clear: a number of these non-profit agencies have other contracts, not AbilityOne, where they are still using 14c certificates. One of the requests that came from the disability community is that we should consider another regulation that says that, if you're using 14c anywhere in your contracts, you can't play in our game of AbilityOne. We said in our preamble that we were certainly looking at that, but look, that's just the minimum threshold—a minimum threshold.
Here's what we're doing to really make this change happen. First, we're going to Congress with the legislative proposal that says, give us pilot project authority to award a contract, especially in skilled professional work, where the ratio will be less than 75 percent and where we can count supervisors. Give us the pilot project authority to show that this program that leverages government contracting money can create integrated work settings and a chance for upward and outward movement. We have that pending before Congress.
I talked with John Paré and the legislative team to help us get this. That's one thing. That's changing the statute itself a little by giving us pilot project authority.
But the second way we're moving is not dependent on Congress. We are changing the mindset—let me restate a bit. We are trying to change the mindset of nonprofit agencies that think all they have to do is get someone a job, let them stay there for thirty years, and everything is great. The way we're doing this is by saying, we have the following expectations of you.
Number one—this is in draft guidance that I hope will be finalized in a few months—for every employee that comes in, you have to do a job individualization. You have to make sure that you're giving the person the right fit of a job and you're giving them all the accommodations they need—job individualization, right from the get-go.
Number two: You need to have a qualified professional working with each of those employees to have a personalized employment plan. In fact, we call it a Person-Centered Employment Plan to reinforce the autonomy of the employee in figuring out a plan that will move that person forward in their career. PCEPs: Person-Centered Employment Plans. And then, finally, we are saying to the agencies: You need to have a career advancement program to help employees on your contracts move upward or outward. Let me tell you: employers do not usually want attrition. If you are having a worksite with a lot of attrition, you probably don't want to go work there. We're saying attrition is good in this respect: What you've done is counter the discrimination that happens out there every day against blind people who are trying to get a job, and who, of course, have never been told that the reason they're not getting it is because they're blind. But they don't get it.
We have a program now where being blind is the plus to get that job. Again, being blind is the plus to get that job. That is expensive real estate, that AbilityOne job, right?
Let's have this program be a launching pad for people who are blind and have other significant disabilities to get started in a job where they're getting a plus. We want the program to be the place where they get training, get good experience on their resume so they have a chance to get that next job. That's what we're trying to achieve.
I mean to close out with just two things that I think NFB could be incredibly helpful with in helping to make this change. One, you passed a great resolution in 2020 for nonprofit agencies for the blind to pledge to have 50 percent of their managers and 50 percent of their board be comprised of people who are blind. That is awesome because the way to change the mindset is to change the people who are running the program.
So, we're going to do everything we can to create different expectations, to reward the agencies who are doing this well. Let's give them some extra credit in getting new contracts. But the best way to change the mindset: Change the people who are running it.
I think you have something very concrete now to offer to nonprofit agencies, because we are now expecting them to give their employees a sense of what jobs outside the AbilityOne Program might look like so they can make an informed choice as to where they want to work. Well, NFB affiliates could be excellent ambassadors for educating blind employees about that. How about being value-added in this way?
Let me end with a reference to Jacobus tenBroek, an amazing human being, as you know—one of the founders of the NFB. He wrote a book in 1959 with Floyd Matson called Hope Deferred: Public Welfare and the Blind. It's a remarkable book, really. It gives a history of the sheltered workshops that is just so magnificent in understanding what was going on.
But it's also filled with heart-wrenching descriptions of where we have been as a nation with regard to respect for blind people and where we need to go. Well, tenBroek's book was called "Hope Deferred" because of how much still needed to be changed in 1959 when the book was published. I hope we are now on the threshold of hope achieved. I look forward to working with all of you as we transform the AbilityOne Program to be one small piece of the puzzle in getting to hope achieved. Thank you so much.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Charles Ny checks out one of John Olsen’s tactile artworks in the Exhibit Hall.]
