
                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

                                 February, 1997


                    _Barbara _Pierce, _Editor


      Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND


                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT


                         National Office

                       1800 Johnson Street

                    Baltimore, Maryland 21230

                   NFB Net BBS: (612) 696-1975 or Telnet to nfbnet.org

              Web Page address: http://www.nfb.org


           Letters to the President, address changes,

        subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,

      articles for the _Monitor, and letters to the Editor

             should be sent to the National Office.

_Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five
dollars per year. Members are invited, and
non-members 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

                       1800 Johnson Street

                    Baltimore, Maryland 21230


 __THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN _ORGANIZATION

     __SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR
                           _THEMSELVES

   _ISSN _0006-8829THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND


                            CONTENTS
                                                   February, 1997


Mr. Gertstenberger Leaves Employment with the National Federation
of the Blind
  by Kenneth Jernigan

A Matter of Perspective: Discrimination in the Courts
  by Marc Maurer

Decision in the Cheryl Fischer Case

                                               Dissenting Opinion

                          New Book Sends Wrong Message to Parents
  by Carol Castellano

Why I Am Choosing Blindness: Personal Reflections on the Need
for a Functional Definition
  by Scott Feldman

Special Notices for New Copyright Law
  by James Gashel

Doing Business as Usual

         Almost Heaven in '97--New Orleans--A Mecca for Fine Food
  by Jerry Whittle

American Express Spotlights Curtis Chong

            Performing the Average Job: A Question of Technology
  by Curtis Chong

Albuquerque Public Library Mails VDS Videos Free Matter
  by James L. Salas

NLS Contracts for Validation of National Literary Braille
Competency Test

                                                          Recipes

                                              Monitor Miniatures


      Copyright (&+c) 1997 National Federation of the Blind
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Duane Gerstenberger]

           __MR. GERSTENBERGER LEAVES EMPLOYMENT _WITH

             __THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE _BLIND

                     _by _Kenneth _Jernigan

  I first met Mr. Gerstenberger in 1973 when I employed him as a
librarian at the Iowa Commission for the Blind. Shortly after the
National Center for the Blind was established in Baltimore, he
left Iowa to take employment with the Federation. During the last
few years he has served as our Executive Director. As of January
31, 1997, he is resigning to move to the state of Washington.
  These are the unadorned facts, but they do not convey the
closeness that many of us in the Federation have with Mr.
Gerstenberger. He is part of the inner core of our movement.
Though sighted, he understands, believes, and lives our
philosophy on a daily basis. He is more than an employee or
colleague. He is as dedicated to our cause and as committed to
our effort as any member we have.
  On a personal note, I trust and rely on Mr. Gerstenberger to
the ultimate. That will not change as he leaves formal employment
with the Federation. He will be in New Orleans this summer,
supervising the exhibit hall as usual.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Marc Maurer]

                   __A MATTER OF _PERSPECTIVE:

                 __DISCRIMINATION IN THE _COURTS

                        _by _Marc _Maurer

  Cheryl Fischer is a blind woman in her thirties living in Ohio.
Eight years ago she applied for admission to Case Western Reserve
medical school. Her grades justified the application. The medical
school apparently considered the application with caution,
suspicion, and fear. Rather than permitting the application to be
considered in the usual customary process, the medical school
established a separate committee to review the application and to
determine whether it would be accepted or rejected. The members
of the special ad hoc admission committee interviewed Cheryl
Fischer; they expressed their belief that no blind person could
be a doctor; and they rejected the application.
  If the ad hoc admissions committee of the school is correct,
the decision they reached is fair, rational, and prudent. If it
is incorrect, the decision is a case of discrimination.
  Cheryl Fischer said that her purpose in matriculating at the
medical school was to become a psychiatrist. She is not the first
blind person who has sought to participate in this profession.
There are blind people practicing psychiatry today. However, this
is not the only medical profession in which the blind are
participants.
  In the late 1960's I met a dentist who had become blind. He was
serving as a medical officer for the city of Omaha, Nebraska. His
duties included the design and implementation of educational
programs to assist school children and personnel in the city to
increase their dental health. Before I met this dentist, I would
have been absolutely certain that no blind person could
participate in the dental profession in any way. And, of course,
I would have been completely wrong.
  I suspect it is fair to say that most human beings feel
reluctant to permit blind people to enter the medical profession
or practice in it. The reaction is heartfelt and personal--I
don't want some blind doctor cutting on me! However, this
reaction ignores a fundamental reality. It is not vision that
makes a good doctor but mental capacity, experience, and the
proper caring spirit.
  There have been dozens of blind people in the medical
profession. Most of these practitioners learned the
technicalities of medical practice before they became blind.
However, Dr. David Hartman attended medical school at Temple
University as a blind student.
  In the late 70's and early 80's a practitioner of family
medicine in Louisiana, Dr. Spencer Lewis, lost his sight. Despite
his blindness Dr. Lewis's patients continued to seek medical
services from him. Dr. Lewis performed well as a doctor. For
example, he delivered a child for one of the long-time leaders in
the Federation, Joanne Wilson.
  When Dr. Lewis lost his sight, the Louisiana Medical Board
decided that his license to practice medicine should be revoked.
However, Dr. Lewis's patients felt trust and confidence in him.
They did not want to lose his services. With the help of the
National Federation of the Blind, Dr. Lewis fought to retain his
license, and he won.
  This brings us back to the Cheryl Fischer case, which began in
1988. When her application to attend Case Western Reserve medical
school was rejected, Cheryl Fischer filed a complaint of
discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. After
considering the evidence, the Commission issued a decision in
favor of Cheryl Fischer. The medical school appealed to the Ohio
courts. The trial court considered the case and agreed with the
Civil Rights Commission--discrimination had occurred against
Cheryl Fischer, the judge said. Once again the school appealed.
The appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, and
the case was sent to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
  In the decision which was reached in Ohio's highest court,
there are two classically different methods of approach. The
four-judge majority that decided against Cheryl Fischer
concentrated on individual details. These judges explained at
length what specifics of a medical practice they believed are
beyond the capacity of any blind person. They said that a blind
student cannot read an X-ray or "observe" the patient. They said
that the use of an assistant to read the X-ray or describe the
coloring of the patient is an inadequate substitute for the
personal observation of the physician. These four judges
concluded that the decision of the ad hoc admissions committee of
Case Western Reserve medical school was correct--no blind person
possesses the capacity to perform adequately as a medical student
or a doctor, they said.
  The other three judges on the Ohio Supreme Court dissented.
These judges took a completely different approach. They said that
prejudging an individual without permitting that person to try is
prejudice and that declaring an entire class to be ineligible
based on the characteristic of that class, without first
examining the individuals who make up the class, is the most
classic sort of discriminatory behavior. In the specific instance
of Cheryl Fischer they pointed out that she was not offered the
opportunity to try. It was determined that her efforts would be
inadequate regardless of her skills, regardless of her
performance, regardless of her mental capacity, and regardless of
the techniques she might employ. This is unacceptable under the
law because it is discriminatory, they said.
  It will come as no surprise to readers of the _Braille _Monitor
that I agree with the dissenting judges. Discrimination has
occurred in the Cheryl Fischer case. It occurred in the
admissions process at Case Western Reserve University; it
occurred in the decision-making process of the ad hoc admissions
committee; it occurred in the Court of Appeals; and it occurred
in the Ohio Supreme Court. Although we made an effort to present
to the court the case for the capacity of blind people, our
efforts were unsuccessful. The prejudice against blindness in the
minds of the Supreme Court judges in Ohio prevailed.
  However, this decision is not the last word on the opportunity
for blind people to participate in medical school and the medical
profession. Prejudice can be overcome with determination and
education. We will raise the matter again. The prejudice which
exists against blind people may be widespread, but it is less
today than it was when the National Federation of the Blind came
into being in 1940. The Cheryl Fischer case has been lost, but
there will be another case. Sooner or later we will win. We
believe in what we do, and we cannot be discouraged by a
temporary setback--no matter how dramatic it may appear. Although
we occasionally lose skirmishes and we sometimes lose battles, we
never lose a war because the war is never over until we win.
  Here is the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court. And, of more
importance, here also is the dissenting opinion of that court.


             __DECISION IN THE CHERYL FISCHER _CASE


        OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLANTS,

                               V.

           CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, APPELLEE.

Civil Rights Commission--Elements of prima facie case of
discrimination in education under R.C. 4112.022(A)--"Otherwise
qualified" handicapped person, defined.

1. A prima facie case of discrimination in education under R.C.
  4112.022(A) includes three elements: (1) the plaintiff is a
  handicapped person within the meaning of R.C. 4112.01(A)(13);
  (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in the
  program; and (3) the plaintiff is being excluded from the
  program on the basis of a handicap.

2. An "otherwise qualified" handicapped person is one who is able
  to safely and substantially perform an educational program's
  essential requirements with reasonable accommodation. An
  accommodation is not reasonable where it requires fundamental
  alterations in the essential nature of the program or imposes
  an undue financial or administrative burden.

  (No. 95-387--Submitted March 6, 1996--Decided July 31, 1996.)

  APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.
  66721.

  Plaintiff-appellant, Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC"),
appeals from a decision approving Case Western Reserve
University's ("CWRU") denial of a blind candidate's application
for admission to its medical school.
  Plaintiff-appellant, Cheryl A. Fischer ("Fischer"), completely
lost her vision during her junior year of undergraduate study at
CWRU. To accommodate Fischer's handicap while she pursued a
chemistry degree, CWRU provided Fischer with lab assistants and
readers, modified the written exams to oral ones, and extended
the time periods in which to take exams. Fischer also used a
closed circuit television to magnify images before she totally
lost her sight and books on tape to assist her. Thus, in spite of
her handicap, Fischer successfully completed all of CWRU's
academic requirements and received her baccalaureate degree, _cum
_laude, in 1987.
[PHOTO/CAPTION: Cheryl Fischer]
  Following graduation, Fischer sought admission to medical
school. All medical colleges in the United States belong to the
Association of American Medical Colleges ("AAMC"). In January,
1979, the AAMC adopted the "Report of the Special Advisory Panel
on Technical Standards for Medical School Admission." The AAMC
Technical Standards Report requires candidates for a medical
school degree to have the ability to observe. Specifically, the
report states, "[t]he candidate must be able to observe
demonstrations and experiments in the basic sciences. . . . A
candidate must be able to observe a patient accurately at a
distance and close at hand. Observation necessitates the
functional use of the sense of vision and somatic sensation." The
Technical Report further states, "a candidate should be able to
perform in a reasonably independent manner. The use of a trained
intermediary means that a candidate's judgment must be mediated
by someone else's power of selection and observation." Although
medical colleges are not required to follow the Technical
Standards Report, the AAMC encouraged medical schools to use it
as a guideline in developing their own standards.
  In 1987 Cheryl applied to the medical school at CWRU.1 CWRU
used the AAMC Technical Standards Report as a guideline in
evaluating the four thousand to five thousand preliminary
applications received annually for a class total of one hundred
thirty-eight.2 Due to Fischer's sufficient academic credentials
and extraordinary letters of recommendation, Dr. Albert C. Kirby,
Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs at CWRU's
medical school, granted Fischer an interview. Subsequently Dr.
Kirby placed Fischer on an alternate list but ultimately denied
her application. The following year Fischer reapplied to CWRU.3
  In this second application process Fischer was one of seven
hundred applicants granted an interview and the only applicant to
be interviewed by three Admission Committee members: Dr. Kirby,
Dr. Richard B. Fratianne, and Dr. Mildred Lam. Dr. Kirby believed
that CWRU should accept Fischer into the class. Drs. Fratianne
and Lam concluded that a blind student would be unable to
complete the requirements of the medical school program.
  CWRU's four-year curriculum consists of three basic components:
the core academic program, the flexible program, and the patient-
based program. The core academic program occupies the medical
student's first two years and is taught using traditional methods
such as lectures, lab experiments, and textbooks. The core
academic program consists of study in the basic sciences, such as
anatomy, histology, pathology, and physiology. The flexible
program consists of electives, allowing students to engage in
independent research and study in a specific area. The patient-
based program includes clerkships in internal medicine,
pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, and
primary care. In these different clerkships students provide
direct patient care. For example, students must perform a
complete physical exam, review laboratory test results, review
patient charts, and perform basic medical procedures, such as
starting an I.V., administering medications through veins,
drawing blood, and responding in emergency situations. The
surgery clerkship includes rotations in the emergency room and
intensive care unit.
  After interviewing Fischer, Dr. Fratianne, Associate Professor
of Surgery at CWRU, concluded that Fischer would be unable to
complete the medical school program. He believed that due to her
lack of vision, Fischer would be unable to exercise independent
judgment when reading an X-ray, unable to start an I.V., and
unable to effectively participate in the surgery clerkship.
  Following an interview with Fischer, Dr. Lam, Associate
Professor of Medicine at CWRU, concluded that a blind student
would be unable to complete the first and second year courses in
the basic sciences which required the student to observe and
identify various tissues and organ structures. For example,
histology requires a student to identify tissue and organ
structures through a microscope, and pathology requires a student
to observe how such structures are affected by disease. She
believed that no accommodation would enable a blind student to
complete these course requirements.
  Dr. Lam further opined that a blind medical student could not
complete the third and fourth year clerkships. A blind student
would be unable to start an I.V., draw blood, take night call,
react in emergency situations, or pass the objective clinical
exam which required a student to perform a physical exam and read
an EKG and an X-ray. Dr. Lam prepared a list of forty-three
medical conditions, such as jaundice or a patient's state of
consciousness, which require good vision to diagnose. Dr. Lam
also listed twenty-one medical procedures, such as arterial line
placement, which require good vision. Dr. Lam concluded that an
intermediary could not assist a blind medical student because use
of an intermediary would require extra time that is not available
in an emergency situation, and the observations during and the
accuracy of the physical exam would be "only as good as the
intermediary." Fischer recalled that during the interview, Dr.
Lam commented that the "whole concept" of a blind medical student
was "ridiculous."
  After the three interviews and after consulting other CWRU
medical school professors and students, CWRU's Admissions
Committee, by a unanimous vote, denied Fischer's application.4
Although the committee was aware of Dr. David Hartman, a
psychiatrist who graduated from Temple University School of
Medicine while totally blind in 1976, the committee did not
contact Dr. Hartman or Temple University.
  Dr. Hartman's experience affected the decision-making in this
case. Temple University, in 1972, voluntarily increased the size
of the incoming class by one to accept Dr. Hartman. To facilitate
his first two years of study in the basic sciences, Dr. Hartman
used a raised-line drawing board to diagram and illustrate
various structures. Postdoctoral or graduate students privately
tutored Dr. Hartman by describing to him the slides of structures
under microscope and using the raised-line drawing board. Other
medical students also assisted Dr. Hartman by describing
experiments they conducted and otherwise sharing information. Dr.
Hartman also listened to books on tapes, used readers, and relied
on his sense of touch for classes such as anatomy.
  In virtually all of his first and second year courses Dr.
Hartman required one-on-one assistance from his professors. Dr.
Hartman estimated that the professors in the anatomy department,
which included courses in gross anatomy, neuroanatomy,
embryology, and histology, spent double or triple the time
tutoring him than they spent tutoring the average student. John
R. Troyer, Ph.D., a professor who was on the faculty at Temple
when Dr. Hartman attended, believed that the extra time he spent
with Dr. Hartman took away from time he had to tutor other
students. For this reason Dr. Troyer had reservations about
accepting another blind student.
  Professors at Temple also modified their lectures to
accommodate Dr. Hartman. For example, professors diagrammed
structures on the raised line drawing board that the other
students viewed under a microscope and verbally described
processes instead of visually demonstrating them. One professor
even sat next to Dr. Hartman during class and described
   procedures being conducted in a class demonstration.
  To facilitate his clerkships, Dr. Hartman would have a nurse,
another student, the resident, or intern perform parts of a
physical examination which required visual observations and
describe their observations to him. Another student or a nurse
would read patient charts and laboratory test results to him. Dr.
Hartman could not start an I.V. without the supervision and
assistance of a nurse and could not read an X-ray without relying
on a radiologist.
  During the surgical clerkship Dr. Hartman spent only one or two
days a week for three to four hours a day in surgery, where other
students spent six or seven hours a day every day in surgery.
Instead of being placed on night call alone, Dr. Hartman was
paired with another student because the hospital relied on
medical students to start I.V.s and draw blood.
  Dr. Hartman's testimony revealed that his successful completion
of the school's requirements depended on the willingness of the
faculty and other students to spend the extra time describing and
sharing information with him.
  Following the second denial of Fischer's application to medical
school, Fischer filed a complaint with the OCRC, alleging that
CWRU had discriminated against her by denying her admission to
the medical school on the basis of her handicap. After an
investigation OCRC found it probable that CWRU engaged in
discriminatory practices in violation of R.C. 4112.022 and filed
a complaint and notice of hearing.5
  Following the hearing the examiner concluded that CWRU had not
discriminated against Fischer and recommended dismissal of her
complaint. The hearing examiner found that (1) Fischer could not
complete the first two years of CWRU's requirements unless CWRU
was willing to accommodate Fischer's handicap beyond what is
legally required and was willing to place an undue burden on its
teaching faculty, and (2) Fischer could not successfully complete
the core clerkships without substantial modification to the
essential nature of the program.
  Upon its review of the hearing examiner's report, OCRC came to
a different conclusion. Relying heavily upon Dr. Hartman's
experience, OCRC concluded that Fischer could complete the
medical school program with reasonable accommodations that would
not modify the essential nature of its program. OCRC further
found that CWRU violated an affirmative duty to gather
substantial information to ascertain whether Fischer could
benefit from the medical school's program. Finding CWRU had
discriminated against Fischer, OCRC issued a cease and desist
order and ordered CWRU to admit Fischer into its next class.
  CWRU appealed to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, which
found that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
supported OCRC's findings of fact and conclusions of law and
affirmed the OCRC order. The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County
reversed, holding that the record did not support the trial
court's finding that admitting Fischer would not necessitate a
modification of the essential nature of the program and would not
place an undue burden on CWRU. The court of appeals determined
that the trial court had abused its discretion by relying upon
   Dr. Hartman's experience at Temple University and in finding that
Temple made only reasonable accommodations.
  This cause is now before the court upon the allowance of a
discretionary appeal.

  Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Sutton, State
Solicitor, Nancy Holland Myers and Denise M. Johnson, Assistant
Attorneys General, for appellant Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

  Gary, Naegele & Theado, Thomas A. Downie and Robert D. Gary
Lorain; Robert A. Dixon, Cleveland; Zygmunt G. Slominski,
Guaynobo, PR; and Russell D. Kornblut, Miami, FL, for appellant
Cheryl A. Fischer.

  Kelley, McCann & Livingstone, Joel A. Makee, Mark J. Valponi
and Colleen Treml, Cleveland, for appellee.

