[blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on FederalCourt Ruling on U.S. Currency
Joe Orozco
jsorozco at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 22:08:33 CST 2006
Will,
While debating in college, I learned the importance of measuring the
impacts to my arguments against four distinct standards. I think you raise
excellent points, and so let me attempt to give you my side before
entertaining yours in hopes of engaging the type of dialogue you seek. And
let me preface my comments by admitting that despite my NFB affiliation, I
have not independently made up my mind definitively one way or the other.
1. Magnitude:
First, how many people would the switch in currency affect? As of the
2000 federal census, there are 4.3 million people identified as legally
blind, and statistics show that an even lesser number is completely blind or
rendered blind to such a degree as to be incapable of visually
distinguishing between bill denominations. Compare this to the 300 million
current residents of the United States and the millions more around the
world who currently deal in American dollars.
Second, what is the economic consequence? Remember, we are talking
about 4.3 million individuals versus an overwhelming range of domestic and
foreign companies, banks, government departments and all of their automated
systems programmed to recognize and transact in American dollars. At this
point, we are not merely discussing individual impact. We are now talking
market backlash, and in both cases we are most certainly examining
repercussions at a very global level.
2. Severity:
One could forego the argument above and point out that 4.3 million is
4.3 million too many. Yet how severe would the blind population be affected
without a change in currency? If the Treasury Department appeals and the
case is dismissed, how significant will the dismissal affect your living
standard? On a cynical level it could be argued that you cannot be hurt by
something you never had, but realistically, Melanie Brunson of the ACB
admitted herself that she could count the number of times she thought she'd
been ripped off when collecting change. I would venture to point out that
we could all count these number of times, and while these brief episodes of
injustices are not fair, the episodes will forever remain brief because the
scenarios strike an emotional cord. People already feel sorry for the blind
and will feel less inclined to cheat the poor blind of their money. And it
should never be overlooked that the sighted are just as likely to be
short-changed, because most people, blind or sighted, will leave the
register without taking the time to count their change for the same reason
that the blind person will often not stop
to ask for extra assistance to sort out their bills. There's a long line
behind you. You're in a rush. You simply trust that the change is correct.
Whatever the case, you've made your purchase, and your only objective is to
move on to the next item in your agenda.
Alternatively, if the issue passes, the severity of the impact on the
blind will be greater because the vast overhaul would be carried out for no
other reason than for the benefit of a small minority. Everyone, blind and
sighted alike, will pay for the change through their own taxes, and it does
not matter if the ruling currently says that the change would only cost the
government five percent of the current cost to produce currency. This is
only referring to production cost, and even this percentage is a rough
estimate because the Treasury Department has not told us what method it
would consider using to replace the current bills. The cost of one method
could grossly outweigh the cost of another method, but take it a step
further and we find that the "estimate" has not taken into account future
costs associated with counterfeit measures bound to occur after producing
the initial batch of new bills and every single batch thereafter.
Furthermore, we are not calculating the costs related to changing vending
machines, ATM machines, change machines, transportation fair machines ...
what are casinos to do about slot machines? And who pays for these
innovations? "Not I" said the average unemployed and in this case, selfish,
blind man.
Mostly, the impact would be compounded by the frivolous lawsuits that
have been brought to courts on behalf of pathetic plaintiffs. It cannot be
denied that the ADA has lost the regard it once wielded as a result of
claims demanding outrageous accommodations. Remember, the law specifically
states that the accommodations must be reasonable. An employer is not
specifically required to make all of its printed material available in an
accessible format. At minimal, it is expected to invest in the technology
that will make it possible for the employee to access the information, hence
the suggestion of money identifiers. Not being able to glance at a bill and
tell the difference has never excluded the blind from actively participating
in society, so the impact becomes a confirmation of the perception that the
blind are even more of a burden than previously anticipated.