First Convention Experience
by Charles Ny
>From the Editor: Charles writes as a new member of our New York City Chapter and a first time attendee of our national convention. He is a member of Manhattan Community Board Five, where he is on the Budget and the Parks and Public Spaces Committees. He runs a YouTube channel where he films interesting things to do in New York City and in other states. He does a lot of advocacy for the blind and visually impaired community at public meetings at the New York City Council and the NYC MTA board meetings.
There I was in Houston, Texas, at my first-ever National Federation of the Blind National Convention in 2023. Months before, I had signed up for the NFB Convention after becoming a member of my local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind in New York City. Some of the very informative seminars that I attended were "Every Traffic Light Accessible with OKO," "Non-24 Hour Sleep Disorder," "What's New with Google Accessibility," "What's New with Alexa," and "Blink Camera Accessibility."
I really enjoyed the OKO app seminar. There was a demo of how the app works with audio feedback, along with information on its functionality and how to use it. The session included many good questions and answers from the audience. The seminar was very in-depth and easy to understand, and I will try the app out sometime.
The "Non-24 Hour Sleep Disorder" seminar was useful. Even though the presenter couldn't go into too much detail, as they were not a medical clinician, I still gained some general information about the disorder. I liked that there was a small book that, when opened, had audio that spoke about non-24 hour sleep disorder, which I took home with me. Also, I appreciated that there was a way to have follow-up support from the pharmaceutical company if desired.
I was really excited to learn about the new Chromebook Accessibility Certification Program through the Academy of Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals in partnership with the Lighthouse Guild of Palm Beaches during the Google Accessibility seminar. It is really good that there are accessible certification programs in technology that the blind and visually impaired can take, which could help them pursue a career in technology.
Rounding up with the "What's New with Alexa" and "Blink Camera Accessibility" seminars, my takeaways are that it is great that Amazon is using audio description in product instructional videos and in the images displayed from the Blink camera.
Overall, my first NFB National Convention was very informative and resourceful.
---------
We Need Your Help
Very soon after I went blind, I went to my first convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Though as a six-year-old I was not scared about my future as a blind person, learning about the NFB and going to conventions showed me tons of independent blind people who I could look up to. Real life superheroes that I could aspire to be like. - Abigail
Blind children, students, and adults are making powerful strides in education and leadership every day across the United States, but we need to continue helping kids like Abigail. For more than eighty years, the National Federation of the Blind has worked to transform the dreams of hundreds of thousands of blind people into reality. With support from individuals like you, we can continue to provide powerful programs and critical resources now and for decades to come. We hope you will plan to be a part of our enduring movement by including the National Federation of the Blind in your charitable giving and in your estate planning. It is easier than you think.
With your help, the NFB will continue to:
* Give blind children the gift of literacy through Braille.
* Mentor young people like Abigail.
* Promote independent travel by providing free, long white canes to blind people in need.
* Develop dynamic educational projects and programs to show blind youth that science and math careers are within their reach.
* Deliver hundreds of accessible newspapers and magazines to provide blind people the essential information necessary to be actively involved in their communities.
* Offer aids and appliances that help seniors losing vision maintain their independence.
Below are just a few of the many tax-deductible ways you can show your support of the National Federation of the Blind.
LYFT Round Up
By visiting the menu, choosing donate, and selecting the National Federation of the Blind, you commit to giving to the National Federation of the Blind with each ride.
Vehicle Donation Program
We accept donated vehicles, including cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, or recreational vehicles. Just call 855-659-9314 toll-free, and a representative can make arrangements to pick up your donation. We can also answer any questions you have.
General Donation
General donations help support the ongoing programs of the NFB and the work to help blind people live the lives they want. You can call 410-659-9314, extension 2430, to give by phone. Give online with a credit card or through the mail with check or money order. Visit our Ways to Give Page at: https://nfb.org/give.