  Ohio Legal Rights Service, Jane P. Perry and Robert S. Mills,
Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae, Ohio Legal Rights
Service and National Federation of the Blind of Ohio.

  Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman, Kathaleen B. Schulte and
Frederick M. Gittes, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio
Employment Lawyers Association.

  Chester, Willcox & Saxbe and Charles R. Saxbe, Columbus, Brown,
Goldstein & Levy, Daniel F. Goldstein and Dana Whitehead,
Baltimore, MD, urging reversal for amici curiae, National
Federation of the Blind and American Society of Handicapped
Physicians.

  Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Simon B. Karas, Deputy
Chief Counsel, and John C. Dowling, Assistant Attorney General,
urging affirmance for amici curiae, Ohio's Public Medical
Schools.

  Joseph A. Keyes, Jr., Washington, DC, Kirk B. Johnson and
Michael L. Ile, Chicago, IL, urging affirmance for amici curiae,
Association of American Medical Colleges and American Medical
Association.


                       _Majority _Opinion

  Cook, Justice. In this case, we are presented with the question
of whether CWRU violated R.C. 4112.022(A) by denying a totally
blind applicant admission to its medical school. We affirm the
judgment of the court of appeals finding no violation.


         I. PRIMA FACIE CASE OF HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION

  OCRC charges that CWRU violated R.C. 4112.022, which prohibits
discrimination against handicapped persons by educational
   institutions. Specifically, the statute provides:

  "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any
educational institution to discriminate against any individual on
account of any handicap:
  "(A) In admission or assignment to any academic program, course
of study, internship, or class offered by the institution."

  Similarly, Ohio Adm. Code 4112-5-09(B)(1) provides:

  "Qualified handicapped persons shall not be denied admission or
be subjected to discrimination in admission or recruitment on the
basis of handicap at an educational institution covered by
Chapter 4112. of the Revised Code."
  The parties agree and we hold that a prima facie case of
discrimination in education under R.C. 4112.022(A) includes three
elements: (1) the plaintiff is a handicapped person within the
meaning of R.C. 4112.01(A)(13); (2) the plaintiff was otherwise
qualified to participate in the program6; and (3) the plaintiff
was excluded from the program on the basis of a handicap.
[citations omitted] The parties also agree that the only element
at issue in this case is whether Cheryl Fischer is "otherwise
qualified" to participate in CWRU's medical school program.


            A. OTHERWISE QUALIFIED HANDICAPPED PERSON

  The term "otherwise qualified handicapped person" in the
educational discrimination context is not defined by statute or
regulation. In the employment discrimination context, however, a
"qualified handicapped person" means "a handicapped person who
can safely and substantially perform the essential functions of
the job in question, with or without reasonable accommodation."
Ohio Adm.Code 4112(K). In the past we have looked to federal law
to support a finding of discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112.
[citations omitted] Accordingly, in the context of discrimination
by educational institutions, we refer to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at Section 794, Title 29,
U.S.Code, to assign meaning to the term "otherwise qualified"
handicapped person.
  Our inquiry into the meaning of "otherwise qualified" as used
in Section 504 begins with the United States Supreme Court's
analysis in Southeastern Community College v. Davis [citation
omitted]. In that case, a deaf student alleged that a nursing
school had discriminated against her after the school refused to
admit her into its program. The Davis court defined an "otherwise
qualified person" as "one who is able to meet all of a program's
requirements in spite of his handicap." [citation omitted]
Applying this definition of "otherwise qualified," the court held
that the nursing school would not be forced to accept this deaf
student because her inability to understand speech without
reliance on lip reading would jeopardize patient safety during
the clinical phase of the program [citation omitted]. The court
did not require the school to modify its curriculum through a
waiver of the clinical program because such an accommodation
required a "fundamental alteration" in the nursing school's
program [citation omitted].
  Six years later the Supreme Court revisited the issue in
Alexander v. Choate (1985) [citation omitted]. In clarifying its
prior decision, the Alexander court stated, "Davis...struck a
balance between the statutory rights of the handicapped to be
integrated into society and the legitimate interest of federal
grantees in preserving the integrity of their programs: while a
grantee need not be required to make `fundamental' or
`substantial' modifications to accommodate the handicapped, it
may be required to make `reasonable' ones." [citation omitted]
Thus Alexander modified Davis to the extent that an "otherwise
qualified" person is one capable of participating in the program
if a "reasonable accommodation" is available for implementation
by the institution.
  Most recently, the Supreme Court discussed the "otherwise
qualified" standard in School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline (1987)
[citation omitted]. The court elaborated on the definition of an
"otherwise qualified" individual:

  "In the employment context an otherwise qualified person is one
who can perform `the essential functions' of the job in question.
When a handicapped person is not able to perform the essential
functions of the job, the court must also consider whether any
`reasonable accommodation' by the employer would enable the
handicapped person to perform those functions. Accommodation is
not reasonable if it either imposes `undue financial and
administrative burdens' on a grantee or requires `a fundamental
alteration in the nature of [the] program.'" [citations omitted]
  Similarly, Ohio Adm.Code 4112-5-09(D)(1) requires educational
institutions to make necessary modifications to their academic
requirements to prevent discrimination on the basis of handicap
against a qualified handicapped applicant. Such modifications
include "changes in the length of time permitted for the
completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific
courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and
adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are
conducted." However, academic requirements that the educational
institution can demonstrate are "essential to the program of
instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly
related licensing requirement will not be regarded as
discriminatory...," and do not require modification.
  Applying these principles to R.C. 4112.022(A), we define an
"otherwise qualified" handicapped person as one who is able to
safely and substantially perform an educational program's
essential requirements with reasonable accommodation. An
accommodation is not reasonable where it requires fundamental
alteration in the essential nature of the program or imposes an
undue financial or administrative burden.
  Because inquiry into reasonable accommodation is not separate
from but rather is an aspect of "otherwise qualified," we further
hold that as part of its prima facie case, OCRC carries the
initial burden of showing that Fischer could safely and
substantially perform the essential requirements of the program
with reasonable accommodation. [citations omitted] Thereafter the
burden shifts to CWRU to demonstrate that Fischer is not
"otherwise qualified," i.e., the accommodations are not
reasonable because they require fundamental alterations to the
essential nature of the program or because they impose undue
financial or administrative burdens. Id. CWRU may also rebut a
prima facie case of discrimination by "establishing bona fide
requirements or standards for admission or assignment to academic
programs, courses, internships, or classes...which requirements
or standards may include reasonable qualifications for
demonstrating necessary skill, aptitude, physical capability,
intelligence, and previous education." R.C. 4112.022. Finally,
the burden returns to OCRC and Fischer to rebut the evidence
presented by CWRU. [citation omitted]


                     II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  Before we determine whether Fischer is otherwise qualified to
participate in the medical school program at CWRU, we note the
standards upon which we review this case. Pursuant to R.C.
4112.06(E), a trial court must affirm a finding of discrimination
under R.C. Chapter 4112, if the finding is supported by reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the entire record.
[citation omitted]
  The role of the appellate court in reviewing commission orders
is more limited--to determine whether the trial court abused its
discretion in finding that there was reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence to support the commission's order. [citation
omitted] A trial court abuses its discretion where its decision
is clearly erroneous, that is, the trial court misapplies the law
to undisputed facts. [citation omitted]
  We agree with the court of appeals and find that the trial
court abused its discretion in finding that (1) the OCRC order
was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence,
and 2) Fischer was "otherwise qualified" for admission with
reasonable accommodations.


         A. RELIABLE, PROBATIVE, & SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

  OCRC relied upon Dr. Hartman's experience at Temple University
and Fischer's experience at CWRU while she was an undergraduate
to demonstrate that she could complete the essential requirements
of CWRU's medical program with reasonable accommodations. The
trial court agreed that Dr. Hartman's testimony regarding Temple
University's accommodations fulfilled the requisite reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence to support OCRC's order.
[citation omitted] We disagree.
  "Reliable" evidence is dependable or trustworthy; "probative"
evidence tends to prove the issue in question and is relevant to
the issue presented; and "substantial" evidence carries some
weight or value. [citation omitted] We find that Dr. Hartman's
experience at Temple University is neither probative nor
substantial evidence to demonstrate that Fischer is currently
able to safely and substantially perform the essential
requirements of CWRU's program with reasonable accommodation.
  Dr. Hartman is not an expert in medical education. He attended
Temple University twenty years ago under entirely different
circumstances than proposed today. Temple voluntarily accepted
Dr. Hartman by increasing the class size by one. The faculty at
Temple acted upon a commitment to do whatever necessary to assist
Dr. Hartman, and not upon a concept of reasonable accommodation.
Additionally, Dr. Hartman was accepted prior to the AAMC's
adoption of its technical standards for admission requiring each
medical school student to have the ability to observe. Fischer,
who provided the only testimony that she could complete the
requirements of medical school with accommodations, admitted that
she had no familiarity with what a medical student is required to
do.
  With Hartman and Fischer as its witnesses, OCRC failed to
present any probative or substantial testimony that Fischer would
be able to complete CWRU's course requirements with reasonable
accommodation. CWRU, however, presented testimony from several
medical educators that a blind student could not perform the
requirements of medical school. Consequently, the trial court
abused its discretion in finding that OCRC's cease and desist
order was supported by probative or substantial evidence that
Fischer could complete the medical program at CWRU with
reasonable accommodation.


              B. ACCOMMODATIONS WERE NOT REASONABLE

  The court of appeals also found that the trial court abused its
discretion by finding that Fischer was otherwise qualified for
admission with reasonable accommodations. Whether an
accommodation is reasonable is a mixed question of law and fact.
[citation omitted]

  OCRC suggests that certain accommodations such as raised line
drawing boards, tutors, and faculty assistance; occasional use of
sighted students; and laboratory assistance would permit Fischer
to realize the benefits of the first two years of the medical
school program. OCRC also suggests modifications which would help
her complete the required clerkships, such as the use of
intermediaries to read X-rays and patient charts and to perform
parts of a physical examination as well as the waiver of course
requirements she could not perform such as starting an I.V. or
drawing blood. OCRC argues that these accommodations are
reasonable because those skills are not necessary for Fischer to
pursue a practice in psychiatry, are not necessary for CWRU to
maintain its accreditation as a medical school, and would not
require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program,
since they are not essential to it. For the following reasons we
hold that the trial court's finding that these accommodations
were reasonable is clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion.
  First, a similar argument regarding intermediaries,
supervision, and course waiver was rejected by the United States
Supreme Court in Davis, [citation omitted] The court held that
because the deaf nursing student would not receive "even a rough
equivalent of the training a nursing program normally gives," the
school was not required to make such a "fundamental alteration"
in its program. [citation omitted] In the present case all of the
medical educators who testified at the hearing agreed that it
would be impossible to modify the traditional methods of teaching
in a manner that would impart the necessary skills and
information for a blind student to complete the essential course
requirements.
  Second, CWRU's decision not to modify its program by waiving
course requirements or permitting intermediaries to read X-rays
or perform physical examinations is an academic decision. Courts
are particularly ill-equipped to evaluate academic requirements
of educational institutions. [citations omitted] As a result
considerable judicial deference must be paid to academic
decisions made by the institution itself unless it is shown that
the standards serve no purpose other than to deny an education to
the handicapped. [citation omitted] Furthermore, an educational
institution is not required to accommodate a handicapped person
by eliminating a course requirement which is reasonably necessary
to the proper use of the degree conferred at the end of study.
[citation omitted] The goal of medical schools is not to produce
specialized degrees but rather general degrees in medicine which
signify that the holder is a physician prepared for further
training in any area of medicine. As such, graduates must have
the knowledge and skills to function in a broad variety of
clinical situations and to render a wide spectrum of patient
care. All students, regardless of whether they intend to practice
in psychiatry or radiology, are required to complete a variety of
course requirements, including rotations in pediatrics,
gynecology, and surgery.
  Both the AAMC technical standards and the medical educators who
testified at the hearing rejected the use of an intermediary by a
medical student. In these medical educators' opinions, the use of
an intermediary would interfere with the student's exercise of
independent judgment--a crucial part of developing diagnostic
skills. Accordingly, a waiver of the medical school's
requirements such as starting an I.V. or reading an X-ray or the
use of an intermediary to perform these functions would
fundamentally alter the nature of the program.
  Finally, an administrative agency should accord due deference
to the findings and recommendations of its referee, especially
where there exist evidentiary conflicts. [citation omitted] In
this case, the referee concluded that Fischer could not complete
courses in the basic sciences without placing an undue burden on
the faculty and could not complete the clerkships without
substantial modification to the essential nature of the program.
OCRC adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact but did not
accept his recommendation. Rather, OCRC placed great weight upon
Dr. Hartman's testimony in arriving at a conclusion contrary to
the hearing officer's. As discussed supra, however, Dr. Hartman's
testimony was not probative of the issue and was insufficient to
form the basis of a finding that the accommodations were
reasonable.


                    III. DUTY TO INVESTIGATE

  Finally, OCRC contends that CWRU's failure to inquire into
technological advances to assist the blind, its failure to
contact Dr. Hartman or Temple University, and its failure to
consult experts in educating the blind during its decision-making
process violated an affirmative duty to investigate whether
accommodations would enable Fischer to complete the medical
school program.
  OCRC relies on Mantolete v. Bolger [citation omitted] in
support of an affirmative duty to investigate. In Mantolete the
court considered the definition of a qualified handicapped person
in the context of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
codified at Section 791, Title 29, U.S.Code. Section 501
prohibits handicap discrimination by federal employers, requiring
such employers to take affirmative action against discrimination.
That section and its regulations imply that "a more active and
extensive effort than 'nondiscrimination' must be made to
eliminate barriers to employment of the handicapped in federal
agencies, departments, instrumentalities, and contractors."
[citation omitted] The Mantolete court imposed a duty upon
federal employers "to gather sufficient information from the
applicant and from qualified experts as needed to determine what
accommodations are necessary to enable the applicant to perform
the job safely. (Emphasis added.) [citation omitted] As noted in
the concurring opinion in Mantolete, however, "impos[ing]
demanding information-gathering requirements upon federal
employers" is justified by the express "affirmative action"
language of Section 501--language that does not appear in Section
504. [citation omitted] Thus, OCRC's reliance on Mantolete is
misplaced.7
  The United States Supreme Court recognized that in order to
protect handicapped individuals from "deprivations based on
prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear," a determination as to
whether an individual is otherwise qualified should in "most
cases" be made in the context of an "individualized inquiry into
the relation between the requirements of the program and the
abilities of the individual." [citations omitted]
  Similarly, Ohio law does not support the imposition of a duty
to investigate in all cases. Rather, R.C. 4112.022 contemplates
that there will be situations in which a school could justifiably
exclude all persons with a particular handicap from admission to
a program. R.C. 4112.022 does not consider an act discriminatory
where it is based upon a bona fide requirement or standard for
admission. OCRC argues that vision is not a bona fide physical
requirement for admission to medical school because CWRU failed
to adopt the vision requirement prior to the rejection of
Fischer's application.
  Again, we must disagree. Regardless of when CWRU adopted its
own set of admissions standards and whether the AAMC standards
are mandatory, the AAMC technical standards represent a
comprehensive study supporting denial of admission to blind
medical school applicants. Once CWRU confirmed the complete
absence of an ability to observe, CWRU could deny Fischer's
application based upon a bona fide standard for admission to the
medical school.8


                         IV. CONCLUSION

  We agree with the court of appeals and find that the trial
court abused its discretion in finding that the OCRC order was
supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and
that Fischer was otherwise qualified to participate in the
medical school program. First, the trial court abused its
discretion in finding that OCRC's cease and desist order was
supported by probative or substantial evidence because the
testimony of Dr. Hartman was neither probative nor substantial on
the issue of whether Fischer could complete CWRU's requirements
with reasonable accommodation. Second, the trial court's findings
that the modifications were reasonable and that Fischer was
"otherwise qualified" to participate in CWRU's medical school
program were clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion because
the accommodations suggested by Fischer would (1) require
fundamental alterations to the academic requirements essential to
the program of instruction, and (2) impose an undue burden upon
CWRU's faculty. Finally, once CWRU confirmed her complete absence
of an ability to observe, CWRU could deny Fischer's application
based upon a bona fide standard for admission to the medical
school.

                                               Judgment affirmed.


  MOYER, C.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
  FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J., concurs in the syllabus and
judgment only.
  DOUGLAS, RESNICK, and PFEIFER, J., dissent
  STEPHEN W. POWELL, J., of the Twelfth Appellate District,
sitting for WRIGHT, J.


                      _DISSENTING _OPINION

  Douglas, Justice, dissenting.
  This case is not about whether appellant, Cheryl A. Fischer, a
non-sighted person, should or should not be admitted to Case
Western Reserve University's medical school. This case is about
whether the university must, as all others, comply with R.C.
4112.022 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
Section 794, Title 29, U.S.Code, or may the university rely, as
it and the majority does, on the blanket exclusion standard of
the Association of American Medical Colleges.
  The law mandates a clear and affirmative duty to investigate
whether reasonable accommodations could be made by the medical
school for Fischer's needs. It is conceivable that after such
investigation, accommodations required to facilitate Fischer's
education would require more than a "reasonable" effort. If so,
then admission could be lawfully denied. Conversely, an
investigation by the university might have produced information
that would be helpful not only in Fischer's case but, also, in
other cases where physically challenged individuals might seek
admission.
  Accordingly, because I believe that the university violated its
lawfully mandated affirmative duty to gather information as to
whether it could, or could not, reasonably accommodate the needs
of Fischer, I must respectfully, on this ground, dissent.

  Alice Robie Resnick, Justice, dissenting.
  "Prejudice" is defined as "an opinion or leaning adverse to
anything without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge."
[citation omitted] Today, the majority opines that no reasonable
accommodations can be made which would enable a blind student to
complete the medical school program. In so doing, the majority
literally divests itself of knowledge to the contrary by
completely disregarding as not probative or substantial the
testimony of an individual who, while totally blind, was admitted
to and graduated from medical school, and is a board-certified
practicing psychiatrist who also happens to teach in his field.
This enables the majority to rely solely on the testimony of the
very personnel who have prejudged the "whole concept" of a blind
medical student as "ridiculous," while simultaneously holding
that those persons had no duty to investigate whether reasonable
accommodations could be made to assist a blind student completing
the medical school program. This is a case of prejudice, pure and
simple. I dissent.