3. Time Frame:
What are the long-term benefits of granting the blind the capacity to
tell their change apart? While no one likes to intentionally pivot the
philosophy of one organization against the other, look at these examples to
fully conceptualize the lasting benefits that are born out of necessity
versus the temporary advantages of a hopeful luxury. Over the years the NFB
has railed against NAC, AOL and Target. Our positions have made it possible
for students to be protected against poorly accredited schools and resident
facilities for the blind. We should hope that cases of rape and general
abuse have diminished as a result of our having protested the existence of a
board granting special favors to ill-prepared institutions. In the second
case the blind was able to stay on top of a popular product that would be
forced to be kept accessible despite its inevitable evolution, and if the
Target lawsuit is any indication, blind shoppers will be able to visit other
online venues without visual obstacles restricting their purchases.
Conversely, look at the ACB's ongoing efforts to install audible signals and
make video descriptions mandatory across large portions of television. Here
we find steps to facilitate travel at busy intersections and provide
television audiences equal access to the information being broadcasted on
the screen. Some positions you may find less favorable than others, but one
will note that all five cases have a lasting affect on a person's capacity
to become a safe, informed and productive citizen. In what way does
identifiable currency contribute to a person's long-term sustainability?
One has to wonder why the ACB chose to concentrate its strength in numbers
to a short-sighted objective when it could have advocated for better
textbook accessibility, increase in social security earnings limitations or
an expansion to the scope of the Randolph-Sheppard program, all of which
could have multiplied from itself to create distant opportunities.
4. Certainty:
If the matter passes, there is no certainty that the measure would
improve our quality of life. Affirmative action has not eradicated racism
overnight. Civil rights did not eradicate prejudice from one day to the
next. Laws and rulings change procedures. They do not change minds;
therefore, enabling the blind to distinguish bill denominations will not
miraculously create jobs. Before blind people are hired to work at cash
registers, the employers must first learn to believe that blind people can
get to the cash register on their own. If we pretend to believe that our
struggle for equal employment is based solely on money identification, our
existence has indeed been restricted to wishful thinking.
If we were to wave a wand and make bills accessible to the blind tomorrow,
the only immediate certainty is that the blind can now count their own
change. At no point does it guarantee a reduction in the 74% unemployment
rate among the blind and so cannot guarantee a blind person's ability to
earn the money to be able to count the change in the first place. At best,
we have a situation analogous to granting a thirsty man a cup with which to
hold his water but no promise of water for the man to gather in his cup. He
does not have so much as a promise of a road to follow in order to start
looking.
Risk a few, if any, short hands at the store versus a global
confirmation that the blind are more of a nuisance than an asset. You
decide, but what remains undisputable is that even if the change in currency
affects everyone at once, those who like and those who do not like the
measure, the improvement is so small and is nowhere near sufficient to prove
that the cost will outweigh the benefit, but, let's examine your own points:
"1. a $250 device is not affordable to many blind people."
Nothing made for the blind is affordable to many blind people. Yet I am
amazed at the number of people who fluently speak of the kinks and whistles
of every new upgrade of an adaptive product as soon as it hits the market.
Bottom line: If the blind want a money identifier bad enough, they will
surely find a way to get one the same way they snatched the latest version
of JAWS.
"2. I do not think that the US Treasury or any other agency will agree to
mass purchase the device and provide them to all blind people."
First, no one is demanding that the Treasury Department provide these
money identifiers to all blind people. It is merely our suggestion that
money identifiers could be used to bridge the perceived problem. Second,
even if the Department purchased devices to everyone who could not
independently distinguish their own bills, the cost of undertaking this task
will always be significantly less than changing the bills altogether.
Third, I am sure agencies would not agree to fulfill a number of requests.
Success will ultimately rest on the individual to justify their need for
such a device just as is true of any other accommodation. Free handouts at
any level would only feed the misguided notion that the blind are entitled
to success simply for the asking. Frankly, if the blind can speak so
vehemently about something as has been the case over the past few days, I
think we're well on our way to making those agencies agree to anything we
want. :)
"3. One of the arguments against the adoption of accessible currency is that
it somehow suggests that blind people are dependant on modifications. Is it
more independent to rely on agencies to purchase and provide technology?"