Pre-Authorized Contributions
Through the Pre-Authorized Contribution (PAC) program, supporters sustain the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind by making recurring monthly donations by direct withdrawal of funds from a checking account or a charge to a credit card. To enroll, call 877-NFB-2PAC, or fill out our PAC Donation Form https://www.nfb.org/pac.
Plan to Leave a Legacy
The National Federation of the Blind legacy society, our Dream Makers Circle, honors and recognizes the generosity and imagination of members and special friends who have chosen to leave a legacy through a will or other planned giving option. You can join the Dream Makers Circle in a myriad of ways.
Percentage or Fixed Sum of Assets
You can specify that a percentage or a fixed sum of your assets or property goes to the National Federation of the Blind in your will, trust, pension, IRA, life insurance policy, brokerage account, or other accounts.
Payable on Death (POD) Account
You can name the National Federation of the Blind as the beneficiary on a Payable on Death (POD) account through your bank. You can turn any checking or savings account into a POD account. This is one of the simplest ways to leave a legacy. The account is totally in your control during your lifetime, and you can change the beneficiary or percentage at any time with ease.
Will or Trust
If you do decide to create or revise your will, consider the National Federation of the Blind as a partial beneficiary.
Visit our Planned Giving webpage (https://www.nfb.org/get-involved/ways-give/planned-giving) or call 410-659-9314, extension 2422, for more information.
In 2022 our supporters helped the NFB:
* Send 371 Braille Santa and Winter Celebration letters to blind children, encouraging excitement for Braille literacy.
* Distribute over three thousand canes to blind people across the United States, empowering them to travel safely and independently throughout their communities.
* Deliver more than five hundred newspapers and magazines to more than 100,000 subscribers with print disabilities free of charge
* Give over seven hundred Braille-writing slates and styluses free of charge to blind users.
* Mentor 207 blind youth during our Braille Enrichment for Literacy and Learning® Academy.
* Award thirty scholarships each in the amount of $8,000 to blind students.
Just imagine what we will do next year, and, with your help, what can be accomplished for years to come. Together with love, hope, determination, and your support, we will continue to transform dreams into reality.
----------
>From Imagination to Reality: Celebrate the Power of Braille, Community, and Partnerships
"Partnership with NFB, year after year and product after product, has been the key to our success…as the methods used in the broader society to gain access and use information have undergone revolutionary changes in recent decades, HumanWare has been at the heart of that revolution as it has affected blind individuals."
We are only as good as the partners we collaborate with. One of the most meaningful and long-standing partnerships the National Federation of the Blind has is with HumanWare, a global leader in assistive technology for the blind and people with low vision. You may know their products such as the Victor Reader Stream, the Mantis, or the newly announced dynamic tactile graphic display, the Monarch. Through our long partnership with HumanWare, we have advanced our shared goal to get Braille in the hands of every blind person, because everyone deserves equal access to the world around them.
We are delighted to announce that HumanWare has presented us with a challenge grant. HumanWare will match up to $50,000 in contributions between October 1 and December 31. Help us to reach our end-of-year goal and double your dollars with HumanWare. Your contributions help us to challenge low expectations, advance equal access, and push the next generation of tactile graphics forward. Please share this exciting opportunity with friends and family, and if you are able, there are several ways to give:
* You can visit https://nfb.org/donate to give online.
* You can call 410-659-9314, extension 2430 to give by phone.
* You can mail a check to National Federation of the Blind, 200 East Wells Street, Baltimore, MD 21230.
Together we can bring big ideas into the hands of the community. With our partners, we are committed to expanding opportunities for blind people through Braille literacy, and we need your help. Thank you for your support of the National Federation of the Blind.