                     I. DUTY TO INVESTIGATE

  R.C. 4112.022, like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Section 794, Title 29, U.S.Code, is designed to protect
"handicapped individuals from deprivations based on prejudice,
stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight
to such legitimate concerns of grantees as avoiding exposing
others to significant health and safety risks." [citation
omitted] It is a statute aimed at means, not ends. At a
fundamental level, it provides for a method of evaluation
grounded in knowledge. One would suppose, therefore, that the
duty to investigate is axiomatic. It should be obvious to any
reasonable person that, in order to give meaningful consideration
to whether reasonable accommodations would enable a blind student
to effectively complete the medical school program, the medical
school must explore the nature and benefit of available methods
of accommodating the blind.
  Nevertheless, the majority impugns the contention that Case
Western Reserve University ("CWRU") had an affirmative duty to
investigate whether reasonable accommodations would enable
plaintiff-appellant, Cheryl A. Fischer, to complete the medical
school program, before denying her admittance on the basis of her
visual handicap.


                     A. Mantolete v. Bolger

  The majority begins its analysis of the duty to investigate by
stating that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("OCRC") "relies on
Mantolete v. Bolger [citation omitted] in support of an
affirmative duty to investigate." The majority then distinguishes
Mantolete because, "[a]s noted in the concurring opinion in
Mantolete,...`impos[ing] demanding information-gathering
requirements upon federal employers' is justified by the express
`affirmative action' language of Section 501 [of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 791, Title 29, U.S.Code]--
language that does not appear in Section 504." The majority
concludes, therefore, that "OCRC's reliance on Mantolete is
misplaced."
  This portion of the majority's analysis is disconcerting, not
so much in the way it reviews Mantolete, but because it reviews
Mantolete.9 Mantolete was only one of a litany of cases cited by
OCRC in support of its proposition that there is a duty to
investigate. By selectively extracting Mantolete from the pile
and simply distinguishing it from the instant case, the majority
is able to make it appear as though the commission's position on
this issue is untenable. In this way the majority has managed to
avoid confrontation with those courts which hold that, under
Section 504, an educational institution must make reasonable
efforts to explore alternative methods of accommodating the
handicapped. These cases reveal that the purpose and history of
Section 504 dictate such requirement and that, in the absence of
a duty to investigate, the requirement to make reasonable
accommodations would be rendered meaningless. [citations omitted]
In addition, as observed by Donald Jay Olnick, [citation omitted]
  "[A]s a matter of fairness, the existence of such a duty should
be recognized because the institution has greater knowledge of
the components of its program than does the handicapped
applicant. The institution can look to its own experience or, if
that is not feasible, to that of other institutions in providing
education to individuals with handicaps similar to those of the
applicant in question. In addition, it will be able to seek
advice concerning possible accommodations from private and
government sources. The handicapped individual may also suggest
accommodations and bring forward relevant employment experience
demonstrating that accommodations are possible." Moreover,
"institutions can consult handicapped individuals who have
completed similar programs." [citation omitted]
  Investigation by CWRU would have revealed, at the very minimum,
a number of possible sources for exploring the prospect of
accommodating a blind medical student, including the experience
of Dr. David W. Hartman and other blind physicians, not all of
whom lost vision after completing training. [citations omitted]
In fact, these articles readily suggest that a blind medical
student or physician can succeed. "`Aside from his surgical
skill, the physician's greatest commodity in trade is his
intellectual ability to interpret and to correlate. This is not
impaired by the loss of one sensory modality.'" [citation
omitted] In fact, one article noted that "[a] broad spectrum of
adapted instruments and devices [is] available for individuals
with visual impairment, varying from the simple and mundane to
the most sophisticated high technology," and actually set forth a
noncomprehensive resource table for the visually disabled
physician. [citation omitted]
  CWRU either disregarded or never consulted any of these
sources, including Dr. Hartman or Temple University, in deciding
not to admit Fischer. CWRU's "refusal to investigate and consider
the modifications necessary to accommodate [Fischer] preclude it
from rebutting plaintiffs' evidence that such accommodation would
neither change the essential nature of the program nor place an
undue burden upon" CWRU. [citation omitted]


               Blanket and Bona Fide Requirements

  After distinguishing Mantolete, the majority attempts to
explain that any duty is based on a bona fide requirement or
standard for admission. The majority finds CWRU's blanket
exclusion of all blind medical school applicants to be bona fide
because it is based on the technical standards of the Association
of American Medical Colleges ("AAMC").
  In general, blanket exclusions are subject to the same level of
scrutiny as are individual exclusions: [citation omitted]
  "Southeastern Community College v. Davis (1979), [citation
omitted] cannot mean that the [employer] can discriminate by
establishing restrictive `program requirements' where it could
not so discriminate in making individual employment decisions.
The Rehabilitation Act, taken as a whole, mandates significant
accommodation for the capabilities and conditions of the
handicapped. Blanket requirements must therefore be subject to
the same rigorous scrutiny as any individual decision denying
employment to a handicapped person."
  As explained somewhat differently in Pandazides v. Virginia Bd.
of Edn. [citation omitted] the "defendants cannot merely
mechanically invoke any set of requirements and pronounce the
handicapped applicant or prospective employee not otherwise
qualified. The district court must look behind the
qualifications. To do otherwise reduces the term 'otherwise
qualified" and any arbitrary set of requirements to a tautology."
  Thus, blanket requirements are not ipso facto bona fide. CWRU
cannot exclude all blind medical school applicants without first
investigating and considering reasonable accommodations for the
blind, any more than it can exclude an individual applicant
without conducting such an investigation. Otherwise, an
educational institution could easily circumvent the statute by
the simple expedient of turning an otherwise discriminatory act
into a blanket prohibition against a particular type of handicap.
[citation omitted]
  The majority, however, has carved an exception in those cases
where blanket exclusions are supported, even after the fact, by
guidelines adopted by the AAMC. The only authority cited by the
majority that is arguably relevant to this issue is Buck v.
United States Dept. of Transp. [citation omitted]
  In Buck, three deaf truck drivers sought a waiver from the
Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") regarding its regulation
requiring that drivers of interstate commercial vehicles be able
to hear. The regulations at issue were promulgated pursuant to
the Motor Carrier Safety Act, which requires the Secretary of
Transportation to promulgate regulations ensuring that "the
physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely."
[citation omitted] The FHWA denied the requests and the court
denied the petitions for review.
  In denying petitioners relief, the court explained as follows:

  "The petitioners...misstate the issue when they argue that the
agency must decide whether a deaf individual is able to operate a
truck safely in spite of his handicap. They are really launching
a collateral attack upon the validity of the hearing requirement
itself, arguing in effect that the FHWA erred in determining that
the ability to hear with the specified acuity is necessary in
order to operate a vehicle safely. . . . [T]he proper forum in
which to get the relief the petitioners seek is the FHWA, in a
proceeding to modify or repeal the rule itself. The agency is in
fact in the process of conducting such a rulemaking, [citations
omitted]
  Unwittingly, the majority has elevated the status of the AAMC
guidelines to the level of a federal regulation. This is
particularly inappropriate for several reasons. First, the AAMC
is not a legislative body. [citation omitted] There is no
evidence that any legislative body, state or federal, has
directly or indirectly considered, let alone adopted, the subject
AAMC guidelines, much less interpreted them to preclude admission
to all blind applicants to medical school.
  Additionally, Donald G. Kassebaum, M.D., who is secretary to
the Liaison Committee on Medical Education ("LCME"), testified
that the AAMC plays no role specifically in the accreditation of
United States medical schools, that the decision about
accreditation is made wholly by the LCME, that the LCME has
devised no accreditation standards which would prohibit the
admission of blind applicants to medical school, that the failure
of a medical school to adopt the AAMC guidelines would not affect
accreditation, and that the "Report on Technical Standards" was
not even published as AAMC policy, but as guidelines for use by
schools in developing their own individual technical standards.
  There is no reason, therefore, to give the AAMC guidelines
accrediting, let alone legislative, force. In fact, in McGregor
v. Louisiana State Univ. Bd. of Supervisors [citation omitted]
the court explained that "whether the [American Bar Association]
accredits part-time programs is not determinative of
reasonableness under the Rehabilitation Act, and we refrain from
giving ABA accreditation such adjudicatory effect." Accordingly,
CWRU's after-the-fact reliance on the AAMC guidelines does not
transform its blanket preclusion of blind medical students into a
bona fide requirement or standard for admission, obviating its
duty to investigate.


                     II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  This portion of the majority's opinion is, quite frankly,
astonishing. The majority sets forth some well-established
standards of review. One of these standards is that an appellate
court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment unless it finds
that "the trial court abused its discretion in finding that there
was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to support the
commission's order. [citation omitted]
  Dr. Hartman is a psychiatrist. Dr. Hartman has been totally
blind since the age of eight. He graduated from Gettysburg
College in 1972, summa cum laude and as a Phi Beta Kappa. He
attended medical school at Temple University from 1972 to 1976.
He graduated from medical school and became a board-certified
practicing psychiatrist. He was assistant professor of psychiatry
at the University of Pennsylvania from 1980 to 1982 and presently
serves as volunteer faculty at the University of Virginia. Dr.
Hartman's curriculum vitae reads like a five-page laundry list of
accomplishments, appointments, awards, and publications.
  Dr. Hartman's testimony consisted of ninety-four transcribed
pages of examination primarily concerning the issue of
accommodations made for him at Temple's medical school. Dr.
Hartman completed all required courses and clerkships at Temple.
No courses or clerkships were waived because of his blindness. He
completed studies in anatomy, histology, microscopic anatomy,
biochemistry, neuroanatomy, physiology, pathology, and
pharmacology. He successfully completed his clerkships, including
rotations in internal medicine, general surgery, psychiatry,
obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, plastic surgery,
neurology, and emergency room medicine.
  Dr. Hartman was able to complete these courses and clerkships
by use of various accommodating aids, including raised line
drawings; models; guidance and assistance from other students,
laboratory technicians, and professors; reliance on his other
senses such as hearing and touch; and tape recorders. He also
suggested that there may be some additional technological aids
that would be of assistance, such as computerized voice reading
or computer printing in Braille.
  With Dr. Hartman's testimony staring it in the face, how can
the majority conclude that the trial court abused its discretion
in upholding the OCRC's order that a blind medical student could
perform the requirements of medical school with reasonable
accommodation? No problem--simply ignore it. As incredible as it
sounds, the majority finds that "Dr. Hartman's experience at
Temple University is neither probative nor substantial evidence
to demonstrate that Fischer is currently able to safely and
substantially perform the essential requirements of CWRU's
program with reasonable accommodation."
  In support, the majority explains that:
  "Dr. Hartman is not an expert in medical education. He attended
Temple University twenty years ago, under entirely different
circumstances than proposed today. Temple voluntarily accepted
Dr. Hartman by increasing the class size by one. The faculty at
Temple acted upon a commitment to do whatever necessary to assist
Dr. Hartman and not upon a concept of reasonable accommodation.
Additionally, Dr. Hartman was accepted prior to the AAMC's
adoption of its technical standards for admission requiring each
medical school student to have the ability to observe."
  This explanation serves only to enforce the majority's
commitment to rid itself of Dr. Hartman's testimony. No portion
of this explanation has anything to do with whether Dr. Hartman's
testimony constitutes probative or substantial evidence in this
case. Whether or not Dr. Hartman is a so-called "expert in
medical education," there is no rule that a witness must qualify
as an expert in medical education in order to testify in a
handicap discrimination case such as this one. In fact, Dr.
Hartman's testimony was not offered for any opinions he might
hold relative to medical education. Instead, the relevance and
value of Dr. Hartman's testimony lie in the nature of his
experiences and the character of the accommodations made for him
at Temple. Moreover, such a rule would be absurd. It would
exclude virtually all testimony, both lay and expert, relevant to
the issue of available accommodations vis-a-vis the capabilities
and limitations of particular handicaps. Additionally, the
majority does not reveal what qualifies someone as such an expert
or the justification for imposing any particular set of
qualifications. For example, what justification could possibly
support disregarding Dr. Hartman's testimony, while considering
the testimony of Albert C. Kirby and John R. Troyer, both of whom
the majority accepts as "medical educators," but neither of whom
had ever attended medical school?
  Likewise, the circumstances under which Dr. Hartman was
accepted at Temple have no bearing on the relevance or value of
his testimony in this case. The level of Temple's commitment to
Dr. Hartman does not necessarily reflect the character of its
actions. Simply stated, just because Temple was prepared to do
more for Dr. Hartman than what was required does not mean that
what Temple actually did for Dr. Hartman was unreasonable. What
is relevant and valuable to the issue of reasonable accommodation
in this case is the nature and extent of the actual
accommodations made for Dr. Hartman at Temple, not the state of
mind of Temple's faculty.
  On the contrary, Dr. Hartman's experience at Temple is both
probative and substantial evidence to demonstrate that Fischer is
currently able to safely and substantially perform the essential
requirements of CWRU's program with reasonable accommodation. Dr.
Hartman's experience at Temple presents a unique opportunity by
which to gauge the nature and character of accommodations needed
to enable a blind person to successfully and beneficially
complete medical school. The proof, so to speak, is in the
pudding. While his experience may not be conclusive of
reasonableness, it is certainly relevant and carries some weight.
In fact, both the OCRC and the trial court found this evidence to
be rather significant. In its order below, OCRC found that Dr.
Hartman's experience and qualifications give him "unparalleled
[sic] expertise as to whether a blind student can reap the
benefits of a medical program." Additionally, Dr. Hartman has
received seven major appointments in the area of psychiatry. He
served as consultant to or member of five critical programs,
including consultants to the National Institute for Advanced
Studies on the admission of blind and otherwise handicapped
persons into the allied health fields in compliance with Section
504. He has published in at least six publications and
participated in fifteen relevant presentations on the subject of
education and the blind. The rejection of Dr. Hartman's testimony
as not probative or substantial is pure nonsense.
  After discounting Dr. Hartman's testimony (and, incidentally,
Fischer's as well), the majority is able to blatantly conclude
that "[w]ith Hartman and Fischer as its witnesses, OCRC failed to
present any probative or substantial testimony that Fischer would
be able to complete CWRU's course requirements with reasonable
accommodation." Simplistic reasoning is merely a mode for result-
oriented decisions.
  Still unsatisfied, the majority goes on to invoke the rule that
an administrative agency (OCRC) should accord due deference to
the findings and recommendations of its referee (hearing
officer). The problem, however, is that this rule comes into play
when an agency rejects its referee's report without reviewing the
record. Even then, the rule loses its significance once the trial
court reviews the record and upholds the agency's decision.
[citations omitted] In its statement of the facts, the majority
explains that "[u]pon its review of the hearing examiner's
report, OCRC came to a different conclusion." This is inaccurate.
In its cease and desist order, OCRC specifically explained that
it rejected the hearing examiner's report "[a]fter careful
consideration of the entire record." Absent contrary evidence,
there is no basis for the majority to conclude otherwise.
Moreover, a careful reading of those two opinions below reveals
that a myriad of facts are set forth in the OCRC order that are
not contained in the hearing examiner's report. In any event the
trial court reviewed the entire record and affirmed the OCRC.
  Thus there is no legitimate basis for discounting Dr. Hartman's
testimony or for according deference to the hearing examiner's
report.


                         III. CONCLUSION

  If a particular professional door is to be closed to an entire
class of people, it should not be done in such a cavalier manner.
The decision as to whether a medical school may deny admittance
to the blind is of great social importance. It cannot be made
without a complete and careful consideration of all available
information concerning possible modifications and accommodations,
as well as the capabilities and limitations of the blind.
  It is our duty and responsibility under R.C. 4112.022 to ensure
that educational decisions denying admittance to the handicapped
are not discriminatory. It is, therefore, a dereliction of this
duty for the majority to allow CWRU to make such a determination
without first investigating and considering reasonable
accommodations, and for the majority itself to refuse to consider
the experience of a successful blind medical student. No
educational institution, and no court, may justify a preordained
conclusion by exorcising all knowledge to the contrary without
running afoul of R.C. 4112.022's mandate.
  The only issue properly before the court is whether the common
pleas court abused its discretion in finding that OCRC's order
was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
Dr. Hartman's testimony constitutes reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence that Fischer could effectively and
beneficially complete the essential requirements of CWRU's
medical program.10 It is incredible that the majority has ignored
this testimony and accorded substantial judicial deference to
CWRU's decisions, while refusing to impose upon CWRU the duty to
investigate in the first instance.
  Justice requires that the court of appeals' decision be
reversed and that the decision of the trial court be reinstated.
I therefore vehemently dissent.

  DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting
opinion.