Yes. Modifying a single item limits your independence to that item's
scope. Using technology would allow the user to explore other avenues and
would put more pressure on manufacturers to improve upon their inventions.
"4. Don't we already have enough devices to lug around?"
Through demand, products only get smaller, not larger. Notice the
reduction of a bulky stand-alone reading machine to the portable camera.
Through competition, products merge to succinctly conquer multiple tasks
with a few simple keystrokes.
"5. What if the device breaks or is lost? You would either have to buy
another one or wait for an agency to provide you with another (fat chance)."
This is no different from any other item you purchase at a store or
given to you as a gift. You tell me what you do when your other products
break or get stolen. But, more importantly, will this product's absence
keep you from going out and making a future purchase?
"6. Aren't demanding accessible dollar bills and accessible websites
basically asking for the same thing? Namely, that things be designed
accessibly to prevent needless barriers?"
A bill is a bill. A web site is a compilation of various features with
varying degrees of accessibility in a single page.
"7. Sure, people could still be cheated with tactilely discernable bills,
but it would take moiré than simply being lied to. Blind people would have a
means of ensuring that bills are what others say they are. Someone would
have to significantly alter a bill to deceive you."
False. Professionals go through even greater feats to counterfeit
existing bills. What's to stop them from counterfeiting future currency?
If you can't see the bill to start, how can you ensure the tactile marks
weren't artificially applied?
"8) The best way to provide access to a thing is to make it accessible
without the need for adaptation or assistive devices. Universally designed
currencies could be a good model for this concept. Shouldn't the NFB support
it?"
If you genuinely buy into that theory, then you are negating the
inherent fact that we live in a sighted world and anything introduced into
the market will be sold with the sighted consumer in mind. It's generally
called profit. Just because other countries do something does not mean the
United States should follow suit. That is why they're down there, and we're
up here. As for what the NFB should do, I think it fair for us to express
our views, but anything beyond this public expression would find us
following the ACB's example of launching after short-term benefits.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. For what it's worth, I would never
concentrate my arguments around a single idea i.e. money identifiers. Good
luck to you in law school, and thank you for laying forth what was overall a
cordial post.
Respectfully,
Joe Orozco
"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."--Military
Basic Training
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Miller" <william_t_miller at hotmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on
FederalCourt Ruling on U.S. Currency
I am sorry if my response was harsh, but I feel strongly about this
particular issue. I agree that we all have a right to our own opinions, and
I do not presume that mine are better than the next list member's. However,
based on what I have heard about this issue, I strongly disagree with NFB's
position. I do not feel that any of the arguments against making currency
accessible are persuasive, particularly the arguments claiming that
accessible currency would be detrimental to the blind.
For the record, I am not currently a member of ACB or any other organization
exclusively of or for the blind. However, I value and benefit from the
progress that the NFB, ACB, and other organizations have made. I am an
open-minded person and could be persuaded on this issue, and I would be
greatly interested in a dialog where both sides are represented (although I
probably would not participate all that much since I am getting ready for
law school exams).
Call me stubborn, but I have a hard time being told to, as you say, "just
accept it as it is." I think refusal to accept things as they are leads to
progress and should be particularly valued among the blind community.
I have listed a few problems I have with the NFB's position on accessible
currency below:
1. a $250 device is not affordable to many blind people.
2. I do not think that the US Treasury or any other agency will agree to
mass purchase the device and provide them to all blind people.
3. One of the arguments against the adoption of accessible currency is that
it somehow suggests that blind people are dependant on modifications. Is it
more independent to rely on agencies to purchase and provide technology?
4. Don't we already have enough devices to lug around?
5. What if the device breaks or is lost? You would either have to buy
another one or wait for an agency to provide you with another (fat chance).
6. Aren't demanding accessible dollar bills and accessible websites
basically asking for the same thing? Namely, that things be designed
accessibly to prevent needless barriers?