----------
Progress to Make the Web More Usable and Friendly for the Blind
>From the Editor: Here is a letter sent to our lists by the Advocacy and Policy Team. We have a lot of work to do to see that this bill becomes law, but for many of us it is a critical part of our battle to enjoy the fruits of the web without a titanic effort and a lot of screen-reader and browser skill not required by those who can see. Here is the update:
Dear Federation Family:
Thanks to everyone’s hard work the bipartisan Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act (S. 2984 /H.R. 5813) was introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives on September 28, 2023. This is a culmination of your advocacy beginning with Washington Seminar, and up to now. The Senate bill was introduced by Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, and the House bill was introduced by Representative John Sarbanes of Maryland. You can read more about the introduction of the bill in Senator Duckworth’s official press release. Senator Warren and Senator Markey have cosponsored the Senate bill, and Representative Pete Sessions cosponsored the House bill.
After years of advocacy, we are proud to have champions like Senator Duckworth and Representative Sarbanes, but the real challenge has only just begun. Now we have to shift our focus toward building support for the legislation in order to get it through the committees, onto the floor of the Senate and the House, and ultimately passed by both Chambers, to the desk of the president. This is where your advocacy, as blind constituents from every state in the Union who will benefit from the requirements of this legislation, is more important than ever. Please call and email your senators and representatives and ask them to cosponsor the Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act today!
When you call or email you might say something like:
"Hello, my name is [YOUR NAME], and I am a constituent of [SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE NAME]. I live in [CITY, STATE]. I would like to urge [SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE NAME] to cosponsor the Websites and Software Applications Accessibility Act, [S. 2984/H.R. 5813]. This legislation would ensure that blind and disabled Americans can have the same opportunity to independently access websites and applications as our non-disabled peers.
Thanks."
You can contact your member of Congress by calling the Capitol Switchboard and asking for the office in question. The number is 202-224-3121. If you contact your senator or representative via email, please copy Jeff Kaloc at jkaloc at nfb.org. Your calls and emails do make a difference.
Inaccessible websites and applications are a barrier and prevent us from living the lives we want. They prevent us from getting the education, employment, and independence that we desire. This is why our advocacy for this bill is so important.
----------
Finding Opportunities That Are Helping Me Live the Life I Want
by Hillary McFadden
>From the Editor: This article describes far too many situations in which blind people are environmentally integrated but not educationally integrated. We live at home, a plus. We attend school with our siblings, a plus. But too often when it comes to friends, we are alone. Is it the constant accompaniment of a paraprofessional some parents are so proud of getting but who is always around and gets in the way of friendships? Is it behaviors we can have identified and then change so people want to be our friends? Can we, like our sighted colleagues, find an event that gives our school experience enjoyment?
Hillary lives in Pennsylvania and is an active part of our Capital Chapter. Like many, she has faced the consequences of low expectations and writes about times in her ongoing effort to exceed them. Here is her article:
I write as a person who is completely blind and also on the autistic spectrum. At seventeen, I took up speed skating, having first heard about tryouts over the school intercom when I was sixteen. I attended Halifax High School on Peter’s Mountain Road and commuted from Harrisburg throughout my high school years. I must admit that I didn't particularly enjoy my time there. It wasn’t a school for the blind; it was a public school. The only classes I truly appreciated were Spanish, French I, chorus, and English. Regrettably, I wasn't permitted to take art due to my disability. Frankly, I found high school challenging: I struggled with math, didn’t attend my prom, and often felt isolated.
However, a silver lining appeared in the summer of 2000 when I participated in the WINGS program (Winning Independence Now Guarantees Success). This five-week initiative, tailored for blind teenagers aged fifteen to twenty-one, instilled in us the skills to live independently. It transformed my life.
Speed skating played a pivotal role in my life and my self-concept. Though not affiliated with my school, some of my peers showed interest. Prior to skating, I wasn't particularly athletic. My commitment to the sport, however, has led to multiple accolades, including gold, silver, and bronze medals in state games since 2001. One of my achievements even earned a feature on local news, now competing for a national news award.
Currently, I'm with the Special Olympics team previously known as Area M—I believe it's now the Capital Area Chapter, but I prefer the original name.