_________________
1. That same year, Fischer also applied to the medical schools at
  Ohio State University, University of Cincinnati, University of
  Toledo, and Temple University. Ohio State University also
  placed Fischer on an alternate list. However, all of the
  schools denied her admission.
2. CWRU did not formally adopt its own technical admissions
  standards until June 1990. These standards also require that an
  applicant have sufficient use of the sense of vision and the
  ability to observe both at a distance and close at hand.
3. Fischer also reapplied to Ohio State University and, that same
  year, applied to the medical schools at Wright State
  University, George Washington University, and Georgetown
  University, among others. All of these schools denied Fischer
  admission.
4. CWRU had previously offered admission to students with
  handicaps such as paraplegia, visual and hearing impairments,
  and dyslexia.
5. Fischer also filed charges against the medical schools at the
  Ohio State University and Wright State University, alleging
  discrimination on the basis of her handicap. Following an
  investigation, however, OCRC did not find probable cause
  against these institutions and did not file complaints.
6. The term "otherwise qualified" appears in Section 504 of the
  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [citation omitted] Section 504, as
  amended, provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual
  with disability shall, . . . solely by reason of his or her
  disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied
  the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
  program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
  [citation omitted]
7. The dissent criticizes our discussion of Mantolete v. Bolger
  [citation omitted] as being "selectively extracted" from the
  cases cited by the OCRC. However, the other cases were cited
  only in a footnote to OCRC's Reply Brief, and it was Fischer
  who characterized Mantolete as the "seminal case" on the issue
  of an affirmative duty to investigate. Furthermore, our
  discussion of Sections 501 and 504 is in response to the
  appellants' view that such cases are persuasive authority for
  the proposition of an affirmative duty to investigate. This
  case, however, was brought only under R.C. Chapter 4112.
8. The Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of
  Education, determined that CWRU's 1991 denial of Fischer's
  application to the medical school on the basis of the AAMC
  Technical Standards was consistent with Section 504 and
  dismissed Fischer's complaint against CWRU.
9. It should be noted, however, that even the concurring opinion
  in Mantolete expressly left the issue open as to whether
  Section 504 imposed a similar information-gathering requirement
  upon private employers. [citation omitted] Thus, any
  implication in the majority's use of language that the
  concurring opinion in Mantolete suggested a particular result
  under Section 504 is unfounded.
10. Ohio Adm.Code 4112-5-09(D)(1) provides that:
    "Educational institutions shall make such modifications to
  [their] academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that
  such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of
  discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified
  handicapped applicant or student. Academic requirements that
  the educational institution can demonstrate are _essential to
  the program of instruction being pursued by such student or to
  any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded
  as discriminatory within the meaning of this rule.
  Modifications may include changes in the length of time
  permitted for the completion of degree requirements,
  substitution of specific courses required for the completion of
  degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which
  specific courses are conducted." (emphasis added)
    The majority finds that there are certain "essential"
  requirements that would have to be waived or performed through
  the use of intermediaries, such as reading X-rays, performing
  physical examinations or starting an I.V. The majority rejects
  the use of supervisory personnel and waiver, pursuant to
  Southeastern Community College v. Davis (1979), [citation
  omitted] on the basis that Fischer would not receive even a
  rough equivalent of the training a medical education normally
  gives. Moreover, the majority gives considerable judicial
  deference to CWRU's decisions and feels that these requirements
  are essential because they are reasonably necessary to the
  proper use of the degree ultimately conferred.
    If we put Dr. Hartman's testimony back into the equation, it
  is difficult to find as a matter of law that Fischer would be
  unable to receive the benefits that a medical education
  normally gives. Any determinative effect that Davis, supra, may
  otherwise have had in this case dissipates upon consideration
  of Dr. Hartman's testimony. In fact, it was Dr. Hartman's
  testimony that he could perform a physical examination alone,
  and that he would stand with other students and have an X-ray
  read to him. The only two areas that give him trouble are
  starting an I.V. and drawing blood. OCRC specifically found
  that "it has not been demonstrated that physically performing
  these tasks constitutes an essential component of [CWRU's]
  program." Whether a requirement is essential is a question of
  fact. [citation omitted] Moreover, in order to be considered
  essential, there must be some nexus between the requirement and
  the prospective profession. [citation omitted] Additionally,
  CWRU is not deserving of judicial deference in this case
  because it refused even to investigate the issue. I do not
  believe, based on the record, that providing some visual
  assistance to Fischer in these limited tasks would, as a matter
  of law, sacrifice the integrity of CWRU's entire medical
  program. [citation omitted]

  __Did you know that you can make a gift to the National
Federation of the Blind and save taxes three ways? Well, you can!
With a gift of appreciated stocks, bonds, or mutual _funds.
  __For more information contact the National Federation of the
Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a District
of Columbia nonprofit _corporation.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Carol Castellano]

           __NEW BOOK SENDS WRONG MESSAGE TO _PARENTS

                     _by _Carol _Castellano

  __From the Editor: Early last year I began hearing and reading
about a new book intended to provide a wonderful new resource to
parents of young blind children. The reviews I read, all of which
were written by professionals in the blindness field, were
flattering and enthusiastic. Those invited to contribute chapters
to the text were knowledgeable and well respected, and several
parents had been asked to add their perspective.
  As I say, the reviews were positive, but the quotations
included gave me qualms. When I received a review copy of the
book, I passed it along to Carol Castellano, an experienced and
successful parent of a blind daughter and a leader in the
National Organization of Parents of Blind Children, a division of
the National Federation of the Blind. I was interested to see how
a parent of a healthy, happy blind child would react to all the
so-called honest talk about what it is really like to deal with a
son's or daughter's _blindness.
  __Carol called me when she finished reading the book and asked
how much space she had to write her review. I responded that this
was clearly an important book, and good or bad, Federationists
were going to be running into questions about it and dealing with
its impact for years to come. I told her to report honestly on
what she had found and dispense praise and criticism where she
thought they were due. The following article is the result.
Doubtless many parents of young blind children will read Children
with Visual Impairments, so we had all better be prepared to help
them put it into perspective. Here is Carol Castellano's attempt
to do just _that:

  __Children with Visual Impairments: A Parent's _Guide, a new
book edited by M. Cay Holbrook and published by Woodbine House,
is intended to give parents of visually impaired babies and very
young children information and guidance on issues related to
visual impairment. Written by sixteen professionals in the
blindness field and three parents, the book contains much
information, promising chapter titles (each chapter is written by
a different author or authors), and a number of suggestions for
working with a visually impaired child. The question must be
asked, however, on the whole, will this book help or harm blind
children and their families?
  In my role as President of Parents of Blind Children of New
Jersey, I speak frequently to parents of newly diagnosed blind
children. My experience with these parents is that they are
seeking information, suggestions, and a listening ear; but above
all, they are seeking hope. Often the only hope they have early
on is that their child will have a little eyesight. What they
know about blindness--or what they think they know--is pretty
bleak. They usually know nothing at all about blindness skills.
  I gently tell them about my daughter--that she attends our
neighborhood school and that she has the same books as all her
classmates, but in Braille. I mention that she's a sports nut and
played on our town's T-ball team. I tell them that she has a cane
and uses it to go all over. I might mention that her grade is
working on research skills at the library or that this morning
she went to a rehearsal of her class play.
  The parents' attention is definitely engaged. "Your daughter is
blind?" they ask me. "Totally blind," I reply. Hearing that a
totally blind child somehow manages to accomplish all these
normal tasks gives the parents heart. It also opens the door to a
discussion of blindness skills, the key, of course, to a blind
person's managing such tasks. Suddenly the parents on the other
end of the phone see a vision of a normal life and get a glimpse
of how this life might be achieved.
  Many times the conversation goes on to how parents might
enhance a blind baby's development; sometimes we brainstorm to
resolve a specific problem the family is experiencing. Usually I
advise those parents to eat their Wheaties because they'll need
their strength. I tell them I'll send them some literature to
read. I invite them to one of our Parents of Blind Children
gatherings to meet other families and some blind adults. I let
them know that they're doing the smart thing by reaching out and
gathering information and that their child is lucky to have them.
The closing words from the parents are almost always: "Thanks.
You've made me feel so much better."
  Parents feel better because they begin to see the possibility
of a bright future for their child; they begin to believe they'll
be able to manage what needs to be done; they realize others have
gone successfully down the road that is before them. Feeling
better enables parents to start down that parenting road with a
belief that will support them during both the easy times and the
challenging times: that blindness need not stop their child from
leading a fulfilling, normal life.
  Contrast this with the approach found in __Children with Visual
_Impairments. First of all, in the book blindness is labeled a
"misfortune" and parents are told that they "may feel as if they
must have done something to be singled out for this bad fortune."
Janice Herring, author of this chapter, "Adjusting to Your
Child's Visual Impairment," comforts parents with the statement,
"You know you would never have deliberately done anything that
you could have foreseen would result in your child being born
with a visual impairment." So much for the possibility that it
might be okay to be blind.
  The authors made a decision to use the term "visual impairment"
instead of the word "blindness." Much is made in the early part
of the book about the fact that most visually impaired children
have "some useable vision" and that very few children are
actually blind--meaning totally blind in their nomenclature. (In
the book's glossary under the entry "blindness," it reads "See
total blindness.") I suppose parents are meant to be comforted by
the idea that their child is probably not blind. The authors tell
us, "Even children who are considered blind often have some
visual perception of light and dark that will assist them as they
learn about the world," and "rarely do we assume that a child has
absolutely no vision unless his eyes have been removed. . . . If
the child has some level of visual ability, it may be used for
important tasks such as orientation and mobility and daily living
skills." No mention is made of the fact that children with no
vision at all manage orientation and mobility and daily living
skills by using the skills of blindness. What are the messages
here? That first of all, chances are your child is not blind;
second, your child needs vision to accomplish the tasks of life
(Lord help those poor totally blind kids!). Parents are told to
rearrange the environment and to encourage the child to use that
vision. Since the skills of blindness are not mentioned, there is
no hope if the child has no eyesight to use for tasks.
  The emphasis on eyesight over blindness skills has tragic
implications, as shown in the following story, from the chapter
"Adjusting to Your Child's Visual Impairment." The parent-author,
Janice Herring, tells of taking her children to the zoo and
feeling depressed about all that her severely visually impaired
son would miss. Her sadness changes to pleasure and pride,
however, when he enjoys looking at the animals he could see and
shows "his commitment to peering into every cage--even those
where I know he saw nothing." What are the implications for the
future for a child who so early learns that to elicit pride and
pleasure in one's parents, one needs to pretend to see?
  The fundamental idea that it is awful to be blind underlies
most of this book and is the assumption from which most of the
ideas and suggestions flow. Few would deny that parents need to
adjust to the idea that their child is blind, but does the
dreadful picture drawn by this book of the visually impaired
child and his or her effect upon family life help with this
adjustment? Consider the following premises, all taken from the
book:

* "There are a multitude of reasons you may feel intimidated or
  inadequate at the prospect of raising a child who can't see. It
  would be impossible to list them all...."
* Parents "may spend every waking moment thinking or talking
  about their child's visual impairment...just trying to fathom
  all the ways that their child's life will be different than
  expected.... Then they begin agonizing over a new concern: how
  will this disability affect my family? Will her special needs
  consume all our time and energy until we have no time for our
  own interests? Will she be more of a burden than a friend to
  our other children? Is there any hope that we can still have a
  `normal' family life?" (Incidentally, the author does not
  answer "yes" to that last question.)
* "Like many parents, you might eventually want to seek
  counseling for the chronic grief that can go with having a
  child with a disability."
* The story "Welcome to Holland" is printed, which relates how
  your trip to Italy was diverted and you land instead in
  Holland, where "you must stay." After the story, the chapter
  authors write, "But you, the parent, aren't the only one living
  in Holland. Your child will spend his entire life there, while
  other children take off for Italy and other flashier
  destinations."
* Another author states, "In fact, it is not unusual to wish that
  your child would just go away."
* Resentment is called "a perfectly natural reaction to having a
  child with a visual impairment."

  The overall portrait of the visually impaired child is a rather
frightening one. In it we see a child who will have trouble
eating, sleeping, toileting, communicating, moving, and even
cuddling. His "learning will be limited" and he will "almost
invariably" lag behind sighted children. This child will read at
a slower rate and might need to spend more years in school. She
will have fear of the unknown, fear of open spaces, and will "be
terrorized by a blood pressure cuff." This child will be unable
"to observe and imitate" and unable to "see similarities and
differences among objects in the environment." This child will
grow up into an adult who might be able to work or live on his
own. The words of one parent/author capture the feeling the
reader is bound to be left with: "We still don't know all the
things Casey won't be able to do."
  I can't help thinking that new parents being bombarded with
messages like these might find it a bit difficult to develop a
positive attitude toward blindness. They might even begin to feel
a bit depressed. (In fact, I strongly suspect that a few of the
authors of this book are depressed!)
  Many times in the book, the choice of words, along with the
underlying attitude, conveys the negativity. "You will disable
your child more in the eyes of others if you treat her as if she
is more helpless than she is," and "many children with visual
impairments begin receiving educational support in infancy to
help them learn to cope with our visually oriented world." These
ideas can so easily be expressed in a positive manner, one that
is respectful of blind children and of the skills of blindness
that they will be learning.
  Much ado is made in this book of the impact a visually impaired
child will have on every aspect of family life. The litany of
potential horrors could wear down even the most doggedly
optimistic of parents. Here are a few of the lowlights: Your
friends might leave you; your marriage might fail; you might go
bankrupt ("meeting the everyday and special needs of children
with visual impairments is expensive...the loss of income for
missed days of work and health insurance co-payments and
deductibles...the list of potential expenses goes on and on"); in
fact, having this visually impaired child might be so expensive
that "your other children may have to wear hand-me-downs or forgo
music lessons or Little League"; you might be so frazzled at
day's end that "you have no energy left for socializing or even
for asking your kids how their day went"; you'll have "many
sleepless and tear-filled nights"; everyday tasks such as
breastfeeding and diapering your visually impaired baby become
events for which you must find means not to "frighten, harm, or
humiliate" your child; if you need a break, maybe you'll be able
to find a sitter "willing to try" and you will realize somewhere
down the line that, even though you might think your child looks
like a normal child, others do not.
  If your shoulders are not already sagging under this burden,
take a look at how the authors say your other children will be
affected: they might experience responses to their sibling's
disability "ranging from anger and resentment to anxiety and
grief," feelings which, the authors assure us, are "perfectly
normal and nothing to be ashamed of." I can't help wondering,
might there be any other range of emotions with which siblings
might greet a new member of the family? Might there be love? joy?
neutrality? acceptance? pleasure? Not according to this book. (My
son's speech to NFB of New Jersey's state convention when he was
seven years old comes to mind. "As a brother of a blind child, I
think it's fun to have a sister who is blind! We play lots of
games together. It's really pretty regular to have a blind
sister. Come on--she's only a kid!" And "Because my sister is
blind, I have gotten to know lots of friendly people--her Braille
and cane teachers and all the people in the NFB.")
  Ruth and Craig Bolinger, authors of the chapter entitled
"Family Life," go on to list the "typical emotions" of siblings--
anger, resentment, anxiety, grief, guilt, frustration, upset,
scared, poke fun, make fun, embarrass, lash out, target, and
disgust. There is no suggestion whatsoever that sibling
relationships might be loving and normal. (Ironically, these same
authors counsel that children are not born with responses and
opinions and that "when the time comes to teach siblings about
your child's visual impairment, you can give them the attitudes,
opinions, and responses you want them to have." I'll say!) Even
if you _think your other children are coping well, the book
warns, be on the lookout for unexplained illness, poor
schoolwork, nightmares, and loss of interest in play. But fear
not, your normal children can attend a sibling support group,
where they can discuss "why they feel the way they do": and talk
about "subjects that make all kids uncomfortable."
  No wonder the authors feel you might want to get rid of this
child! Do these potential pitfalls exist? I suppose they do. But
since the possibility that a family might actually live through
the experience of having a visually impaired child successfully
is never suggested, parents reading this book might well conclude
that these negative experiences are likely.
  The assumption that blindness is awful surfaces in various
sections of the book. In the self-esteem chapter, for example,
the authors (Dean W. Tuttle and Naomi R. Tuttle) tell us that
"problems and crises stemming from impaired vision" will cause
the child to struggle through trauma, shock, denial, unreality,
mourning, withdrawal, succumbing, and depression, before arriving
at self-acceptance and self-esteem (the reader needs a high
tolerance for psycho-jargon). A warning is also issued against
comparing your child's achievements to those of sighted peers and
against setting "unrealistic" goals. These authors did, however,
write the warmest lines in the book. In regard to praising a
child, they write, "A child is never too young to understand that
he is a source of joy to Mom and Dad."
  In the chapter called "Your Child's Development," Kay Alicyn
Ferrell offers clear, useful explanations of the various
developmental areas but has as her central thesis that, although
not much is known about the development of visually impaired
children, what is known is that their development is very
different from that of sighted children and much more difficult.
"When a sense such as vision fails to develop properly," the
author writes, "a child's entire course of development can be
altered." Parents can take cold comfort from her statement that
"comparisons to normal development are not really relevant for
children with visual impairments. In other words, what is
considered a delay for other children may not be a delay for your
child--it may, in fact, be normal."
  The explanation for this "normal delay" is, of course, that the
child is lacking vision. "It would be nice if the other senses
could substitute for vision--if they could provide the same type
of information that helps babies to learn and form concepts about
their world and if they could do so as frequently as does vision.
Unfortunately, they do not." Parents are told that without
eyesight their child will have "no memory of what objects feel
like," that life will appear as a "jumble of isolated
experiences," that parts of their child's concept development
will be like "putting a puzzle together without seeing the
photograph on the box," and that their child "has no way of
knowing what that meow, growl, or purr is." (More than a little
sighted bias is evident in some of these statements.)
  Parents are informed that vision is involved in 90 percent of
early learning, "but the way your child learns about the world is
going to be different. To a greater or lesser degree, your child
will have to rely instead on her senses of smell, touch, hearing,
and taste for information. As mentioned above, this will make it
harder for your child to learn because she cannot watch and
imitate...and may make her less motivated to learn." In addition,
we learn that "moving independently from place to place seems to
be one of the most difficult skills for children with visual
impairment" (would that be with or without a cane? I wonder),
that "children with visual impairments typically have trouble
with certain aspects of communication," that they are likely to
be reluctant to explore their environment, and that even
attaching to their parents seems to be harder for visually
impaired babies because they "send different signals," and "they
often do not seem to cuddle like other babies."
  No one would deny that eyesight contributes a great deal to the
development of sighted babies, but what is the point of
bludgeoning parents of visually impaired children with the idea
that their child, because of the lack of this particular sense,
will have difficulty in virtually every area of development? What
is the point of this reverence for eyesight when writing for
parents of visually impaired children? Where does this leave the
parent? Will it help parents develop a genuine respect for the
alternative ways their child will use to learn about the world?
What is to be made of the author's seeming determination to
convince parents of the differences and difficulties their
children will encounter in every area? Wouldn't it have been much
more useful--not to mention uplifting--simply to explain to
parents in a positive manner how visually impaired babies do
learn about the world (as we indeed know that they do) and
attempt to engender a respect on the part of the parent for the
alternative methods the baby will be using to learn about the
world?
  After reading this chapter, parents may well conclude that
their baby will never grow up satisfactorily. Ferrell assures us
that all this "does not mean that learning is impossible," but a
parent hearing her message may just conclude that it is.
Glaringly missing from this discussion of development is any
mention of alternative skills. Instead, I am afraid parents will
be left with the sinking feeling that all is lost because their
child lacks the one necessary sense. Yet this author is the same
enlightened Professor Kay Ferrell who courageously argued in the
pages of the September/October, 1996, issue of __The Journal of
Visual Impairment and _Blindness that the time has come to end
vision-stimulation programs because they aren't helping children
with low vision.
  The chapter's suggestions for ways in which parents can foster
their child's development are generally useful ones, but even
they contain that negative impulse: "Use touch. Your touch means
a lot to your child. Sometimes a touch on the shoulder can be
just the reassurance your child needs to plod ahead!" and "Try
closing your eyes before you try to hold and drink from a
cup...to get an idea of what you are asking your child to do...It
might not be as easy as it seems!" A few words about blindness
skills and the fact that blind people do such tasks every day
would have been welcome.
  Many good suggestions are offered in the chapter called "Daily
Life" and the author, Beth Langley, does refer to adaptive
skills, although the reader must wade through a lot of negative
language to get to them. For example, the author writes, "Toilet-
training is another area of difficulty for children with visual
impairments," but then she goes on to suggest the normal training
activities. In her conclusion she states that "when a child has a
visual impairment, helping him achieve independence may not only
be more challenging but emotionally draining for both you and
your child." She goes on to say that: "You will likely have to
make small adjustments in attitude and in your child's
environment. With planning, consistency, and creativity, however,
you cannot only foster independence but also self-esteem,
acceptance, and competence in all aspects of your child's life."
I think this author is on the fence. She seems to believe that
blind children can make it ("The key is to encourage independence
and competence in everything you do or say"), but she seems to be
just learning how to write about blindness using positive words.
  The chapter called "Children with Multiple and Visual
Disabilities" by Jane Erin gives an overview of conditions that
often occur with visual impairment. Although parents may find the
medical section of this chapter scary (toxoplasmosis is a
parasite "which can invade the brain and eyes"), in general the
chapter offers positive suggestions for helping a multiply
disabled child learn to move, act on the world, interact with
others, and learn language.
  The basic premise of the "Orientation and Mobility" chapter by
the late Everett W. Hill and Mary-Maureen Snook-Hill is that
"orientation and mobility training promotes safe, efficient,
graceful, and independent movement through any environment,
indoor and outdoor, familiar and unfamiliar." The authors also
advocate early training in O&M and offer a discussion of
"foundation skills" that is quite useful despite a bit of jargon.
The discussion of formal mobility skills' leading to eventual
independent travel, however, is the standard fare, beginning with
"self-protective techniques" and giving much weight to the
sighted guide.
  The authors take a position of apparent neutrality regarding
the various "mobility systems"--sighted guide, the long cane,
alternative mobility devices, dog guides, and electronic travel
aids--and this is problematic. I suppose their intent is to offer
objective information, but the fact is that the different systems
are not equal because they do not lead to the same level of
independent movement. The authors do not discuss the systems in
terms of this ultimate test (independent movement), but I think
it is the one that would matter most to parents. But parents new
to blindness may not yet be able to make this analysis,
especially when presented with what appears to be such objective,
neutral information.
  For example, the authors explain each system and then list
advantages and disadvantages to each. Under sighted guide they
list as an advantage that "it provides maximum safety to the
child during movement." What message does this give the parent?
That the child will not be safe if moving alone! The authors also
mention that "sighted guide provides companionship as well as
information about the surrounding environment." The mention of
companionship feeds fears and stereotypes about the poor blind
person who must rely on the kindness of strangers for
companionship. The second half of the quotation, concerning
environmental information, may lead parents to conclude that the
only way a blind person can have any idea of where he is is if a
sighted person is there to tell him.
  Some bias, or at least preference, is revealed in the
Alternative Mobility Device section. These devices are described
as easier to use conceptually and motorically and requiring less
instruction than canes, but do they provide the same result? The
authors do not mention that these devices require the use of two
hands, thus making it impossible for the child to carry something
or to hold hands with the parent (see below). In addition they
are heavier than canes and simply do not allow as much freedom of
movement. They are discussed, however, as if they are an
equivalent alternative to a cane. The authors' bias toward these
devices is revealed in another section of the chapter, where they
casually mention that "a child in a kindergarten classroom may
need formal O&M instruction to learn basic sighted guide skills,
self-protection skills such as trailing, or the use of an
alternative mobility device to travel with his classmates from
his classroom to the cafeteria and the playground." Again, what
message will the parent hear? That in order to move with his
classmates, the child must use one of these devices and not a
cane.
  The authors define a mobility system as "a guide or device that
permits independent movement through the environment." I suspect,
however, that they are not using the word "independent" as most
parents would understand it or as the dictionary defines it. Many
in the O&M profession seem to have convinced themselves that
using the sighted guide mobility system gives a blind traveler
the same independence as using a cane. The authors list as a
disadvantage of the sighted guide system that "independence is
limited" but they mean "because a guide might not always be
available."
  The chapter exhibits the usual love affair with sighted guide
that I have seen so often in professional literature. Three pages
are devoted to a discussion of the various techniques of sighted
guide, along with three photographs which illustrate them. (In
one photograph the child is holding a cane, but it is close to
his body and high off the ground. No canes are shown in the other
photos.) In contrast, only two pages are given over to the cane,
and the only photo shows a straight and a folding cane lying on a
carpet and not in use! (A cane appears in one other photo in the
chapter, one that is illustrating "upper hand and forearm
protective technique.")
  In addition, the authors hold dearly to the idea of how
actively the blind person participates when using the sighted
guide technique. Their insistence on this, coupled with my own
observations of how children behave, leads me to suspect that
they protest too much! I also suspect they haven't ever lived
with a blind child. Too many of us parents have had the
experience of our children being taught this system and then
being only too content to "leave the driving" to someone else!
  The authors also claim that a preschooler "needs to learn
sighted guide skills so that he can travel comfortably in
unfamiliar and outdoor settings with you." A statement like this
serves only to mystify the idea of a blind child's movement,
rather than to simplify it. Those of us who take a common sense
approach to raising our blind children know that you don't need a
"system" composed of complicated, rigid techniques that must be
taught by a highly trained professional simply to take a child
out for a walk!
  The emphasis on technique strikes me as overdone. The
discussion of cane technique, for example, is quite rigid and
supports (perhaps unintentionally) the position of some cane
instructors that very young children should not be given canes
because they cannot yet perform the techniques correctly. The
emphasis given to technique, in fact, becomes almost reverential
in two parts of this chapter. First parents are advised not to
hold hands with their child. ("Whenever possible, you should
encourage your child to use the proper grip.") I feel sorry for
parents who might be inclined to follow this advice, for they
might never experience the pure, normal pleasure of holding hands
with their small child! Incidentally, the proper grip entails
"grasping the guide's wrist, positioning the thumb to the outside
and the four fingers to the inside of the guide's wrist. The grip
should be secure, but comfortable for the guide. The child holds
his upper arm parallel and close to the side of his body, forming
approximately a 90-degree angle with his lower arm so that he is
positioned approximately one-half step behind the guide." I
cannot help thinking that this, along with the detailed
instructions about "narrow passageway technique" and "stairway
technique," are much ado about very little!
  Later, in a section called "Modifying Your Home," the authors
explain that some consistency in the home environment will allow
the child to become familiar with the spatial arrangement and to
develop confidence in his mobility. It is then suggested--
incredibly, I think--that after the child learns where all the
furniture is, parents should move it around! "Move the toy chest
to a different corner of the room so your child has to use his
self-protective techniques to travel the new route." The question
must be asked, who or what is being served here, the child and
his independent mobility or the system and its techniques? Does
any person need this kind of outer-imposed stress in his or her
own home?
  Other problems exist in the "Modifying Your Home" section.
Since the authors' premise is that "how your home is arranged can
greatly affect the development of O&M skills," parents may get
the idea that they will constantly be rearranging the furniture
in order for their child to move about the house. First it is
suggested that "you could initially arrange the furniture along
the wall so that he could travel along the furniture without
having to move out into open space" (heaven forbid!), and then
parents are told, "As your child becomes more motivated and
proficient, you could rearrange the furniture and provide
landmarks. For example, when your child contacts the coffee
table, instead of continuing in the same direction along the
wall, he would turn left, trail the edge of the coffee table to
the end, continue across two feet of open space to the big chair,
walk around the chair to the wall, and turn the corner into the
kitchen." This makes getting across a room seem impossible! If
this were not bad enough, parents are then told, "As your child
becomes still more proficient, you can challenge him to continue
to use his O&M skills by creating a more complex environment.
That is, increase or decrease the amount of furniture or
rearrange it." Again, if any of these professionals ever actually
lived with a blind child, they would quickly see that these ideas
are not only impractical, but present unnecessary obstacles to
the goals of confidence and independent mobility.
  I have saved the best for last. In contrast to the 226 pages
that precede it, the "Growing into Literacy" chapter is downright
cheerful! In a noticeably different and refreshing tone, the
author of this chapter, Alan J. Koenig, writes about visually
impaired children as if they were on a par with sighted children!
He makes laying the foundation for literacy seem not only
possible, but simple and fun. The author points out how the early
experiences a visually impaired child needs are the same ones
that sighted children need, with simple adaptations made for
blindness. Parents will be empowered by this information; it will
help them to feel competent, knowledgeable, in control of the
situation, and on the right track.
  Bias toward eyesight is evident in many chapters of this book,
but not in this one. With much common sense the author writes,
"If your child has vision, visual information should be paired
with other types of sensory information. . . . Visual information
should not be the only source of information. Again, the more
senses that can be used to learn things, the better."
  The author is clearly a Braille enthusiast who pleasantly
addresses the usual criticisms of Braille, includes a reference
to the "handy slate and stylus," points out that audio tapes and
technology do not replace literacy, and several times suggests
making contact with a blind adult!
  In conclusion, too much of this book expresses a negative
attitude toward blindness; parents will be left with little hope.
Too many qualifications are placed on the child's chances for
success (the phrase "as independent as possible" is used
repeatedly); there are far too few references to the skills of
blindness. The absolute distinction made between visual
impairment and blindness will keep many children from learning
blindness skills that would enable them to function more
efficiently, thus vastly reducing the "frustrations" and
"problems stemming from visual impairment" that the authors so
frequently refer to. Many references are made to turning to
others for help--friends, relatives, doctors, counselors, and
especially "vision professionals." Surprisingly little emphasis
is given to finding other parents of visually impaired children.
One author mentions consumer groups, and one author actually
suggests seeking out a blind person.
  Each chapter ends with parent comments. I do not understand why
the book's editor chose to include them, since they are, for the
most part, very negative and quite sad. I suppose their inclusion
flows from the book's basic premise, that blindness is absolutely
awful. I know from the professional literature that there is a
(large) school of thought that parents who do not dwell on how
handicapped their children are and who instead decide to pick
themselves up and just move forward, are in denial. I am also
reminded of a certain style of parent support group, in which
success seems to be measured by how many people are crying by
meeting's end.
  Mention is made a few times in the book of the idea that "your
child is a person first and only secondarily a person who happens
to have a visual impairment" and "visual impairment is only one
of your child's characteristics" and "we must be diligent in our
insistence that there is no shame attributed to the word
`blind.'" Still, these end up being only lip service. The book
speaks for itself in its studious avoidance of the B-word and its
clear message that every aspect of your child's life and your
family's life will be negatively affected by visual impairment.
Parents new to blindness are not likely to have any defense
against this sort of negative view, and more experienced parents
will not need the basic information this book provides.