7. Sure, people could still be cheated with tactilly discernable bills, but
it would take moare than simply being lied to. Blind people would have a
means of ensuring that bills are what others say they are. Someone would
have to significantly alter a bill to deceive you.
8) The best way to provide access to a thing is to make it accessible
without the need for adaptation or assistive devices. Universally designed
currencies could be a good model for this concept. Shouldn't the NFB support
it?
I am interested in any views, pro or con, on this issue.
-Will
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on Federal
Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
While you won't understand, like, or accept it,
many of us agree with the position taken in the
press release. It is NFB policy arrived at by
discussion and vote at our national convention.
It is like liberals and conservatives not
understanding each other, or how we arrived at a
position, you just have to accept that it is.
W
e all don't and won't agree, and I am not wrong,
crazy, illogical for having a position different from yours.
Dave
At 05:31 PM 11/29/2006, you wrote:
>For what it's worth coming from a blind non-NFB member, I think this is a
>ridiculous, counterproductive, short-sighted position for the NFB to take.
>It frustrates me that the article says that this is coming from the "voice
>of the blind". I haven't read, nor can I imagine, anything that would
>remotely justify an organization that advocates for the blind taking this
>position.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>To: <dtb-talk at nfbnet.org>; <dandrews at visi.com>; <diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org>;
><promotion-technology at nfbnet.org>; "" nabs-l"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nabs-l?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbcs"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbcs?="@nfbnet.org>; <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>;
><nfb-announce at nfbnet.org>; "" nfbmo"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbmo?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfb-science at nfbnet.org>; ""
>journalists"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0journalists?="@nfbnet.org>;
><gui-talk at nfbnet.org>; <blindkid at nfbnet.org>; <napub at nfbnet.org>;
><nabop at nfbnet.org>; <blparent at nfbnet.org>; <cabs-talk at nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfb-reno-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-reno-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
><nfb-river-city at nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-sf"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-sf?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfbc-info at nfbnet.org>;
><nfbofncp at nfbnet.org>; <trainer-talk at nfbnet.org>; ""
>electronics-talk"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0electronics-talk?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>;
>"" tops-2005"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tops-2005?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>rocketon"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0rocketon?="@nfbnet.org>;
><nopbc-board at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-newsline-sponsors at nfbnet.org>;
><nfb-imagination-fund at nfbnet.org>; "" new-horizons"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0new-horizons?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ncbys"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncbys?="@nfbnet.org>; <nabs-presidents at nfbnet.org>;
><gama-summit at nfbnet.org>; <nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-idaho at nfbnet.org>;
><mt-blind at nfbnet.org>; "" cabs"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0cabs?="@nfbnet.org>; <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfbaz-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbaz-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
><mabs at nfbnet.org>; <oabs at nfbnet.org>; <greater-baltimore at nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfbf-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbf-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
><4alabama at nfbnet.org>; "" vabs"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0vabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" mn-abs"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mn-abs?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; ""
>mi-abs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0mi-abs?="@nfbnet.org>;
><il-talk at nfbnet.org>; <iabs-talk at nfbnet.org>; ""
>nebraska-students"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nebraska-students?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>tn-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tn-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
><vendtalk at nfbnet.org>; "" nagdu"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nyagdu"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nyagdu?="@nfbnet.org>; "" ag-eq"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ag-eq?="@nfbnet.org>; <arizona-students at nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfb-kzoo"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-kzoo?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>reader-users"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0reader-users?="@nfbnet.org>;
><nabentre at nfbnet.org>; "" nfbj"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbj?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-db"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-db?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfb-fundraising at nfbnet.org>; ""