Speed skating has been tremendous for me, and I hope all of you who read this can find an activity that makes you feel good about life and gives you a real challenge. Before WINGS and my involvement with the National Federation of the Blind, I harbored self-limiting beliefs. Today, thanks to the Federation, I've grown and achieved so much.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Gary Wunder]
Voices of History: The Pitfall of Speaking for the Dead
by Gary Wunder
In the ever-evolving discourse of social, political, and technological paradigms, it is common to lean on the weight of history's most profound figures to lend gravitas and certainty to our arguments, whether these arguments are about nationwide events or those taking place within our Federation. But do we, standing at the juncture of a world drastically different from theirs, have the right to speculate on how these figures would react to today's societal landscapes? In an effort to understand and appreciate history, are we unintentionally silencing the very voices we seek to uplift?
I think about how often I hear the names of Dr. tenBroek, Dr. Jernigan, and other leaders of prominence when discussing our Federation difficulties of today. The presumption is always clearly stated that “I know if X were still around, we certainly wouldn’t be in this place.” “We just need the values that Y brought to our movement, but instead we water down the standards we used to hold for one another and those things we unquestionably took as true.” “You can bet your last dollar that Z would never have let us take this position.”
Of course, it is not just in the Federation that we hear this kind of speculation about how the world would be a better place if only our strong ancestors were still in charge. It's tempting, especially when faced with pressing societal issues, to wonder how the greats—such as the likes of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B. Anthony—would have responded. Would Jefferson, with his contradictory life as both a proponent of liberty and a slave owner, have altered his stance on slavery had he lived through the civil rights movement and been a mature and competent adult today? Would Lincoln have come out of retirement to march in Selma? Would Washington gaze upon the strides made in women's liberation and see it as a natural progression of freedom, or would he stand before us assuming that some husband wasn’t firm enough with his wife or some women just didn’t know the real art of their sex? Would Anthony, having fought for the right of women to vote, nonetheless conclude that today’s feminists have gone too far, or would she stand in solidarity with them? Would King support continued affirmative action initiatives and decry efforts to abolish them, or would he see them as a betrayal of his dream that people be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?
However interesting these speculations may prove to be, they are fraught with inherent dangers. To superimpose our modern perspectives onto historical figures is to rob them of their agency and context. Their reactions, much like ours today, would have been deeply influenced by the societal and cultural ecosystems they inhabited. By suggesting stances these figures might take today, we run the risk of shortchanging them. The values and beliefs they held were a product of their times, and it's unjust to detach them from that context. They were not immune to change; their views were malleable, shaped by personal experiences, and by the evolving world around them. To anchor them indefinitely to the views they held in their lifetime is to diminish their capacity for growth and understanding.
Furthermore, there is an ethical dimension to consider. Is it fair to use the names of the departed to bolster our arguments? By putting words into their mouths, I believe we overstep our bounds. It is one thing to analyze and interpret their existing words and actions, but quite another to extrapolate and mold their beliefs to fit our narratives.
As participants in the ongoing narrative of human history, we ought to shoulder the responsibility of formulating our own arguments and beliefs without using the dead as mouthpieces. Their contributions to our shared history provide ample material for reflection and inspiration. Let their words and deeds speak for themselves, and let's not fall into the trap of speculating on their behalf.
The legacies of historical figures should serve as signposts, not shackles. They can guide us, inspire us, and even warn us. But it is incumbent on us to move forward, understanding that the values of yesterday, while influential, are not always a mirror to today's world. We must not co-opt the history of others to replace our obligation to think, consider new facts, and synthesize them into something that makes sense. Let's respect the past, understand its context, and forge ahead with our own voices, clear and resolute.
----------
Monitor Miniatures
News from the Federation Family
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Tom Anderson, August 14, 1952 - August 29, 2023]
The Federation Loses a Jewel:
We of the Kansas affiliate regret to announce the loss of a good man and a long time Federation leader. Tom Anderson passed on Tuesday (August 29, 2023) of this week in the late afternoon hours at Advent Health in Overland Park, Kansas, where he was hospitalized to treat very severe COVID symptoms.
