[blindlaw] Accessible Currency

[Chris Danielsen]

Hi, Joe,

I think when Dr. Maurer refers to real harm being potentially done to blind
Americans, he means the potential harm of saying that a blind person can't
deal with anything that he can't see.   He believes that assertion has
negative implications.  If a blind person can't see a legal document, does
that mean his signature isn't valid?  Can a person contesting a blind
person's will argue that the blind person did not have full knowledge of its
contents because he couldn't see it?  (That one isn't theoretical, by the
way; in south Carolina, where I used to practice, case law says that blind
people are not presumed to know the contents of their will unless they
certify that it has been read to them--although I haven't practiced there
for a while and don't know if this case law still controls.  I literally
would have my secretary read wills aloud to blind clients--even when I had
made Braille copies for the client previously or provided a Word
document--simply to make absolutely sure we complied with the letter of the
law.  At one level I knew this process was ridiculous, but my client was
required to certify that the will had been read to him, not that he had read
it in an accessible form, and so I wanted to be on the safe side.)  This is
the worry that Dr. Maurer has.  The argument about backlash is mine.  I
think you have a good point; people who don't believe in making
accommodations for the disabled will likely be equally hostile to all
accommodations, so our willingness to forego some things may not change
attitudes--and foregoing some accommodations won't necessarily change
attitudes about our competence.  Even so, we should not make limitless
demands on society, and to the extent that we can we should promote the idea
that there are alternative techniques we can use to deal with many
situations rather than demanding that changes be made to accommodate us.
Obviously this approach can't always work, and we should fight for the
things we need regardless of what other people think about it.  But I think
there's room for disagreement about what those actual needs are--and the
convention of the National Federation of the Blind decided that changing
paper money wasn't necessarily one of them, at least not in the context of a
discrimination lawsuit.  

No philosophy is perfect; we are human beings, and individually and
collectively we can make the wrong decisions.  But an argument was made
before and accepted by our convention, and unless and until a different
argument is made and likewise accepted, our course is clear.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces+cdanielsen8=aol.com at nfbnet.org
[mailto:blindlaw-bounces+cdanielsen8=aol.com at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Orozco
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 5:15 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: [blindlaw] Accessible Currency

Dear all,

Technicalities and competing scenarios aside, it seems the NFB has raised
objection to the issue of accessibility to currency for no other reason than
that the organization does not want to impose a burden on society.  That's
very thoughtful but in truth, not very practical.  Every request the
organization takes forth, whether through Congress or by way of the courts
will inevitably impose a burden on society, because policymakers and judges
will, in a perfect world, change the status quo to meet the needs of a very
small minority.

For example, I am all for preserving the forward movement of our library
service, but dollars spent on the digital conversion of cassettes are
dollars that will no longer be spent on something else benefiting a larger
slice of the general population.  Take it a step forward and one could argue
that considerable resources are being spent on making it possible for people
to have access to books.  Again, I am in favor of equal access to
literature, but digital conversions are not increasing Braille literacy. 
Digital conversions are not creating jobs, and so far as I can tell they are
not changing the public's perception that the blind should be treated
equally, not when there is a collection of electronic resources to which
only the blind have access.

The arguments in opposition to accessible currency point out that the blind
will be thought of as helpless for appearing to exist in a world that does
not provide distinguishable bills.  Well, the reality is that blind people
will be seen as inept regardless of the outcome.  There is no legitimate
argument effectively proving that avoiding the financial burden associated
with changing the currency system will make the general public somehow
appreciate the blind for their selfless choices.  Do we expect a pat on the
back for looking out for the financial interests of the banks and venders? 
Are we hoping that our nobility will somehow produce jobs for the blind?

On that point, opponents of the case for accessible currency believe the
employment rates will not increase as a result of distinguishable bills. 
Maybe, but there is even less of a chance of those rates going up in the
status quo.  Arguing that the blind will become more employed if the social
security earnings limitations are increased is just as unfounded as the
accessible currency argument, because in both cases the prediction is being
made without regard to the attitudinal barriers that are the true source of
high unemployment figures among the blind.

Arguments against accessible currency are always going to have minimal
impact because of their theoretical nature.  There may be factual statements
about the financial burden the industry may briefly incur as a result of the
overhaul.  Yet, so far as I can tell, no one has argued that the change take
place next week.  No one has argued that the currency must be modified
without input as how the modification should be carried out.

Over time I found it increasingly difficult to defend the NFB's position. 
There is too much concern for this alleged backlash the blind would
experience if the currency were changed.  To this day, there is no empirical
data validating these claims of this so-called backlash.  There are no real
arguments explaining how modifications are not feasible in light of the
regular modifications that already happen anyway.  The response to the most
recent ruling indicates the decision could bring about real harm to blind
Americans, but me, I fail to see how my independence and dignity would be
severely hampered if I woke up tomorrow morning with the capacity to tell my
ten from my twenty.

Respectfully,

Joe Orozco

Nil satis nisi optimum.  "Nothing but the best is good enough."--Latin
Proverb 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw/cdanielsen8%40aol.com

__________ NOD32 3132 (20080526) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com