>faith-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0faith-talk?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>lions-ed"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0lions-ed?="@nfbnet.org>;
><nfb-lions at nfbnet.org>; "" ncme-mentoring"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0ncme-mentoring?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfbwv-talk"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbwv-talk?="@nfbnet.org>;
><blindlaw at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-editors at nfbnet.org>; "" humanser"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0humanser?="@nfbnet.org>; <rehab at nfbnet.org>;
><nfbpnotk at nfbnet.org>; "" musictlk"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0musictlk?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nosb"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nosb?="@nfbnet.org>; <stylist at nfbnet.org>; ""
>sportsandrec"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0sportsandrec?="@nfbnet.org>;
>"" nobe-l"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nobe-l?="@nfbnet.org>;
><travelandtourism at nfbnet.org>; "" teachvib"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0teachvib?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfb-web"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-web?="@nfbnet.org>; <ccb-alumni at nfbnet.org>; ""
>la-students"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0la-students?="@nfbnet.org>; ""
>nfb-cars"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfb-cars?="@nfbnet.org>;
><nfb-hi at nfbnet.org>; "" nfbkabs"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkabs?="@nfbnet.org>; "" nfbkpbc"@nfbnet.org"
><"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0nfbkpbc?="@nfbnet.org>; <nfbofncp at nfbnet.org>; ""
>tabs"@nfbnet.org" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0tabs?="@nfbnet.org>;
><dtb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:53 PM
>Subject: [blindlaw] National Federation of the Blind Comments on Federal
>Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
>
>
> National Federation of the Blind Comments
>
>
>on Federal Court Ruling on U.S. Currency
>
>
>
>
>Views Effort as Dangerously Misguided
>
>
>
>Baltimore, Maryland (November 29, 2006): The
>National Federation of the Blind, the largest
>organization of blind persons in America and
>known as the voice of the nation's blind,
>criticized as dangerously misguided a federal
>court ruling saying that the design of U.S.
>currency discriminates against the blind.
>
>
>
>Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National
>Federation of the Blind, said: "The blind need
>jobs and real opportunities to earn money, not
>feel-good gimmicks that misinform the public
>about our capabilities. Blind people transact
>business with paper money every day. This ruling
>puts a roadblock in the way of solving the real
>problem, which is the seventy percent
>unemployment rate among working-age blind
>Americans that severely limits our access to
>cash. The ruling will do nothing to alleviate
>that situation; in fact, it seriously endangers
>the ability of the blind to get jobs and
>participate fully in society. It argues that the
>blind cannot handle currency or documents in the
>workplace and that virtually everything must be
>modified for the use of the blind. An employer
>who believes that every piece of printed material
>in the workplace must be specially designed so
>that the blind can read it will have a strong
>incentive not to hire a blind person."
>
>
>
>Maurer went on to enumerate the real needs for
>access to information by the blind and made a
>distinction between those needs and the issue of
>identifying currency. "Access to information of
>all kinds, such as that contained on Internet Web
>sites and in the press, is certainly critical to
>the ability of the blind to become productive
>members of society. Blind students need
>educational materials in Braille and other
>alternative formats so that they can prepare for
>employment and ultimately earn an income for
>themselves and their families. Given the urgent
>need for access to the kind of information that
>is required for success in America's information
>economy, the matter of identifying the
>denominations of paper bills is of relatively little concern."
>
>
>
>Blind people traditionally identify paper
>currency by folding bills of different
>denominations in different ways. "In reality,
>blind people do not routinely find that we have
>been short-changed," Maurer commented. Machines
>are readily available to identify paper money for
>blind people who run businesses or handle large
>amounts of cash. "Essentially, the United States
>Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come
>up with a solution for a nonexistent problem," Maurer said.
>
>
>
>The National Federation of the Blind believes
>that with training and opportunity, blind people
>can compete in the world with only minor
>modifications. The American Council of the
>Blind, which brought the lawsuit against the
>United States Treasury, promotes the view that
>the blind are unable to compete unless the world
>is modified dramatically and specifically for
>blind people, and that the blind must be made
>objects of care and pity rather than equal participants in society.
>
>
>
>John G. Paré Jr.
>Director of Public Relations
>NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
>1800 Johnson Street
>Baltimore, Maryland 21230
>Telephone: (410) 659-9314, ext. 2371
>Cell phone: (410) 913-3912
>Fax: (410) 685-5653
>Email: jpare at nfb.org
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
More information about the blindlaw
mailing list