Many Federationists will fondly remember Tom's eloquently delivered invocations at NFB national conventions over many years. Those involved with the Communities of Faith Division will miss his leadership in the devotional services which take place every morning at convention.
As a Braille and communications instructor at Colorado Center for the Blind, Tom touched untold hundreds of lives over many years before retiring and returning to Kansas.
Back in Kansas, Tom went immediately to work, serving on several state advisory committees pertaining to blind Kansans, while serving as a member of the Kansas affiliate board of directors.
Above all, Tom was a wonderful husband to his wife Linda, also a long time Federationist. Tom will definitely be missed by all and forgotten by none.
Sincerely,
Rob Tabor
First Vice President
National Federation of the Blind of Kansas
In Brief
Notices and information in this section may be of interest to Monitor readers. We are not responsible for the accuracy of the information; we have edited only for space and clarity.
Update: Free At-Home COVID-19 Tests for Blind and Low-Vision People:
At-home COVID-19 tests are again available at no cost through a partnership between the HHS Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response and the United States Postal Service. These tests will detect the currently circulating COVID-19 variants, are intended for use through the end of 2023, and will include clear instructions on how to verify extended expiration dates.
Blind and low-vision people can order more accessible at-home tests from USPS.com (while supplies last). Order online through https://special.usps.com/testkits/accessible <https://special.usps.com/testkits/accessible> or by calling 1-800-232-0233. Each order will include two rapid-antigen tests and will ship free, while supplies last.
Because of limited supply, we are asked that you only order the more accessible tests if you do not have other testing options. To use the tests, you must have a compatible Bluetooth-enabled smartphone and download and install a free app from the Apple App Store (for iOS) or Google Play Store (for Android). The test works with the app to provide audio step-by-step instructions for administering the test and audio test results.
Additional Resource
The Disability Information and Assistance Line (DIAL) https://acl.gov/DIAL is an additional resource, connecting people with disabilities to COVID-19 vaccination and testing in their communities. DIAL can also provide testing instructions and other assistance with the at-home tests that can be ordered from the government. The National Federation of the Blind encourages contacting DIAL to inquire about accessible testing options. DIAL support can be reached by calling 888-677-1199 or by emailing dial at usaginganddisability.org <mailto:dial at usaginganddisability.org> .
Monitor Mart
The notices in this section have been edited for clarity, but we can pass along only the information we were given. We are not responsible for the accuracy of the statements made or the quality of the products for sale.
Piano Lessons for Those Wanting to Learn Virtually:
Hi, music lovers, I’m Elizabeth Sprecher, and I’m a pianist. I am looking for students interested in learning Braille music and/or piano virtually. I’m open to teaching at all levels. I recently graduated from Roosevelt University, Chicago College of Performing Arts, with a bachelor’s in piano performance and a minor in creative writing. I have been a part of Scene Change, The National Federation of the Blind Performing Arts Division’s podcast, where I discuss with other pianists, all things piano related. Feel free to hear our discussion on the two-part episode called, “A Scene Change Recital.” My passion is to provide guidance for musicians who are passionate in their love of music, help blind musicians find equal access in music reading, and improve musical expression in my students.
My rate is a dollar a minute, starting with a minimum of thirty minutes. It follows that forty-five minutes is $45, and an hour is $60.
I look forward to hearing from you and joining you on your musical journey. Call me, Elizabeth Sprecher, by phone at 773-431-2627 or write to me at Elizabeth.Sprecher103 at gmail.com <mailto:Elizabeth.Sprecher103 at gmail.com> .
----------
NFB Pledge
I pledge to participate actively in the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind to achieve equality, opportunity, and security for the blind; to support the policies and programs of the Federation; and to abide by its constitution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbofsc_nfbnet.org/attachments/20231101/72e6e16c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Brl-monitor mailing list
Brl-monitor at nfbcal.org
https://nfbcal.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/brl-monitor
More information about the NFBofSC
mailing list