                 __WHY I AM CHOOSING _BLINDNESS:

 __PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON THE NEED FOR A FUNCTIONAL _DEFINITION

                       _by _Scott _Feldman

  __From the Editor: One of the most annoying misconceptions
about the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind is
the notion that committed Federationists are proud of their
blindness and, if given a chance, would choose it over returned
vision. Those who have heard and believed such statements are
enraged, I think, because they consider it needlessly cruel to
encourage the development of neurotic and twisted ideas in people
who are already facing vision loss. Federationists, on the other
hand, are frustrated when we are accused of holding such notions
because, in fact, we _don't.
  __Learning to be unapologetic and to resist feelings of
inferiority because of blindness is very different from being
proud of the characteristic. It is as absurd to be proud of
blindness as it is to take pride in being six feet four, having
size five feet, or demonstrating an IQ of 145. One may be
comfortable or not with any of these characteristics, but one can
certainly claim no credit for possessing _them.
  __A person might well take pride in developing his or her
artistic ability, athletic skill, intellectual powers, or
expertise in the alternative skills of blindness, but that is
very different from claiming personal credit for a God-given
characteristic. Of course, being only human (and therefore often
a little ridiculous), people frequently take pride in their
naturally wavy hair, quick reflexes, or green eyes. It isn't
surprising, then, that, in the process of evolving a healthy
identity as a competent blind person, some of us act for a while
as though taking pride in blindness were the goal rather than
achieving self-confidence and effectiveness as a blind _person.
  __Debunking the second half of the misconception is more
complex. I don't think I know a single blind person who would
actually choose blindness above fully functioning sight, if the
exchange were an actual option. In a world structured for and
largely dependent on sight, it is obviously more efficient to use
sight to get things done. But such a choice is virtually never an
option. Most people with a little residual vision are faced with
the dilemma of either depending on very restricted visual data
for doing tasks or mastering alternative techniques for getting
the job done. The pragmatic question these people face in
situation after situation is which strategy would be more
efficient. The emotional freight that such decisions carry can be
heavy indeed. If one has never learned effective alternative
techniques and if one has always depended on vision, then vision
--even very poor or painful vision--often seems the easier
choice. Family and friends reinforce this tendency every time
they urge the person not to "act blind" because, after all, he or
she can still see _something.
  __Recognizing these pressures, experienced members of the
Federation understand the importance of encouraging those with
vision problems to get to know able blind people who are
comfortable using the alternative skills of blindness. It isn't
that we prefer blindness; we just prefer efficiency, confidence,
comfort, and success. For almost everyone with less than 10
percent of normal vision, this means using some combination of
blindness skills and remaining, genuinely usable vision. Working
out the combination is time-consuming and often emotionally
_demanding.
  __One man who has given this struggle a lot of thought in the
past few months is Scott Feldman, a graduate student in clinical
psychology and a member of the Chicago Chapter. This is what he
has to say about his journey into _self-understanding:

  "But that's not you--you're only print-impaired." It was my
best friend Amy speaking, and she was clearly concerned about me.
  Until recently I suppose that I thought of myself in this way
as well. My visual problems first manifested themselves after
extended periods of reading, and reading print was the first
activity that I eventually had to relinquish, in my early
twenties. Even today, several years later, I could force myself
to read a small amount of print in an emergency. but I would pay
the price with accommodative spasms. When I try to see things at
near distance, my eyes lock, as in a muscle cramp, and later
double vision and a throbbing headache set in as my eyes struggle
to relax. I do not like pain, nor do I like setting myself up for
failure. Since 1990 I have listened to my books instead, and I
write with a speech-adapted computer.
  Last year I began to learn Braille because in many situations
speech is an inadequate substitute for print, such as when I have
to give a lecture or presentation from notes. Braille is coming
slowly, and materials in any accessible format are hard to come
by. Only five percent of printed material published each year is
converted to speech or Braille. So I most certainly do feel
print-impaired.
  This might have been the end of the story, except for one, well
two little problems. To begin with, there are many other things
besides print that can get too close for my comfort: people's
faces, a kitchen counter or dining room table, or a Rembrandt, to
name a few. I suppose that you could say that I am face-impaired,
food-impaired, and art-impaired as well. Better, let's say that I
am functionally blind at near distance and leave it at that. This
is where I was several months ago, after much kicking and
screaming--not to mention a year-long depression that nearly
sapped my will to live.
  Life is not fair, nor is it simple. At present I get around
without the assistance of a cane or dog. Walking outside is one
of the activities recommended to me by my visual therapists
because it allows me to gaze into the distance and relax my
focusing system. (A world-renowned neuro-ophthalmologist who
first diagnosed my condition as severe accommodative and
convergence insufficiency suggested that I become a forest
ranger. When I said that I wanted to be a scholar, he asked me if
I would mind if he prayed for me. I did not.)
  If you are sighted, you may be aware of relaxing your eyes,
particularly when you are walking along, lost in thought. Your
eyes do not fixate on anything in particular but take in the
general environment. You perceive gross forms, color, and most
definitely movement. You do not crash into things. This is how I
have gotten around for the past six years. It works, except for
the fact that I cannot make out street signs or other such
niceties of modern travel. To be precise, if I squint through the
various overlapping images, I can sometimes make out street
signs, but then I get back into that same painful cycle that I
described earlier.
  So traveling is the second little problem. I was not aware of
it while in Los Angeles for graduate school, where my range of
independent travel was effectively limited by my busy campus
schedule and inability to drive. Nor was it a problem when I
returned to Chicago on a leave of absence since I know the city
very well, having spent the latter part of my childhood and my
adolescence there.
  But this past October I traveled with my family to London and
Paris. It was a lovely trip, especially because of the English
theater. During a side trip to Stratford on Avon, I scalped a
ticket to the Royal Shakespeare Company's performance of
_Macbeth. I sat next to a delightful old woman who had been
coming to Stratford for decades. She recalled the glorious days
when the likes of Richard Burton were members of the company. The
lights went out, and we fell silent, expectant. At the end of the
performance, she asked me whether I had enjoyed it, not being
able to make out the individual actors. As it turned out, I had
enjoyed the performance more than she because I had been able to
focus on the poetry, while she had difficulty getting beyond her
aggravation at the inauthenticity of the costumes and stage set.
(At one point, to her horror, the gate keeper lit a cigarette.)
  It was walking around on my own in London that made me realize
how compromised my ability to navigate new places visually has
become. The first day I went out I squinted at the street signs
painted on the sides of buildings to make out where I was. I did
not enjoy the theater that evening or the following afternoon
because my eyes reminded me, in no uncertain terms, that I had
mistreated them. A couple of days later I wanted to venture north
to visit the Folk Institute because I am very fond of Irish
music. My parents said that it would be no trouble to go with me,
but I felt that it was important to figure out how to travel
there independently. The influence of the National Federation of
the Blind was in full evidence here. With the help of an
excellent map--and my parents' eyes--I familiarized myself with
the general layout of central London and with the specific route
I planned to take. Then I set off for the Kensington underground
station, our local base of operations. To make a long story
short, after a few wrong turns and requests for directions from a
couple of polite Londoners (they are so polite), I found the
place. Happily, I returned to the subway with four new CD's in
hand, the result of a thoughtful introduction to the institute's
collection by another extremely polite Londoner.
  My travels the following few days were much the same. Instead
of asking my eyes what street I was on, I asked someone more
reliable. As you might suspect, this strategy failed miserably
after we took the newly constructed tunnel under the English
Channel to Paris. Being a native English-speaker and a sometimes
Spanish-speaker, I couldn't even begin to formulate the
appropriate question, let alone understand the response. To the
extent that I walked around on my own, such as when my parents
indulged in a visit to a museum, I traced large circles around
prominent landmarks.
  As I sit here in my new apartment in Minneapolis, staring out
into an impossibly early snowfall, the little question of how to
navigate an unfamiliar city blossoms into a preoccupation.
Besides the question of how to map out the city, pinpointing the
places that hold special interest for me (such as a folk music
club or dim-sum restaurant), I wonder how I will shop for
necessities. Twice now my refrigerator has gone empty before I
asked a neighbor with whom I am acquainted for assistance
shopping. Of course, I could walk into the grocery store and ask
for customer service, but I am not blind, right?
  Actually, Amy, I suspect that you and I are wrong. It is true
that I do not meet legal criteria for blindness, which are based
on simple indices of acuity and field of vision. I am not a low-
vision candidate--I have plenty of it. It just doesn't seem to be
working for me.
  True, many people have strong negative stereotypes about blind
people, into which they will try to lock me if I identify myself
as blind in public by using a long white cane, for example. They
will see me only as a blind person. But I have seen much more in
many of the people I have met through the National Federation of
the Blind. When I am in their company, rather than feeling
ashamed of who I have become, I feel empowered to work to create
a more positive image of blindness. I am starting here.


            __SPECIAL NOTICES FOR NEW COPYRIGHT _LAW

                       _by _James _Gashel

  __From the Editor: James Gashel is the NFB's Director of
Governmental _Affairs.

  As _Braille _Monitor readers are well aware, the National
Federation of the Blind played a pivotal role in securing passage
of amendments to the Copyright Act during the second session of
the 104th Congress. The changes which are now in the law resulted
from negotiations between Federation leaders and responsible
officials of the Association of American Publishers.
  The amendments to the Copyright Act were included in a bill to
fund operations of the Congress for fiscal year 1997. The bill is
known as the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. Although the
primary purpose of the bill is to approve spending for operating
the House of Representatives and the Senate through September 30,
1997, funds are also included for the Library of Congress and
other activities that fall within the legislative branch.
  As the Constitution specifies, all bills to appropriate money
must originate in the House of Representatives and then be
considered by the Senate. In the instance of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill, the House did not include the
copyright amendments in its original version, but the Senate
added the provisions as section 316. The House then agreed to
this change. Unlike the spending provisions of the bill, which
generally expire at the end of September, 1997, the copyright
amendments are permanent.
  In the months since enactment of the new law many questions
have come to the Federation about what to do to comply. In the
first place, there is a common misconception that anyone is now
permitted to reproduce any printed material for blind people.
Technically and actually, this is not quite so. Only authorized
entities are now allowed to convert printed matter into Braille
and other formats without permission.
  Authorized entities include both public and private nonprofit
agencies or organizations such as schools, libraries, training
programs, book transcribing groups, and the like. With a
definition like this, any individual who wants to have material
reproduced in Braille or another special format ought to be able
to find a qualified group to do the work or to sponsor having it
done.
  Another question has to do with the effective date of the new
provisions. The law which includes the copyright amendments was
signed by President Clinton on September 16, 1996. The changes to
the Copyright Act were immediately effective from that date
forward. Some people have assumed that material which was
published prior to September 16, 1996, cannot be reproduced
without permission. This is not the case. The exemption for
reproduction and distribution of material in specialized formats
applies to any copyrighted work, no matter when the work was
published and copyrighted in the United States. The exemption
would not apply, of course, if the reproduction or distribution
of the work in a specialized format occurred prior to September
16, 1996; but this is a different matter altogether. For all
practical purposes, any nondramatic literary work that exists (no
matter when published) may now be reproduced.
  So the question then comes: what about a copyright notice in
view of the fact that permission to reproduce printed matter is
no longer required? The answer is found in the law itself. The
requirements--there are only two--are quite clear-cut:
  (1) All works which are reproduced or distributed in a
  specialized format, including Braille, audio, or digital
  reproductions, must contain a statement that "Further
  reproduction or distribution in a format other than a
  specialized format is prohibited." According to the Library of
  Congress, this notice must appear both in print (for example,
  on the label of a recorded disc or cassette) and in the audio,
  Braille, or digital text itself.
  (2) Every reproduction must provide identifying copyright
  information by saying: "Copyright, (holder's name), (date)."
  It is just that simple. The permission language which used to
appear is no longer appropriate because permission is not
required, to which one might observe that most laws result in
complicating our lives even when they do so in the name of
providing us with opportunities. Here, however, is an example of
a law which has had exactly the opposite effect. The required
statements are clear, short, and to the point. That's the way it
is, and there is really nothing else to say.

[PHOTO:Sharon Gold is seated at her desk with shelves visible
behind her. A Braille Lite lies on the right side of the desk.
[[Photographer Leilani Hu, reprinted by permission. Copyright
_The _Sacramento _Bee.]] CAPTION: Sharon Gold]

                   __DOING BUSINESS AS _USUAL

  __From the Editor: Sharon Gold is a long-time leader in the
National Federation of the Blind. She has used her expertise
about Social Security to assist numbers of blind people across
the country. But most people do not know that, in addition to her
dedicated work in the Federation, Sharon has always been a canny
businesswoman. On August 12, 1996, a fine story about her
                        appeared in The Sacramento Bee. Here it
_is:


               __Looking for Golden _Opportunities

__Businesswoman Doesn't Let Disability Stop her from _Succeeding


                         _by _Kate _Rix

  Sharon Gold's office suite looks pretty much like any other
real estate investment office.
  Her investment and marketing firm, housed in a two-story office
building she owns on Freeport Boulevard, is decorated with
brightly colored artwork, dark blue carpeting, and wooden
bookshelves loaded with binders and reference books.
  But there's a difference. Gold can't see the artwork, the color
of her decor, or the lush foliage outside her window. She is
blind.
  Gold, fifty-five, is practical and matter-of-fact about her
disability. "Being blind doesn't keep me from getting up in the
morning and getting my work done," said Gold, seated near a
window in her large, airy office. "Blindness can be reduced to a
mere nuisance."
  In September [1995] Gold incorporated SLG Enterprises, a
variety of ventures including marketing of indoor air filters and
investing in distressed real estate to fix it up for resale or
lease.
  Equipped with the additional tools of a voice synthesizer on
her computer and a driver to take her places, Gold manages assets
of about $3 million. She says her gross receipts for the past
year were about $500,000.
  Her business isn't unusual and neither is her method--sometimes
she hires an agent to help with sale negotiations and sometimes
she handles them herself. But as a disabled woman over fifty,
Gold's success is in her blindness to obstacles and in her skill
doing what all successful business owners do: hire a good crew
and roll with changes in the market.
  Her professional life is a study in adaptability. She's worked
as a 4-H instructor to small children, an elementary school
teacher, a dog breeder, a ranch manager, and a consultant to home
business owners.
  "I've always had something going on," said Gold, a petite woman
with a thick thatch of silver hair. "Like successful sighted
people, I surround myself with a good crew, and I've always had
an inkling for business."
  Gold has always juggled several jobs. While working as an
elementary school teacher, she also worked for the Federation of
the Blind of California. She retired from teaching in 1982 to
devote herself to the Federation full time. She worked as
president of the Federation for seventeen years and also bought
residential property on the side. She left the Federation to go
into business full time.
  Today she buys real estate that needs a lot of work, hires a
crew to fix it up, and then sells the property at a profit. She
is also president of the Sacramento Chapter of the Federation of
the Blind.
  The secret to survival, she says, is having a diverse portfolio
and profit-making as a goal.
  "I don't buy things that aren't a good deal for me," she says.
"But when I get through with a place, there will be jobs that
came out of it, a house and neighborhood improved a little, and
someone who gets a better place to live."
  But in addition to possessing business sense, disabled business
people like Gold have to challenge people's assumptions, says
Brenda Premo, director of the State Department of Rehabilitation.
"As a culture we tend to believe a thing should be done a
particular way," said Premo. "For a person who is blind or in a
chair or deaf, the biggest challenge is communicating that they
can do the job they say they can do."
  Premo, who is legally blind, worked with Gold when Gold was
President of the National Federation of the Blind of California.
Buckling under the pressure of a disability, Premo says, has not
been a problem for Gold. "As a woman who is blind and over fifty
she's got three strikes against her," said Premo. "And I think
they have equal bearing. Her skill as a good manager has helped
her eclipse her disability."
  Tom Walcott, a real estate agent with Bishop Hawk, who
represents Gold when she needs an agent, says she is just plain
good at doing business.
  "She's tough. She gets extremely competitive bids for
construction," he said. "By the time she gets all the numbers she
needs, she's as informed if not more informed than any sighted
investor."
  Walcott represented Gold when she was negotiating to buy the
Freeport Executive Building about three years ago. Gold was a
tenant in the run-down building at the time in a suite leased by
the Federation of the Blind of California.
  When the building lost all but two tenants and the Canadian
Imperial Bank repossessed it from the former owner, Walcott said,
Gold wanted to buy it. Together with Walcott, she negotiated a
sale for $550,000. She says she's doubled its value since then by
restaining the building's redwood shingles, putting in new
landscaping, and aggressively finding tenants for all but one of
its eleven suites, including the Freeport Conference Center.
  "I'm really fond of this building's architecture," said Gold,
fingering her pager, which has just beeped. "Just giving it a new
paint job really made a difference."


   __ALMOST HEAVEN IN '97--NEW ORLEANS--A MECCA FOR FINE _FOOD

                       _by _Jerry _Whittle

  __From the Editor: The Louisiana affiliate is already working
hard to ensure that the 1997 convention will be unforgettable.
Their efforts are, of course, ably reinforced by the incomparable
city of New Orleans itself. Here is Jerry Whittle's most recent
endeavor to tempt you to join us June 29 to July 6 in the Big
_Easy:

  New Orleans is considered one of the greatest cities in the
world for haute cuisine, and the members of the National
Federation of the Blind of Louisiana want to make sure that all
those who attend the 1997 National Convention have the
opportunity to take advantage of the hundreds of dining choices
available in the Crescent City. We have borrowed some
recommendations from a book entitled __New Orleans: the
Definitive Guide to Architectural and Cultural _Treasures by
Roulhac Toledano. His suggestions for many of the more famous
restaurants in New Orleans appear below. We hope that everyone
attending the National Convention will have the opportunity to
venture out and enjoy one of these wonderful places.

Acme Oyster and Seafood House, 724 Iberville Street, (504)
  522-5973. This establishment is accessible to both the French
  Quarter and the central business district. Stop shopping and
  relax with the best fried food and sandwiches you can find. Low
  to moderate prices.
Antoine's, 713 St. Louis Street, (504) 581-4422. Antoine
  Alciatore opened a small boarding house on St. Louis Street
  soon after his arrival in New Orleans from Marseille in 1840.
  Five generations of his children have run Antoine's, each
  generation returning to France to learn more about cuisine and
  the restaurant business. Restaurants worldwide know Antoine's,
  and so do all the provincials who recognize New Orleans as
  their mecca for special occasions. They come by private jet and
  by train. Some even take the Greyhound Bus, but there's always
  a meal at Antoine's.
    You can decide with the help of a waiter, but you can start
  with Oysters Ellis, after Dubonnet (red) with a twist of lemon.
  Despite the temptation of seafood, have a "nice tournedo."
  Souffle    potatoes are a must, and Antoine's is the only place
  where sauces are essential to the dining experience. Turtle
  soup and sweetbreads Financiere are the Proteus Day luncheon
  favorites on the Monday before Mardi Gras. High prices.
Bacco, 310 Chartres Street, (504) 522-2426. Located in the De La
  Poste Hotel, this restaurant has captured the imagination of
  French Quarter diners and was listed in the top twenty
  restaurants for 1993. High prices.
Bayona, 430 Dauphine Street, (504) 525-4455. This is the project
  of award-winning chef Susan Spicer. A tiny place, pleasant,
  very European, Bayona has lovely presentations of good food.
  Her garlic soup is a non pareil.
Bistro, 733 Toulouse Street, (504) 528-9206 is located at the
  Maison de Ville and is an alternative lunch and dinner place,
  quite intimate with beautifully presented French-style food.
Bon Ton Cafe, 401 Magazine Street, (504) 524-3386, Brick walls
  with wide folding doors and high ceilings envelop the guests.
  Crawfish bisque or etoufee, bread pudding, and whiskey sauce
  are essential parts of the casual dining scene for lunch or
  dinner.
Brennan's, 417 Royal Street, (504) 525-9711. The need for
  expansion of their popular restaurant business brought the
  Brennan family to this address in 1955. The family business has
  become history in New Orleans because of their efforts to
  create a distinctive cuisine and operation. Here is the New
  Orleans Irish success story, out of politics and architecture.
  High prices.
Brigsten's, 723 Dante Street, (504) 861-7610. Brigsten's is
  located in an old house near the levee. It was rated as one of
  the ten best restaurants in 1993. It also has a great uptown
  location among wonderful shops all in picturesque old cottages.
Brocato's, 537 St. Ann Street. Brocato's is Angelo Brocato's
  family pastry shop, a longtime Quarter institution. Try the
  granita: it's the real thing.
Cafe du Monde, 813 Decatur Street. Although the location had to
  change, as did the management during various French Market
  renovations, the Cafe du Monde has been packed with locals and
  tourists for generations twenty-four hours a day. Order cafe au
  lait and beignets since it's all you can get, except for orange
  juice, hot chocolate, and regular coffee for the unadventurous.
  Low prices.
Camellia Grill, 626 South Carrollton Avenue, (504) 866-9573.
  Where else can you eat at a counter and have big cotton
  napkins? Your hamburgers, omelettes, waffles, coffee, and mocha
  freezes are served by professional waiters in pressed white
  jackets.
Casamento's, 4330 Magazine Street, (504) 895-9761. Here the
  specialty is oysters. Some member of the Casamento family will
  serve you while you enjoy the shiny white walls, tile floor,
  and oyster stew. Even the sidewalk out front is covered in
  tile, and you'll see gunnysacks full of newly delivered oysters
  or oyster shells set out to haul away.
Christian's, 3835 Iberville Street, (504) 482-4924. This
  restaurant is beautifully situated in a former church but named
  after the owner, Chris Ansel of the Galatoire clan. He opted
  for his own restaurant after learning the business in France
  and at the family restaurant. They serve lunch Thursday and
  Friday and dinner Monday through Saturday.
Clancy's, 6100 Annunciation Street at Webster Street, (504)
  895-1111. Clancy's is located in one of those old-time frame
  cottages that has changed through the years from the old corner
  hangout to an upscale dining experience, reasonably priced.
Commander's Palace, 1403 Washington Ave., (504) 895-1111. Every
  neighborhood has its institutions and all the things that give
  it wholeness. In the Garden District it's all rolled up on
  Washington Avenue around Prytania Street with Lafayette
  Cemetery and Commander's Palace. Opened in 1880 by Emile
  Commander, the restaurant was bought by the Brennan family in
  1974. It works because of their flair for ingenuity and good
  food. Commander's is an occasion itself, but take time to walk
  around the neighborhood a bit. Look at the bollards, great cast
  iron standards sticking out of the brick pavement. They kept
  the carriages from going down into the deep granite drainage
  ditches, also worth a careful perusal. Look through the screens
  of shrubs to catch glimpses of architectural details in
  fairystyle settings, cast iron lyre pattern railings,
  Corinthian column caps, and entablatures, eyecatching because
  of their very misproportion. Imposing facades hide chaste gable
  sides, and the service wings are always longer than the houses.
  You'll see new combinations of classical decorative design. But
  it works, both individually and as a collective whole of
  Classical and Italianate motifs, jumbled and combined to create
  special houses in a special neighborhood, unique to the South.
  Here is a neighborhood that seemed to have been built almost
  entirely during the Civil War and the harsh days of
  Reconstruction. High prices.
Croissant d'Or, 617 Ursulines Street. This is the place for
  breakfast in the old Brocato's building. Look down and see the
  sign in the tile for the Ladies' entrance. Low prices.
Degas, 3127 Esplanade Avenue, (504) 945-5635. Degas is named
  because in 1872 Edgar Degas stayed at the Musson House across
  the street at 2306 Esplanade Avenue. Moderate prices.
Dooky Chase, 2301 Orleans Street. Dooky Chase is the most famous
  African-American restaurant in New Orleans, where Leah Chase
  and her husband Dooky have been preparing great lunches and
  dinners for decades. Moderate prices.
Emeril's, 800 Tchoupitoulas Street, (504) 528-9393. This
  restaurant is owned by the chef, Emeril Lagasse, who has won
  national awards.
Feelings, also known as Cafe d'Aunoy, 2600 Chartres Street. This
  restaurant has a residential setting with good food. Moderate
  prices.
Gabrielle, 3201 Esplanade Avenue, (504) 948-6233. This restaurant
  is where forty guests at a seating enjoy food cooked by the
  owner, who trained under Paul Prudhomme. Moderate prices.
Galatoire's, 209 Bourbon Street, doesn't take reservations. Line
  up with the locals at 11:30 every morning or try for the second
  seating. Lots of New Orleanians go straight to Galatoire's
  right after work. You should order Trout Almandine or get more
  adventurous with Crabmeat Ravigotte (you can't get that
  anywhere else). Ask for a demitasse of dark roast coffee if
  you're not brave enough for a cup of the bitter chicory. The
  waiters are an essential part of the Galatoire's experience, as
  are the mirror-covered walls reflecting the white tablecloths,
  waiters dressed in black and white, and the linen-clad
  Orleanians, the women with their pearls. High prices.
Gautreau's, 1728 Soniat Street, (504) 899-7397. Uptown eating
  means restaurants in little commercial buildings in residential
  areas, such as Gautreau's, a drugstore building with tin
  ceilings and an unglazed tile floor. This restaurant began as a
  project of Ann Avegno Russell, who began it despite the
  distraction of six children; it barrelled to international fame
  in a short time.
Gumbo Shop, 630 St. Peter Street, (504) 525-1486. The owners may
  change every lifetime or so, but the gumbo and the place remain
  just as much fun as they were in the 1950's, and the restaurant
  is located in a Spanish colonial building dating from 1795. Low
  to moderate prices.
K-Paul's Louisiana Kitchen, 416 Chartres Street. The waiters are
  mostly friends of the owners. Low to moderate prices.
La Madeleine, 547 St. Ann Street, (504) 568-9950, is in the Lower
  Pontalba apartments and is recent and owned by people from
  France: bread, coffee, and atmosphere with light meals, like
  the Caesar salad and the Croque Monsieur. Low prices.
Liuzza's Restaurant and Bar, 3635 Bienville Street and 234 North
  Telemachus Street, (504) 482-9120. It's worth the ride to
  experience lunches and dinners with beer in great cold stemmed
  glasses along with your po-boy.
Mandina's, 3800 Canal Street, (504) 482-9179, provides a similar
  experience. Only in New Orleans will you find Italian
  restaurants with "Wop-Salad" written on the menu.
Mother's, 401 Poydras Street, (504) 523-9656. This restaurant is
  a mainstay for everyone from business people to longshore
  workers, who stand in line to pick a po-boy or a hot lunch New
  Orleans style. Low prices.
Napoleon House, 500 Chartres Street, (504) 524-9752. This is not
  only a great setting (they haven't spent a cent on decor since
  1814) but has great muffelettas and offers small portions of
  all the great Creole and cajun specialties. It's been going
  strong since the 1930's, at least as a bar with food. Low to
  moderate prices.
Parasol's, 2533 Constance Street, (504) 897-5413. this is a bar
  and family restaurant in the heart of the Irish Channel, and
  it's an old-time substitute for the "club" for the Irish
  constituents.
Peristyle, 1041 Dumaine Street, (504) 593-9536. This is an
  important place to eat, and the setting, with murals of City
  Park, is very New Orleans.
Praline Connection, 542 Frenchmen Street, (504) 943-3934. The
  Praline Connection is open for three meals a day with late
  hours. This corner neighborhood restaurant concentrates on soul
  food and sweets from the adjacent sweetshop.
Tujague's, 823 Decatur Street, (504) 525-8676. Tujague's has been
  in business since 1856, presenting its brisket of beef in a
  six-course, prix fixe French-style presentation after shrimp
  remoulade. It's casual, but you don't order; they bring it, and
  it's just what you wanted even though you may not have known
  it.

  Over the years the staff and students of the Louisiana Center
for the Blind have ventured to New Orleans on numerous occasions.
We have dined at many different restaurants and would like to
suggest some additional dining spots that we have enjoyed for
various reasons. For example, one of the most colorful
restaurants in New Orleans is a pink, stuccoed house known as
Petunia's. Located at 817 St. Louis, just off Bourbon in the
Quarter, Petunia's serves wonderful crees, quiches, and an
assortment of typical creole and cajun cuisine. We would highly
recommend it for brunch or dinner. For reservations call
522-6440.
  Maspero's on 601 Decatur Street is another popular, inexpensive
restaurant with an informal atmosphere. Maspero's offers local
beers on tap and muffelettas, gumbo, and other short order foods.
We find that we get our money's worth there, but we have often
waited in line for the privilege, since they take no
reservations.
  Richards, located at 3944 Chef Highway, is a hole-in-the-wall
place that has never closed in twenty-five years. From breakfast
to midnight snacks, Richards is open twenty-four hours a day. The
waitresses are gnarled veterans, but they sling some mean hash.
Hot links, grits, and eggs for breakfast and a po-boy at three in
the morning. It is outside of town, so a bus or cab will be
needed. No alcohol is served there--just simple food with a most
unusual array of locals and feisty waitresses.
  Finally, we would heartily recommend the House of Blues,
located at 225 Decatur. Featuring live entertainment from rhythm
and blues giants like the Neville Brothers and Clarence
"Gatemouth" Brown, the House of Blues offers some wonderful
cuisine, such as ribs and collard greens and cornbread and
jambalaya, in a boisterous and bluesy atmosphere. For
reservations call 529-2583.
  All the food in New Orleans is delicious. Even the fast food
restaurants in the Quarter, such as McDonald's and Popeye's, seem
to rise to the challenge and prepare their standard fare in
keeping with the great chefs of the Big Easy. Everyone will have
to come to New Orleans to experience the wonderful variety and
the ethnic restaurants of the great seaport city first-hand. The
Louisiana affiliate will offer restaurant guides in Braille and
print at the information desk during the National Convention. We
will also be on hand to make suggestions and help you decide just
which way to go for the best food in town. Get those hotel
reservations in to the National Center for the Blind as quickly
as possible. The rates are one in a room, $40 per night; two in a
room, $42; three in a room, $44; four in a room, $46.
  Written reservations should be addressed to Mr. Cobb's
attention. In order to confirm a reservation, you will need to
send either a check or money order for $40 as a deposit or give
Mr. Cobb a credit card number. The credit card account will be
charged immediately. If a reservation is canceled prior to June
1, 1997, half of the deposit will be returned. After that date
deposits will not be returned. Exceptions may be made in certain
demonstrated emergencies.
  Bon appetit and laissez le bon temps roulet.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Curtis Chong]

           __AMERICAN EXPRESS SPOTLIGHTS CURTIS _CHONG

  __From the Editor: The following article appeared in the
October/November, 1996, edition of Connections, an internal
publication of American Express. Here it _is:


               _Technology _Helping _Technologies

                        _by _Dinah _Rose

  Curtis Chong is an organized individual, evidenced by the fact
that, among other indicators, he answers E-mail messages
promptly. This, by itself, is a trait to be much admired in
today's busy work environment but takes on particular meaning
since Chong, a designer/consultant for the American Express
Financial Advisors in Minneapolis, is blind. In order to answer
those E-mails, he must first read them with the assistance of a
special speech-output device.
  It's a case of technology helping technologies--finding the
right combination of hardware, software, and oftentimes just
plain creativity, to help meet the needs of American Express
employees who are blind, deaf, or have other physical conditions
that make it difficult to perform their jobs.
  For Chong technology begins with the most simple of equipment--
a Perkins Braille writer and a slate and stylus. With these he
can sit in a meeting and record notes for later reference. On his
desk is a PC connected to a Braille embosser and speech output.
The computerized voice is difficult for the uninitiated to
understand, but it enables Chong to handle most electronic
transactions without assistance. He also has a talking terminal
he uses to access the mainframe. He has another system set up at
his home for disaster recovery, which also features speech output
and through which he can plug into the mainframe off site.
  In addition to the sophisticated technology, a key piece of
equipment is what Chong refers to as a "biological plug
interface"--a human reader supplied by the company, who reads
paper documents and other sources not readily accessed. With
these tools Chong, who has been an American Express employee
since 1980, manages nine people and in his spare time serves as
president of the computer sciences group for the National
Federation of the Blind, specializing in adaptive technology for
the blind.
  Like all good managers, he takes individual abilities into
consideration when assigning tasks; and, if it involves writing,
understanding concepts, initial architectural work, he will
generally take responsibility. "If it's something detailed,
however, like analyzing a data dump or detailed looking at print
material, I'll generally give it to someone else to do who can do
it faster," he said.
  Technology makes all the difference for many people when it
comes to doing their jobs. Those who have mobility problems with
their hands can still communicate with a speech-to-text program,
permitting them to speak into a microphone to direct a computer,
not only to type text, but to open and close windows and perform
virtually all functions. Software and hardware have been designed
to answer many needs.
  New technology is not always an asset to the handicapped,
however. Chong said the proliferation of more visual screen
layouts through the use of embedded graphics, presentations, and
Web pages are complicating communications for the visually
impaired by rapidly outdating old software solutions. Each
individual with limitations must investigate the aids available
and determine what best suits their needs.
  The company is researching a centralized accommodations center,
which would feature assistive technology, as well as preventative
measures for problems such as repetitive motion injuries and
carpal tunnel syndrome. This not only would help employees
identify the technology best suited for their needs but would
permit the company to take advantage of centralized purchasing
and the resulting pricing benefits.


                  __PERFORMING THE AVERAGE _JOB

                   __A QUESTION OF _TECHNOLOGY

                       _by _Curtis _Chong

  __From the Editor: Curtis Chong is President of the National
Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, a division of the
National Federation of the Blind. The following little essay
first appeared on the Internet, where it has generated a good bit
of discussion. Curtis articulates some very real concerns for
everyone interested in seeing that blind people have the
opportunity to compete equally for jobs. This is what he _says:

  Can the average blind person really perform the average job in
the average place of business, given the state of technology
today? I have been minded to raise this question in light of the
many inquiries I receive from blind people who are interested in
obtaining employment and who are then confronted with the need to
use a computer (with unfamiliar or incompatible software) on the
job. I have been forced to confront this issue head-on partly
because of a dramatic lack of technical expertise evident in the
field of work with the blind today. (Well, I shouldn't say
"dramatic" actually. "Inconsistent" might be a better term to use
in this context.)
  Consider the case of a blind person interested in working as a
customer service representative, an order taker, a collections
agent, or a typist. Inevitably, during the interview questions
will come up about the blind person's ability to use the computer
in the office. But before the blind person can respond with an
unequivocal "yes!" he or she must traverse a virtual mine field
of issues: what kind of computers are we talking about here? PC
compatibles? Macintosh computers? DEC (Digital Equipment
Corporation) equipment? Sun workstations?
  Even if the workstation is a PC-compatible (something which we
as blind people have used quite a bit), one has to consider what
operating system and application software will be used on the
job. Will the customer service representative, secretary, or
order taker be required to run DOS, Windows, OS/2, Windows 95,
Windows/NT, or some other new operating system? What specific
application software (the software that does the real work) will
be used on the job? Is that software compatible with the
technology the blind person must use to operate the computer
without sighted assistance? Then there is the question of the
access technology (screen reader, if you will) that the blind
person will use. Does such technology exist for the computer that
will be used on the job? Even if it does, will the blind person
be able to use the screen reader that he or she has been trained
to use, or will compatibility issues force him or her to switch
to another screen-reading system to be learned from scratch?
  In some situations rehabilitation technology specialists have
spent a lot of time and effort customizing screen-reading systems
to deal with complicated screen formats to maximize the blind
person's productivity. Although initially this would appear to
have a large payoff (the blind person gets the job), what will
happen when the company decides to change its screen formats or
(even worse) convert everybody to the latest and greatest
graphical platform? Where will the blind person's job be then?
Who will perform the technical research and the customization so
that the blind person can continue to work?
  In days gone by a blind secretary who could type quickly and
accurately was a highly valued commodity. Today this is simply
not the case. Typing a document in plain text, using only one
type font, renders it unattractive and unappealing to sighted
coworkers, who too often believe that a document is useless
unless it contains different fonts used at strategic points
throughout the text. Moreover, the electronic documents produced
in the workplace today are more likely to contain pictures,
diagrams, and other non-textual representations in order to make
the material more understandable. The technology we use to read
the screen is not mature enough at this stage to enable us to
function competitively in this context.
  Even the blind computer programmer is not unaffected. A growing
number of programming tools are moving away from text-based
source code. Some of them force you to drag objects from one box
and drop them into another. Our text-based access technology does
not enable us to perform this kind of work with speed and
efficiency. If the graphical trend in programming continues,
blind programmers may be relegated to working on so-called legacy
systems simply to keep their jobs.
  It would seem that the average blind person today, in order to
obtain and retain the average job in the average place of
business, must have access to some sophisticated technological
expertise. Where does this expertise come from? The
rehabilitation system? And even if technological expertise is
consistently available in all parts of the country, will this be
enough to help us to compete in the workplace on a basis of
equality with our sighted peers? I for one simply don't know.
What I do know is that the technological challenges we must
confront are formidable and real. Unless they are overcome, it
will be even more difficult for the blind to secure employment in
the offices of tomorrow.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: James Salas]

   __ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC LIBRARY MAILS DVS VIDEOS FREE _MATTER

                      __by James L. _Salas

  __From the Editor: Jim Salas is the President of the
Albuquerque Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
New Mexico. The Governor recently named him to a seat on the
Board of Trustees of the New Mexico School for the Visually
Impaired. In the following article he describes a new public
library program suggested by the NFB. This is what he _says:

  Many blind people enjoy movies. Some prefer watching them in a
large theater with 300 or so strangers, the big screen, THX
sound, and fresh movie popcorn. Others prefer their own living
room, a few friends, the small screen, a TV speaker, and fresh
homemade popcorn. Life in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has just
improved substantially for the stay-at-home crowd. The
Albuquerque Public Library is now mailing its Descriptive Video
Service (DVS) videos directly to blind borrowers, using the Free
Matter privilege.
  In case you are unfamiliar with video description, though blind
folks can follow the movie dialog just fine, the visuals can be a
different story. We usually rely on someone to provide a play-by-
play description of the setting in which Sean Connery finds
himself; the building, bridge, train, plane, or automobile from
which or to which Arnold Schwarzenegger is jumping; and the
outfit Sharon Stone is wearing (or not wearing) as the case may
be. The DVS has solved this problem for the home video
aficionado. It adds narrated descriptions to Hollywood movies on
video for blind and low-vision audiences. DVS describes actions,
scene changes, graphics, facial expressions, and other key visual
elements, without interfering with movie dialogue. Nothing more
than a standard VCR and television is required.
  Only recently the Albuquerque Public Library began mailing its
DVS collection. Previously borrowers had to travel to the one
branch library where the entire video collection was housed. It
was located on the far south side of Albuquerque. After checking
out the video one day, the borrower had to return the video to
that same branch the following day. Unlike books and other
materials, videos had to be checked out from, and returned to,
that specific branch library. Transportation difficulties being
what they are, this policy effectively prevented many blind folks
in Albuquerque from enjoying these videos.
  That's when the NFB got involved. First we contacted Ms. Cindy
Carhart, South Broadway branch manager, and explained that the
current distribution system was not serving the audience for whom
DVS videos were designed. We asked whether she might be willing
to try something new, like mailing the videos to the borrowers.
Success hinged on whether the Free Matter mailing privilege could
be used since paying postage would have made the new distribution
program cost-prohibitive. We asked DVS about this possibility,
and the staff provided us with the needed authorization letter
from the Postmaster General. We then gathered information about
hard plastic video mailing containers with reversible address
card holders. Ms. Carhart looked at our proposal and said she was
willing to give it a try.
  Heres how it works: Interested residents call the library to
register as borrowers and are mailed a library card. Borrowers
then call the South Broadway branch and check out one of the
twenty-eight DVS videos in the collection, which includes titles
of interest to both children and adults. The videos are mailed
Free Matter. Borrowers keep the videos for a week before
returning them by mail in the hard plastic video mailer. The
program has been in effect since mid-August and is working well.
Both the library itself and the Albuquerque Chapter of the NFB of
New Mexico have plans to add to the library's DVS collection.
                          What would Siskel and Ebert say about
this program? Undoubtedly they would give it two enthusiastic
thumbs up!
  If you have additional questions, contact Descriptive Video
Service, 125 Western Avenue, Boston, MA, 02134, (800) 333-1203;
Albuquerque Public Library, Attn: Ms. Cindy Carhart, 1025
Broadway S.E., Albuquerque, NM 87102, (505) 764-1742; or James L.
Salas, 3704 Glorieta N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87111, (505) 294-3326,
E-mail: SALASJ@ABQ.COM


                 __NLS Contracts for _Validation

        __of National Literary Braille Competency _Test:

  On September 26, 1996, the National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress (NLS)
contracted with Human Resources Research Organization (HumPRO) of
Alexandria, Virginia, to carry out the validation of the
Library's recently developed National Literary Braille Competency
Test (NLBCT). The test, released for use in 1994, was developed
under Library of Congress auspices by a committee of experts at
the request of major blind membership organizations in the United
States. These groups were concerned that teachers of blind
children and adults be skilled users of Braille themselves. The
test evaluates competency in writing Braille with a slate and
stylus and with a Braille writer, ability to read Braille, and
knowledge of Braille code rules. It is expected that it will be
used to verify the Braille skills of teachers.
  The director for the validation process will be Dr. Deirdre
Knapp, whose experience includes designing and developing
certification testing programs and job analyses for national
organizations.
  Dr. Evelyn Rex will be the Braille consultant for the NLBCT
validation project. Dr. Rex is a Braille expert with more than
thirty years of experience as a consultant in the education of
visually impaired persons.
  The validation process is divided into two parts. In the first
the contractors will analyze the literary Braille tasks performed
by teachers in rehabilitation settings, in residential schools,
and in mainstreamed classrooms and determine the degree to which
the NLBCT assesses competency to perform these tasks. In the
second part the contractors will determine the reliability of the
four versions of the NLBCT. The test will be administered to at
least two hundred examinees, and the results will be analyzed to
determine reliabilities and standard errors of measurement and
also the difficulty and pass-fail decision equivalence for each
version.
  HumPRO will submit recommendations based on the group's
analysis. The validation process is expected to take two years.


             __Braille Validation Study Time _Chart

DATE:     TASK
October 8, 1996 Orientation (took place)
December 19, 1996 Complete Part 1 report (identifying tasks)
  [delayed due to the holidays]
February 10, 1997 Complete Part 2 report (cluster and weight
  tasks)
April 1, 1997 Complete Part 3 report (identify *KSAs)
May 20, 1997 Complete Part 4 report (link KSAs to tasks)
July 2, 1997 Complete Part 5 report (evaluate validity of test
  and passing scores)
August 14, 1997 Complete Part 6 report (prepare and justify
  recommendations for changes)
September 12, 1997 Oral presentation regarding recommended
  changes
October 9, 1997 NLS to have revised tests back to HumPRO
November 17, 1997 Complete Part 7 report (evaluate revised tests
  and recommend whether or not to use them)
December 16, 1997 NLS deadline to exercise option for Study II
  Reliability

[The following dates apply only if we do not go on to Study II]

January 15, 1998 First twenty tests go to evaluator
May 26, 1998 The last of the 200 tests are due back at HumPRO
  from the evaluator
June 16, 1998 Data files due
July 8, 1998 Complete Part 3 report (reliabilities and standard
  errors of measurement)
July 29, 1998 Complete Part 4 report (analysis of variance)
August 19, 1998 Complete Part 5 report (recommendations from
  Study II)
September 16, 1998 Oral presentation regarding recommendations
September 30, 1998 Draft summary report of both studies due
October 14, 1998 NLS response to draft
October 28, 1998 Final version of summary report due--project
  completed

* knowledges, skills, and abilities

  For further information contact Frank Curt Cylke, Director,
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20542, (202)
707-5104, fax (202) 707-0712, internet nls@loc.gov

[PHOTO: A couple obviously in wedding clothes stands beside a
Christmas tree in a living room. CAPTION: Julie and Paul Dawson
on their wedding day.]

                            _RECIPES

                       _by _Julie _Dawson

  __From the Editor: In honor of Valentine's Day, we are taking a
brief departure from our alphabetical tour of the country for
recipes. Julie and Paul Dawson decided on fairly short notice to
get married last year, so they planned their wedding and prepared
all the food for the reception. This is the story of how they did
it and the recipes for what they _served:

  Our wedding day dawned clear and very cold. We were married on
Little Christmas (Epiphany), the day before the blizzard of 1996.
Some of you may know me formerly as Julie Clark or Cordova; my
husband's name is Paul Dawson.
  We met, interestingly enough or, as we believe, miraculously,
through the pen pal section of the _Matilda _Zeigler magazine.
The rest was up to us and the hard work and commitment we
continuously pour into our relationship. I moved to Farmingdale,
New York, on August 30 to join my fianc`e . I have experienced new
friends, much snow, lots of trains and buses, my first audio-
described Broadway play, and my first dirty-water hotdog from a
Manhattan vendor.
  Paul and I were visiting his sister Carole in Connecticut for
Christmas. We were talking about her coming to visit. I wondered
aloud if we could get a wedding planned by January 6, less than
two weeks away. We did it, and it was a lovely ceremony in our
home. We took two buses in the pouring rain to get to our
county's courthouse for our marriage license. I called to find a
judge to perform the ceremony in our home. We invited twenty of
our closest friends and family members to share our wedding with
us. We baked our own wedding cake and made baked ziti and rice
and peas. We also had mini bagels stuffed with assorted cold
cuts, salads, and cream cheese courtesy of Carole.
  We are enclosing the three recipes we used for _Monitor
readers. We hope you enjoy making them as much as we did.
  Doing the wedding together was an exercise in patience,
teamwork, love, frustration, and rewards. We spent $200 or so. We
used our Christmas tree as well as wedding decorations, and
Carole and her friend Tricia took pictures. Another friend Betty,
who couldn't be there due to illness, sent flowers. My parents
were recovering from cataract surgeries but were there in spirit
to rejoice with us as well. We were surrounded by the love and
prayers of friends not with us physically but close in our
hearts.


                     _DAWSON _COVENANT _CAKE

_Ingredients:
1 pound butter (2 cups), softened
4 cups sugar, sifted
1 teaspoon almond extract
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
6 cups cake flour, sifted
1 teaspoon salt
6 teaspoons baking powder
2 cups milk
12 egg whites
8 cups rich ivory butter cream frosting
  _Method: Cream butter, gradually adding 21/2 cups sugar and
beating until light and fluffy. Add extracts. Sift together all
dry ingredients, except for the remaining 2 cups of sugar. Add
milk alternately with the dry ingredients in thirds to the
creamed mixture. Beat whites slowly until they form peaks in
perfectly clean and dry bowl. Gradually add remaining sugar
beating until stiff peaks form. Gently fold egg whites into the
batter. Turn batter into two 9-by-13-inch pans, which have been
lightly floured and greased. Bake in a preheated 350-degree oven
50 to 55 minutes until cake tester inserted at center of cake
comes out clean. Let cake cool in pans for a few minutes. Turn
cakes out onto wire racks to finish cooling. Ice and decorate.


                 __IVORY BUTTER CREAM _FROSTING

_Ingredients:
This recipe yields 4 cups frosting
2 cups sugar
1 cup water
10 eggs, 2 whole and 8 whites
1 pound butter, softened
2 tablespoons vanilla extract

  _Method: Stir sugar and water together in saucepan over medium
heat. Sugar will dissolve and liquid will come to a boil. Let
syrup boil without stirring until temperature reaches 234 to 240
degrees on candy thermometer, soft ball stage. This can be tested
by dropping a small spoon of syrup into cup of very cold water. A
soft ball should form between fingers. Whisking whole eggs and
whites vigorously, pour hot syrup slowly into the eggs and
continue to beat until mixture is cool, light, and fluffy. (To
make frosting more cream-colored, add more yolks and fewer
whites.) Cream butter until very soft, adding butter and vanilla
while beating. Then beat into egg mixture until shiny and firm
enough to spread. Frosting will be very glossy when touched
lightly.


                    __RICE AND PEAS _(BEANS)

_Ingredients:
2 pounds dried red kidney beans
1 pound cooked rice
coconut milk
1 large onion, chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
2 teaspoons thyme
salt and pepper to taste

  _Method: Wash beans and cook with coconut milk in crock pot.
Remove meat from coconut and put in blender. Blend until solid
meat is reduced to liquid. Add to beans in crockpot and cover
with additional water. Add lightly sauted vegetables and spices.
Cook 10 to 12 hours on high until beans are tender. In very large
pot or two Dutch ovens, combine beans and rice and heat. Makes
enough to serve twenty people with leftovers.


                          _BAKED _ZITI

_Ingredients:
2 pounds uncooked ziti
2 large jars of Ragu spaghetti sauce
2 8-ounce packages grated cheddar cheese
2 pounds Ricotta cheese
oregano, basil, salt, and pepper

  _Method: Cook ziti in two Dutch ovens according to package
directions until tender, about 20 minutes, then drain well. Add
enough sauce to moisten. Cook to blend flavors and add spices.
Place ziti in large foil turkey-roasting pan in layers with
Ricotta cheese, sauce, and a bit of cheddar cheese. Repeat,
ending with a layer of sauce on top. Sprinkle most of the cheddar
cheese over the top. Some people add a bit more sauce at the end.
You can choose which you prefer. Bake at 350 degrees for forty-
five minutes, until cheese is bubbly.


                  __* * MONITOR MINIATURES * _*

_* _Corrections:
  In the December, 1996, issue we gave an incorrect toll-free
telephone number for credit card orders for Magical Mist
Creations's tutorial, Navigating Netscape. The correct listing is
(888) 936-0001. Also, a portion of the final Monitor Miniature
was inadvertently omitted in the print edition. The text as it
should have appeared follows. We regret these errors.

__* Personal Organizer _Software:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  Acrontech announces the Personal Organizer, an integrated
software package which is simple to use. It is designed
specifically for individuals who rely on large-print, Braille, or
speech devices.
  Writing a letter, scheduling appointments, balancing a
checkbook, and accessing an address book to print an envelope are
daily tasks which can be performed quite effectively even by the
inexperienced computer user.
  The Personal Organizer was recently demonstrated at the World
Blind Union conference in Toronto. The simplicity of the program
is what impressed those who observed the demonstration. One of
the visitors commented, "Acrontech has incorporated the most
useful functions of many other programs into one software
package." This program is ideal for use at home, the office, or
both.
  One of the key features of the Personal Organizer is the unique
screen presentation of menus and entry fields. Information is
displayed vertically, taking up only a portion of the screen,
which can be magnified or easily read by speech- or Braille-
output devices. Until now, writing a check on your own checkbook
with speech or Braille was virtually unheard of by computer
users. The Personal Organizer allows you to keep track of all
your personal expenses confidentially and independently.
  All modules of the Personal Organizer are based on a simple
operational concept; therefore, if you can write a letter, you
can also file data, book appointments, write checks, and print
envelopes. At the low introductory price of $295, Personal
Organizer may be the only application software you need.
  For a free demo copy of Personal Organizer, contact Acrontech,
Williamsville, New York, (716) 854-3814 or Acrontech, Toronto,
Ontario, (416) 467-6800 or (800) 245-2020, Web site:
http://www.acrontech.com or e-mail: acrontec@idirect.com

_* _Elected:
  Several affiliates have notified us of recent election results:
  John Padilla, President of the NFB of Connecticut, reports that
the new officers in Connecticut are John Padilla, President; Lynn
Golden, First Vice President; Jackie Doucette, Second Vice
President; Mark Tardif, Secretary; and Bruce Woodward, Treasurer.
Elected to serve on the Board are Esther Levegnale, Betty
Woodward, Mark Stracks, and John Yark.
  Michael Freeman, President of the National Federation of the
Blind of Washington, also reports affiliate election results. The
new officers are Michael Freeman, President; Noel Nightingale,
First Vice President; Kaye Kipp, Second Vice President; Rita
Szantay, Secretary; and Gary Mackenstadt, Treasurer. Board
members are Ben Prows, Maria Bradford, Stephanie Yeats, and Mark
Noble.
  Christine Boone, Secretary of the NFB of Nebraska, reported her
affiliate's October election results. The officers are Michael
Floyd, President; Della Johnston, First Vice President; Dorothy
Westin, Second Vice President; Cheryl Livingston, Treasurer; and
Christine Boone, Secretary. Board members are Joe Larson, Ardyce
Earl, Bob Simonson, and Evelyn Haines..

__* Activity Book _Reminder:
  __Julie and Brandon, Our Blind _Friends is an intriguing
activities book for children, first grade through junior high,
written and produced by the National Federation of the Blind of
Idaho. Activities include pictures to color showing blind
children participating in many activities, an introduction to
Braille, Braille puzzles, facts about blind children and Braille,
a word search, a maze, questions and answers, and a story about
President Maurer. Several thousand of these 81/2-by-11, 48-page
books have been sold, and a new shipment has arrived.
  You may purchase these activity books one at a time for $4 each
and a shipping charge of $1.50 for one to three books. Or you may
purchase twenty-five or more for $3 each with a shipping charge
of $5 for twenty-five books. Write to National Federation of the
Blind of Idaho, 1301 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite C, Boise, Idaho
83706.
_* _International _Conference:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  The tenth World Conference of the International Council for
Education of People with Visual Impairment (ICEVI) will convene
in Sao Paulo, Brazil, August 3 to 9, 1997. ICEVI anticipates that
approximately 1,000 professionals, parents, and consumers from
throughout the world will participate in this conference, whose
theme is "Stepping Forward Together: Families and Professionals
as Partners in Achieving Education for All."
  For conference materials contact Ivone Costa, Coordinator,
Conference Secretariat, ICEVI 10th World Conference, c/o
LARAMARA, Rua Conselheiro Brotero, 338-Barra Funda, 01154-000-Sao
Paulo - SP - Brasil. Phone 55-11-826-3744, fax 55-11-826-9108,
e-mail LARAMARA.BRASIL@MANDIC.COM.BR

_* _For _Sale:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  I am selling a Mountbatten Brailler, which is in new condition.
It includes the connector box, a qwerty keyboard, a parallel
cable, and all manuals in print and Braille. Asking $2,400 or
best offer. Contact Chris Foster by Braille, computer disk, or
cassette at 2310 Capitol #10, Sacramento, California 95816, (916)
444-5272 or e-mail, cfoster@csus.edu

__* Braille and Tape Correspondents _Wanted:
  Eric Calhoun, a member of the San Fernando Valley Chapter of
the NFB of California, would like to correspond with those
interested in blindness issues. His other interests are sporting
events, travel, the outdoors, nature, music, and meeting new
people. He is a Christian and requests chatty letters only. He
can be reached at P.O. Box 1003, Inglewood, California 90308.

_* _Postscript:
  Wanda Stebbins, Vice President of the Greater Springfield
Chapter of the NFB of Massachusetts, writes to report that her
name was omitted from the list of newly-elected officers printed
in the October issue of the _Braille _Monitor.

__* Perkins Brailler Repairs _Available:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  The Selective Doctor, Inc., is a repair service for all IBM
typewriters and now Perkins Braille Writers. Located in
Baltimore, the service has done work for the Maryland School for
the Blind and a number of other organizations in Maryland. They
now accept Perkins Braillers sent to them from around the
country. They advertise top quality service at yesterday's
prices. They also request a phone call before shipment of
Braillers and ask that equipment be insured in the mails. For
more information contact the Selective Doctor, Inc., P.O. Box
28432, Baltimore, Maryland 21234, or call (410) 668-1143.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Nancy Scott]
__* Poetry Collection _Available:
  Nancy Scott, one of the leaders of the NFB of Pennsylvania and
an active member of the Writers Division, writes to say that her
book, _Hearing _the _Sunrise, is now available. It is a
collection of twenty-eight poems, many of which have been
previously published in national magazines. The book explores
readers' sensory and attitudinal perceptions. Subjects range from
the sounds of solder and snow to the memories evoked by the feel
and smell of good wood to coping with a blind six-year-old and a
squirt gun.
  _Hearing _the _Sunrise is available in Braille for $4.50 per
copy (shipping free matter) and in standard print for $6
including shipping. To order, make checks payable to Nancy Scott
and mail to 1141 Washington Street, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042.

__* Pen Pal _Club:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  Point to Point (Ponto a Ponto in Portuguese) is a databank made
for people who like to write and receive letters in Braille. It
was created less than two years ago and already has 133 members
from nine countries exchanging letters in Portuguese, Spanish,
and English. To participate, send your name, address, date of
birth, profession, areas of interest, and a profile of the sort
of person with whom you want to exchange mail. If you enjoy
writing letters in Braille and making new friends, write to
Silvia Valentini, Ponto a Ponto, Caixa Postal 70538, CEP
05013-990, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

_* _New _Chapter:
  Barry Feazell, President of the Greater Jacksonville Chapter of
the NFB of Florida, reports the chapter's Saturday, November 16,
1996, birth. The officers are Barry Feazell, President; John
Chmielewski, Vice President; Carol Feazell, Secretary; and Jerry
Roberts, Treasurer. Jim Bowen, James Brock, and Joe Minichiello
are the new Board members. Congratulations to the new chapter.

_* _Elected:
  The National Federation of the Blind of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, held its annual election on November 16, with the
following results: Mabel Conder, President; Pat Robbins, Vice
President; Hazel Staley, Secretary; and Janis Lynn Stallins,
Treasurer. Board members are Katherine Barr, Laurancene Murphy,
and LaVerne Gallant.

__* The Harvard Business Review Available on _Tape:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  The Massachusetts Association for the Blind Recording Studio is
pleased to offer __The Harvard Business _Review on 4-track
cassette.. The annual subscription rate is $75. Each bimonthly
edition is on two cassettes. Please contact the MAB Recording
Studio at 200 Ivy Street, Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 or call
(617) 732-0259 for further information.

__* Hotline Internet Site for Telecommunications _Information:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  Information to help consumers better understand the broad new
array of communications products and services is now available on
the Internet from the Tele-Consumer Hotline, the nation's leading
source for impartial information on this topic.
  The Hotline's English and Spanish publications, as well as a
function which allows consumers to pose questions or complaints
to industry experts or the Hotline's bilingual counselors, can be
found at http://www.teleconsumer.org/hotline. The site features
an extensive glossary of telecommunications terms and consumer-
friendly information and advice on a variety of topics such as
selecting a long distance company; unauthorized switching of long
distance companies (known as "slamming"); and using calling
cards. For people with disabilities the Hotline provides
information on topics such as relay services, assistive
technology, equipment-distribution programs, and special
discounts.
  All of the publications offered on the Hotline's new homepage
are also available at no charge to consumers who send a self-
addressed, stamped envelope to Tele-Consumer Hotline, P.O. Box
27207, Washington, D.C. 20005.

__* Used Books, Magazines, Journals, Equipment, and Materials
_Wanted:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  FIMA Institute for Disabled Society in Bangladesh is seeking
donations of used books (any kind), magazines, journals, audio
literature, Braille and print computers, a Braille printing
press, a print typewriter, Braille watches, Braille translator,
Perkins Brailler, cassette recorders, CD player and records,
Talking Book recorders and players, talking watches and
calculators, white canes, writing frames, spectacles, and any
other materials or equipment useful to disabled people. The
reading and listening formats are video, cassette, moon-type,
large print, Braille books, and letter press. English, Bengali
and Hindi languages are common in the country.
  Send donations "free matter for the blind or handicapped" to M.
Milon, Secretary and Chief Librarian, F.I.D.S., 12/E, 5/6, P.O.
Box 8104, Mirpur, Dhaka, 1221, Bangladesh. If you donate money to
our organization, please send money orders.

_* _Correspondents _Wanted:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  I am interested in corresponding with someone from Alaska or
western Canada via cassette. Please contact Donald George, 531
Marys Pond Road, Rochester, Massachusetts 02770.

_* _In _Memoriam:
  Tom Anderson, Secretary of the Denver Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Colorado, writes with sadness to say
that Dorothy Bitman, a long-time member of the Denver Chapter,
passed away on September 9, 1996. She was one of the charter
members of the chapter when it was organized in 1955. She was not
one to seek the limelight but was faithful and willing to do what
she could. Every month, without fail, Dorothy brought in her $5
contribution for the PAC plan. She never missed a chapter meeting
unless she was very ill. She will always be remembered for her
faithfulness and her cheerfulness. Dorothy truly embodied the
Federation spirit. She will be missed.

_* _Elected:
  The Albuquerque Chapter of the NFB of New Mexico recently held
elections. The results were as follows: President, James L.
Salas; First Vice President, Vicky Trujillo; Second Vice
President, Carlos Servan; Treasurer, Brenda Laurion; Secretary,
Veronica Smith; and Board Members, John Blake, Leroy Cordova,
Christine Hall, Diana Marquez, Frank Nilvo, and Ellen Nolan.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Loraine Stayer]
__* Federationist's Book Now in _Braille:
  Loraine Stayer recently notified us that her book, __Hip Deep
in Trouble and Angling for _More, is now available in Braille for
$30 from John Hemphill, Volunteer Braille Services, 215 Sheldon,
S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503. It is also available on tape
for $12 from Loraine Stayer, 2704 Beach Drive, Merrick, New York
11566, (516) 868-8718, fax (516) 868-9076.

_* _Elected:
  Kerry Smith, President of the St. Louis Chapter of the NFB of
Missouri, reports that the new chapter officers for 1997 are
Kerry Smith, President; John Ford, Vice President; Susan Ford,
Recording Secretary; Anna Schell, Corresponding Secretary; Thelda
Borisch, Treasurer; and Brenda Ford, Board Member-at-Large.

_* _New _Baby:
  We are pleased to report that on December 27, 1996, at 3:21
p.m., Joshua Chamberlain Ritchart was born to Sheila and William
Ritchart, leaders of the NFB of Indiana. Joshua weighed 7 pounds,
1 ounce at birth and measured 203/4 inches long. Joshua, big
brother Lincoln, and their parents are all doing well.

__* Accessible Billing Now Available from _Sears:
  We recently learned that, at the request of one customer,
William Poole of Maryland, Sears Roebuck has now established a
method for providing Brailled bills and usable response materials
in the form of a remittance coupon with a raised line on the back
and a raised address on the front for use in the address window.
The system should be in operation sometime during the first two
quarters of 1997. Interested Sears customers can register for
this service by calling a special response center that Sears has
established to handle the billing needs of blind people at (800)
733-0815. Sears requests that blind customers use this number for
accessible billing inquiries and requests rather than general
Customer Service lines because those representatives may well not
have information about accessible billing. Blind customers may
also apply for credit at this number and arrange to have their
Sears bills read by a Customer Service representative over the
telephone until the Braille billing is actually ready. Sears
Roebuck is to be commended for its responsiveness in this matter.
We can only hope that numbers of people will respond by taking
advantage of the service. As Jim Halliday wrote in his paper
printed in the January, 1997, _Braille _Monitor: "Only a
grassroots effort by all of us can get this sort of access off
the ground."

_* _Elected:
  The Tidewater Chapter of the NFB of Virginia recently elected
the following: Stewart Prost, President; Robert Southard, First
Vice President; Marian Sanders, Second Vice President; Willard
Nichols, Treasurer; and David Collins, Secretary. Board members
are Ella Herbert and Charles King.

__* Job Placement _Conference:
  We have been asked to carry the following announcement:
  The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness
and Low Vision at Mississippi State University will be conducting
a national conference in Tampa, Florida, from April 2 to 4, 1997,
entitled "Job Placement for the 21st Century." Featured speakers
are Dr. Karen Wolffe, Mr. Jerry Miller, Dr. Craig Colvin, Dr.
Susan Kelley, and Mr. Robert Kelly. The registration deadline is
March 15. The conference site is Tampa Airport Hilton at
MetroCenter, 2225 Lois Avenue, Tampa, Florida, (813) 877-6688.
Participants should make their own reservations. Note that you
are attending the Mississippi State Conference. Registration fee
is $75, which includes breakfast on April 3 and 4. For more
information contact Ms. Tara Laney at (601) 325-2001.

_*Nutrition _Magazine _Survey:
  Teresa Wakefield, one of the leaders of the Black Hawk County
Chapter of the NFB of Iowa, writes as follows:
  I am conducting a survey to see how much interest there is in a
nutritional magazine in Braille and/or on cassette. There is a
possibility of Brailling an already-existing magazine on
nutrition, and, if this project is received favorably, there is a
chance of expanding into other areas. Please write in Braille or
on cassette and tell us what you would be interested in and what
other subjects or magazines you would like to see covered. We
would have to charge subscription fees for these magazines. Send
your comments to Teresa Wakefield, 722 Denver Street, Waterloo,
Iowa 50702.

__* Braille Books For Young _Readers:
  Geoffrey Bull of Braille International, Inc., has just sent us
the following announcement:
  In an effort to encourage Braille literacy among young readers,
this year Braille International is launching a Braille series for
young readers. Goosebumps, the most popular series ever produced
for young readers, is our choice for the first series we are
making available in Braille. With a generous donation and in
anticipation of an encouraging response to our advertisements, we
are offering each Goosebumps title at the same price as the print
edition, $4.95 per copy. For those committing to the first twelve
issues, the annual subscription will be $50.
  If this series is successful, we will be producing others with
Babysitter's Club high on our list. If you are a young Braille
reader or the parent or friend of a child who reads Braille, take
a moment to forward a payment together with the name and address
of the intended recipient. Send your orders to Braille
International, Inc., 3290 S.E. Slater Street, Stuart, Florida
34997, (800) 336-3142. Cash, checks, and major credit cards are
accepted.


















































.

